Baby, it's cold up here

Mid August.  It's so cold my furnace has been cutting in late at night.  In August.  Helova lotta rain.  No burmuda shorts warm days.  It's so cold I am wearing a fleece inside the house.  Coldest August I can remember, and I can remember a long ways back.  Must be global warming. 

So what should we do about ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State?

Obama is talking about "containment".  He hasn't explained what he means by that, but he probably means doing as little as possible,  drop a few bombs on 'em when they take the offensive, otherwise do little or nothing. 
  ISIS  has made their plans clear.  Take over the entire Middle East, turn it into an Islamic caliphate, drive out or exterminate Jews, Christians, Shia, Yazidi, anyone who doesn't buy their particular flavor of Islam. 
  I don't think "containment" is gonna cut it.  I think we need to put an end to ISIS.  This could be expensive.   I did a combat tour with USAF in SouthEast Asia during the Viet Nam war.  Both my younger brothers did combat tours with the Marines in South Viet Nam.  My family knows how expensive and deadly a war against ISIS will be.   We don't look forward to doing it. 
  If we don't do ISIS now, they will do us as soon as they get their act together.  If we are gonna do a war with ISIS, druther do it in the Middle East than in Brooklyn.  I don't know just what they will do, the airplane trick probably won't work for 'em a second time, but they will think of something.  They might get nukes from the Iranians, or the Russkis, they might think of something brand new. 
    Right now, a couple of US divisions could wipe out ISIS.  That's nothing.  We raised 100 divisions to do WWII. 

Words of the Weasel Part 36

Degrade.  As is "we degraded the Taliban/ISIS/Al Quada/whoever".   It means we flew some air strikes, we saw the bombs detonate, we put on a good fireworks show.  But we didn't really hurt them. 

Samuel Elliot Morison

A remarkable historian.  He, and Henry Steele Commager wrote "Growth of the American Republic", the standard college textbook of American history.  Morison knew nearly everybody, from Wilson, to Roosevelt, Ernie King, Douglas McArthur, many more.  He was a reserve Navy officer.  During WWII he was aboard a carrier at Midway, aboard the Torch invasion fleet, and a lot of other places too.  After the war he single handedly wrote the US Navy official war history (in a dozen volumes).  The Navy was so pleased with the work that they promoted him to Rear Admiral, a very high rank for a reservist. He also wrote "The Oxford History of the American People, one volume of 1100 pages.  A copy turned up at a local yard sale, and I bought it. 
   It reads remarkably well.  It goes all the way, unlike the US history taught in public school which always quit right after the civil war. Morison takes it right up to 1963 (Kennedy's assassination) which was current events at the time he was writing (1965).  Morison knows and tells all the great stories, and there are a lot of 'em.  He also doesn't hesitate to editorialize.  You learn that he was a New Deal democrat, from his favorable treatment of the New Deal, and his fair, but somewhat disparaging treatment of the Eisenhower administration.  If you like history, anything by Morison is a good read.
  They don't make Harvard professors like that anymore. 

Westinghouse automatic air brakes

NPR reported on the Quebec crude oil train wreck of last year.  In that one, the single crewman running the train, pulled into a siding, left the locomotive running, and went off to catch 8 hours sleep at a motel.  While he was sleeping, the train rolled down hill of the siding, into town, derailed, and the crude oil catch fire burning down every building in town. 
   According to NPR,  the locomotive caught fire idling on the siding, the local fire department responded, shut the engine down, releasing the air brakes, which let the train get away. 
   That part is bogus.  Every car on a train has an air cylinder to apply the car brakes, and a tank of compressed air to drive the air cylinder.  Upon a signal from the locomotive, the car brakes go on, and stay on until signaled to release. 
   The signal is air pressure.  There is a long pipe, the trainline, running the length of the train, kept pressurized by an air compressor on the locomotive.  Those rubber hoses coupled between cars  carry the trainline from car to car right to the very end of the train.  The system is fail safe.  Safe means brakes applied.  Fail when talking about pipe means a leak or a blockage.  So the signal to apply the brakes is to lower the pressure in the trainline.  This is especially good in the case of train separation, some coupler fails and the train breaks in two.  In that case, the rubber hoses break, the air rushes out of the trainline and the brakes go on all up and down the length of the train.  That's safe. 
   So, no matter what those firemen did, shut down the locomotive, spray water on it,  what ever,  won't let the brakes off.   NPR got that part wrong.
   More likely, the locomotive engineer failed to set the air brakes before leaving the train to take some crew rest.  He probably wanted to save time in the morning.  It may take the locomotive half an hour to pump up a flat trainline.  A 100 car trainline needs a lot of air, and any cars needing air for their tanks will take it out of the trainline, slowing the pump up process.  

