Neil, a nice guy, I watch his show regularly. He ranted against the coming Star Wars flick, said he just didn't understand why everyone loves Star Wars. Neil it's real simple. The first Star Wars, back in the 1970's, was so good, that everyone has loved them ever since.
The first Star Wars came out when I was full grown, graduated from college, back from Viet Nam, married, home owner. Took the wife and caught it in the theater on opening night. I had seen the ad in the Boston Globe, but other than that, I hadn't heard a word about it. Typical studio effective publicity. It was so good, we went back to see it all over again a few nights later. Saw it a third time with my mother, who liked it. No other movie was that cool, to make me pay to see it three times. The two sequels were nearly as good.
I will admit, that the three "prequels" released 20 years later were not up to the standard of the original three. But they weren't bad enough to spoil the property. Of course I will go see the new Star Wars coming out shortly. So will everyone else.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Jim Webb drops out of the Democratic race
Too bad. Of all the democrats at their debate a week ago, he was the most rational sounding speaker there, a man who actually understands how the country works and how it feels. No flaky socialist stuff, no free stuff giveaways, no domestic enemies list. I thought Webb was the best candidate the democrats had. Sorry to see him go.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Where did all the industry go?
The Boston and Maine historical society presented a talk and slide show in Plymouth NH yesterday. I drove down to see it, the sun was out, the leaves were bright. Pleasant drive. The presentation was in the former B&M passenger station in Plymouth, now a senior center. Presenter was Dwight Smith, serious railfan and long time B&M employee, with slides going back to the late 1930's. Subject was rail operations in northern New England. Lots of slides, diesels, steam, stations. Long freight trains, mostly boxcars, going to all sorts of places that no longer have rail service at all. Berlin, Lancaster, Colebrook. At each vanished rail line Dwight would mention the names of the industries and the traffic they used to produce. For instance Berlin used to generate 11000 carloads of freight a year.
Thinking about those long trains of boxcars, made me think of all the jobs needed to create the product to fill them. For some reason, our northlands has de industrialized since the 1950's. The paper mills are closed, the bobbin mills are gone, the furniture factories are gone and nothing has replaced them. Some of the business has gone to trucks, milk for example, but most of it has just gone up in smoke. Teenagers growing up today look to leaving the state to find work when they graduate high school.
New Hampshire needs to work on getting more industry. Right to work would help a lot. So would reducing the business tax.
Thinking about those long trains of boxcars, made me think of all the jobs needed to create the product to fill them. For some reason, our northlands has de industrialized since the 1950's. The paper mills are closed, the bobbin mills are gone, the furniture factories are gone and nothing has replaced them. Some of the business has gone to trucks, milk for example, but most of it has just gone up in smoke. Teenagers growing up today look to leaving the state to find work when they graduate high school.
New Hampshire needs to work on getting more industry. Right to work would help a lot. So would reducing the business tax.
Need to tame the wildlands
Wildlands are places lacking effective government, where terrorists like the late Osama Bin Laden can set up shop, and pull off a 9/11. We, the United States, cannot permit wildlands to exist. If you don't believe this, I can show you a couple big holes in the ground in Manhattan. And 3000 American dead, worse than Pearl Harbor.
Any government that cannot control who operates on their territory needs something done. Sometimes assistance, arms, helicopters, advisers, or money is enough. Sometimes regime change is in order. For example Al Quada, ISIS, and the Taliban are hostile, they live to destroy us, no amount of diplomacy or bribery is going to change that, they need to be destroyed, ASAP.
Once we get into a place and do regime change, Syria for example, we gotta carry it thru. We need to find some decent locals to hold office, we have to back them up with US armed forces, we need to get their economies working and growing. In a lot of places we need to do land reform, break up the big plantations and give out forty acre plots to the tenant farmers and sharecroppers. Most terrorists start out being unemployed, then they get radicalized 'cause they got nothing better to do. Make the local economy grow, create jobs, and potential ISIS recruits will stay on their jobs rather than sign up with ISIS.
The new regimes we establish don't have to be very democratic. They need to gain effective control of their national territory. For which they need a decent rapport with their citizens, other wise they loose effective control. The citizens have to be reasonably happy with the new regime. Otherwise it won't work. If a new regime doesn't work out, we have to be prepared to depose it, and put in a better one.
All this can take time, years, especially in uncivilized places like Syria and Afghanistan. But it is essential work that must be done, or we will have more big craters in our cities.
