InCity Feature

By Carol Luther

Remember Linus from Charles Schultz’s “Peanuts” comic strip? He is the lad with the security blanket and the inspiration for Project Linus, a national organization whose purpose is to provide blankets for children who have been traumatized by illness, loss of a family member, disaster or a personal life-changing event.

For the past 15 years, Carole Murray has chaired the Worcester Area Chapter of Project Linus. Under her encouragement and direction, area folks have prepared over 33,000 blankets for distribution. Every week volunteers distribute anywhere from 50 to 100 blankets to both campuses of UmassMemorial for the Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), Pediatric Oncology, Pediatric Surgery and the ER’s to provide comfort, security and loving warmth to a child. Throughout the year, as our supply supports the need, blankets are delivered to many other agencies that provide services to children, such as women’s shelters like Abby’s House and the Women’s Veterans Shelter in Worcester, and whole family support like “A Place Called Home” which is the Interfaith Hospitality’s new house on June Street in Worcester. In addition, individual, personal donations are made to children locally who have experienced a trauma such as the loss of a family member or the diagnosis of a serious illness.

2012 was a banner year for our chapter. The dozen or so women who meet each Tuesday morning from 9 to noon in the old kitchen on the lower level of the First Congregational Church, 128 Central Street in Auburn, sewed Project Linus labels, checked for pins and defects, carefully folded and hugged 3,017 blankets that went out the door to bring a hug, smile, warmth, security and love to each recipient.

Do you like to knit, crochet, or sew fabric quilts? We are looking for at-home crafters who can provide Project Linus with child-sized blankets (36” X 36” up to “40 X 60” is ideal). They can be dropped off any Tuesday morning (9 to noon) all year long at the rear entrance of the First Congregational Church accessible from the lower parking lot on Church Street across from the Mary D. Stone School in Auburn.

There is always a need for blankets all the time. Project Linus welcomes donations of 100% cotton fabric and flannel, fleece fabric, soft yarn (no angora, mohair or fuzzy yarns), thread, and batting. When you are shopping at your favorite fabric or yarn store, consider purchasing an extra yard or two of a children’s print fabric or an extra skein of baby soft yarn to donate. Put coupons to good use!

Our chapter responds to national crises like Hurricane Katrina in the past, currently Hurricane Sandy, acts of violence or any event where children are affected. Our response to “Sandy” was 107 blankets which emptied our reserve. We did not know that a month later a “wish” would be made for 700 blankets for New Town, CT. Sister chapters across the country responded immediately, fulfilling the wish.

IKE’S BLUFF

President Eisenhower’s Secret Battle to Save the World

By Evan Thomas

Reviewed by Steven R. Maher

Dwight David “Ike” Eisenhower was the commander of the allied forces in the European theatre during World War II and the 34th President of the United States from 1953 to 1961. In the wake of a succession of disastrous Presidents – Richard M. Nixon and especially George W. Bush – Eisenhower’s statute has soared among historians. Seen from the wreckage of the Bush Presidency, Eisenhower was the last real Republican, a man to whom balancing the budget was more important than cutting taxes, making peace was better than waging “pre-emptive” war, and the country invested in infrastructure to build the national highway system.

When Ike left office in 1961, he was not well thought of either by historians or many of his contemporaries. Made old and gray in the service of his country, Eisenhower seemed almost decrepit when compared to the younger, dynamic John F. Kennedy.

Right man

The Eisenhower who emerges in Evan Thomas’ “Ike’s Bluff” is a far different figure. Eisenhower was well prepared by his long career in the military for the Presidency, and was the right figure at the right time for America.

Thomas’ thesis is that Eisenhower bluffed for eight years by threatening to use nuclear weapons against America’s Cold War enemies, the Soviet Union and Red China. This enabled Eisenhower to reduce the Defense budget, to balance the overall federal budget, and to restore America’s fiscal health.

“In truth, Ike was just as weary of the generals as he was of hawkish diplomats, if not more so,” writes Evans. “He knew how the top brass used worst-case scenarios to frighten their civilian masters into spending more on unnecessary new weapons systems and pet boondoggles.”