Whither Ferguson?

Michael Brown is dead, shot by a town police officer.  Micheal's family and friends want that police officer indicted, tried, and sent to jail.  They are convinced Micheal's death was murder and they want blood.  Can't say as I blame them. No way are these people gonna change their minds, now.   They won't go away until the shooter is in jail.  I expect the town police force and the town establishment wants "justice" i.e. let him off unless some really strong evidence of murder turns up.  From what evidence I have seen on TV, the cop could plead self defense and be let off.  In that case he would probably want to leave town and move far far away. 
   Ferguson seems to lack a mayor.  At least, if they have one, I haven't seen him on the TV news.  A mayor should be out front, urging calm,  trying to explain the tragedy, offering comfort to the bereaved family.  Apparently they don't have a mayor in Ferguson. 
   The shooter, Darren Something-or-other hasn't appeared on TV either.  No statement, no expressions of regret,  and I assume he has left town and gone into hiding.  I can guess what the shooter will testify when they get him to a hearing.  I would like to hear about why he fired six shots.  You would think a single shot would get the message across.  How many rounds did his gun hold?  Six? 
   I expect the next town election in Ferguson (November?) to happen while the Micheal Brown case is still hot.  If the population of the town is 60-70% black, as suggested by the TV news, then there might be a power shift in town government.  Of course the Ferguson black community needs some candidates, and they need to get out the vote.  If they have some local black leaders I haven't seen them on TV yet. 

Primary Sources, or What can you Trust?

Back when I was doing a history major I learned about who to trust.  For history, the best sources are those written at the time, and even better, by participants.  These are called "primary sources" and are valued above "secondary sources"  histories written long afterward.  For instance, Winston Churchill wrote "The Second World War" (six volumes)  shortly after WWII ended.  This makes Churchill a primary source on WWII.  Whereas Rick Atkinson's fine "Army at Dawn",  copyright 2002, is a secondary source.  In cases of conflict between primary and secondary sources,  greater weight is accorded the primary source, on the theory that people who were there at the time are more likely to get it right.
   This sort of thinking can readily be applied to internet sources.  Putting stuff on the internet is so cheap anyone can do it.  No one approves internet postings, and you can find internet postings that support literally anything.  Some very good information is published on the net, and a whole lot of really awful stuff is too.  How to tell the good stuff from the awful stuff?  If you can't tell, the internet can feed you that awful stuff.
   Check for an author.  If there is no named author, (anonymous) that's a down check right there.  It means the author feared retaliation if his name became known.  If the author is some one you have heard of or know something about, that's an up check.  Does the writer have his facts straight?  You aren't an expert in his field, so you cannot judge everything, but there is always the little stuff, that you do know.  Dates, names, places, does the writer get them right?  If the small stuff is in error, it casts doubt upon everything else.  Does the writer support his main thesis with concrete examples, real experiments, real historical examples, surveys, photographs, things with time and date and place and names?  Or does the author engage in handwaving?  Has the author written other stuff?  Google ought to find it for you, even if it's obscure.  Do other writers comment upon your author?  If no one mentions your author, one way or another, that means they all thought he was not worth a comment.