October 10, 2009 - October 3, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
IT OR NOT
. As I understand it, the nominations for the Nobel Peace
Prize were closed early in February of this year, a couple weeks after
Obama's inauguration. That's quick work, maybe even a Guinness World
Record on par with most consecutive hours of playing with a yo-yo. All
we can do here at InstaPunk is extend our congratulations to the
Obamessiah and, courtesy of Wikipedia
our readers a brief overview of the glorious tradition behind the prize
our president has won:
is a brand of snack consisting of caramel-coated popcorn
(caramel corn) and peanuts. It is also well known for being packaged
with a "Toy Surprise Inside" of nominal value.
1893: Frederick William Rueckheim (known to friends and family as
"Fritzl") and his brother Louis mass produce Cracker Jack and sell it
at the first Chicago World's Fair in 1893. At the time, it was a
mixture of popcorn, molasses, and peanuts and was called "Candied
Popcorn and Peanuts".
1896: Rueckheim devises a way to keep the popcorn kernels separate. As
each batch was mixed in a cement-mixer-like drum, a small quantity of
oil was added — a closely-guarded trade secret. Before this change, the
mixture had been difficult to handle as it stuck together in chunks. In
1896, the first lot of Cracker Jack was produced. It was named by an
enthusiastic sampler who remarked, "That's a Cracker Jack!"
1899: Henry Gottlieb Eckstein developed the "waxed sealed package" for
freshness, known then as the "Eckstein Triple Proof Package," a dust,
germ and moisture-proof paper package. In 1902, the company was
re-organized; Rueckheim Bros. & Eckstein.
1912: Prizes included in Cracker Jack boxes for the first time. These
attained pop-culture status with the term "came in a Cracker Jack box"
referring to an object of limited value. In recent years, the toy and
trinket prizes have been replaced with paper prizes displaying riddles
1918: Mascots Sailor Jack and his dog, Bingo, are introduced (though
they were not registered as trademark logos until 1919.
1964: The Cracker Jack Company is purchased by Borden after a bidding
war between Borden and Frito-Lay.
1997: Borden sells the brand to Frito-Lay.
2002: Frito-Lay acquires the bankrupt Nobel Prize Corporation of
Dumfukk, Norway, and adds a new line of cheap prizes to the Cracker
Jack product, the first one awarded to former U.S. President Jimmy
Carter for being the Number One Cracker Peanut Farmer on the planet.
Another recent U.S. recipient was former Vice President Albert Gore,
Jr., awarded a toy medallion in 2007 for gobbling down 68 boxes of
Cracker Jack in one hour, narrowly defeating champion competitive eater
What a world we're living in.
UPDATE 10:15 AM
Looks like this is a story that's going to keep on giving for a while.
On Glenn Beck's radio show, the host received a call informing him that
he'd been elected to the Astronaut Hall of Fame for his intention to go
to to the moon someday. The National
blog is close to 100 percent dedicated (much of it comically) to the
Nobel fiasco so far this morning, and ironically or not, Jonah
Goldberg's newest column
, written before
the Nobel announcement, seems hilariously pertinent.
So stay tuned. If further comedy ensues today, there will be more
updates.UPDATE 10:40 AM
Finally. An explanation that makes sense. Once again it's a
commentary, but that's what makes it so convincing. If Obama is Jesus,
he get the
Nobel Peace Prize pronto, ASAP, and PDQ? Right?
The Obama Burkha
Is that you in there, Mr. President?
Very pretty, if I may say so.
. Just playing devil's advocate here, but I was intrigued by
from the Green Room Ghetto
a while back, which seemed to make sense
at the time. Since my first reading, though, I've been tempted by
recent events to go back and give it a second look because what appears
to be antiseptic logic doesn't quite add up. The initial premise was --
and remains -- persuasive:
In the absence of a discernable [sic]
trajectory of purpose, a person’s actions may seem random,
unpredictable, and inexplicable. Why did he do that? Why not this?
What’s he going to do next? We haven’t a clue.
But sometimes, in a great flash, you finally see the pattern; and all
previous actions make sense. You can not only explain what he’s done in
the past, you can predict what he’ll do in the future. This is, of
course, why finding the appropriate pattern is so important: knowing
what’s to come.
Of course, more than one pattern can be constructed to “explain” a
person’s actions; it’s tempting just to grab at the first pattern you
invent… then start shoehorning every previous action into the pattern
you’ve picked, willy nilly, no matter how badly it fits. After a while,
the pattern begins to determine which facts you can see — and which
become invisible to you. We see this pattern of “pattern-worship” among
true believers in any ideology.