“Look, let me tell you something,” Eisenhower said to his press secretary,” I know better than any of you fellows how waste in the Pentagon and about how much fat there is to be cut – because I’ve seen those boys operate for a long time.”

Eisenhower was able to play nuclear poker with the Russians because of the aura around him as the man who ordered the 1944 invasion of France. It gave him credibility lacking in his two successors, Kennedy and Johnson. The Soviet Union believed Eisenhower when the U.S. President talked about using nuclear weapons.

Started in Korea

Ike’s first bluff took place in Korea, where American troops were entangled in a bloody stalemate with Red China. Eisenhower made noise about using tactical nuclear weapons, shipping them to Korea, and having studies done on which North Korean airports could be nuked. The Chinese and North Koreans hurriedly made peace.

Over the next eight years Eisenhower played his cards closely, hinting that he had a royal flush, while leaving the Soviets or Chinese wondering if Ike would play his nuclear ace. When Red China launched artillery barrages of Quemoy and Matsu, the two islands between mainland China and Taiwan, the Communists did not go any further because of fear Eisenhower would use nuclear weapons on an invading force.

Yet Eisenhower was deathly afraid of nuclear war. Thomas recounts in one chilling passage a National Security Council meeting in which Eisenhower asked how many nuclear bombs it would take to make the world 100% radioactive. He was told that it was 10,000. Eisenhower then asked how many nuclear explosions it would take to knock the earth off its axis. Knocking the earth of its axis would have totally destroyed life on this plant, and prevented another civilization from arising.

Dwight Eisenhower was a conservative who balanced America’s budget, kept the peace, and gave the United States a period of prosperity. No wonder historians of both the right and left are looking closely at his Presidency.

editor’s note: I have made some sentences bold.

16.6 Percent of Households in Worcester Area Reported in 2012 Inability to Afford Enough Food

Boston  – 15 percent of respondents – or more than one in seven people – in Massachusetts reported in 2012 not having enough money to buy food that they or their family needed at some points during the prior twelve months, according to a new report released by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC).

This report provides data on food hardship – the inability to afford enough food – for every region, every state, every Congressional District, and 100 of the country’s largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), including Boston-Cambridge-Quincy; Springfield; and Worcester MSAs in Massachusetts. The report found that nationally the food hardship rate was 18.2 percent in 2012. Among states, Mississippi had the highest food hardship rate (24.6 percent) and North Dakota had the lowest (10.9 percent).

For Massachusetts it found that:

• 15 percent in the state in 2012 said they were unable to afford enough food.
• For the Worcester MSA, the food hardship rate for 2011-2012 was 16.6 percent, compared to 12.7 percent in the Boston MSA and 18.3 percent in the Springfield MSA. Click to continue »

By Barbara Haller

When Rose asked me to write an article on the sage of the loss of Henry Lee Willis Community Services I hesitated before saying yes. This is a complex story with much still unknown. There are so many aspects to this, so much angst, so much pain, so many questions. It is hard to decide where to focus. That being said, this is a situation of vital importance to Worcester. And so I make an attempt to explain what we know, to summarize the key issues as I know them.

All of us who love and live in Worcester must feel outrage over what has happened. We have been and continue to be disrespected on so many levels. Outrage must lead us to call, write, and talk about it to our family, friends, colleagues, elected State officials, elected local officials.

So many in our community have spoken eloquently about the magnitude and broad reach of the closing. I urge readers to go to the City Council’s web site for the video of Monday, 2/4/12, Council Committee of Public Health and Human Services and watch and listen to community leader and activists as they grapple with this. It will make you proud and it will show you the depth of destruction we are facing as a community. Find the time and share this.

Here is the link: http://view.liveindexer.com/ViewIndexSessionSL.aspx?siteSKU=v8DtaSEkm6TB6AlPIZIUkA%3D
%3D&indexSessionSKU=WRiK
Kiz3JsvbJ4FSqNXGgA%3D%3D

Issues:

Accountability: Question: how can the state defund community-based programs without including the community in the discussion? Ans: because they can – they have the power of the purse.

Cultural competency: Question: have the new providers demonstrated cultural competency? Ans. Mostly no.

