What is the US trying to say about North Korea?

The TV news is carrying the story that the North Koreans may indeed have nuclear warheads for their missiles.  The story comes out of the US defense department. 
   Truth or falsity of this report is unknown.  I doubt that CIA has any agents in the north.  NSA has probably cracked North Korean codes,  so we know what the North Koreans have put out over the air.  But how much would a top secret project in a paranoid state like North Korea put out over the air?  Korean CIA ought to have some agents in the North.  The North Koreans could have their own Rosenburgs passing information to the South, but who knows?  South Korean intelligence is probably smart enough to keep such an agent secret if they actually have one. 
   But, when the US defense department puts out the story, we give the story credence that it wouldn't otherwise have.  Why do we do that?  Are we trying to make the North Koreans look even more dangerous?   Practical minded Americans wouldn't mind a pre emptive strike against a truly dangerous enemy.  Up until now, practical minded Americans have discounted the North Koreans, we beat them once, we could do it again, and they know it.  We don't  want to react to North Korean name calling.  We don't think they are dangerous enough to justify a pre emptive strike, at least not right now. 
    If we think they have nuclear tipped missiles, that actually work, that attitude might change. 
    The Obama administration surely doesn't want a military confrontation with anyone,  certainly not the North Korean's and their sizable army.  Why would they release such a provocative report?
    May be a leak?  We have Secretary of Sate on Fox TV denying that report at this very moment. 

Annette Funicello

News of Annette's death hit me harder than I would have thought.  Firstly, it makes me feel older than a stone.  I remember Annette on the Mouse Club.  In those days that was the only TV show in the late afternoon that any self respecting kid would watch.  Annette was so pretty, so vivacious, she made the show.  Like most of my peers I had a crush on Annette.  And she was real.  Plenty of girls  had the hair color, the complexion, and the figure to look like Annette, she represented a real girl that one might, with luck, date and even marry.  The great movie actresses of the day were beautiful and all, but no girl in my high school had the peaches and cream complexion, the blonde hair, the figure, that Marilyn Monroe or Jayne Mansfield had.  And from a high school boy's perspective, they were old, old enough to be your mother, whereas Annette was just our age. 
   There were no scandals associated with Annette to shame her fans.  She didn't pose for nude photographs, she didn't get sent to drug rehab, she didn't have eating disorders, she didn't speed around her neighborhood in a Ferrari and get into altercations with the neighbors, she didn't show off her tattoos. 
   I'm sorry that the MS made her latter days miserable, and I'm sorry that she is no longer with us. 

Can't Stand AARP? Try AMAC instead

After AARP lobbied in favor of Obamacare, many of us decided we would never deal with AARP ever again.  To take advantage of this wide spread sentiment, this morning I received a bit of junk mail from "The Conservative Alternative to AARP,  the Association of Mature American Citizens". 
   Never heard of them before, but the pitch is cute.   Only $6 bucks, send us your contact information, and we will do wonderful things.
   It's crumpled up under the fireplace grate, to light my next fire. 

You can tell the amateurs from the pros

By how they hold their guns.  Watching TV clips from Syria, with young Arab guys showing off, firing light machine guns from the hip.  Looks cool and all, but anyone with actual shooting experience knows that you have to aim the gun in order to hit anything.  I learned that when I was 12 years old, shooting 22 rimfire at summer camp.  I guess they don't have summer camp in Syria. 
   

Milk not sweet enough?

Making the TV news, some dairies want to add aspartame to milk, and not mention same on the milk bottle label.  Fox is running an interview with a sincere looking dairy farmer, out in the barn, surrounded by contented cows, explaining why he would never ever add artificial sweeteners to his milk.
   So what is really going on here?  Milk is tasty and sweet. Even as a child milk tasted good and we drank as much of it as Mom would allow.  Mom never served chocolate milk, just the plain white stuff, and as kids we lapped it up.
   So why would a dairy want to sweeten an already sweet product more?   Could it be their cows were giving really horrible tasting milk?   The pasture is full of garlic and wild onions, adding a strange taste to the milk that needs aspartame to cover up?
   Do they think children like things really really sweet and they can increase sales by selling super sweet milk?  Don't they realize that milk is purchased by mothers, not kids, and mothers will buy natural and wholesome whether the kids like it or not? 
   Personally I like ingredient labeling laws so when I care, I can find out what's in it.  Seems reasonable to require dairies to list aspartame, and any thing else that's inside a milk bottle. 

College Stabbing Outbreak

With an Xacto knife???    Even though I managed to put a nasty slice into my thumb with a #11 Xacto blade the other day, it's hard to take an Xacto knife as a serious weapon.  The perp in this case admitted to having fantasies of stabbing people since elementary school.  How does one have fantasies with a plastic handle?  What ever happened to Excaliber, bowie knives, switch blades, KaBar, Gerber, or even cut throat razors? This perp clearly runs to low speed fantasies.  Probably just as well, if he had used a real knife he might have killed someone.

Things sure change fast around here

This morning the Economist was doing a reader survey to find out how we readers would react to the end of Saturday mail delivery.  The Economist arrives on Saturday as often as not.  They take adventage of the fact that little news occurs on weekends to keep their news fresh.  Either they arrive on Monday instead of Saturday, making their news two days older, or the change their publishing schedule.
   Not a couple of hours after filling in the Saturday delivery survey, do I read an AP news article indicating that US snailmail is backing off, and will keep Saturday delivery after all.   So much for all the Economist's planning ahead.
   According to the AP, USPS needs Congressional approval to cancel Saturday delivery and has finally wised up to the fact that they ain't gonna get that approval.  Nor are they gonna get the OK to close any post offices.
   Dunno what's gonna happen.  USPS is losing money, Congress won't let 'em cut service. I guess postal rates are going up again.  Right now mailing out the month's bills costs $10-20 in postage.  Maybe it's time to start paying the bills on the web?