The democrats, and some Republicans on the weird wing dispute this. They call it "nation building", expensive and unnecessary. They want the United States to pull back, retreat, to North America and let the rest of the world go down the tubes. They don't seem to realize, even after 9/11, that terrorists operating out of wildlands can do us enormous harm. They will have nukes next time.
Any government that cannot control who operates on their territory needs something done. Sometimes assistance, arms, helicopters, advisers, or money is enough. Sometimes regime change is in order. For example Al Quada, ISIS, and the Taliban are hostile, they live to destroy us, no amount of diplomacy or bribery is going to change that, they need to be destroyed, ASAP.
Once we get into a place and do regime change, Syria for example, we gotta carry it thru. We need to find some decent locals to hold office, we have to back them up with US armed forces, we need to get their economies working and growing. In a lot of places we need to do land reform, break up the big plantations and give out forty acre plots to the tenant farmers and sharecroppers. Most terrorists start out being unemployed, then they get radicalized 'cause they got nothing better to do. Make the local economy grow, create jobs, and potential ISIS recruits will stay on their jobs rather than sign up with ISIS.
The new regimes we establish don't have to be very democratic. They need to gain effective control of their national territory. For which they need a decent rapport with their citizens, other wise they loose effective control. The citizens have to be reasonably happy with the new regime. Otherwise it won't work. If a new regime doesn't work out, we have to be prepared to depose it, and put in a better one.
All this can take time, years, especially in uncivilized places like Syria and Afghanistan. But it is essential work that must be done, or we will have more big craters in our cities.
The democrats, and some Republicans on the weird wing dispute this. They call it "nation building", expensive and unnecessary. They want the United States to pull back, retreat, to North America and let the rest of the world go down the tubes. They don't seem to realize, even after 9/11, that terrorists operating out of wildlands can do us enormous harm. They will have nukes next time.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
What is "Democratic Socialism"?
It's Bernie Sanders ideology, I guess. Used to be, socialism and communism wanted to run the entire economy by owning all the "means of production" to use Marx's phrase. With a benevolent government running everything, the workers would get better wages and the evil capitalists would get fleeced. There wasn't much difference between socialism and communism, except socialists felt they could come to power thru the ballot box, communists wanted to come to power via a violent revolution. Once in power, there wasn't much to choose from.
The Russians had a communist revolution take power in 1917 and it lasted about 70 years before the Russians dumped it. The Germans and the Italians tried socialism in the 1930's and it only lasted until overthrown by force of arms in 1945. There is nothing in historical socialism to recommend it.
So, here comes Bernie, touting his "democratic socialism". He isn't talking about a government takeover of the "means of production" because that won't fly in America, and advocating it would make him sound like a nutcase. What he might do if elected is unknown.
What he does talk about is putting in a bunch of soak-the-rich taxes. Is there any more to Bernie?
The Russians had a communist revolution take power in 1917 and it lasted about 70 years before the Russians dumped it. The Germans and the Italians tried socialism in the 1930's and it only lasted until overthrown by force of arms in 1945. There is nothing in historical socialism to recommend it.
So, here comes Bernie, touting his "democratic socialism". He isn't talking about a government takeover of the "means of production" because that won't fly in America, and advocating it would make him sound like a nutcase. What he might do if elected is unknown.
What he does talk about is putting in a bunch of soak-the-rich taxes. Is there any more to Bernie?
Friday, October 16, 2015
Let's cut a deal
Democrats want to hike the debt ceiling, so they can keep on spending. Republicans want to do some cuts.
Here's the deal. We pass proper appropriation bills for each executive department. AFTER, all the appropriations are passed, AND signed by the president, THEN we will hike the debt ceiling just enough to get thru the next fiscal year.
With proper appropriation bills, we can have some control, we can cut wasteful pork, and beef up programs that actually help the economy. Right now the government is running on a "continuing resolution" a bill which says, "OK, you bureaucrats can keep on spending like you spent last year." All the waste keeps on pouring down the drain.
We want that open check book closed, and no money spent except by lawful appropriations.
Here's the deal. We pass proper appropriation bills for each executive department. AFTER, all the appropriations are passed, AND signed by the president, THEN we will hike the debt ceiling just enough to get thru the next fiscal year.
With proper appropriation bills, we can have some control, we can cut wasteful pork, and beef up programs that actually help the economy. Right now the government is running on a "continuing resolution" a bill which says, "OK, you bureaucrats can keep on spending like you spent last year." All the waste keeps on pouring down the drain.
We want that open check book closed, and no money spent except by lawful appropriations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)