Power: Question: who benefits from this? Ans: SMOC, Advocates are the biggies – both from Framingham. Both get both property and programs.

Local Opportunity: Question: Can Worcester-based organizations complete? Ans: Not easily. To quote Councilor Rivera, “Small fish, big shark.”

Timing: Question: this was announced mid-December 2012, saying the state has to scramble to keep people being served. This is hard to believe. Ans: some people knew a lot, some people knew a little. Merger/acquisition talks had happened and failed.

Why: Question: the state has said the defunding was done “without reason” as is it’s perogrative; the state has also said “Based on serious concerns with financial management and client care issues, state agencies have moved to terminate all contracts with the Henry Lee Willis Center.” (Telegram, 12/11/2012) What gives? Ans: who knows and the state has said it will not comment further due to a potential investigation. As many have said, shouldn’t the invesitgation be real and completed before defunding?

State leadership: Question: where is our governor, lt governor, state delegation on this? Ans: we are told that no one knew anything. Question: but where are you now? We need leadership to get Worcester at the table. Ans: deafening silence.

Jobs: Question: will people be hired by new providers? Ans: not known and as far as we know, not yet.

Options: Question: can we stop it? Injunction against the state? Ans: the nasty deed is already done.

And on and on.

One positive that I can think of – our Mayor and local city councilors are engaged on this now. We need to tell them to keep on it. Our trust in state government has been seriously damaged. We need new strategies to heal what has been done and to protect us from having this happen again to another local, community-based group.

And we need to find ways to compete with the “big sharks” that look to Worcester to expand their power. Social service is big business because it has big money associated with it. But social service is also community-based service and local providers give neighborhoods a sense of connectivity and access. The community is community services needs to be prominent for everyone’s benefit.

Speak up. Shout out.

By Ron O’Clair

It seems to me that Valentine’s Day is one of those holidays that appeal to the young, the young at heart, and to the romantic among us older generations.

Over the years I have had a number of Valentine’s that were dear to my heart as February 14th came around that year, and I would send a card to let them know how I felt about them.

I am in my early fifties, and I am not too old to have feelings of romance in my heart, and my new Valentine is my Internet sweetheart, Renee. We have not been chatting very frequently lately since I no longer have in home Internet service. That problem will take care of itself as I recently ordered Verizon Internet, and should have it by the time this article gets published, whereupon I intend to resume my Internet romance without delay.
Renee is a wonderful, kind, and considerate person who just happens to be beautiful besides, at least I think so anyway. We have told each other many of our most precious thoughts, and find that we like the same things in many respects.

I hope that the relationship grows stronger day by day, and that we end up having a real romantic relationship sometime in the near future, so this year, I will be sending off a Valentine’s Day card to her, and I hope that she agrees to be my Valentine.
This reminds me of the time I was falling in love with a longtime friend who happened to move into the building I manage some years back. We started to have a romantic relationship, and I had already bought a gift, a card, and some candy intending to present it to what I thought was my one true love that year.

We had been intimate the night before, and as I was in the process of removing the snow that had fallen overnight from the sidewalks as is my responsibility as the building superintendent some guy comes and yells up to the girl who I will call Wendy for the purposes of this story (Name has been changed to protect her feelings).

I did not at first find this to be disturbing because I trusted that we had an arrangement between us that was exclusive, or so I thought anyway. So I continued my snow removal duty without thinking anything was wrong with the situation, other than the fact that she invited him up which was in violation of the “No Visitor” policy in effect.

I assumed that because we had been intimate, she felt that she could flaunt the household rules about not having visitors. Little did I realize that while I was busy removing the accumulated snowfall, she was getting busy with this new guy who apparently was in recovery from alcohol and drug dependency and living at the Salvation Army on Cambridge Street. No job, a precarious foothold on sobriety, and an iffy future prospect of remaining clean and sober, and this is what she wanted to hook up with instead of me.

While I was working my butt off to clear the sidewalks of this and the other two properties that I am responsible for, this new guy was courting what I felt to be my girl.