So to avoid that trap, it’s best to make numerous specific predictions
and use them to test, and when necessary, correct our
pattern-hypothesis. The predictions must be:
* Specific: This rather than that.
* Testable: This and that lie within our power to
check, both in theory and in practice.
* Dispositive: If that happens instead of this, then
our pattern-hypothesis is wrong.
So let’s test our newfound prediction regimen by observing our
president, Barack H. Obama, at work — and trying to find a
pattern-hypothesis that explains his actions to date and predicts what
he’ll do next.
Fine. I'm game. The writer, Dafydd AB Hugh, proposes theories to
explain what we've seen Obama do thus far. After listing a number of
perplexing Obama policies and actions, he starts setting out his
hypotheses. His first, an apparent straw man, is that:
Pattern 1 — Obama is secretly a radical Moslem, and he wants to destroy
America from within to pave the way for a sharia-state.
Now it’s true that this pattern-hypothesis could explain some of the
* His actions on the economy are designed to destroy
it, so an Islamic revolution can arise from the ashes.
* He kow-tows to Iran because he’s secretly working
for them. Same with al-Qaeda and the other Sunni terrorist groups.
* He sabotages the Afghanistan war because he’s on
the Taliban’s side.
* He hates Israel because Islam considers Jews the
But for the other facts, we discover ourselves banging square pegs into
* He pushes ObamaCare because he wants lots of
Christians to die, so that the 1% of the country that are Moslem will
eventually outnumber them… in about three hundred years.
* He doesn’t want to drill for oil in the United
States because he wants to send more money to support Moslem countries
like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran… all but the last of which
oppose and fight against jihadism.
* He opposes missile defense against possible
Russian missiles because if we have it, we might sell it to Israel, and
then they can defend against a Iranian attack. Oh, please.
Well, when you put it like that, maybe this premise is less likely than
sheer intuition might suggest. What's next?
Pattern 2 — Obama has always hated individualism, believing in the
greatest good for the greatest number; he has always hated federalism,
because states used that to justify segregation; he wants all power
vested in the highest level of national government and all governance
from the top down (with him at the top).
Well, this pattern might explain the economic and health-care policies,
but how does it explain diminishing American power vis-a-vis the
international political and military environment?
Another failed hypothesis-pattern...
With a second straw man out of the way, he gets down to brass tacks:
Pattern 2.5 — Obama has always hated individualism, believing in the
greatest good for the greatest number; he has always hated federalism,
because states used that to justify segregation; and he has always
hated nationalism, because he believes that’s what causes all the wars
in the world. He wants all power vested in the highest level of
international government and all governance from the top down (with him
at the top).
This pattern-hypothesis seems to fit all the facts pretty well:
* Obama’s stimulus backloads spending because he’s
using the money as both carrot and stick to control state and local
governments and private companies and individuals.
* He’s raising taxes because he wants to wrench the
United States onto the EurAsian economic model, thus to diminish the
control individuals and private corporations have over the fruits of
their own labor (they might spend it selfishly, while the national
government and international law will take from those who have too much
and spread it around to those who need it.
* He wants banks and other corporations to remain in
debt to the government because that gives him an additional lever of
control over them.
* He’s trying to bring American health care “up to”
the standard of the rest of the world (centralization, nationalization,
single-payer). And he’s staying “hands off” at the moment not because
he doesn’t care what’s in the bill, but because he expects to be the
final arbiter of the final version of the bill, the last link in the
great chain of power.
* He sabotages Afghanistan, kills missile defense,
and favors diplomacy over defense at every turn because he wants to
handcuff America’s “unilateral” military power. That way, all use of
force could instead be approved and directed by an international agency
— either the United Nations or an actual world government that succeeds
* He appeases our enemies because that’s how you
bring them into the International Coalition of Everyone; he’s
dismissive of our allies because they have rejected Obamunism and won’t
support him as the natural leader of the entire Earth.
* And of course he opposes any policy leading to
energy independence for the United States because his radical
internationalism demands that we become even more energy dependent on
He goes on to make some specific predictions that meet his testability
criteria, and I urge you to read them on your own. Because, while I
think he may be onto something with his third hypothesis, I'm having
second thoughts about his quick dismissal of Hypothesis 1.
A couple of current posts from the HotAir penthouse are somewhat
alarming in this context There's the sudden
change of mind about the Taliban
They’re looking for any way they can to
avoid giving McChrystal the troops he says he needs to secure the
country, so they’ve come up with a way out. If the people we’ve been
fighting for eight years aren’t the enemy, then the country no longer
needs to be secured from them, does it?...
