Month: March 2019

The pseudoconservative, anti-American “American Spectator” magazine has published yet another ridiculous screed by leftist-libertarian, isolationist pundit Doug Bandow (whose screeds AmSpec publishes regularly while refusing to publish my works, thus giving a voice to only ONE side of the debate). In his latest screed, as in previous ones, Bandow makes a litany of blatant lies, which can be summed up in the following themes:

1) “The GOP tossed money at the Pentagon, creating new unfunded liabilities out of two unnecessary wars…”

FALSE. Firstly, the GOP did not “toss money at the Pentagon”. From FY2001 to FY2012, base defense spending rose by only 36%, and total military spending by 65% – over more than a decade. As for “two unnecessary wars”, that is also a blatant lie. While it might be argued that the Iraqi war was unnecessary, no such claim can be credibly made about the Afghan war, which was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. In case Bandow or anyone else has forgotten, that war was started by the Afghanistan-based terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 (which was an act of war, not a crime), and was necessary to rout these terrorists, bring them (including Osama bin Laden) to justice. After 9/11, the only alternative to invading Afghanistan and routing Al Qaeda and the Taleban was doing nothing, thus showing that an attack on America could go unpunished. And that’s exactly what Bandow advocates. Shame on him.

2) “The GOP ran against the idea of a budget sequester because it insisted on protecting bloated military outlays.”

FALSE. The military budget is not bloated at all. It amounts to only 4.22% of America’s GDP and just 17% of America’s total federal budget, even though defense is the #1 Constitutional duty of the federal government. It is needed to finish the war in Afghanistan and to protect America from foreign threats, including Putinist Russia, Communist China, North Korea, and Iran. It is not bloated at all. Virtually everything in the base defense budget and in the DOE’s national-security budget pays for the troops, units, weapons, installations, and programs that the military needs to protect America. Any claims that the military is “bloated” is a blatant lie. And the GOP has NEVER protected military spending. (It should have, but it has never done so.) (See below.)

3) “The GOP’s foreign policy can be summed up in two words: permanent war.”

Another blatant lie. The GOP has never supported permanent war. It  (except a few neoconservatives like John McCain) does not advocate intervening in Syria or resending American troops to Iraq, and supports withdrawal from Afghanistan. Heck, McCain supports withdrawing them from Afghanistan BEFORE the stated 2014 deadline if nothing can be accomplished there (which it can’t). By contrast, the Obama Admin is now mulling keeping a large number of American troops in Afghanistan well past 2014, perhaps forever. Who is the party of permanent war here?

4) “Nevertheless, Republicans remain locked in the past, determined to paint their Democratic opponents as weak irrespective of the facts — such as Obama intensifying the Afghanistan war.”

The FACTS are that the Democrats, including Obama, WERE and ARE very weak on foreign policy. They support, and to a large degree, have already orchestrated, massive defense cuts. They support America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament, and Obama has already taken big steps toward that, by a) signing a unilateral nuclear arms cuts treaty with Russia that allows Moscow to ENLARGE its arsenal, b) cancelling the development of any new American nukes; c) cutting America’s nondeployed arsenal unilaterally; and d) sabotaging the modernization of the few nuclear weapons and delivery systems America maintains. Obama has also been cravenly appeasing Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, Tehran, and Latin America’s communists such as Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez, with disastrous results. Miring America deeper in a quagmire like Afghanistan is a sign of stupidity, not toughness.

5) “Thus, excepting the redoubtable Rep. Ron Paul, during the primary debates the Republican contenders, most of whom had never been anywhere near a military installation let alone worn a uniform, did the foreign policy equivalent of the Maori Haka…”

LIE. Rick Perry has served in the USAF as a C-130 pilot, flying these aircraft around the world, and Newt Gingrich, as the son of an Army soldier, grew up on military bases in the US and abroad. And no, Republicans did not do “the foreign policy equivalent of the Maori Haka” during the debates.

6) “Mitt Romney spent five years, from his announcement until the final debate, simply shouting “we’re number one.”

LIE. Mitt Romney articulated far more than that during his campaign. He outlined a clear foreign policy with regard to Russia, China, Iran, and Latin America, and a clear defense policy: investing a modest 4% of GDP in defense, building up the Navy (specifically, submarines, frigates, amphibious ships, destroyers, and naval strike aircraft), keeping an 11-carrier fleet, speeding up Next Generation Bomber development, and reversing the cuts to the ground force. Agree or disagree with these policies, he did articulate specific policy choices.

7) “Although the Republican nominee did his best to avoid stating a clear position, at times he seemed to believe that the U.S. should have stayed in Iraq forever, over the objection of the Iraqi government, and be prepared to stay in Afghanistan as long as necessary for undefined “victory,” which likely would be forever…”

LIE. Mitt Romney never said that. He actually agreed with Obama’s deadline for withdrawal (2014). Now the Obama Admin is mulling  keeping American troops in Afghanistan well past 2014, maybe forever.

8) “That also means tying military outlays to security challenges, not an arbitrary share of GDP.”

But the US military budget is ALREADY tied to security challenges and threats, not to any arbitrary share of GDP like Mitt Romney wanted. It is, moreover, tied to a specific (if highly imperfect) strategy the DOD devised a year ago to (more or less perfectly) protect American interests around the world while conforming to the budgetary limitations of the Budget Control Act. It is needed to finish the war in Afghanistan and to protect America from foreign threats, including Putinist Russia, Communist China, North Korea, and Iran. It is not bloated at all. Virtually everything in the base defense budget and in the DOE’s national-security budget pays for the troops, units, weapons, installations, and programs that the military needs to protect America.

9) “Why should Americans spend as much as the rest of the world combined on “defense” when that means subsidizing rich allies, engaging in foolish nation-building, and launching military actions that create more enemies than they kill?”