You can’t force someone to love you, and apparently she wanted this guy more than she wanted me, as from that day forward we were through. There was a battle about my enforcing the “No visitor” policy, and I did not do it out of spite, but as I explained it to her, if I allowed one person to have a visitor, I had to allow all the tenants to have visitor’s, and in no time at all we would have descended back to a house full of crack heads and junkies, which it had been before I became the building superintendent.

I was heartbroken, and I ate the candy myself rather than give it to her.

We stayed friends throughout the process, and many years later she admitted to me that she wished that she had kept me instead of what she got.

Normally I make it a rule to not get involved with any of the tenants in a relationship, and broke this rule due to the feelings in my heart. That technically was the first and only time I broke that rule, my relationship with “Mary” not counting because it took place just prior to my becoming the building superintendent in June of 2003.

I justified getting involved with “Wendy” due to my having known her prior to her moving in for many, many years. Really though, I should not have gotten involved with a tenant in my official capacity as the building superintendent.

This year I am pinning my hopes on “Renee”, my Internet sweetheart. Even though the holiday is for the young, you are apparently never too old to have a sweetheart that you want to be your Valentine.
I have been inherently unlucky when it comes to love. It is hard for me to express feelings of love due to the many times over the past that I had been hurt when I dared to declare my love for someone else.

Perhaps this Valentine’s Day will be different, and I will have my Valentine throughout the coming year, time will tell.
If you liked my story, or you hated my story, I would appreciate your input at: Ronaldoclair@Hotmail.com

By Maureen Schwab

This month, two of the year’s most important award shows will be televised across the planet. If you are more excited about the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show (2/11-13) than you are about the Academy Awards (2/24), then you are a true dog lover. By the numbers, however, the movie lovers at 40 million make the 3 million viewers with a pooch penchant the underdogs.

I have only recently become a dog lover, owing this conversion to simply having to learn to like a family member’s dogs. Growing up in Green Island in the fifties and sixties, our family never owned a dog, nor did many of my neighbors. In those days, dogs roamed freely through the streets of Green Island, and at times presented the residents with a frightening encounter to deal with. My younger brother was bitten by a neighbor’s dog, and another brother tells tales of outrunning a stray or two. Over time, the strays have all but disappeared, and the only unleashed dogs are those found frolicking at Crompton Park with owners in close proximity.

The dog that led to my conversion is a troubled terrier mix that I adopted from a relative and now own. Since the day I took him in last March, he has been a good boy with me, and a loyal companion to my other dog, who was purchased at a pet shop in 2009. If the tea leaves had predicted that I would own two dogs some day, I would have laughed and declared fraud, but here I am; happy and in love with these two damn dogs!

Michael Schaffer, author of One Nation Under Dog (2009) , credits social trends that have developed over the past 30-40 years for reasons why Americans are in love with their dogs. Two career couples that marry later, divorce more frequently as well as longer work hours and commute times occurred at the same time dog ownership began to increase. Schaffer speculates that people are leaning on pets to fill the gap in social support mechanisms that might have otherwise come from families or the community. Some even promote their pets the status of honorary child…..”fur babies”.
Dog behaviorist and psychologist Sarah Wilson also points out that dogs are some of the longest relationships we have, our pets often outlast our marriages and/or romantic relationships! Consider me guilty on all counts; I know I am “ Mama” to my two boys, and these are the longest relationships I have had so far, with the exception of my children, immediate family, and dear friends of 50+ years.

Social science aside, people who love their dogs often do so for very simple reasons; dogs are always happy to see you, they help us not to be alone in the world, and accept us in spite of our flaws and faults. In some cases they give us courage and a reason to get up in the morning. You can tell them any and every secret and never be betrayed . A dog can even help you stay in shape with long walks, and games of fetch and last but not least…..can even help you make new human friends.
I would not discourage anyone from watching the Academy Awards this year, especially since the film based on local author Matthew Quick’s book Silver Linings Playbook (2008), has been nominated in several categories. I’ll be watching the dog show instead, rooting for the schnauzers and terriers with my little loves ( a.k.a those two damn dogs!) by my side.

