A sports fan may use the word “accelerate” to describe how a Heisman-contender running back appears to be shot out of a cannon when he punches through the line and into the open. A muscle-car owner will certainly use it to explain how it feels when he stomps on the gas pedal. Or what about the motorcyclist on a “crotch rocket?” Any bugs in the way are doomed.

Jet fighter pilots use the term as well, but they have to add another dimension, literally as well as figuratively. In layman’s terms, the principle is that acceleration, an increase in the rate or speed of something, is not linear. For any given time interval, the increase varies from that of another identical interval. And here’s the key for a fighter pilot: acceleration is much more efficient at higher airspeed. We referred to it as, “The faster you go, the faster you go faster.” That may sound like silly word games, but it captures the concept precisely.

You may have read this far and wondered what this has to do with truth. Directly, nothing, but metaphorically, everything.

Consider three years separated by a century, 1810, 1910, and 2010, and how any bit of news traveled during each of those years from the point of origin to any other location on the planet. Then develop a measuring device for rate of movement. Just for the sake of discussion, how about words per minute? And then, examine the rate of acceleration from 1810 to 2010 in the ability of news to travel more swiftly. The faster the news moves, the faster it moves faster. Just in the past decade or so, one might conclude that if the acceleration continues unabated, we’ll soon be learning about what’s going on before it happens. Back to reality, what’s the point?

Journalism: the activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television. Read that again and then ask yourself when that definition was written. Not so long ago actually. Now compare that to what you know about the instant availability of content at your fingertips at home on TV or with that little bright-screen device so many people can’t do without for even a second.

Now consider a well-established axiom as refined by me: the defining characteristic of journalistic excellence is unwavering dedication to reporting the best available version of the truth. Period.

If you’ve read this far, I ask you to accept that truism and contemplate the following, derived in part from a recent opinion piece by a well-known journalist: “We live in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of . . . , individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable. While I appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic.”

The writer goes on to identify some of the key reasons for this shift in the function of journalism in today’s world and states, “The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible, [while] the need for clear, objective reporting in a world of rising religious fundamentalism, economic interdependence, and global ecological problems is probably greater than it ever has been. But we are no longer a national audience receiving news from a handful of trusted gatekeepers; we’re now a million or so clusters of consumers, harvesting information from like-minded providers.”

And so, in the absence of any higher journalistic standard, we are being fed agenda-laden predigested rhetoric that serves only to further reinforce attitudes and opinions already entrenched in place. That’s not news. It’s nothing more than a daily pep rally.

I’ve given up because I cannot for another minute endure immaculately attired and coiffed anchors as they instigate a talking-head word fight so they can barely referee it.

RIP – Best Available Version of the Truth.

My use of the word schizophrenia refers not to the medical definition, but the meaning more common in general use:  a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements.

From a variety of news sources over the past few days, clear evidence exists that with regard to America’s role in the Middle East, our actions as a nation are without a doubt schizophrenic.

Here’s a slightly edited quote from Colin Clark at dodbuzz.com: “A task force convened by the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations warns that the current Afghan strategy may not succeed and questions whether U.S. interests warrant such an investment. We are at a critical point. The 112-page report is clearly intended to influence the White House’s review due next month. A declassified version of the White House assessment’s conclusions should be out around the end of the year. The Council on Foreign Relations panel was led by Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of State under President Bush, and Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s former national security advisor.

 The report, while noting some achievements such as training Afghan security forces, focuses on whether the current, ambitious strategy is worth the cost of national treasure and can succeed in the face of familiar problems such as corruption and incompetence that face the Afghan and Pakistani governments.”

Exacerbated by summer flooding, the challenges facing a weak civilian government in Pakistan highlight the stark reality that the Pakistani army does not fight all militants with the same vigor. The country’s tolerance of and even support for extremist groups that target American interests in Afghanistan and the rest of the world undermines the very basis for our relationship and calls into question the possibility of fostering any long-term mutual interests.

Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times: “The United States has provided $18 billion to Pakistan in aid since 9/11, yet Pakistan’s government shelters the Afghan Taliban as it kills American soldiers and drains America’s treasury. Meanwhile, only 8 percent of Pakistanis have confidence in President Barack Obama, according to the Pew Research Center. That’s not even half as many as express confidence in bib Laden.”

Joshua Partlow, The Washington Post: “Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Saturday (11/13) that the United States must reduce the visibility and intensity of its military operations in Afghanistan and end the increased U.S. Special Forces night raids that aggravate Afghans and could exacerbate the Taliban insurgency.”