The US does NOT spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. The US spends only 41%, and that’s only if one accepts SIPRI’s woefully understated figures for China’s and Russia’s military budgets. If one rejects them and understands that China and Russia spend much more on their militaries than SIPRI claims, America’s share of the world total falls far below 40%. China’s real FY2012 military budget was between $160 bn and $250 bn according to the DOD, not the mere $143 bn that SIPRI claims. And that’s without accounting for PPP differences.

The US is NOT subsidizing rich allies (see below). As for engaging in foolish nation-building and launching wars, spending as much on the military as today does NOT automatically lead to such policies and does NOT have to lead to them. Spending a lot on the military does not mean that you have to conduct nationbuilding projects or get involved in wars of no relevance to American interests. Bandow is merely trying to scaremonger people into thinking that current defense spending levels mean that America will inevitably be drawn into new wars. This is utter garbage, as is the entire rest of his ridiculous screed. Spending a lot on defense does NOT have to mean that you’ll be drawn into irrelevant, unnecessary wars or nation-building projects; whether you get drawn into them depends SOLELY on whether you decide, freewillingly, to do so. Under Ronald Reagan, the US spent more on defense than it currently does, yet, Reagan (as Bandow himself recognized) generally refused to draw America into unnecessary wars, the failed excursion into Lebanon being the sole exception.

10) “There can be no sacred cows if the budget crisis is going to be resolved.”

But the US military budget has NEVER been a sacred cow, including during the last 4 years. During the last 4 years, Republicans agreed to numerous defense cuts, including the massive program killings of 2009 and 2010 (saving $330 bn), the ratification of the New START unilateral disarmament treaty in 2010, the Gates Efficiencies Initiative of January 2011 ($178 bn), and the massive defense cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act ($487 bn in the first tranche alone). Any claim that the defense budget is, or has ever been, a “sacred cow” is a blatant lie.

In fact, the DOD is so far the ONLY government agency to have contributed ANYTHING to deficit reduction.

Moreover, defense cuts are NOT necessary to balance the federal budget, as proven by the budget plans of Chairman Ryan, the Republican Study Committee, Sen. Toomey, and Sen. Lee.

OTOH, even deep defense budget cuts will utterly fail to even make a dent in the defense budget; even eliminating the military budget ($645 bn in FY2012) entirely would fail to even halve the budget deficit.

11) “On international issues Republicans need to rediscover the value of peace. For most of the campaign Mitt Romney channeled George W. Bush and John McCain. Yet conservatives once believed in peace. They opposed wasting lives and money on dubious international crusades; they understood that war threatened economic prosperity and social stability. If war became necessary they wanted to win and end it, not turn it into a permanent condition.”

But to have peace, it is necessary to have a strong defense – THE strongest military in the world. Yet, America’s edge is steadily sipping, and the defense cuts Bandow proposes would cause America to lose it even faster than will otherwise be the case. This will bring about war, death, and destruction, not peace. Of course, the US shouldn’t waste men or money on dubious “international crusades” or nationbuilding efforts, and wars need to be won and ended swiftly. But keeping the peace requires having THE strongest military in the world – and with Bandow’s defense cuts, that would be completely impossible. And BTW, George W. Bush was the one who signed the 2008 agreement with Iraq providing for the withdrawal of US troops from that country by 2011.

“Indeed, Ronald Reagan was horrified by the prospect of nuclear war and refused to be sucked into nation-building in Lebanon.”

But Ronald Reagan understood (probably better than anyone but yours truly) that keeping the peace requires America to have the strongest military in the world, and he built such a military after 12 years of disastrous defense cuts, disregarding peaceniks, pseudoreformists like POGO hacks and isolationists like Bandow and his CATO Institute buddies. Under Reagan, the Air Force got its first strategic bomber since 1962 and its first ICBM since the Minuteman-III, while the Navy built a new fleet of SSBNs and SLBMs and several new nuclear warhead types were designed and produced; development of the B-2 stealthy bomber was continued and 132 were planned to be bought, while the US military also deployed Pershing and GLCM missiles to Europe. THAT was what kept the peace and prevented nuclear war during the Reagan years. And sadly, Reagan DID initially get sucked into nationbuilding in Lebanon – a disastrous blunder that cost America 241 troops. To his credit, he reversed that mistake quickly. Moreover, Ronald Reagan DID intervene militarily when American interests required it. He was no isolationist, unlike Bandow. Listen to Ronald Reagan himself.

12) “The GOP also should insist on international welfare reform. For more than six decades Washington has subsidized the defense of Asian and European allies. All are now prosperous and populous. Indeed, the Europeans collectively have a larger GDP and population than America. It’s time for Republicans to admit that the party is over. The U.S. should spend less while its friends spend more — and they will do so only if the U.S. spends less. ”

Those are also blatant lies, as well as destructive policy proposals. Firstly, contrary to Bandow’s utterly false claims, the US would need to spend on defense as much as it does now (which isn’t really much, BTW – just 3.47% of GDP for the base defense budget) even if it were not defending any allies. That’s because all of the troops, equipment, and defense programs that the DOD has or plans to hire/buy would be needed to defend America itself even if the US were not defending any allies. All of the US military’s current nukes, ships, planes, ground vehicles, and troops would be needed to defend America itself even if it weren’t defending any allies.

Secondly, defending America’s allies is in America’s own national interest. If crucial allies like Japan, South Korea, or Persian Gulf allies are attacked (or succumb to) China, North Korea, or Iran, that would pose a huge threat to America’s own national security. (Threats to US security don’t stop at America’s borders, contrary to what isolationists claim).

Thirdly, many of America’s allies are poor (e.g. Central European allies like Poland, as well as some Asian allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam), and none of America’s European allies nor Japan could be called “prosperous” at this time – they’re all suffering from even worse economic problems than the US, due to the global economic crisis. They have even lower economic growth rates, lower GDP per capita, higher unemployment, and in many cases, higher debt-to-GDP ratios than the US. They’re not prosperous today. If they are, the US is booming economically.

