Obama's gun control

Obama wants to prohibit gun sales to anyone on the "no-fly" list or the "terror watch list".  Bad idea.  Both lists are operated by bureaucrats, probably Obama voting bureaucrats.  They can put anyone they like on a list, for any reason they like, or no reason at all.  They won't take anyone off a list.  Denying the right to purchase firearms to anyone on a list means giving Obama the power to deny firearms to anyone he dislikes.  How much do you trust Obama, or his bureaucrats?
   Obama wants to "close the gun show loophole".  He, and the rest of the lefties, never define just what here.  Presumable it means requiring everyone who sells a weapon to anyone to go thru the back ground check hassle. Right now only real gun stores and holders of the federal firearms dealer license are required to do the background check stuff.  Obama wants to force everyone, for instance a father selling a gun to his son, to do the bureaucratic dance.  Which doesn't do any of us any good, but it keeps the bureaucrats on the payroll.
   Then Obama has been trashing the long guns used at San Bernardino as "assault rifles".  Ohhh, scary.  Trouble is, there are no objective differences between deer rifles and "assault rifles".  The San Bernardino rifles were ordinary Armalite style .223 self loading rifles.  My antique Marlin 30-30 lever action throws a heavier slug than .223 and hits harder.  And the lever action can reload faster than the eye can pick a new target.  "Assault rifle" is really a styling term, if it has a black plastic stock it's an "assault rifle".  Walnut stock makes it a deer rifle. 

A brokered Convention???

By which, the newsies mean a Republican convention where no candidate has enough votes from primary elections to say, "I got the votes, I'm it, let's get on to the balloon drop".  Newsies love the idea.  It would have the Republican convention generate real news, that they could cover, live and in real time.  It would be a giant step backward to the old times, before primaries, where presidential candidates were actually selected at the conventions. 
  Don't hold your breath.   We haven't had Iowa or New Hampshire primaries yet. Both events will narrow the field significantly, and  the followers of the drop out candidates will float around and settle behind someone else.  Chances are excellent that someone will go the the convention with an unbeatable lead.  We just don't know who that might be. 
    The newsies are talking it up 'cause they would love to cover it, but I don't think it will happen.

Power for Kitty Hawk

The Wright Bros wanted an engine that developed 8 horsepower and weighed less than 200 pounds.  They quickly discovered that no one made such an engine in 1903.  They would have to make their own, from scratch.  They cast their own engine block in aluminum. According to later reminiscences by Charles Taylor, the Wright's "mechanician" who built the engine, there were no drawings, it was all built from sketches.  Contrary to modern practice, the pistons were cast iron rather than aluminum.  It had no carburetor, and no throttle.  Gasoline ran out of a tube into the intake manifold where engine heat vaporized it.  Lacking a throttle, the engine ran at full power all the time.  It had a chain driven camshaft that worked the exhaust valves and the ignition points.  Intake valves were held closed with springs, and opened from the suction of the piston going down, no cam drive as is normal today.  The hand built engine exceeded spec, producing 12 horsepower and only weighing 180 pounds.
   All this from this week's Aviation Week, which is celebrating their 100th anniversary. 

I've been hacked, courtesy of Uncle Sam

Letter came in yesterday from Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  My records got hacked in the great OPM hack a little while ago.
   OPM was probably running Windows, did not insist on strong passwords changed every 30 days, kept everything on line instead of off line, and gave Internet access to every computer in the building, did not run firewalls, and allowed contractors access to the data. 
    I suppose my Air Force service records from long ago were on the system as well as the secret clearance I held up until I retired.  I wonder where OPM got my current address which they used to address the letter.  That address would not have been in any of my records at OPM since I did not live here in those days.  Maybe they got it off my federal income tax return?  To which no one is supposed to have access except IRS?
  I did notice the letter was signed "Acting Director".  Apparently the previous director, the one responsible for the hack, was relieved of duty.  Should have been boiled in oil. 
   "I'm from the government and I am here to screw you"

Words of the Weasel Part 41

"Progressive".  That's what liberals now call themselves since liberal has become a bad word.

The Mystique of America vs that of ISIS

ISIS has a strong mystique, strong enough to get young people from Europe and even America to travel to Syria and take up arms with them.  Strong enough to get a couple of fanatics in San Bernardino to shoot down 14 of their co workers in cold blood and then die in a gun battle with police. 
   Well, America has a strong mystique too. America where the streets are paved with gold. America from where hot pop music comes from. America land of the Hollywood movie and the Wild West. America the land of fine big powerful cars and flawless thruways.  America where obstacles are over come with miraculous new technology.  America that flies to the Moon. America where all men are created equal. America where any man can become rich.  America which has millions of people yearning to get in.  America which has taken in millions of immigrants over the last century and turned them into hardworking loyal citizens.
   I'll bet that we can take in 10,000  or even more Syrian refugees, settle them, employ them, and turn them into hardworking loyal citizens just like we have done with millions of immigrants in the past.  Even if a few ISIS crazies slip in with them, the bulk of them will buy into America, and tip the cops off to any terrorists hiding in their midst. 
   It's worked before, and I bet it will work again. 
  

Strategy, as opposed to tactics.

Strategy is the highest level of planning and directing a war.  Tactics is concerned with how to win an engagement with the enemy.  For instance, at the Casablanca conference in WWII, President Roosevelt announced that the allied war aim was "Unconditional Surrender".  That was strategic.  It surprised our allies the British, and it shocked the German enemy.  But it told the American voters, whose unflinching support for the war was essential, that the administration was not fooling around, and that we would not settle for the sort of half measures that followed WWI.  Other strategic decisions of WWII were the decision to do Germany first, and the decision to invade North Africa. 
    Tactical decisions, are of a lower level.  For instance, George Washington when he crossed the Delaware, fearing that his colonial militiamen might not be able to stand up to Hessian regulars, brought eighteen guns across the river with his infantry.  When battle was joined  American artillery superiority quickly decided things.  That is an example of a tactical decision. 
   By my way of thinking, current day discussions about boots on the ground, is a tactical discussion, it is not strategic.  The strategic discussion, which we have not had,  is what should we do about ISIS and middle east insurgency under any name they select.  We could ignore them and hope they go away or die out. We could embargo them, cut off their oil sales, access to the banking system, commercial air transport, and all imports.  We could bomb them, either lightly, or back to stone age.  We could infiltrate political operatives, or a modern day Lawrence of Arabia, and attempt to raise a revolution against ISIS.  We could invade and occupy the ISIS lands.  Or some other option that has not occured to me.  These are strategic issues. 
   Whether to deploy American troops is a tactical decision.  I only see American troops necessary if we decide to invade and occupy the ISIS lands.  The lesser strategic options could be done without US troops.
   Our country would be better off by first deciding upon a strategy, rounding up the political support for the  strategy, and executing it.  So far, nobody, Obama, the media, the Congress, the pundits, not even Rush Limbaugh, has said a word about strategy. We don't have one.