By Sue Moynagh

St. Valentine was a priest who assisted early Christians in Rome during a time of persecution and was supposedly arrested and beheaded when he refused to renounce his faith. His death is said to have taken place on February 14, 270. What does this have to do with hearts and love and all of the other Valentine’s Day traditions? Nothing really, but sometime afterwards, church elders replaced a heathen celebration in which boys drew lots with the names of girls, surely for no good purpose, with the celebration of St. Valentine’s Day. Apparently, some of the pagan tradition lived on, but in a manner more suitable for Christianity. It became, over time, a day for lovers and for children, friends.

Valentine’s Day is the perfect holiday for February. Those big red hearts give that color and vitality that remind us that there could be life and passion in the middle of a colorless, cold winter. For children in St. Casimir’s school, which I attended in the late ‘50’s and early 60’s, Valentine’s Day gave a welcome break from the usual school routine of studying for exams or writing essays. For some of us, though, it was a holiday that stirred up mixed emotions.

I was one of the unpopular kids. Although we did not use the terms “nerd,” “dweeb,” or “uncool,” you knew if you didn’t belong to any clique or pack of kids, you were an object of contempt and scorn. I was as nerdy as they came. I had thick glasses that always managed to become lopsided and were often held together with adhesive tape. My teeth were crooked and my face usually sported cat scratches. Of course, when adolescence hit, I had a good crop of zits. I never dressed well, was never quite pulled together when we were out of school uniform. Great target for bullies. And I was bullied, by girls and boys, physically and verbally. At recess, I would sit in some corner, trying to make myself smaller, invisible, so that these kids would just leave me alone. Valentine’s Day was a day for showing friendship, and I had no friends. But I always had hope that things would change.

Simple, single- sided cards were available by the box in any five and ten store. “Be my Valentine” or some other saying was printed prominently on a big heart. We also made cards in school for parents, and at home for friends. I went for quantity over quality. I cranked out cards of various shapes and sizes, using paper doilies and construction paper hearts which were gaudily covered with glitter and stars. The red, white and pink color scheme was too boring for me, and I used almost every color in my Crayola box. There was no one to share them with, so I kept them for myself.

My mother always bought enough cards to give to all of the kids in my class, and it was a big class, over thirty kids. She insisted, as did many other parents, that everyone in the class would receive a card. I knew very well that I would not be receiving cards from everyone, especially the class bullies. One of the more creative girls or perhaps the homeroom nun herself, designed a big Valentine card box covered with shiny paper and pink and red hearts. We placed our cards inside and waited eagerly until Valentine’s Day was upon us.

One of the teacher’s pets was picked to call out the names or pass out the cards, a time of high anxiety if you were unpopular. I knew my heart would pound as names were called. As the cards were distributed, I would frantically pray: “Dear God, let me get at least one card. Please, let me get more than one card.” A small pile of cards answered my prayers. Not the whole class, but enough to ease my anxiety and put a smile on my face. It never occurred to me that other parents made their kids give cards to everybody in the class. I didn’t question whether or not these small symbols of affection were true gestures of friendship. I lovingly put the cards into my book bag as if they were treasures.

In high school, this practice was discontinued. Girls in the all- girl Ascension Catholic High School were getting cards and gifts from boy friends. In school, we often had cake or candy at study period, good enough for me. I particularly enjoyed the little hearts with cute sayings on them. Over time, Valentine’s Day became just another day.

I imagine some things have changed over the years. I still see boxes of cards for sale, so I assume they still pass out cards at school. I guess some things have changed. Cards are created using computers, and messages of love and friendship are sent via email. But there are tons of Valentine’s Day gift options. Go through any store and see stuffed animals, balloons, candy, pastry and jewelry, all with the holiday theme. I do hope that things have changed in the schools, though, and that kids will learn to be more accepting of those who are different. I hope that when cards and gifts go out, everyone will be included, and no one has to worry needlessly that there will be nothing for them. Valentine’s Day will then truly be a day of love and friendship – for all!

By Barbara Roberts

I read your recent article on drones [InCity Times, Volume 12, issue 13], and I have some problems with it.

First of all, the article basically tells a person how to create a drone. This is not a good idea. What if a potential terrorist reads the article?

Secondly, you write “The UN charter gives member nations the right to defend themselves. Al-Qaeda started the war. Now the drones may end Al-Qaeda.”