They will not spend more on defense even if the US spent less and withdrew its defense commitment – because they can’t afford to, as they have even worse economic problems than the US.

And there’s a big difference between relatively wealthy Western European countries like Britain and France and poor Central/Eastern European countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania (as well as poor Asian allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam). The former could, in theory, assume more of the defense burden, the latter cannot, because they are POOR. Yet, these poor Central European states are actually America’s staunchest and most loyal allies, and at the same time, they face a direct threat from an aggressive, KGB-run Russia. Dumping them and leaving them to fend for themselves would not only bad for America’s national interests, it would be immoral. It would be a heinous betrayal.

Cutting America’s own defense spending will not change this. It would only make matters worse by giving defense cutters across the Atlantic another excuse to cut their own countries’ defense budgets: “America is cutting its defense budget, so we can afford to do the same!”

13) “This doesn’t mean “isolationism,” the all-purpose swear word against a traditional, constitutional foreign policy.”

It IS isolationism, no matter how hard Bandow tries to deny that. Isolationism is about dumping America’s allies, withdrawing all US defense commitments to all allies, and retrenching behind oceans in the vain hope that the crocodile won’t come to eat us. It’s the same old tired policy as the one the US tried before the attack on Pearl Harbor, with disastrous results. It’s the same old policy that led to WW2, with 60 million dead people and the destruction of two continents, and to the Korean War, which led to the destruction of the entire Korean Peninsula and the deaths of millions of people (including over 50,000 American troops).

The foreign policy that Bandow advocates is not “traditional” or “constitutional”, either. Isolationism, while practiced during the 1920s and the 1930s, is NOT a traditional American policy – the US has a long history of going to war abroad and intervening abroad going back to the days of Thomas Jefferson (at the shores of Tripoli). Then came the War of 1812 (started because the then War Hawks wanted to conquer Canada, NOT because of impressment as is usually claimed), threats of war to Britain over Oregon, the Mexican-American war (started because Southern planters wanted to conquer more land), the supply of weapons to France in 1870-1871, and the Spanish-American War.

The policy that Bandow advocates is not “constitutional”, either. Defense cuts are a dereliction of the federal government’s Constitutional DUTY to provide for the common defense, as well as the dereliction of the treaty duty to defend America’s allies. Treaties validly ratified by the Senate are the supreme law of the land, second only to the US Constitution.

Providing generously for America’s defense is not merely constitutional, it’s a Constitutional DUTY of the federal government.

14) “For instance, if Republicans want to promise a more prosperous future, they should promote free trade internationally.”

Also utter garbage. Free trade is yet another liberal policy which has brought nothing but damage to the US. It has caused the US to lose tens of millions of jobs (shipped overseas) and to run chronic, huge trade deficits with countries with which it used to have trade surpluses… until it signed free trade agreements with them or granted them Most Favored Nation status.

Pat Buchanan has chronicled this national suicide through free trade well.

Before 1993, when NAFTA was ratified, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico. Now it has a record trade deficit with it, as lots of jobs have been shipped south of the border together with entire factories. Before the US ratified the Korea-US FTA, America had a trade surplus with Seoul. Now it has a trade deficit with it.

Since Congress granted China MFN status in the 1990s, America’s trade deficit with that country has now exploded to the largest trade deficit between any two countries in history. America’s trade deficit with Japan is the largest ever between the two.

Every country that ever became prosperous and a world power got that way because it protected and nurtured its industry: France under Colbert, Britain under the Acts of Navigation and into the first half of the 19th century, Germany under the Kaisers, the US in the second half of the 19th century, postwar Japan, and China today.

Protectionism is the policy of ascendant economic powers; “free trade” is the policy of descendant, declining ones.

15) Bandow claims that his policy would mean “peace” and that Republicans need to make a new commitment to “peace”. This is utter garbage. His policy of deep defense cuts and isolationism (dumping all of America’s allies and ignoring the threats posed by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran) would gut America’s defense, pull the rug from under America’s allies, and in so doing, invite aggression against bo the US and its allies. By doing so, it would only lead to war, death, and destruction.

16) Bandow also wants Republicans to support even greater legal immigration, even though it’s a financial drag on taxpayers as much, if not moreso, than illegal immigration. The problem is not just illegal immigration – the problem is immigration, period. The vast majority of legal immigrants are lazy lay-abouts from the Third World who live on welfare (paid for by American taxpayers) and vote Democratic. (That’s why Ted Kennedy and other Democrats passed the current law in 1965: to import new Democrat voters.) The US needs to drastically REDUCE the annual rate of legal immigration (which is currently a million people per year).

Just as Americans ought to realize the perils of a welfare state by looking at Greece, they can easily realize the perils of unlimited immigration by looking at California.

As Ann Coulter rightly points out, massive immigration, both legal and illegal, has transformed California into a Third World country where whites are a minority and where no Republican can get elected statewide anymore. Not so long ago, this state produced great Republican Senators and Governors such as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Pete Wilson, and Ronald Reagan.

If Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two smart Republican women, one pro-life, the other pro-choice, can’t get elected statewide in California anymore, then it’s all over for the GOP in California.

Yet, Bandow is advocating that the GOP and America now commit national suicide by adopting an even more liberal immigration policy. If he gets his way, the entire country will have the electorate of California. And there will be no turning back.

Hispanic immigrants – indeed, immigrants in general – support a LARGER federal government with BIGGER “services”, according to Pew polls. This is not surprising, because the vast majority of legal and illegal immigrants come from socialist countries and have a socialist mindset. As conservative writer Selwyn Duke points out, their beliefs don’t change when they set foot on American terra firma. Thus, as Duke points out, the problem is not just “illegal immigration”; the problem is immigration, period.

