Last night Obama beat Clinton in Wisconsin. This makes him so famous that the TV people ran a 40 minute, uncut segment of Obama speaking live at a rally in Houston, TX. It was a fine performance by the best orator in the race. Thru the fine flow of superb rhetoric, I caught two things I didn't like so much.
He opposed standardized testing. That's a pander to the teacher's unions. Teachers complain that they are forced to "teach the test". As a parent, I want them to teach the material in the test, rather than wasting class time discussing multi culturalism, moral relativity, the unfairness of life, peace and justice, oppression of the American Indians, the evils of corporations, comparative worth, the evils of the Bush administration, global warming, environmentalism and other fads. I want the teachers to stick to reading, writing, arithmetic, and US history. For extra credit they could teach music, art, and geography.
He opposed NAFTA. That's a pander to organized labor. As a US manufacturer I like NAFTA. It gives my salesmen in Mexico and Canada a big edge over my Japanese and European competitors who have to pay a tariff that I don't have to pay.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Who needs a little cargo plane?
They call it C-27, it's a small transport, that looks like a twin engine version of the old reliable C-130. It is a 10,000 pounds of cargo aircraft, considerably smaller than the 40,000 pounds of cargo C-130. Range and airspeed are about the same. Short field capability (important to supplying troops in the field) is hard to judge. Somewhere on the web the C27 claims to operate off 580 meter (1500 foot) runway and the C-130 claims 660 meters (2000 feet). However there are pictures on the web showing a C-130 landing and taking off from an aircraft carrier, and those are only 1000 foot long. Apparently the Navy considered using the c-130 for carrier on board delivery (COD). Testing showed it was possible, but the C-130's wing only cleared the carrier's island by 15 feet, which is pretty hairy. The Navy went ahead and developed a special COD aircraft to reduce the pucker factor on their fliers. Price for the smaller aircraft is supposed to be $37.4 million whereas you can have a brand new C-130J for $50 million. In short 30% more dollars gets you a plane that carries four times as much. The only real justification for the smaller aircraft is better maneuverability. I remember flying down valleys in the old twin engine C-123 and the thought of doing it in the much bigger C-130 is kinda scary.
A Pentagon plan (not yet funded or even approved) would buy 78 C27's, give 54 to the Army and 24 to the Air Force. You wonder why they don't just give all of them to the Army. A single squadron of 24 unique aircraft doesn't make sense. Any aircraft worth owning is worth owning in quantity. Doing all the special training, both air crew and mechanics and buying all the special ground support equipment doesn't make sense for just a handful of aircraft.
A Pentagon plan (not yet funded or even approved) would buy 78 C27's, give 54 to the Army and 24 to the Air Force. You wonder why they don't just give all of them to the Army. A single squadron of 24 unique aircraft doesn't make sense. Any aircraft worth owning is worth owning in quantity. Doing all the special training, both air crew and mechanics and buying all the special ground support equipment doesn't make sense for just a handful of aircraft.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
How not to make a movie
They reran "King Arthur" on cable TV the other night. I watched it, (again) and decided it was a turkey (again). I had vaguely hoped that re seeing this flick would expose some hidden beauty that I missed watching it in the theatre some years ago.
The King Arthur legend is a natural for a movie. It's old, it has been a best seller for a thousand years, it's still current. Just the title is enough to sell tickets. But, somehow Jerry Bruckheimer, despite a couple of decent movies in his background, blows this one, big time.
Arthur, played by Clive Owen, fails to make the movie go. Movies are powered by the protagonist (we used to say hero, but that's sexist in these later days). The hero, a decent man, is faced with some great evil that he resolves to conquer. The movie shows us how he accomplishes this, with the climax, the vanquishing of the evil, being reserved for the last reel. The audience has to know, early on, just what the hero is attempting to accomplish. The movie only makes sense to the viewer if they understand where the hero is attempting to go. The hero's goal has to resonate with the audience, a hero attempting to become the world's nerdiest nerd won't cut it.