Karzai wants American troops off the roads and out of homes and thinks their long-term presence will only worsen the war. It should come as no surprise that his comments put him at odds with the current U.S. strategy of capture-and-kill as the central counterinsurgency component of the war, which required the recent addition of 30,000 more U.S. troops.

Karzai also wants the U.S. to begin to draw down its forces next year, even as he acknowledges that it could be dangerous. In his mind, we should confine ourselves more to our bases and limit operations to only those necessary on the Pakistani border. He describes the goal as “. . . to reduce the intrusiveness into Afghan daily life.”

Okay, so I’m confused when I try to reconcile the words of SecDef Gates as discussed in a previous post, “History on Our Side.” If we’re in Afghanistan at the invitation of their “elected” government (quotes intended due to reports of widespread voting fraud), then we should be assisting them according to their wishes. But, of course, we aren’t, because we’re really there for different reasons.

What’s so hard to understand about being played for the fool? Can we not recognize the way in which countries in the Middle East play both ends against the middle?

Listening to the talking-head blather from our illustrious leaders, however, you can only conclude that we’re winning. Never mind that the Taliban insurgency is more violent than at any point since the U.S. invasion after 9/11. NATO forces are paying a heavy toll. Afghan public enthusiasm for the government is waning after years of unmet expectations. The economy, devastated by more than thirty years of war, has not recovered sufficiently to provide for the people, while the government remains largely ineffective and riddled with corruption.

And in the midst of all this, a senior White House official told reporters last Tuesday that their review would judge how well or badly the current strategy is faring but will not offer new strategic choices. Wow. How comforting, especially for the troops fighting and dying over there.

From insidedefense.com we get more reaction to the Council’s report on the study: “. . . the current approach to the region is at a critical point,” and “. . . for now, the United States should assume the lead, with the goal of encouraging and enabling its Pakistani and Afghan partners to build a more secure future. Yet even the United States cannot afford to continue down this costly path unless the potential for enduring progress remains in sight. After nine years of U.S. war in the region, time and patience are understandably short.”

Really. Whose time and whose patience are short? Not that of the politicians, or the American public, either. Take a look at “Heed the wars that beget veterans” by Robert McCartney of The Washington Post. Along with asking a service member just returned from Afghanistan or Iraq if they’ve saved anybody rather than if they’ve killed anybody, here’s what veterans of those conflicts wish: resume paying attention.

McCartney: “The veterans fought there, often on multiple tours. They saw friends get wounded or killed. They care deeply about the progress and outcome of the two wars. This nation, however, has lost interest. There was virtually no debate about the wars in the campaigns leading up to the midterm elections.”

Or how about a quote from Todd Bowers, deputy executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, who served three combat tours in the region: “There was zero discussion of the wars, which every veteran was tracking. We’re getting tired (of it). We get the handshakes and the thank yous for your service, and then everybody changes the channel, they turn the page, they look in another direction.”

That should come as no surprise to anyone. Only a small fraction of the population is fighting the nation’s battles abroad. Less than one out of 200 Americans has served in Afghanistan or Iraq, as opposed to one out of ten During WWII, and the nation finds it far too easy to ignore the wars when so few people are directly involved.

This travesty persists because America is collectively wearing blinders. If we don’t pull them off and acknowledge the schizophrenia  so pervasive within our foreign policy, we will only descend further into the depths of national political, cultural, and financial bankruptcy.

According to Politico’s Morning Defense for Wednesday, November 10, 2010, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says that “history is on our side in Afghanistan.”

Politico: Just because things ultimately didn’t turn out so well for the British Empire, the Soviet Union or others who have gone into Afghanistan doesn’t mean history will doom the U.S. effort there, Gates told ABC’s Cynthia McFadden. In a wide-ranging dual interview with SecState Clinton, Gates said the American effort is different:

“Actually, history isn’t against us. The people who have failed in Afghanistan have invaded Afghanistan. They’ve tried to impose a foreign system of government on the Afghans. They have acted unilaterally. We are in Afghanistan, first of all, with the sanction of the United Nations; second, as part of the NATO alliance; third, and perhaps most importantly, at the invitation of the Afghan government. And we are there to help the Afghans. This is why civilian casualties are so important and why sovereignty is so important, and observing their sovereignty: because we are there as their partners in this process, and that’s different from foreign precedents ever before in that country.”

