Old reliable wood finish, shellac, is getting put out to pasture. Walmart no longer even carries it. Trusty local hardware store (Franconia Hardware, great place, they have everything) had a few cans on the shelf, but none were really fresh and the oldest can had been on the shelf since 2003. Shellac ages, and after some time (label on can says 3 years) it goes bad and won't dry, or changes color and looks funny.
I'm going to miss shellac. Its the second easiest to use wood finish (Minwax is the easiest) . Its much easier to get a good clear finish with shellac than with varnish, even the latest and greatest poly varnishes. It also makes a fine primer sealer, just thin it down with alcohol and it soaks right into the wood and makes the paint go on better. It dries fast so you could get the first coat on, dry, and recoated in a single day. It used to be cheaper than paint or varnish but that is no longer so. Both shellac and poly varnish are now about $10 a quart. Brushes clean up with alcohol followed by soap and water.
The only drawback to shellac is that it dissolves in alcohol, so a spilled drink will make a mark, and it isn't weatherproof, you cannot use it out of doors. But give it a coat of paste wax, and it is plenty good enough for indoor work. I have a desk chair I shellaced 40 years ago and the finish is still bright and clear.
There is probably some high tech replacement, but stuff comes and goes so fast I cannot keep up.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Is money (in politics) really everything?
The TV news gives regular reports as to who raised how much money. I'll grant that raising money is a good thing. If they give money, it means they want you to win, or think you are going to win, both of which are good things.
On the other hand, HUckabee had no name recognition, and no money and he is still in the race. He has a lot more name recognition now than he did when he started. McCain, now the Republican nominee (barring an act of God) ran out of money last summer, had to lay off most of his campaign staff, but he persisted, and beat Mitt Romney who had a lot of money, good looks, and more name recognition than Huckabee had.
Based on this, McCain can beat Obama even if Obama can raise more money.
On the other hand, HUckabee had no name recognition, and no money and he is still in the race. He has a lot more name recognition now than he did when he started. McCain, now the Republican nominee (barring an act of God) ran out of money last summer, had to lay off most of his campaign staff, but he persisted, and beat Mitt Romney who had a lot of money, good looks, and more name recognition than Huckabee had.
Based on this, McCain can beat Obama even if Obama can raise more money.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Live under regulation and then die
Good Union Leader column on the results of letting liberals take over the NH legislature.
44% of Americans change their church
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published this amazing figure. Could it be that this figure reflects a large number of interdenominational marriages? The married couple will attend the same church, which implies that either husband adopts wife's church, or vice versa. No way are husband and wife going to attend different churches, especially not after the first child. Since the couple was compatible enough to marry, it's fair to assume that their religious backgrounds are not too dissimilar.
A small step toward lower medical costs
The Supreme Court has just ruled that makers of FDA approved medical devices cannot be sued for faulty design. In Riegel vs Medtronic the court held that since Medtronic had jumped thru all the FDA hoops to get their device approved, the company may NOT be be sued for faulty design for the product. Passing the FDA approval process (which is a bear ) is proof that the device was correctly designed, because a large number of impartial (actually hostile) experts have checked the design and found it good.
One small barrier to the "deep pockets" theory of malpractice suits. Be sure to sue someone with money. Medtronics is a successful pacemaker manufacturer and has more money than the average doctor, so sue Medtronics.
We need to take this a step farther. Making and proscribing FDA approved drugs should not be grounds for a malpractice suit, even if the approval is later withdrawn. Drug Vioxx is the case in point here. The maker is fighting off law suit after law suit after the FDA withdrew Vioxx's approval. One of the reasons drugs are so expensive is that the makers need to make enough money to defend against every hungry lawyer in the country.
One small barrier to the "deep pockets" theory of malpractice suits. Be sure to sue someone with money. Medtronics is a successful pacemaker manufacturer and has more money than the average doctor, so sue Medtronics.
We need to take this a step farther. Making and proscribing FDA approved drugs should not be grounds for a malpractice suit, even if the approval is later withdrawn. Drug Vioxx is the case in point here. The maker is fighting off law suit after law suit after the FDA withdrew Vioxx's approval. One of the reasons drugs are so expensive is that the makers need to make enough money to defend against every hungry lawyer in the country.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
USAF buys Airbus Tanker
Yesterday, the Air Force awarded the new jet tanker contract to Airbus. USAF will buy 197 A-330 Airbuses fitted with fuel tanks and a boom. Boeing was the only competitor, offering 767's for the tanker role. Big surprise to have a major aircraft program go to a foreign company. Details of the bids, like cost per aircraft, and overhead costs are not available to me yet. Perhaps Aviation Week will have something in next week's issue.