In short, Bandow is lying (as always), and the policies he advocates are downright suicidal for the GOP and for the country. He advocates Republican and national suicide at home and abroad. Abroad, by gutting America’s defense, dumping all of America’s allies, handing these allies on a platter to aggressors, leaving the world for China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran to conquer and subjugate, and turning a blind eye to any aggression by these countries. At home, he wants the GOP and the US to continue committing national suicide by continuing and even expanding the suicidal policies of “free trade” and unlimited immigration.

Republicans must completely reject ALL of his snake oil. He’s not one of us. He’s not a Republican nor a conservative. He’s not even someone who wishes conservatives or Republicans well. He even explicitly says in the blurb and the ending of his article that the GOP deserved to lose this year to Barack Obama. He’s our enemy and needs to be treated as such.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/27/a-new-republican-agenda-for-th

The wreckage of the World War II aircraft carrier USS Hornet was discovered in late January 2019 by the expedition crew of Paul G. Allen’s Research Vessel (R/V) Petrel. Hornet was found 5,400 meters (nearly 17,500 feet) below the surface, resting on the floor of the South Pacific Ocean around the Solomon Islands.

A five-inch gun from historic USS Hornet wreckage, which was discovered in January 2019 by the late Paul G. Allen’s expedition crew aboard the Research Vessel Petrel. Photo courtesy of Paul G. Allen’s Vulcan Inc.

Hornet was best known for its part in the fateful Doolittle Raid that was launched in April of 1942, which was the first air-borne attack of Japanese homeland targets including Tokyo. Led by U.S. Army Lt. Col. James Doolittle, all the 16 B-25 planes that were launched from Hornet were unable to land at their designated airstrip in China, but the raid provided a boost to American morale and put Japan on alert about our covert air capabilities.

In June, Hornet was one of three American carriers that surprised and sunk four Japanese carriers at Midway, turning the tide of war in the Pacific.

The ship was sunk during the exceptionally vicious Battle of Santa Cruz Island that started on October 25, 1943. Hornetproved an especially determined ship over the next 24 hours. Enduring a relentless, coordinated attack by Japanese dive-bombers and torpedo planes, her crew was ultimately forced to abandon ship due to damage and resulting fires. She then defied American efforts to scuttle her with 16 torpedoes and 369 rounds of 5″ shells. When Japanese forces approached shortly thereafter and fired four torpedoes from two Japanese destroyers late in the evening on October 26, Hornet finally succumbed and slipped beneath the surface. She lost 111 sailors from her crew of nearly 2,200.

“With the loss of Hornet and serious damage to Enterprise, the Battle of Santa Cruz was a Japanese victory, but at an extremely high cost,” said Rear Admiral (Ret.) Samuel Cox, director of Naval History and Heritage Command. “About half the Japanese aircraft engaged were shot down by greatly improved U.S. Navy anti-aircraft defenses. As a result, the Japanese carriers did not engage again in battle for almost another two years.”

The discovery of Hornet was made during R/V Petrel’s first mission of 2019 after relocating from the Philippine Sea to the Solomon Islands to spend winter months in this arena. Operating out of Guadalcanal, the area is rich in history and prominence in terms of naval engagements.

“We had Hornet on our list of WWII warships that we wanted to locate because of its place in history as an aircraft carrier that saw many pivotal moments in naval battles,” said Robert Kraft, director of subsea operations for Vulcan. “Paul Allen was particularly interested in historically significant and capital ships, so this mission and discovery honor his legacy.”

The 10-person expedition team on the 250-foot R/V Petrel was able to locate Hornet’s position by piecing together data from national and naval archives that included official deck logs and action reports from other ships engaged in the battle. Positions and sightings from nine other U.S. warships in the area were plotted on a chart to generate the starting point for the search grid. In the case of Hornet, she was discovered on the first dive mission of Petrel’s autonomous underwater vehicle and confirmed by video footage from the remotely operated vehicle, both pieces of equipment rated to dive down to 6,000 meters.

Why would anyone consider a package loading job with UPS or Fedex?

As the economy drives more Americans into part-time work and the “gig-economy” UPS and Fedex look appealing as they fill a time slot that most other part-time jobs don’t.

I took a job as a UPS pre-loader to see if a UPS career made sense and I’ve decided to share my insights. As fair warning, these evaluations are only of the job at the sorting facility at which I was hired, your mileage may vary ?

See the rest of the ‘Gig Economy’ series:

• Part One: So you want to work as a UPS pre-loader
• Part Two: So you want to work in retail
• Part Three: So you want to work in food service (coming soon)

What does a job at UPS look like?

Anyone thinking of taking on a package loading job (called pre-loading) at UPS needs to know a few things:

UPS is one of America’s largest package delivery companies and employs 345,000 people in the United States.

The career path at UPS is divided into two major branches: management and non-management.

Both career paths start with unloading and pre-loading jobs unless you have experience in management or high-volume delivery truck driving.

Most people start as pre-loaders and that’s the job I took as an addition to my retail and other part-time jobs to pay the bills.

What does a UPS pre-loader do?

Pre-loaders arrive at the sorting facility anywhere between 11:00pm and 3:30am and work until about 8:30am. Pre-load typically starts at 2:45 to 3:30, but high-volume periods like the Christmas shopping season will push the start time much earlier.

Each pre-loader is expected to load three trucks. Occasionally, high-package volume or missing team members may require a loader to tackle 4-6 trucks.

Packages arrive at the pre-loaders area on a conveyor belt. The pre-loader is expected to identify (by label code), prioritize and load in the proper spot on the truck all packages for the proper truck. The packages typically arrive at a rate of one every 5-10 seconds for each of the trucks in a three truck group. That means that you must recognize, label and load a package in about 8 seconds to keep up.

What challenges does a pre-loader deal with?

This is an incredibly physically-demanding job. If you can’t manage 45 minutes on an eliptical or you think 50 pounds is heavy, this is not the job for you. You will be fast-walking with 5-50 pounds in your hands for 4-7 hours 5 days each week. You will sweat (and in the winter, learn to layer your clothing.)

