The Curse of the Cameraman

Newly fashionable among Hollywood cameramen, the under exposed shot.  In a recent Bond movie (Skyfall) we have a furious hand to hand fight between to black silhouettes.  I guessed one was Bond and the other was a Bond villain, but there was no way to tell  one fighter from the other.  Which makes the whole fight scene pretty meaningless.  A recent Marvel comic book movie (Dark Thor) all the scenes are super dark. Ocasionally we can make out the actor's faces in an otherwise black scene, but some times not even that.  These aren't the only ones. 
   This ultra dark fashion makes watching movies a real PITA.  It's as bad as the fad for shake-the-camera shots of a few years ago. 
    And we still have the curse of the soundman out there.  You know, the sound man allows the score or the sound effects drown out the dialog.
    Hollywood used to get this right, well lit scenes with understandable dialog.  But lately directors have been allowing cameramen and soundmen to screw things up. 

EgyptAir Crash

It's a terrible story.  My deepest sympathies to the victims and their families.
The TV newsies have been talking and talking about the story, mostly revealing their total ignorance of aviation.  For instance I heard one of the saying the winglets (little upturned fins at the wingtips) were there to improve maneuverability.  No way.  Winglets reduce the drag caused by the wing tip vortexes.  No body talked about the time the vertical stabilizer snapped clean off an Airbus departing New York, causing a crash that killed all on board.  At the time, Airbus claimed the failure was caused by the pilot applying too much rudder.  The newsies mostly let Airbus get away with this canard years ago.  Real aircraft are built strong enough to withstand the force of hard over control surfaces.  In an emergency the pilot needs to apply full control forces and not have to worry about the aircraft breaking up in mid air.
   Lotta talk about terrorism.  It's certainly a valid suspicion.  So far there is no evidence (at least on TV) of terrorist action.  Evidence like hearing "Take this plane to Mosul" on the cockpit voice recorder.  Or flight data recorder showing massive failures all over the plane at once.  Or some low life confessing that he put the bomb on the plane.  Or intercepted phone or text messages, or email, or snail mail of the low lives gloating about their success.  So far we don't even have any terrorist claiming the hit.
  I got my suspicions, just like the rest of you, but so far, they are just suspicions. We need to find the wreck and recover the recorders before we know anything. 
  Also note, EgyptAir is a government of Egypt operation with a mediocre to poor safety record.  The Egyptians have plenty of motive to blame the crash on terrorists, as opposed to shoddy maintenance or poorly trained aircrew.  It was the Egyptians who first started crying terrorist within hours of the tragedy. 

NPR ran a story about a four year old being "transgendered"

Was on the FM radio yesterday.  I was appalled.  How can a four year old know any such thing?  Could this be a case of the parents wanted a child of the opposite sex?  And rather than having another child, they decided to warp the one they had?
And the pros don't approve either.

JFK wanted to send a man to the moon.

Obama wants to send a man to the ladies restroom.   Good slam.  From Texas.

Third Party Presidential runs

In 1860,  Democrat John Bell split the Democratic Party into Northern and South wings.  He tipped the election to Republican Abraham Lincoln. 
In 1912, Republican Teddy Roosevelt  ran as the "Bull Moose Party" candidate.  He tipped the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. 
In 1968 Democrat George Wallace ran as a third party. He  tipped the election to Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1993 Independent Ross Perot ran as a third party. He tipped the election to Democrat Bill Clinton.

Since the modern party system was created with the establishment of the Republican Party in 1856, these are the four "third party" campaigns that garnered enough votes to get into the history books.  Just about every election had third party candidates but mostly they never garnered enough votes to matter.  These are the four big third party campaigns that did well enough to matter.
  In all four cases, the third party was a split off from either the Democrats  (Bell and Wallace) or the Republicans (Roosevelt and Perot).  In each case the presence of the third party campaign tipped the election to the other side.  
   So today we have unhappy Republicans talking up a third party campaign.  If they get it off the ground, history says it will tip the election to the other party, Hillary.
   I don't want Hillary as president.  The Donald would be much better. 

Supremes cannot decide. Both plaintiffs claim victory

The eight surviving Supremes have lost all ability to discuss issues among themselves.  Four of them vote leftie, the other four vote rightie, they cannot reach agreement.  In short, the eight top legal beagles of America cannot agree on what the law means.  Good work law schools.
  In the Little Sisters of the Poor case, where Obama is trying to force a Catholic order of nuns to furnish birth control to their employees, the Supremes just ruled that the case must be reheard in the lower courts. 
  Both sides, the nuns, and the Obama administration claim victory. 
  They cannot both be right, Can they?

Slanting the news same-same Freedom of the Press

They have been all over Facebook and Zuckerman over the accusation of slanting the "Trending" column by dropping conservative stories.  A Congressional hearing is promised. 
   Not that I approve, I'm conservative too, but the United States has been blessed with slanted news reporting since the founding of the Republic.  Look at the New York Times.  In the 1930's they supported Soviet communism.  "I have seen the future and it works".  In the 1950's they supported Fidel Castro, strongly enough to make him dictator of Cuba.  In the 1960's they backed North Viet Nam.  They published the Pentagon Papers in order to destabilize the Nixon administration.  They published a leak from CIA about tapping Osama bin Laden's satellite phone, result, Bin Laden ditched the phone and went back to messengers. 
   I don't see much difference between want the Times does and what Zuckerman is accused of doing at Facebook.