In the opening scenes we learn that Arthur's goal is merely to resign his Roman Army commission and retire to a comfortable estate near Rome. Not a world changing goal. Plus Clive Owens depicts Arthur as a mature man at his prime, way too young to be thinking of retirement, unless he is the ultimate slacker. Then a slimy papal legate demands Arthur accept a suicide mission for him and his men. Instead of telling His Holiness to take a hike, Arthur tamely accepts, even though the enlistment of his men is up, and they all expect honorable discharge from the army that very day. After some confused shouting matches, we see Arthur and his six knights set off on horseback. No where do we see Arthur saying anything to convince his men to go into the valley of death with him, he ends the last shouting match with a curt order, and off they go.
So, the hero is off on a quest, north into the darkness beyond Hadrian's Wall, with his knights, that makes no sense emotionally either for them or for the audience. Hardly something to put us on the edge of our seats.
On the quest, Arthur rescues the very cute Guenevere (Keira Knightley) from a dungeon. Arthur begins the relationship by setting Guenevere's broken fingers, by hand, no anesthetic. Guenevere gives forth the expected scream of pain. For the rest of the movie Guenevere throws herself at the uncaring Arthur with little visible effect. Guenevere has to slip into Arthur's one man tent after dark and drop her robe to the floor before Arthur so much as kisses her. The movie ends with Arthur and Guenevere's wedding, but we don't see Arthur propose to her. How can the audience relate to a man with so little passion?
Arthur suffers from too few armed men following him. In a proper movie, the cavalry arrives in enough strength to save the day. We, the audience, have seen enough westerns to understand how many cavalry men it takes to drive off the Indians. Arthur's six knights ain't enough to maintain order on a high school playground, let alone drive off Saxon armies numbering in the thousands.
So, we have a hero with no goal, no leadership skills, no interest in women, and few followers. Camera men who can't properly light a scene, knights of the Round Table wearing black motorcycle leathers instead of shining armor, and unconvincing props. And script writers who discard all the well known Arthur legend in favor of their own inferior imaginings. No wonder Hollywood is dying.
The King Arthur legend is a natural for a movie. It's old, it has been a best seller for a thousand years, it's still current. Just the title is enough to sell tickets. But, somehow Jerry Bruckheimer, despite a couple of decent movies in his background, blows this one, big time.
Arthur, played by Clive Owen, fails to make the movie go. Movies are powered by the protagonist (we used to say hero, but that's sexist in these later days). The hero, a decent man, is faced with some great evil that he resolves to conquer. The movie shows us how he accomplishes this, with the climax, the vanquishing of the evil, being reserved for the last reel. The audience has to know, early on, just what the hero is attempting to accomplish. The movie only makes sense to the viewer if they understand where the hero is attempting to go. The hero's goal has to resonate with the audience, a hero attempting to become the world's nerdiest nerd won't cut it.
In the opening scenes we learn that Arthur's goal is merely to resign his Roman Army commission and retire to a comfortable estate near Rome. Not a world changing goal. Plus Clive Owens depicts Arthur as a mature man at his prime, way too young to be thinking of retirement, unless he is the ultimate slacker. Then a slimy papal legate demands Arthur accept a suicide mission for him and his men. Instead of telling His Holiness to take a hike, Arthur tamely accepts, even though the enlistment of his men is up, and they all expect honorable discharge from the army that very day. After some confused shouting matches, we see Arthur and his six knights set off on horseback. No where do we see Arthur saying anything to convince his men to go into the valley of death with him, he ends the last shouting match with a curt order, and off they go.
So, the hero is off on a quest, north into the darkness beyond Hadrian's Wall, with his knights, that makes no sense emotionally either for them or for the audience. Hardly something to put us on the edge of our seats.