The distance from conveyor to truck is only about 3 feet, but the trucks are as much as 20 feet long and the packages often weigh over 30 pounds with some over 50. Large and heavy packages create problems for the loader which they must solve in just seconds to keep up with the oncoming volume of other packages.

Packages are expected to be loaded in numerical order according to a 1″ x 2″ 3-letter + 4-digit label on the package. The truck is divided into areas by delivery numbers. The trucks have two shelf areas and an under-shelf floor area. The shelves are designated by delivery numbers.

The left shelves are 3,000-3,999 and 7,000-7,999 on the top with the 3k range closest to the driver’s cab. The bottom shelves are 4,000 – 4,999 and 8,000 – 8,999  with the 4,000’s nearest the cab.

The right shelves are 1,000-1,999 and 5,000 – 5,999 on top and 2,000-2,999 and 6,000-6,999 on the bottom with the 1k and 2k shelves nearest the driver.

Packages load quickly at the beginning of the sort. But as the trucks fill up, the pre-loader has to spend time re-arranging to make space so that packages can be loaded in the proper numerical order or in the proper spot on the truck. Time is everything and as the morning goes on, each package represents more time spent on the truck and less time catching packages at the belt.

A few times each morning, bulk shipments will arrive. These are large numbers of packages that show up one-after-another and are impossible to load fast enough to keep up with the conveyor speed. UPS rules allow the “securing” or stopping of the conveyor to unload these packages, but management frowns on any stoppage of the belt other than an emergency and you may get written-up for stopping due to a bulk or heavy package.

Loaders are expected to load the car “neatly.” Though with the speed of the incoming packages and the number of trucks a loader is responsible for, sometimes… they end up looking a little less than neat.

Breaks are considered irregular and you’ll only get one if you beg for it. If you work from 2am to 8:30am you should expect to be going full-tilt for all 6.5 hours. This gets much more difficult when the start time moves earlier and earlier.

What is the career path of a pre-loader?

You can expect to be loading packages on to trucks for at least a year. At that point, you will be given a choice to join the union. This is the effective branching of management/driver in the career pathing at UPS.

If you go union, you have chosen to either stay as a loader/unloader in the sort facility or transfer to full-time package truck driver once a spot opens up. That can lead to a feeder truck driving position if one of those spots ever becomes available.

If you choose to stay non-union, you can be promoted to supervisor (still part-time) and eventually management position if a position opens up.

Both branches are based on seniority. You have to do the time to get the dime .. so to speak.

How much does a UPS pre-loader make?

As of fall 2015, pre-loaders make between $10 and $12 an hour starting depending on area of the country.

As a new-hire, there is no vacation, no sick-time and no health benefits.

After all this, why even bother being a UPS pre-loader?

Pre-loading is either a temporary job or path to something better depending on your situation.

If you’re a college student looking for some extra cash with hours that don’t mess with your class schedule and social life, this might fit.

If you’re looking for a career and have no skills other than being physically fit, this job could get you there. Package truck drivers can make as much as $60k/year, but you have to put your time in as a pre-loader or unloader to get there. Feeder truck drivers can make $100k+, but you have to do your time on a delivery route. Be on-time, don’t make mistakes and work hard – the opportunities will come. You just need to have an idea about where you want to end up.

• Activists are at it again and blaming global warming for historic flooding in the Midwest.
• However, the science behind their claim is weak and not in line with the latest National Climate Assessment.
• Hundreds of homes are inundated with water and at least three have been killed in floods.

Some environmentalists and scientists are blaming global warming for historic flooding across the Midwest, adding to the long list of disasters eager activists link to climate change.

But is the scientific connection between historic Midwest floods and global warming very strong? No, it’s not.

A “bomb cyclone” led to sudden, devastating floods across the Midwest and Great Plains that left at least three people dead, according to reports. Officials say it’s the worst flooding in 50 years.

While most in the media largely stayed away, and rightly so, from connecting Midwest flooding to climate change, environmentalists were quick to make the connection, claiming the science was on their side.

Bill McKibben, a prominent environmentalist who made headlines protesting the Keystone XL oil pipeline,proclaimed “[s]cientists confirm climate change” was at work in the historic Midwest flooding.

The article McKibben linked to, however, only mentions a “changing climate” once, but does discuss the myriad of other, likely more important factors, that contributed to the massive flooding, like rainfall piling up over frozen ground.

The liberal blog ThinkProgress claimed Midwest floods were a “terrifying preview of climate impacts to come,” though the article relied heavily on comment from environmental activists.

“This level of flooding is becoming the new normal,” John Hickey, Sierra Club’s Missouri chapter director, told ThinkProgress.

Other environmental activists attacked major media outlets, like The New York Times and The Washington Post, for not linking Midwest flooding to global warming.

Environmental policy experts were quick to point out the lack of science behind such claims.

The 2018 National Climate Assessment (NCA) found that “formal attribution approaches have not established a significant connection of increased riverine flooding to human-induced climate change.”

Likewise, the NCA noted that “a variety of other compounding factors, including local land use, land-cover changes, and water management also play important roles.”

Land-cover was an extremely important factor in the Midwest floods. Heavy rain fell onto snow-covered, frozen ground. Rain and snowmelt ran off into already ice-covered rivers, which rose and sent massive chunks of ice downstream, breaking infrastructure and damming up the river.

More than 70 cities across Nebraska declared emergencies amid historic floods. Thousands of people across four states were forced to evacuate because river flooding breached nearly 200 miles of levees, CBS News reported.

The Mississippi and Missouri rivers also saw widespread flooding. Residents in western Illinois saw the worst floods in 50 years, according to The Chicago Tribune. Many homes in Holt County, Missouri were sitting in up to 7 feet of water from river flooding, The Associated Press reported.