[R]ather than eat crap by forthrightly admitting he’s prepared to
abandon huge swaths of the country to Islamist fascists rather than
invest another 40,000 troops, [Obama's] going to create an artificial
distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda to let him save face by
claiming he’s focused on “the real enemy.” Much like how he was focused
during the campaign on “the good war” in Afghanistan rather than “the
bad war” in Iraq. I wonder how long it’ll be before he decides that not
everyone who’s in Al Qaeda is an enemy either — or, better yet, that
AQ’s been “substantially defeated” or something, which has been the
unstated thrust of all those WH-leaked pieces in the press lately about
how weak Bin Laden’s gang has become. Why, I’ll bet in a year or so
we’ll be told that they’re so weak that we can start pulling out of
Afghanistan altogether. Things sure have improved over there since Bush
was president, huh?
Trust the Taliban? Okay. How do you feel about that in light of this
Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize on
a nomination submitted ten whole days into his term of office in part
due to his effort in “easing American conflicts with Muslim
nations.” Helming that effort is Dalia Mogahed, Obama’s advisor
on Muslim affairs, who gave British television viewers a taste of how
Obama won the Nobel. She explained that the oppressive shari’a
law that results in stonings, mainly for women, is actually “gender
justice”, which might be news to women’s-rights groups around the
Gender justice? Under shari’a, a woman’s testimony in court only
counts for half of that of a man. If a woman is raped, she needs
four male witnesses to prove her case. If she makes the
accusation and doesn’t find four witnesses, the victim gets charged
with fornication or adultery and faces death...
Instead of defending the rights of women and secular application of
law, which is the basis of our law, the advisor of the President of the
United States fails to answer a demand for the imposition of an extreme
religious code on free people. Mogahed also never rebutted the notion
that women should not hold public office...
Gesture Or Bad Decision? U.S. Cuts Funds To Iran Rights Group
by Andrew F. Tully
WASHINGTON -- The Iran Human
Rights Documentation Center specializes in collecting data on human
rights abuses that it says the government of Iran has been perpetrating
against its own people, ranging from unlawful detentions to torture to
In the past five years, the group has received about $3 million from
the State Department's U.S. Agency for International Development, or
Rene Redman, the group's executive director, reportedly was ready to
ask for $2 million more for the next two years, to be used to
investigate Tehran's harsh response to protests against the June 12
election, which many say was rigged in favor of President Mahmud
But this week the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center learned it
will get no money for the foreseeable future.
The funding cutoff comes as the United States is negotiating directly
with Iran about its nuclear program, which many Western governments
believe is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. It's the first such
contact between the two countries in three decades.
Do these developments entirely explain Hypothesis 2.5
, which postulates an
antiseptic if dim-witted allegiance to statist internationalism? Or do
they seem rather to hearken back to Hypothesis
, an irrational fealty to muslim sharia law?
That's when I revisited the objections to Hypothesis 1
. Do they really seem
so inexplicable as to deserve the "oh please" they were dismissed with?
* He pushes ObamaCare
because he wants lots of Christians to die, so
that the 1% of the country that are Moslem will eventually outnumber
them… in about three hundred years. OR:
He pushes ObamaCare because he knows it will bankrupt the linchpin
economy of the Christian west. Long life is hardly a primary value in a
culture that celebrates suicide bombers and other martyrs to the
prophet. Moreover, Europe is already demographically doomed, with an
average birth rate of 1.4 children per couple. In the imperial west,
only the U.S. still has a birth rate above 2.1; government control of
health care, including federal funding of abortions, can only serve to
drive this last outpost of christianity closer to the European example.
(And since when is 300 years a ridiculous timespan in muslim ambitions?)
* He doesn’t want to drill for oil in the United
States because he
wants to send more money to support Moslem countries like Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran… all but the last of which oppose and fight
against jihadism. But what if the
motivation isn't expressly political or short term? Again, crushing the
prosperity and independence of the western industrial economies is
hardly inconsistent with the ambition to weaken their long-term
capacity for military, economic, and cultural opposition to the rising
tide of muslim hegemony around the globe.