On the quest, Arthur rescues the very cute Guenevere (Keira Knightley) from a dungeon. Arthur begins the relationship by setting Guenevere's broken fingers, by hand, no anesthetic. Guenevere gives forth the expected scream of pain. For the rest of the movie Guenevere throws herself at the uncaring Arthur with little visible effect. Guenevere has to slip into Arthur's one man tent after dark and drop her robe to the floor before Arthur so much as kisses her. The movie ends with Arthur and Guenevere's wedding, but we don't see Arthur propose to her. How can the audience relate to a man with so little passion?
Arthur suffers from too few armed men following him. In a proper movie, the cavalry arrives in enough strength to save the day. We, the audience, have seen enough westerns to understand how many cavalry men it takes to drive off the Indians. Arthur's six knights ain't enough to maintain order on a high school playground, let alone drive off Saxon armies numbering in the thousands.
So, we have a hero with no goal, no leadership skills, no interest in women, and few followers. Camera men who can't properly light a scene, knights of the Round Table wearing black motorcycle leathers instead of shining armor, and unconvincing props. And script writers who discard all the well known Arthur legend in favor of their own inferior imaginings. No wonder Hollywood is dying.
Friday, February 15, 2008
No issues, Plead process to delay FISA bill
Lehrer Newshour did a piece on the failure of the US House to pass a new FISA bill. Steny Hoyer for the democrats and Somebody-or-other Hoogland (sp?) for the republicans got a solid bit of air time to explain their sides.
Democrat Hoyer didn't talk about issues he cared about, but he had a lot to say about "process". He had a lot of Not-Invented-Here talk, a lot of "we don't have all the paper work talk", more "we need more time" talk, but never did he mention the contents of the bill, or any problems with said content. In short he stalled, in public, on national TV. Made himself and his party look stuck on stupid.
Republican Hoogland did a little better. He explained that the telco's need immunity from law suits when they cooperate with intelligence agencies. If the telco's have to fight off 40 lawsuits for helping out, next time they won't help. Only the telco engineers know how to make the fancy electronic switches cough up the desired phone calls. Without telco support, intelligence agencies can't do anything. If the telco suits find out that cooperating just gets them in trouble, they will stop cooperating.
Hoogland failed to explain how the new bill was going to limit wire tapping to Al Quada terrorists and not authorize every two bit sheriff to tap any old phone just for the hell of it. All in all, a very poor public performance by both parties.
Update: Could it be that the trial lawyers want the opportunity to collect fees by suing the telcoes? After all the trial lawyers are one of the heaviest contributers to democratic campaigns.
Democrat Hoyer didn't talk about issues he cared about, but he had a lot to say about "process". He had a lot of Not-Invented-Here talk, a lot of "we don't have all the paper work talk", more "we need more time" talk, but never did he mention the contents of the bill, or any problems with said content. In short he stalled, in public, on national TV. Made himself and his party look stuck on stupid.
Republican Hoogland did a little better. He explained that the telco's need immunity from law suits when they cooperate with intelligence agencies. If the telco's have to fight off 40 lawsuits for helping out, next time they won't help. Only the telco engineers know how to make the fancy electronic switches cough up the desired phone calls. Without telco support, intelligence agencies can't do anything. If the telco suits find out that cooperating just gets them in trouble, they will stop cooperating.
Hoogland failed to explain how the new bill was going to limit wire tapping to Al Quada terrorists and not authorize every two bit sheriff to tap any old phone just for the hell of it. All in all, a very poor public performance by both parties.
Update: Could it be that the trial lawyers want the opportunity to collect fees by suing the telcoes? After all the trial lawyers are one of the heaviest contributers to democratic campaigns.
Record Crop Prices, Increase Farm subsidies
Wall St Journal shows crop prices up 100% since 2006. Places like China and India have enough money to buy food overseas, and biofuels are sucking up plenty more. Farm income is as high as it was during WWII after adjusting for inflation. On a raw basis, farm income is five times what it was in WWII. Business in good in the farm belt, farmers are buying new machinery, pickup trucks, appliances and remodeling farmhouses. Things are the best they have been since who knows when.
Same page of the Journal describes how much money the federal government is planning to spend on farmers. A $6 billion increase on an unspecified, but much larger, farm bill is acceptable to the White House and the Republicans. The Democrats claim $6 billion is too small.