Oddly enough, the Nebraska-based Omaha World-Herald got comments from two scientists who gave rather broad statements on the connection between global warming and extreme rainfall.

Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen said “the strongest storms are getting stronger with global warming” because warmer air has more moisture. Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann, creator of the controversial “hockey stick graph,” told the World-Herald that some studies show factors behind “bomb cyclones” are increasing due to climate change.

“There is evidence now in modeling studies that climate change is increasing these factors, supporting the development of more intense bomb cyclones and Nor’easters, packing tropical storm-scale winds and dumping huge amounts of precipitation (often in the form of huge snowfalls),” Mann said.

However, atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue shot back, saying that Hansen and Mann were giving generalized explanations of modeled climate impacts instead of gathering actual data on the flood event.

Listening to the President, his administration, some in Congress and several news reports, many would say the economy is recovering slowly but gaining traction. Seeing the economic data released today may reveal a somewhat more real reality.

The unemployment figures released this morning seem promising, but only in a vacuum. Claims dropped 24,000 to a seasonally-adjusted 297,000 for May. What the report doesn’t tell us is why fewer people filed claims. Was it because all of these folks have found gainful employment? Or are fewer people re-entering the labor market after having given up on finding a job some time ago?

Home builders are feeling less confident in a housing recovery. The latest survey of builders dropped to 45 for May and the April number has been adjusted lower.  Anything below 50 is considered “negative sentiment.”

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank’s business activity index dropped from 16.6 in April to 15.4 in May. New orders also saw a decline from  14.8 to 10.5 indicating that the pace of growth is slowing.

If economists’ data isn’t enough, two of the nation’s largest retailers are reporting disappointing earnings.

Wal-Mart reported the smallest sales growth in 5 years today. The report blames the harsh winter for keeping customers out of their stores, but then goes on to forecast a second quarter that will come in below analysts’ expectations.

Kohl’s reported their first quarter results today and missed – on both sales and earnings. The retailer showed a $13 million drop from the same time last year in sales and missed analysts’ expectations by $15 million.

At least three progressive Democrats have broken with their party to criticize President Donald Trump for his Wednesday decision to oppose Venezuela’s socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro.

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Ro Khanna of California excoriated Trump when he became one of several world leaders to recognize Venezuelan National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the country’s leader instead of Maduro.

The people of Venezuela have faced extreme economic hardship and crackdowns on their freedom under Maduro, who succeeded infamous socialist dictator Hugo Chavez. The Trump administration announced sanctions against Maduro Monday.

Omar is on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Gabbard has announced a 2020 Democratic presidential run.

“A U.S. backed coup in Venezuela is not a solution to the dire issues they face. Trump’s efforts to install a far-right opposition will only incite violence and further destabilize the region. We must support Mexico, Uruguay [and] the Vatican’s efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue,” Omar wrote on Twitter Thursday.

Gabbard also spoke out against recognition of Guaido by the U.S. Nearly 15 nations including Brazil and Canada have also recognized Guaido over Maduro, reported Bloomberg.

“The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela. Let the Venezuelan people determine their future. We don’t want other countries to choose our leaders — so we have to stop trying to choose theirs,” Gabbard wrote on Twitter Thursday.

Khanna, who is on the House Armed Services Committee, released the following statement on Venezuela Thursday:

The United States should not anoint the leader of the opposition in Venezuela during an internal, divided conflict. There is no doubt the Maduro’s economic policies have been terrible, and he has engaged in financial mismanagement and also political authoritarianism. But crippling sanctions and threats of military action are making life worse for ordinary Venezuelans, and the U.S. stands alone in its decision to impose economic sanctions against the Venezuelan government. We should work to support the efforts of Uruguay, Mexico and the Holy See for a negotiated settlement and end the sanctions that are making the hyperinflation worse. I plan to circulate a letter to my colleagues to the Trump Administration urging them to immediately change course in its policy toward Venezuela.

Meanwhile, Democrats like Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois sided with Trump on the foreign policy issue. Durbin said in a statement Wednesday:

Last year I visited Venezuela and found a country on the verge of political, economic, and humanitarian collapse. I told then-President Maduro that if he went ahead with a sham election under absurdly rigged conditions he would find his regime even further isolated and in question. Tragically that is exactly what has happened and why President Trump, Secretary General of the Organization of American States Almagro, and other nations in the region have appropriately recognized National Assembly President Juan Guaidó as the constitutionally appropriate leader of Venezuela.

U.S. action in Venezuela has also included $20 million in humanitarian assistance, reported the Miami Herald.

Maduro, 56, countered Trump’s decision by saying he would cut diplomatic ties with the U.S. during a speech outside his presidential palace in Caracas Wednesday.

Trump’s announcement came after Guaido, 35, declared himself the country’s interim president amidst “nationwide protests” Wednesday, reported NPR. Guaido is the head of Venezuela’s Congress, according to CNBC. CNBC also reported:

Venezuelan opposition sympathizers had been urging Guaido to assume the presidency since Maduro was inaugurated to a second term on Jan. 10 following a widely boycotted election last year that the United States and many other foreign governments described as a fraudulent.

Brazil and Canada have also recognized Guaido over Maduro. Maduro compared Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to dictator Adolf Hitler in a speech on Jan. 14 after Brazil recognized Gauido.

Wait a second! Didn’t we just go through this? Doesn’t this sound like déjà vu all…over again?

Let’s look back. Less than 20 years ago, in order to buy a home one had to meet certain criteria. That is: to have a verifiable job, have saved (yes, scrimped and done without to save) 20% to put down (certain qualified groups like vets could get loans with less down), and to have a history of paying bills in a timely fashion. It was a standard that not everyone could make.