* He opposes missile defense against possible
because if we have it, we might sell it to Israel, and then they can
defend against a [sic] Iranian attack. Oh, please. 'O please' is is right. He's neatly
misdirecting our attention to a short-term tactical argument, away
from a much more sinister potential
objective. If the United States is withdrawing its umbrella of
protection from eastern Europe, it's also signalling an unwillingness
to protect other vulenrable allies like Taiwan, South Korea, and, uh,
Israel. Obama's giving free rein to the barbarians to do what they
will, including -- and probably hopefully -- Russian collusion with
Iran in the annihilation of the Jews.
Remember, I'm only playing devil's advocate here. But while I'm at it,
I have four more points that argue more strongly for Hypothesis 1
than Hypothesis 2.5
First, Obama is not behaving as if he really cares whether the American
people approve his policies or not. His conduct as president thus far
fits the template of vandal better than despot. He's delegated his
supposedly transformational, reform minded agenda to two of the most
inept politicians in American history, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
He's let them write the legislation in all their reckless vengeful
abandon, pursue every wild liberal idiocy the Democrat Party ever
conceived, sell out to every well-paying campaign-contributing special
interest, and defy a host of polls showing that Americans in general
don't approve of the contemplated massive increase in the size and
power of an obviously arrogant, out-of-touch, and runaway federal
If Obama were merely a canny leftist politician, he would
be handing down marching orders to Pelosi and Reid. Instead, he is fey,
vague, and detached. He doesn't
actually care what the legislative outcome is.
His purpose seems
to be chaos, crippling levels of spending (however achieved), and the
same kind of consequent deterioration in the American economy he has
already catalyzed in foreign affairs with his Apology Tour. To date,
his experience with health care is close enough to Clinton's that he
should be, if he really cared about reelection, moving toward the
center. Word is, he's not. Behind closed doors he's still
pushing for the "public
option," hyping the insane ambitions of morons like Pelosi. But he
doesn't do it in public. Why? Because his intention is
chaos, a state near civil war
within the United States. He knows
Pelosi and Reid are imbeciles, and he's happy
Second, the controversies surrounding his appointed advisers and
"czars" do not betray any consistent cultural bias except
chaos. Van Jones was an
avowed Marxist. Kevin
, the "safe schools czar," is an avowed homosexual with
creepy ties to NAMBLA. And Dalia Mogahed is an outrageous proponent of
Sharia, which would see to it that homosexuality is a death penalty
offense and feminsim as the Democratic Party knows it would die a
violent "honor"able death (or epidemic of honor killings). What's the
purpose here? The purpose of staffing the White House with polar
opposites whose only point of commonality is that Democrats will defend
them all to the last gasp and ordinary Americans will find them all
equally offensive? The answer is simple. Destruction of the common
belief in the virtue of American institutions that claim to care about
"the people." If we can be made to doubt that, we can be destroyed
Third. Who are
Michelle Obama? She's
that much of a mystery. She clearly hates
her country of birth, except insofar as it celebrates and kowtows to
her. She's not proud of the U.S., not grateful for her taxpayer-funded
power elite education at Princeton and Harvard, not even cognizant of
the need for (at least a show of) modesty in her current lifestyle
given the privations of a deep recession in the country as a whole. She
parades her sudden celebrity and affluence like a braindead sitcom
But Barack Obama is
mystery. We elected him president without knowing much of anything
about him. We'd know more about a junior-grade marketing manager hired
at the firm we work for. We'd know his SATs and GPA. We'd know his
college major and courses. We'd be able to make calls to confirm or
refute the truth of his claimed work history. We could have long talks
with his references. Except that in Barack Obama's case, we can't do or
know any of these things. He won't allow it. Raw data aside, every
intimate of Barack Obama is ultimately dismissed as a mere
acquaintance, a chance meeting, a cordial misfire that has no real
meaning in the arc of his life. Right. In the course of becoming the
most famous man on earth, he's been transformed into a fucking phantom
without mentors, friends, or confidants. He's either a god beyond the
need for human contact or a cipher who uses and ultimately dispenses
who helps him
along the way.
What do we know
president of the United States? Not enough to dismiss the wildest
implications and possibilities of this post. And that's a fact. It's
impossible to disprove
possibility that he's a muslim Manchurian candidate. That's the biggest
scandal of all. Nobody
tell me definitively that this scary devil's advocacy position is
absolutely wrong. Which leads me to...