Okay, he’s a lot smarter than I am, but gee, whiz, Robert. Could we not just once step back from the sound-bite-and-spin process long enough to consider other historical factors that might not support your position that the lives of American servicemen and women are being sacrificed overseas for a worthy and attainable goal? How about a different view for a change?

History is on the side of determined insurgencies, particularly when they are based upon radical religious beliefs. You might be able to contain them, but eradication is impossible. That requires open-ended conflict and a perpetual need for overwhelming military effort just to keep the lid on.

Last time I looked, we haven’t posted a very good record achieving anything of the sort in Afghanistan. The administration and military leaders can’t agree on the current status of the effort, what we should do next, or whether current force levels will accomplish what we need in order to begin withdrawing next year. And just what is that exactly?

Here’s an idea that no one seems to grasp: don’t leave a power vacuum. What remains in place after we head into the sunset had better be able to do the job the most powerful military in the world has failed to accomplish. And we expect the Afghan government to step up? Really?

History to Robert Gates, come in please: With the exception of the Allied occupation of Japan after WWII, a unique situation that will never be repeated, no democracy has ever been successfully imposed on a country from the top down. And it astonishes me how anyone in their right mind thinks that we can transform a country with centuries of ingrained tribal, feudal culture, in which distrust of central authority and especially outsiders is so deeply entrenched, into a functioning democracy.

Just look at the “election” results. Or the corruption, in which Hamid Karzai’s family ties to the Afghan Bank have provided all the evidence anyone needs to conclude that it’s business as usual. We’re backing fraud on a gargantuan scale and  accepting it because it’s supposedly best for the Afghans? Sure. We’re going to spend another six months, or as reported just yesterday, postpone our departure until 2014, then pull out with a wave and, “Y’all behave, now.” I suppose Gates thinks the Taliban will sit down to tea with nothing but words as their weapons. Democracy will flourish through peaceful debate. Infrastructure will rise from the ashes. He may think history provides a blueprint for that, but he’s been reading a different textbook.

It would be so refreshing if we would simply come clean and admit to all the world that we’re not meddling in the Middle East for the benefit of anyone but ourselves. It’s not about freedom for Iraqis or Afghans or eliminating injustice. Those are smokescreens to hide the truth. Can we not avoid the hypocrisy for once and tell it like it is? We’re there to impose some measure of stability on a region with 56 percent of the world’s oil reserves and maintain unimpeded access to oil as cheaply as possible for as long as we can.

One major factor is that any attempt by the U.S. to adopt a sane energy policy has been a total failure. What else would you call the result of the Department of Energy’s 33-year endeavor to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil? Under their management, 30-percent reliance in 1977 has increased to 70 percent. Reality to DOE: Maybe you misheard us. We said decrease.

We’re addicted to black gold from the very core of our society as represented by the personal automobile that guzzles gas and can carry many more people than normally inhabit it. Or what about the huge city-fied pickups with pristine cargo beds that have never been used to haul anything but air? And don’t anyone dare try to force automakers to build more efficient engines. Detroit, et al, are better qualified to determine what we need for personal transportation. They build it and we’re supposed to like it. So sayeth the American government.

Whether the majority of Americans want to admit it or not, we as a nation are content to let the sacrifice of a few support the narcissism of many. The longest period of active warfare in our history isn’t about protecting our freedom any more than it is about securing that of foreigners.

Why are we considered the Great Satan? It’s not because of anything we do in America, but what we do in the Middle East. The idea that the goal of terrorists is to install a fundamentalist Islamic state in the U.S. and put all American females in burquas is ludicrous. If we stopped interfering in their affairs, maybe we could once again wear our shoes through airport security and avoid the intrusion of full-body scans and pat-downs. You heard about the newest TSA insanity, right? As of November 1st, if you refuse a full-body scan or it reveals something “suspicious” you will be subjected to a rub-down with no area of your body off-limits. This is disproportionate response in the extreme.

And what about the fact that unimaginable atrocities occur every day in places that don’t have any oil? Can anyone in America even begin to comprehend the horrors in Darfur? What kind of animals conduct a campaign of mass rape? Why don’t we send our young to fight and die trying to stop that? If we were truly committed to our rhetoric, we’d never turn a blind eye to such suffering.

All America needs to do is look at its collective self in the mirror long enough to acknowledge this reality. What we’re doing is unsustainable. We’re on a slippery slope ending in financial and cultural bankruptcy as a second-rate nation. To change our future, we have two choices.