But the government, your congress, in its infinite wisdom said, “Hey, we think everybody should be able to buy a home. After all, it’s the American Dream.” And Presto! They changed the rules. They told banks to accept less than verifiable job information. They told banks that people shouldn’t have to save money to buy a home. And they told banks that paying bills on time was an ideal, not a requirement.

And Congress said banks could offer low equity loans, creative financing, including interest only so that everyone could afford  to own a home.

Of course, we’re all for home ownership. But it comes with a price. Our family chose to do with less so that we could save money needed to put down on a home. We knew that there was a limit on what size of home we could afford. Common sense…and the mortgage company…dictated our price range. We bought our home hoping that the value would increase, but realizing that the five year balloon payment meant that we would have to refinance no matter.

But what happened? You know the story. Heck, it isn’t ancient history. The housing bubble burst less than ten years ago. People who couldn’t really afford to be in homes suddenly discovered they couldn’t make the payments when the real loans came due (the interest only and sub-prime loans only lasted so long). The market value of homes dropped and more new homeowners realized they owed way more than their home was worth. Many walked. Leaving banks holding the mortgages until the banks folded leaving, yes, you guessed it, taxpayers footing the bill.

After most banks were bailed out and scolded by the ‘smarter, wiser’ administration they went back to requiring certain criteria before they would loan money. A lesson learned. Or so we thought.

This week President Obama came out with a new proposal wanting banks to accept less than qualified people for home loans. After all, it’s the American Dream. You can read about it in the Washington Post.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed his pleasure on Monday for the impending Senate vote on the Green New Deal, Democrats’ expansive anti-climate change plan.

“I could not be more glad that the American people will have the opportunity to learn precisely where each one of their senators stand on the “Green New Deal,” McConnell tweeted. “A radical, top-down, socialist makeover of the entire U.S. economy.”

McConnell revealed in February that he will force a vote before the August recess, and the vote could be held as early as Tuesday, according to NBC News.

“The proposal we are talking about is, frankly, delusional,” McConnell said on the Senate floor earlier in March. “It is so unserious that it ought to be beneath one of our two major political parties to line up behind it.”

While Democrats have largely rallied in support the of the Green New Deal, it has been a wedge issue among voters for its radical policy prescriptions. With a goal of moving toward net zero emissions over a 10-year period, the proposal calls to “totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.”

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who introduced the resolution along with Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, attacked Republicans on Saturday for bringing her proposal to the Senate floor for a vote.

“The GOP’s whole game of wasting votes in Congress to target others “on the record”, for leg they have no intent to pass, is a disgrace,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “Stop wasting the American peoples’ time + learn to govern. Our jobs aren’t for campaigning, & that’s exactly what these bluff-votes are for.”

Two pseudo-conservative groups’ presidents, Ryan Alexander of “Taxpayers for Common Sense” and Thomas Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste, lied to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on February 5th.

In an attempt to fool the Congress into agreeing to deep, harmful defense cuts – whacking at the military’s muscle, not fat – they lied to the Congress by calling a host of crucial, desperately needed defense programs “waste.” This has recently become the Left’s favorite tactic in its campaign to gut America’s defense.

Instead of overtly saying “let’s disarm ourselves unilaterally and then everyone else will be nice enough to do so” or “let’s disarm ourselves; we don’t need a strong military”, most leftists – other than the most strident liberals in Congress – have shifted to labelling every defense program they oppose (i.e. the vast majority of defense programs) as “waste.”

This is supposed to justify deep, crippling defense cuts and to fool fiscal conservatives into agreeing to such disastrous cuts.

We conservatives must not be fooled by this. The vast majority of what the Left, including TCS, calls “waste”, are actually needed, well-justified defense programs – not just weapons, but also the facilities that support them and the troops.

Specifically, TCS lied to the Congress that the planned CMRR (chemical metallurgy research) facility (intended to produce plutonium pits, crucial components of nuclear warheads) and other planned nuclear facilities are “wasteful”, and that the programs targeted by TCS and POGO (which is funded by George Soros) are also “wasteful” and deserving termination (these proposals included the cancellation of the badly-needed nuclear facilities listed above). They furthermore lied that their proposals would save $800 bn (which they would not).

The reason why their claims are blatant lies is simple – because the vast majority of the defense programs they’ve targeted are not “waste”, but crucial, NEEDED, and well-justified programs. Specifically:

1) The CMRR facility is absolutely necessary to produce plutonium pits – crucial components of nuclear warheads – in sufficient quantities for America’s geriatric nuclear stockpile, which is long overdue for such modernization. The facility currently responsible for the production – the Los Alamos National Laboratory – is dilapidated beyond economic repair and in dire need of replacement, and its plutonium pit production capacity is woefully inadequate to sustain even a reduced nuclear arsenal of 1,000-1,550 warheads, let alone anything larger.

Likewise, the Uranium Production Facility is needed to produce highly-enriched uranium for America’s uranium-based nuclear warheads, at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These two facilities are NOT anyone’s pork projects – they are urgently needed national security priorities. They were both promised by President Obama during the Senate debate on New START ratification, and the requirement that these facilities be built was included in the Senate Resolution of Ratification of New START (and is thus the law of the land). The requirement for the CMRR facility was recently reaffirmed by the entire Congress in the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which passed both houses of Congress by overwhelming margins. Thus, the requirement for these facilities is the law of the land.

2) The Next Generation Bomber/Long Range Strike Bomber is an urgently needed replacement for the USAF’s B-1 and B-52 bombers, both of which have huge radar signatures and, as a result, cannot survive in anything other than benign combat environments where the only opponents are insurgents or primitive countries unable to contest airspace control. They cannot survive in any situation where the enemy has advanced (or even upgraded Soviet) air defense systems, such as the S-300, S-400, S-500, or even the SA-5 and SA-6. Any airspace defended by such systems, including that of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, is firmly closed to them.