Fourth. The radical muslim interpretation is not one
wild hare. It's two. Which
should give everyone pause. There's a circling back that should make
people queasy. He migrated to Indonesia as a child, where the evidence
suggests he attended a muslim school as a muslim. That's not hard to
understand by itself. One can outgrow early influences. But what if one
outgrow early influences? He returned to the United States,
clambered onto the most positive track anyone could hope to follow, and then
found his way back to not just anti-American influences like Bill Ayers
but much more problematic leading lights like Reverend Wright, who
preached a perverse version of Christianity that found common cause
with frankly religio-racial organizations like the Nation of Islam. The
Reverend Wright was(is) an admitted admirer of Louis Ferrakhan. What
was Obama doing in Wright's church? Is he really a Christian? Or is he
a little known species of revolutionary we might term an "African Black
Muslim"? Think about it.
I'll close with two equivocal pieces of evidence. Michelle Malkin is
all upset about White
House art acquisitions
which suggest that the Obamas admire plagiarist
. I don't care about that. Plagiarism is a
way of life for female artists. What I do care about is the art they've
imported to the White House that shows their real disposition with
regard to promulgating trans-racialism. There's an artist named Glenn Ligon
of whose works they've chosen as emblematic of African-American
contributions to the American canon that belong in the White House. Do
they seem trans-racial to you?
Maybe you didn't get the drift. Here are more of Glenn
Is this what you think art is? I don't. I think art is something (to be
for once) you could put on your living room wall and look at with love,
admiration, curiosity, sensuality, and inspiration for years...) I'm
sorry. I don't think the Obamas love art
I think they hate us
. For being white. I think this one
existential fact distorts their entire esthetic and emotional
experience of life. Is that a racist thing for me to say? No more racist than their choice of these
paintings to stare at. I suspect
that Barack and Michelle are Black Muslims. Their preference for art that
contains no love or passion or affectionate representationalism
contributes to my suspicion. They don't love life. They resent their
lot in life. Which will never ever change. What greater definition of
despair could you imagine than an Affirmative Action Nobel Peace
Prize? The ultimate proof that history will never treat you as anything
greater than a second-rater thrust into celebrity and praised unto
death by eternally patronizing superiors.
Some other black president could have survived this. Obama won't. The
one pitiful constant about him is his desperate desire to fit in, to be
approved. Everyone should read this psychological
of Barack Obama. It makes sense for a Manchurian candidate
but not for a rising despot:
Elect a Beta Male As President?
By Greg Lewis
We're all somewhat familiar with the body language dogs display when
they greet each other. The dominant alpha male approaches directly,
asserting his authority, while the beta male genuflects, crouches,
tucks his tail, and may even end up on his back, exposing his neck in
acquiescence, making sure the alpha male knows he has no intention of
challenging him. With his "we will extend a hand if you are willing to
unclench your fist" opening to the world's dictators, the President is
exhibiting classic beta male behavior, in essence rolling over on his
back and exposing his throat to them to make sure they know he has no
intention of challenging their authority.
Of course, the problem is that he's not simply exposing his throat,
he's exposing America's collective throat, sending the message that
he's a typical beta male intent on submitting to all the alpha male
leaders around the world, and damn the consequences. His response to
the discovery of Iran's newest, and heretofore "secret," nuclear
facility was, as Daniel Henninger (Wall Street Journal, October 1,
2009) points out, to have our State Department offer to start a direct
dialogue with the tyrannical Burmese regime.
The Obama administration has also offered conciliatory gestures to the
genocidal Sudanese leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir, and it has dispatched
none other than John Kerry to meet with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
This, of course, is not to mention his somewhat more visible overtures
to the world's alpha male thugs: Obama has consorted jovially with Hugo
Chavez and his counterpart Daniel Ortega, he's bowed down to King
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, he's agreed to halt plans to install a
missile defense system in eastern Europe to placate Vladimir Putin, and
he's offered the aforementioned hand to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite
the latter's expressed unwillingness to even agree to acknowledge the
truly important issue of Iran's nuclear weapons in our talks, all
quintessential beta male behaviors.
While we've all been seeking a political rationale for the president's
actions, his behavior goes beyond the political to something deeper and
more personal: like all beta males, Barack Obama simply does not have
the temperament to confront tyrannical alpha males around the globe. In
this light, even his inability to work with American allies Gordon
Brown and Nikolas Sarkozy is a function of his being incapable of
facing down the world's tyrants: to cooperate with our allies would
require Obama to display alpha male behaviors, including demonstrating
courage, something he's simply not capable of doing. The president's
beta-male proclivities are arguably putting the safety of his
constituents, the citizens of our country, in serious jeopardy.