If cheap oil rules, then the entire nation has to commit to securing an uninterrupted supply no matter what it takes. Everyone shares the burden. It’s no longer acceptable to put someone else’s son or daughter in harm’s way while you sit on the sidelines. If this sounds like imperialism, it is. But at least it’s honest.

Or we could create a better America. A first step would be to stop trying to impose on others what’s best for us under the guise of what’s best for them. What a unique concept. Tell the Middle East to duke it out among themselves. They’ve been doing that for centuries and they’ll be doing it long after we’re gone.

Bring the troops home and repair the colossal damage inflicted on our volunteer military. Put all of our energies in to fixing what’s wrong with us, little things like: secure our borders, reduce a staggering national debt, create a sustainable health-care system, reduce the downward plunge of our educational system, manufacture something in this country other than hot air and rhetoric and put Americans to work, reform the insane tax code, eliminate earmarks, demand that each and every bill be debated on its own merits and that politicians serve the people rather than the other way around. That’s a short list.

The alternative is to stand by and watch this nation self-destruct.

The aviation news resource AVweb recently published an article titled, “Revenue Down, Salaries Up At AOPA.”

For any readers who don’t know, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is “a non-profit political organization whose membership consists mainly of general aviation pilots. AOPA exists to serve the interests of its members as aircraft owners and pilots, and to promote the economy, safety, utility, and popularity of flight in general aviation aircraft.”

According to AVweb: “While the aviation industry in general suffered massive layoffs and pay rollbacks in 2009, AOPA’s top managers got an overall 14.5 percent pay increase, according to the association’s IRS filings. In addition, an AVweb review of AOPA’s publicly available tax returns revealed that the association’s expenses increased by 25 percent in 2009, with association expenses exceeding revenues by about $5.1 million. To cover its rising expenses in part, the association recently raised its membership dues from $39 to $45, an increase of more than 15 percent.”

AVweb provides a number of facts in support of the implication that AOPA’s actions vis-a-vis senior management are inconsistent with current economic realities and the resultant pervasive financial environment of belt-tightening. Along with the increase in membership dues, the standout statistics for me were 1) the contrast between the alleged actions of AOPA and the fact that about 39 percent of companies are making downward adjustments in salaries while others are freezing them in place or offering increases in the 1-3 percent range, and 2) total salary costs for other workers at the association — whether through attrition or rollbacks — were reduced by about 12 percent.

If you accept the article as substantially accurate, then it’s not hard to conclude that this is simply another in a long list of cases in which the fat cats get fatter while the masses subsist on crumbs.

As you might expect, a letter to AVweb from Craig Fuller, AOPA President and CEO, challenges the article: “[Your article] is flat-out wrong. As stated on the Form 990 we filed with the IRS, ‘compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees’ for 2008 was $3.957 million. In 2009, that figure was $4.838 million. But the 2009 figure included $1.770 million in deferred compensation paid to our retired president, who served the organization faithfully for 18 years. When you remove this single payment, compensation to ‘top managers’ actually fell to $3.068 million—a reduction of $889,000. It should also be noted that AOPA’s trustees are unpaid volunteers who donate their time because they believe strongly in the work we do on behalf of the general aviation community.

“These are the facts, and we ask that you correct the record immediately. Unfortunately, this is not the only error in the story. Many of the other figures cited in your article are equally misleading. In the interest of accuracy, we would be happy to meet with you to discuss the article and the figures you cite. We look forward to setting the record straight.”

I don’t know which side of this issue presents a more accurate picture of reality. By nature, I’m skeptical of those at the top and probably more likely to believe they take care of themselves with an almost obscene arrogance whenever they can. That said, AVweb’s article might be full of factual errors. Whether by omission or commission is another question altogether.

I’ll be watching this story and another one closely for two reasons. First, if and when I believe that the AVweb article is a closer version of the truth, I’ll consider putting my AOPA membership in the rearview mirror and never look back. Second, AOPA has a “cozy” relationship with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) because he’s one of the few national politicians who is licensed as a commercial pilot, and he has always been influential in Senate and Congressional debates involving aircraft regulation.

But as mentioned in a previous Rants and Raves post titled, “Arrogance + Pilot = Brain Dead,” Inhofe is also an extraordinarily poor example of what it means to be a pilot. If AOPA, an organization on record as a leader in promoting general aviation flight safety, ignores Inhofe’s blatant failure to exercise the most basic good judgment expected of a pilot in command, I’m through considering what to do. AOPA and I will part ways.

At least one of us will say, “Good riddance.”