1.) We don’t know that Al-Qaeda started the war – no through investigation has been done.
2.) Currently we are fighting a war in Mali (helping the French). How do we know the locals of Mali are members of Al-Qaeda? Just because the government says so? (I refer you to the Iraq War – no WMD found.)

Thirdly you say we can win the war with these drones. No one can win wars with drones – the drones only make nonterrorists into terrorists. The more we kill innocent children, women and old men with our drones, the more ordinary people are going to hate us. Furthermore, history tells that you can’t win a war with drones; recall the V1 rockets which were similar to drones; their use by the Germans just made the British more angry and resulted in fire bombing Dresden. It takes warriors on the ground willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause – assuming it is a just war. Drones are a symptom of the United State’s lack of commitment to real warfare. Drones are the “desired” weapon of choice because the politicians do not have enough moxie to draft soldiers to go and kill other men face to face. Wars are won by boots on the ground not by cowards who hide in safe structures and killed people from afar.

Fourthly only the future will tell but it is very possible that drone usage will be extended from targets of remote individuals to heads of state and other people. Here are some questions to consider while contemplating the power given to the Government by the Patriot Act and the recent NDAA law.

1.) Since four Americans have already been killed – with no oversight – by drones run by the CIA, can Americans here in the States be targeted by drones? Its only a very small set and there are 64 drone bases in the Continental US. So the covert use of drones by the CIA not only puts us at risk from blowback but from being directly targeted by branches of our own government. How incredibly unbelievable it that?! We do not know that the killing of Al-Waki was justified – and his 16 year old son – since the only thing I have heard that the father did was write a blog. And the son only just turned 16 years old – so he probably had not done anything. If our countries intelligence services can be wrong about WMD in Iraq they can also be wrong about what activities an individual is engaged in. (Remember the old adage? “I’m for the government, I’m here to help you.” The reason it was funny is that many times they are incompetent. Just ask anyone who ever worked for the government.

Can the use of drones be used against heads of state or other persons, not terrorists? What if a known terrorist (American or not) buys an airline ticket and flies to some other location, can the US use a drone to shoot down that plane? Or is a plane full of innocent people too many to kill? When a terrorist is in a group of people overseas the drones shoot the innocent with the (presumed) guilty. When is the number of innocents too great to shot? Ahmadinejad just flew from Iran to Egypt (I suppose he will fly back); can the US use a drone to shoot that plane down? (Note well: shooting twice – one drone followed by another – is a war crime because the second drone strike often kills the emergency responders, the doctors, the medics, the ambulance drivers.

Fifthly, there is the proliferation problem. Click to continue »

By Steven R. Maher

“Unmanned Aerial Vehicles” have become the United States’ weapon of choice in the war on terror. Better known as “Predator drones”, these 8,000 remote controlled robots have devastated Al Qaeda, disrupted its chain of command, and played a large role in allowing American troops to be withdrawn from Iraq and now Afghanistan.

“According to data compiled by the New America Foundation from reliable news reports, 337 CIA drone strikes in Pakistan have killed an estimated 1,953 to 3,279 people since 2004, of which 1,526 – 2,649 were reported to be militants,” reports one Internet web site. “This means the average non-militant casualty rate over the life of the program is 18-23 percent. In 2012 it was around 10 percent, down sharply from its peak in 2006 of over 600 percent.”

“”In 2012 the USAF [United States Air Force] trained more drone pilots than ordinary jet pilots for the first time,” says Wikipedia.

What are drones made off and how do they work? What are the moral implications of “targeted killings”?
Primary aircraft

Drones were first used for high altitude surveillance in the 1990s. After 9/11, the drones were modified to include ordnance and automate the military’s “kill chain” – “find, fix, track, target, engage and assess” against high value, fleeting and time sensitive targets.

There is a large amount of Internet drone literature, including the Wikipedia entry and the U.S. Air Force web’s “fact sheets” on the nine drones in usage. Robert Valdes has published on Lafayette.edu an insightful article on drones. In an effort to convey to readers the essence of how drones operate, we boiled down the information available, summarizing data to reduce verbiage. Military acronyms are not used extensively. We concentrated on the RQ-1 predators.
“Following 2001, the RQ-1 Predator became the primary unmanned aircraft used for offensive operations by the USAF and the CIA in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas,” says Wikipedia.