Question. Why should farmers get any federal subsidy at all. What makes farming worthy of my tax dollars? Why not subsidize my company instead. Or steel or oil or semiconductors or autos or motorcycles or .... we all need money too. Who doesn't? Why do farmers get a free ride on my tax money?
The Great Depression has been over for 60 years, but the farmers are still raking in subsidies that were laid on to cure said depression.
Same page of the Journal describes how much money the federal government is planning to spend on farmers. A $6 billion increase on an unspecified, but much larger, farm bill is acceptable to the White House and the Republicans. The Democrats claim $6 billion is too small.
Question. Why should farmers get any federal subsidy at all. What makes farming worthy of my tax dollars? Why not subsidize my company instead. Or steel or oil or semiconductors or autos or motorcycles or .... we all need money too. Who doesn't? Why do farmers get a free ride on my tax money?
The Great Depression has been over for 60 years, but the farmers are still raking in subsidies that were laid on to cure said depression.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
CIA interrogations by Army Field Manual
Odd way for Congress to write a law. The law flat out says "Use only interrogation techniques in Army Field Manual". So what does this mean really? If Congress intends to outlaw waterboarding, why not just say "no waterboarding?"
Law, acts of Congress, ought to be declarations of general principles that don't change over time. The Army rewrites its regulations and field manuals nearly every year. Next year's edition might permit much harsher treatment. Does Congress want to delegate interrogation policy to a board of Army officers? A law saying "Use this manual" isn't general or long lasting.
Of course, a law that defines acceptable and unacceptable interrogation procedures in 25 words or less is hard to write. On the other hand Congress has thousands of bright lawyers in it and working for it and you would think they could do better than this.
Law, acts of Congress, ought to be declarations of general principles that don't change over time. The Army rewrites its regulations and field manuals nearly every year. Next year's edition might permit much harsher treatment. Does Congress want to delegate interrogation policy to a board of Army officers? A law saying "Use this manual" isn't general or long lasting.
Of course, a law that defines acceptable and unacceptable interrogation procedures in 25 words or less is hard to write. On the other hand Congress has thousands of bright lawyers in it and working for it and you would think they could do better than this.
Bonehead Insurance for Wall St.
Used to be, bankers were the makers of loans. The steely eyed loan officer would examine the borrower and his business and decide if the loan, if made, would get paid back. Then some of the steel went out of the bank backbones, and they started buying bonds. Then a bond or two defaulted, leaving the bank out of money. So the banks started buying "bond insurance". Pay a small premium, and the bond insurer would promise to make the bond good even if the bond issuer fled the country. The bond insurers only insured state, country, or municipal bonds which are incredible safe. The state, county and municipal governments have taxing power, they can always raise taxes to pay off the bonds and they cannot flee the country to avoid payment. Nice safe business for the insurer, you just collect the premiums and keep them. You never have to pay anything out.
Then the bond insurers started to insure sub prime mortgage bonds issued by brokerage houses. The steely eyed loan officers didn't have clue as to what such a bond was worth, but if they could insure it who cares? The bond insurers wrote trillions of dollars of such insurance, even though they only had millions of dollars to pay off claims. Now that the sub prime bonds are defaulting left and right, the bond insurers will be broke in another week or so.
Did the premiums paid on sub prime bonds do any good? If you are Merrill Lynch, worth trillions, why are you buying insurance from a smallish insurer with much less money than you have?
Then the bond insurers started to insure sub prime mortgage bonds issued by brokerage houses. The steely eyed loan officers didn't have clue as to what such a bond was worth, but if they could insure it who cares? The bond insurers wrote trillions of dollars of such insurance, even though they only had millions of dollars to pay off claims. Now that the sub prime bonds are defaulting left and right, the bond insurers will be broke in another week or so.
Did the premiums paid on sub prime bonds do any good? If you are Merrill Lynch, worth trillions, why are you buying insurance from a smallish insurer with much less money than you have?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)