Another cue to this unfortunate character trait of the president's can
be found in the lack of assertiveness of his oratorical style. While
many people insist that Barack Obama is a wonderful speaker, in fact,
he exhibits less emotional range when he addresses a crowd than his
predecessor, George W. Bush, did. He may have better speechwriters than
W, but his delivery is monotonic and his cadences clipped, both signs
of a beta male, unsure of himself, putting his words out there more for
the purpose of seeking approval than of providing leadership.
The president's characteristic head tilt when he's speaking to an
audience or having to deal with a tough question when he's being
interviewed (although there are certainly very few instances of his
having to do this) is another sign of submissive behavior. It crops up
less than a minute in during an interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly
(YouTube - Barack Obama Interview With Bill O'Reilly Sept 4, 2008 - FNC
) in answer to O'Reilly's question, "Do you believe we're in a war on
terror?" After an initial "Absolutely," the Candidate begins to hedge,
his head tilts as he explains the difficulty in sorting out the good
guys from the bad guys in the Middle East. Like beta males everywhere,
Obama is not about to commit to words that he might have to back up
with assertive action.
Being a beta male is all about developing strategies for deflecting
aggression, and for this reason, beta males do have an important place
in society. Within the confines of a social unit, beta-male behavior
can help to defuse aggression and maintain domestic peace. But in a
world where other nations' alpha-male leaders are constantly probing
for even the smallest signs of weakness, having a beta male president
has thrown into stark relief the dangers to which this president's
unfortunate character trait is exposing his country.
To return to the canine metaphor: It's the height of folly to think
that other nations won't be doing everything they can to make President
Obama their bitch.
So Obama bows to the King of Saud. He laughs and bluffs his way through
a confrontation with Chavez. What will he do face to face with Putin or
Ahdumjihad? What if he's not
really one of us but one of them
? And a Beta to boot? Maybe he's a man in a burkha
concealed from us and perpetually obedient to his, uh, Prophet? What if
is a duty he learned in childhood? What if his ineffable 'manner' is
really synonymous with his abstract bitch burkha? And Muhammed is doing
him all night and all day.
How much trouble are we in? As I said, devil's advocate. I confidently
await your convincing rebuttals...
Thursday, October 08, 2009
The wind was gusting to 40 mph yesterday morning and everything upright
outside was falling over, so Mrs. CP and I decided it would a fine time
to stand on the deck of a ship and try not to get blown overboard. The
official commissioning will be on the 10th, but the USS Wayne E. Meyer
has already been in Philadelphia for a week, open to visitors at
They showed us a video before herding us up the gangplank, and I'm sure
it was instructive but my view was obscured by a young dad wearing a
Naval Academy sweatshirt and holding a wriggling young future sailor on
his lap. I didn't mind, but I had to look
the ship particulars after I got home. The following apply to
all ships in the Arleigh Burke class of AEGIS destroyers:
Propulsion: Four General Electric LM
2500-30 gas turbines; two shafts, 100,000 total shaft horsepower.
Length: Flights I and II (DDG 51-78): 505 feet (153.92 meters)
Flight IIA (DDG 79 AF): 509½ feet (155.29 meters).
Beam: 59 feet (18 meters).
Displacement: DDG 51 through 71: 8,230 L tons (8,362.06 metric tons)
full load DDG 72 through 78: 8,637 L tons (8,775.6 metric tons) full
load DDG 79 and Follow: 9,496 L tons (9,648.40 metric tons) full load.
Speed: In excess of 30 knots.
Armament: Standard Missile (SM-2MR); Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA)
missiles; Tomahawk®; six MK-46 torpedoes (from two triple tube
mounts); Close In Weapon System (CIWS), 5” MK 45 Gun, Evolved Sea
Sparrow Missile (ESSM) (DDG 79 AF)
Aircraft: Two LAMPS MK III MH-60 B/R helicopters with Penguin/Hellfire
missiles and MK 46/MK 50 torpedoes.
Additional specifics about the Meyer are at the ship's own website
The USS WAYNE E. MEYER (DDG 108) [is] a
Flight IIA variant of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer
incorporating a helicopter hangar facility into the original
design. The ship can carry two SH-60B/R Light Airborne
Multipurpose System MK III helicopters. Guided-missile destroyers
operate independently and in conjunction with carrier battle groups,
surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups.
They let us into the combat control center, but politely reminded us
that if we took any pictures there we'd be choppered immediately to
Gitmo. It wasn't till after the tour, when Mrs. CP and I were
courteously ordered to get the hell off the vast Penn's Landing plaza
alongside the ship, that she made her joke about promising not to bomb
the Navy's newest destroyer. Thank God for the wind. I don't think the
security guy heard her.
All in all, a GOOD day.