The MQ1-B is an armed RQ-1. The change in designation came when the reconnaissance-purpose RQ-1 was armed with two Hellfire missiles in 2002, making it a multi-purpose device (hence the “M” re-designation). Not long afterwards, on November 2, 2002, a predator was first used outside the Afghan war drone, to kill in Yemen Qaed Senyan Al-Harthi, the Al-Qaeda commander of the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.
“The MQ-1’s capabilities make it uniquely qualified to conduct irregular warfare Operations in support of Combatant
Commander objectives,” says the air force.

How it’s built

Operated in clusters of four, the MQ1-B is made by General Atomics Aeronautical at a fiscal 2009 cost of $20 million for four Predators, the ground control station, and the satellite link up.

The MQ-1B is two yards high, nine yards long, and with a wingspan of roughly nineteen yards. It looks smaller than it appears in pictures. Miniaturization and nano-technology allow packing this small device with much hardware.

• The front compartment contains a “Multispectral Targeting System” that includes the Hellfire missile targeting system; an electrical optical infrared system which can see through haze, smoke or clouds; a laser designator; and a laser illuminator. There is also a GPS system and an ice detector. The equipment in this section “paints the target” by shooting a laser beam, which electronically puts a bull’s eye on the object by sending a pulse from the target to the two Hellfire missiles attached to the Predator. A computer generated “firing solution” calculates the distance, trajectory, wind speed, and other variables to hit the target with pinpoint precision.

• The second compartment contains a satellite communications antenna, a videocassette recorder, the de-icer, flight sensors, a receiver/transmitter, a “friend or foe” transponder, an avionics tray, and a communications sensor.

• The next third of the drone consists of a fuel cell, fuel cell assembly, and accessory bay.

• The fourth compartment of the plane contains the engine cooling fan; the oil cooler/radiator; secondary control module; two eight pound battery backups; a power supply; and a four cylinder, 115 horsepower engine similar to the engines used to power snowmobiles. At the rear is a two-blade propeller providing the drive and lift, and attached is a rudder, which is used to navigate the vessel.

The two fuel tanks are rubberized bladders in the fore and aft sections of the Predator, capable of holding 665 pounds (100 gallons) of 100-octane gasoline. The craft is lubricated by 7.6 liters of standard oil. The de-icer operates through microscopic “weeping holes” on the wings through which an ethylene glycol solution drips out to melt ice accumulated at the 25,000 feet altitude at which the MQ-1B flies.

The rib cage, surrounding the Predator like an elongated oval shaped skeleton, is made up of carbon/glass fiber tape and aluminum. The sensor housing and wheels are aluminum, the edges of the wings titanium. Between the rib cage and operating devices is a layer of carbon and quartz fibers with a mix of Kevlar. Further insulating the components are layers of foam and wood laminate; a sturdy fabric is sandwiched between these layers.
Empty of fuel and ammunition, the MQ-1B weighs 1,130 pounds, a very light aircraft. Fueled, armed, locked and loaded with two Hellfire missiles with a 450-pound payload, the Predator weighs 2,250 pounds, still a lightweight.

How it works

A drone can be disassembled into six parts and loaded into a single container, which can be transported to a war drone in a C130 Hercules, or larger transportation aircraft. It can be reassembled in four to eight hours. It takes 82 men or women to operate one four Predator active service unit over a twenty-four hour period. The flight begins, from a minimum 5,000 feet long surfaced runway, when an operator attaches a power cord to the Predator and turns the drone on.

The MQ-1B has a range of 700 miles and a cruising speed of 135 MPH. This means it must be launched from relatively near the war drone. It takes three to operate a drone: a pilot sitting in front of a computer screen using a flight stick to guide the aircraft, and two sensor operators. The pilot can see what the Predator sees in “real time”, i.e., instantaneously.

