Private sector creates wealth, Public sector consumes it

You hear democrats pushing for more public sector jobs "to improve the economy".   They bewail the sequester and belt tightening at the state and local level that has laid off cops, teachers, and firemen, and they claim that hiring more public sector employees will reduce unemployment and make the economy grow again.
    Trouble is, public sector jobs are a drag on the economy, they take money away from workers and businesses.  This money does not produce any wealth. Take too much and  the businesses have to raise prices, and the workers demand more money, which again raises prices.
   Back in Keynes day, it didn't matter.  Today, when prices go up, people buy from overseas sources (China) 'cause its cheaper.  Go to WalMarts, everything on the shelves is made in China.   Back in Keynes' time there were no overseas sources.
   Today, countries that burden their businesses and workers with too many taxes  find industry leaves their country for lower tax (also lower wage) overseas.
  Can you say "Shoot yourself in the foot"?

Provocative? who is provocative?

The White House announced that it will stop making nasty noises at the North Koreans for fear that we might provoke them.  Oh really?
   All official and unofficial (the MSM mostly) statements that I have heard on TV are super bland.  Never a threat, always expressions of regret.  We flew a few fancy warplanes into South Korea, but they turned around and flew back to bases in the US and Japan.  That's not provovative, that's the bare minimum of support given to a loyal ally, an important trading partner, and a good friend facing extreme pressure.  The North Koreans have denounced the 1950's armistice agreement, which is equivalent to starting up the Korean War again.  The South Koreans are understandable worried (probably scared too) and they deserve a tiny bit of US support.  Which is all they got.  Tiny,  emphasize tiny. 
   The North Korean's are vigorously stirring all sorts of pots, for reasons that make no sense to us.  When they get over their mad, things will settle down.  What we say and do doesn't matter at all. It's all up to the North Koreans. 

Can landowners shoot down snoopy drones?

It's a lovely day, warm and dry and sunny.  Friends and family are over and the barbie is hot in the back yard.  Suddenly a buzzy  helicopter drone with a  TV camera swoops over your backyard.
Question:  Can you take your shotgun and blow the pesky drone out of the air? 

How crazy are the North Koreans? Really?

Fox TV doesn't know.  They are beginning to think the NORKS are really going to kick off the second Korean War.  Which would be really crazy.  If they do it, they will force the Japanese and the South Koreans to go nuclear just to contain the NORKS   If the North Koreans actually nuke anybody, they will get nuked back.  They can do a lot of damage to South Korea, they have artillery pieces that won't quit lined up on the border, and Seoul, the South Korean capital, a major city in a class with New York and Chicago, is easily with in range of North Korean guns.   They could pound Seoul flat, inflicting a million casualties in a matter of hours. 
   Let's hope they aren't that crazy.

TV commercials grow funnier

The latest amusing TV  commercial has the AFLAC duck undergoing physical therapy,  swimming, arm and biceps machines, stair climbing and all the rest.  It's as funny as the GIECO gecko flubbing his lines filming a new commercial. 

Littoral Combat ships

Question:  What is a littoral and how do you combat it?   Most warships have names that suggest what the ship is supposed to do.  Destroyer, battleship, aircraft carrier, mine sweeper, and so on.  Even a land lubber can form an idea of what such a ship is supposed to do.  Where as combating littorals draws a blank, even among sea goers. 
   The dictionary defines littoral as seashore or coast.   So presumably the littoral combat ship (LCS) is supposed to operate close to shore.  In the old days such a ship was called "coast defense", but real Navy officers want to operate world wide and in blue water, and so "coast defense"  became perjorative (bad think) and we have "littoral combat" instead.
   The Navy wants a fleet of 50 odd littoral combat ships  and already has half a dozen in service or under construction.  They are small (2500-3000 tons) fast (40 knots) stealthy, and pricey ($440 million each) which is a lot of money for a small ship.  They don't carry the Aegis SAM system to save money, space, and weight.  Aegis is big, and effective and has been the standard anti air system on Navy ships for many years.  Without Aegis, the littoral combat ship will be in trouble if enemy aircraft appear.  LCS is armed with a single 2 inch gun,  enough to deal with a Somali pirate motor boat perhaps, but not enough to convince a regular merchantman to stop, change course, or obey orders, not enough for anti air craft work, not enough for shore bombardment, and certainly not enough to fight it out against an enemy destroyer. 
   LCS does carry a lot of other neat stuff, like a flight deck big enough to operate a couple of helicopters, a stern boat launch well to put Marine landing parties ashore, a dual power plant (gas turbines for the 40 knot dash and diesels for long range cruising).  The plating is all sloped to make it stealthy. 
    LCS doesn't have armor plate and is built to ordinary commercial standards rather than the tougher Navy standards.  The Navy has said the LCS is not expected to remain mission capable after taking a hit. A nice way of saying that one hit will sink it.  This is not unusual for a Navy ship, certainly WWII destroyers would sink after taking a solid hit. 
   I would feel better about LCS if they were cheaper.  A lot cheaper.  And carried a real gun. 

Rutger's Cans a Coach

Some coach at Rutgers is in trouble, as like getting fired, for using bad language and homosexual slurs on his players.  The Fox Five talking heads was hashing this over, some of them saying good  riddance, others are saying this is the wussification of America, winning coaches have to get in their athlete's faces. 
   That's one of those things.  There is a fine line between pushing the team hard to win, and being an asshole.  Without being there, and knowing the coach and the players, and listening to endless video tapes of practices, I  would not venture an opinion in this case.  
   Nor can I offer any rule of thumb to sort things out.  All I can say is coaches that I have played for or known, Tom Ludwig, Fred Swan, Col. Raiford,  John Roberts, were tough, but they were gentlemen.  I never remember them using bad language or  belittling players or impugning a player's sexual orientation. 
   The Fox Five would have done more good if they had attempted to spell out the difference between tough and pushy and being an asshole.