The current USAF tanker is the KC-135, a windowless version of the old Boeing 707, or perhaps the 707 was a KC-135 with windows. The Air Force bought 600 of the KC-135's in the 1950's and 1960's. Winning the KC-135 job fifty years ago had a lot to do with Boeing becoming the only successful maker of jetliners. The 707 and the KC-135 were very similar and were developed at the same time. Surely the Air Force work on the sister KC-135 made it easier to build the 707. The 707 and it's descendants account for Boeing's success in the jet liner business since 1957. Douglas, Convair, and Lockheed all offered jet liners back then, but Boeing's planes drove them all off the market. Since the first USAF tanker contract was so important to Boeing, it is reasonable to think the second USAF jet tanker contract might be just as important to Airbus.
Giving such a massive defense contract to a foreign company is unprecedented, up til now the US armed forces bought everything from rifles to aircraft carriers from American companies. The contract award is bound to be challenged in Congress and in the courts. It will be interesting to see if the award sticks. Also how long it takes to work thru the various challenges. If the courts work as poorly as they have on the Exxon Valdez case, the Air Force may not see new tankers until 2030. New tankers are needed, the KC-135 fleet is fifty years old. Well built as they were, fifty years is a helova long time to keep flying an aircraft. They have to be worn out by now.
The current USAF tanker is the KC-135, a windowless version of the old Boeing 707, or perhaps the 707 was a KC-135 with windows. The Air Force bought 600 of the KC-135's in the 1950's and 1960's. Winning the KC-135 job fifty years ago had a lot to do with Boeing becoming the only successful maker of jetliners. The 707 and the KC-135 were very similar and were developed at the same time. Surely the Air Force work on the sister KC-135 made it easier to build the 707. The 707 and it's descendants account for Boeing's success in the jet liner business since 1957. Douglas, Convair, and Lockheed all offered jet liners back then, but Boeing's planes drove them all off the market. Since the first USAF tanker contract was so important to Boeing, it is reasonable to think the second USAF jet tanker contract might be just as important to Airbus.
Giving such a massive defense contract to a foreign company is unprecedented, up til now the US armed forces bought everything from rifles to aircraft carriers from American companies. The contract award is bound to be challenged in Congress and in the courts. It will be interesting to see if the award sticks. Also how long it takes to work thru the various challenges. If the courts work as poorly as they have on the Exxon Valdez case, the Air Force may not see new tankers until 2030. New tankers are needed, the KC-135 fleet is fifty years old. Well built as they were, fifty years is a helova long time to keep flying an aircraft. They have to be worn out by now.
Justice delayed is justice denied, Part 2
Back here I blogged about the 19 year welfare for lawyers Exxon Valdez case. This morning Vermont Public Radio ran an indignation piece about the same case. Only, VPR's indignation was directed at Exxon, who "lacked a corporate conscience" and "did not support the community", and is still contesting the court awards.
Not so. It is the duty of the courts to resolve disputes between parties. Allowing the Exxon Valdez case[s] to remain unsettled after 19 years is dereliction of duty on the part of the courts. Every judge in this disgraceful case should be impeached. A real court can made a decision that sticks, and make it on time, not two decades later. Obviously this case was not heard in a real court but a mickey mouse court.
It is the duty of corporate managers to make money for their stock holders. It is violation of management's duty to throw corporate money around rather than pay it out in dividends. Exxon management decided to spend for 20 years of lawyering which resulted in couple of billion dollars reduction of the company's fines. The judges allowed it to happen. Exxon sized up the courts and saved a good deal of money by correctly deciding that Mickey Mouse was the judge.
Not so. It is the duty of the courts to resolve disputes between parties. Allowing the Exxon Valdez case[s] to remain unsettled after 19 years is dereliction of duty on the part of the courts. Every judge in this disgraceful case should be impeached. A real court can made a decision that sticks, and make it on time, not two decades later. Obviously this case was not heard in a real court but a mickey mouse court.
It is the duty of corporate managers to make money for their stock holders. It is violation of management's duty to throw corporate money around rather than pay it out in dividends. Exxon management decided to spend for 20 years of lawyering which resulted in couple of billion dollars reduction of the company's fines. The judges allowed it to happen. Exxon sized up the courts and saved a good deal of money by correctly deciding that Mickey Mouse was the judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)