Yet, the USAF has to be able to strike deeply into these countries, from over the horizon to be credible in any contingency involving them, or in nuclear deterrence scenarios. Today, its only bombers capable of that are its 20 B-2s. Such a number is woefully insufficient, due to the sheer number of targets among other things.

The requirement for an NGB has been validated by two successive Quadrennial Defense Reviews, successive Defense and Air Force Secretaries, Chiefs of Staff, other USAF generals (e.g. David Deptula and former CSAF Gen. John M. Loh), and numerous think-tanks and analysts, including the CSBA, the Heritage Foundation, and Dr Rebecca Grant. The USAF says the new bomber is an absolute requirement, that deferring or cancelling it would be “very high-risk”, and that it’s a crucial part of their mission (CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh). Indeed, the bomber is the central part of the AirSea Battle plan to defeat anti-access/area denial threats. Without the bomber, the whole plan collapses and the US won’t be able to counter such threats.

3) Kill the V-22 Osprey, which has proven itself in THREE different war theaters (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya), saving countless lives, delivering troops and supplies into and out of combat zones and accumulating over 150,000 flight hours. Marine pilots love it; the USMC Commandant praises and supports it; and it is twice cheaper to buy and operate than its proposed replacement, the CH-53. It can fly twice farther and twice faster than any helicopter. It’s needed to replace the C-2 COD aircraft, the USAF’s CSAR helos, and the presidential helo. Yet, TCS and POGO anti-defense hacks want to kill it.

4) Permanently cut the Navy’s carrier fleet to 10 vessels (by retiring the USS George Washington in 2016 26 years early) and eliminate an entire carrier group – not just the flattop itself. This would significantly weaken the Navy and undermine its power projection capability by reducing the number of platforms serving this purpose. Only a carrier or a long-range bomber can deliver strikes against enemy targets wherever and whenever needed without host country basing. With just 10 flattops, the Navy would have no more than 5-6 available for duty globally; this means either 2 for the Persian Gulf and only 3-4 or the Pacific, or just one in the Gulf and 4-5 in the Pacific.

5) Cut the Navy’s current and planned SSBN fleet to just 8 boats, which means only 4-5 would be at sea at any given time, i.e. America’s enemies would have to sink only 4-5 of them, while the rest would be in port, being easy targets. This would gut the naval leg of the nuclear triad.

6) Eliminate the DOE’s reserve stock of highly-enriched uranium for nuclear warheads. (See above.)

7) Cancel the F-35B Marine Corps variant (along with the Navy’s C variant), leaving the Marine Corps with no attack jets to fly from the Navy’s small carriers (amphibious assault ships) when its Harriers retire. As USMC Commandant Gen. Amos has said, this would cut the Marine’s combat aviation power by 50%!

8) Closing the Army’s tank production line in Lima, OH… when the Army’s Abrams tanks need refurbishment and upgrade, and when the Army plans to reopen the line in 2017 to produce Ground Combat Vehicles.

9) Withdrawing the remainder of US troops from Europe and laying them off (i.e. more jobless, homeless veterans), thus cutting the force structure further and significantly undercutting the military’s power projection capability, because units based in-theater, closed to the combat zone or area of action, are much CHEAPER to deploy and operate, and can react much faster and more effectively, than units based in the CONUS. (Similarly, one warship based in-theater, e.g. in Europe or Japan, is worth four warships based in the CONUS.) The principal reason why is precisely because they’re based in-theater – they don’t have to waste money and time flying in from the CONUS and then returning to the CONUS.

10) “Freeze” funding for the Ground-Based Midcourse Missile Defense system protecting the US from ballistic missile attack and not build any more such interceptors or siloes for them – whether in the US or anywhere else. This would leave the US totally unprotected from any ICBMs Iran fields in the future (it is projected to field them by 2015-2016).

These are just the most damaging, most crippling of the defense cuts that POGO and TCS have proposed. Implementing them would gut the military and make it unable to counter anti-access/area-denial threats – the most pervasive and ubiquitous threats the US faces today – because TCS and POGO have targeted the very weapons and capabilities needed to counter these threats.

Meanwhile, CAGW’s Thomas Schatz, while also lying that “the Pentagon is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse”, specifically targeted the Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS) for killing (the DOD has agreed but wants to complete the R&D phase so as not to leave taxpayers with no return on their investment).

While MEADS’s opponents falsely claim that MEADS would be ineffective and unneeded, it IS very much needed and has passed its tests. It is needed to replace the woefully obsolete PATRIOT system, whose radar can look only at 90 degrees, not all around itself (360 degrees) and has been less than spectacularly effective. Moreover, despite Schatz’s lies that MEADS program partners Italy and Germany wouldn’t mind if the US quit the program, the truth is exactly the opposite: their governments just recently sent the US government a letter warning the US not to withdraw from the MEADS program.

In other words, the claims of TCS and CAGW and their presidents about defense spending are blatant lies. By lying to the Congress, they have committed a serious offense, and they should be prosecuted and severely punished for it.

A 2016 interview with CNN President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen shows he appears to have lied during his Wednesday congressional testimony, when he said he did not want to work in the White House.

When asked by CNN’s Chris Cuomo if Trump would ask him to go to Washington D.C. to work for him, Cohen told Cuomo “I certainly hope so,” Cuomo followed up and asked if he would want to go, Cohen responded saying, “One hundred percent,” when asked about his future job, Cohen said “Hopefully it’ll be in Washington.”

WATCH: 

This comes after Cohen told the House Oversight Committee that, he “did not want to go to the White House, saying “I was offered jobs.”

CNN reporter Dana Bash called Cohen out after the hearing Wednesday saying, ‘he very much wanted a job in the White House.” Trump’s family also weighed in, “Michael was lobbying EVERYONE to be ‘Chief of Staff.’ It was the biggest joke in the campaign and around the office. Did he just perjure himself again?,” Eric Trump tweeted Wednesday.

Cohen is set to go to prison for 36 months, starting May 6 for lying to Congress.