Once out of line of sight from its take off point, a satellite transfers control to an operator in the continental United States. “[I]f a predator is lost in battle, military personnel can simply ‘crack another one out of the box’ and have it up in the air shortly – and that’s without the trauma of casualties or prisoners normally associated with an aircraft going down,” writes Valdes. For a casualty conscious military, the predators are the perfect weapons; operators are not exposed to enemy fire. Click to continue »

By Edith Morgan

I always thought I had a good grasp of the meaning of the second amendment:”A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The first, modifying phrase seemed to say that in the absence of a regular army, citizens must be ready to answer the call to defend their country. But it actually does not say that, as elsewhere in the Constitution the new country is not called a State, and there is reference to land and naval forces –clearly NOT militias… But I thought that since we now have so many well-armed “Militias”( Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, Secret Service, T-men, G-men, etc..) as well as police and myriad other local, state and federal groups with police powers, – all armed! – that I am well enough protected by so-many weapon-bearing groups trained to protect me here and abroad. So I never felt the need to arm myself, and as long as we have the vote and can exert control over those who govern us. (Of course the original Constitution did not allow me the right to vote but reserved that right to men of property and who were white. But we did fix that, though many years and many battles later…).

But a recent article in Truthout.org , purporting to trace the history of that amendment, explained the use of the term “militias” and State: the amendment was added as a sop to a southern State, where militias organized by white plantation slave holders with the specific job of hunting down runaway slaves, or putting down such rebellions (which were frequent and bloody in those days before the Civil War.) That would seem to explain the strange wording….

My experience with war in WWII Europe as a civilian taught me that individual weapons are no match for the armed hordes of dictators, and that paranoia, suspicion of neighbors and fellow-citizens offer no protection against the mayhem that peaceful men, women and children deserve (review Nazi Germany, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Russia under Stalin, ad infinitum) In the end, the only real weapons against such brutalities are an informed, thinking population, with universal access to fact-based media, and who not only vote regularly, but keep in touch with those they have chosen to lead, and inform them regularly of as to what they want done on their behalf.

In all the debate about the second amendment, no one has suggested that legitimate hunters be disarmed – and hunters themselves have not required military assault weapons, nor do they need to be able to fire off hundreds of rounds – no sportsman has to fire at a deer hundreds of times . Diplomatic couriers or bank security services may require a gun to protect what is obviously valuable material. But they have never needed to fire off hundreds of bullets, nor does the ordinary homeowner need to shoot up hundreds of people when faced with a robber or home invader. And women under threat of rape or other attack are usually facing a single attacker, which, with a bit of training, can be overcome.

In all the talk about the right to own as many and as powerful weapons as some people feel entitled to have, no one has considered MY right to be able to walk freely in my neighborhood, my city, my nation, without having to fear for my life constantly. What good is my freedom, if I have to live in constant fear of being picked off by some over-armed, paranoid, drugged out or just irritated person who may not like the way I looked at him, or who wanted my parking space? I realize there is a thriving industry built around frightening us all into buying all kinds of “protection”, but why should I have to go broke making my home into a fortress? There is no absolute freedom in any area ( remember_ for example that your right to free speech does not extend to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, nor does it allow slander and libel so why should there be an untrammeled right to acquire weapons of mass murder, just because you can afford it?). I grew up believing that every individual’s freedom ends where the other’s begins.

I grew up believing that the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is nearly absolute, and therefore, if I were armed, I would hesitate to fire the first shot, therefore giving the other the advantage… I believe most decent people would experience that moment of delay, and with weapon in hand, would force the opponent to shoot. The only time I would have an advantage would be against an unarmed assailant.

We need to examine the reasons that another group is pushing for unlimited possession of arms: a small group of Americans are anarchists at heart, want to reduce and eventually destroy the government, and need to be armed and ready…These groups sometimes parade as secessionists, “free marketers”or Libertarians, and follow the ideas of Ayn Rand, or every man for himself.

An examination of history would very quickly demonstrate that anarchy can not work, especially in our modern world.

“What do we do?” There will always be someone with a bigger gun, more ammo, more force. But I prefer to live in a world where we know our neighbors, help each other, build communities, cooperate, and value each life and preserve this fragile little planet so that our descendants can also enjoy it.