Musta been a lotta heat.

After FBI director Comey let Hillary off last month, it must have taken a hell of a lotta heat to make him change his tune, in public, so close to the election. I've heard that a lot of FBI people are still mad about letting Hillary off.  Maybe something really juicy turned up, and Comey had to fess up or they would leak it.  Certainly most Republicans, especially the ones in Congress, were unhappy about letting Hillary off.  The ones in Congress can make trouble for the FBI when budget time comes around. 
   There is talk that what ever it was turned up during the investigation of Anthony Weiner for sexting a teenage girl.  Weiner clearly has some kind of psychological hangup.  Some how, Huma Abedin, Hillary's close advisor, married the guy, and even had a child with him.  Make you wonder about Huma, how smart is she really, if she couldn't figure out that Weiner was a screwball.  And how smart is Hillary to rely on a woman who isn't very bright as a close advisor?
   And how did the FBI get their hands on what ever it is?  On Huma's computer?   Hillary should have given Huma some lessons about wiping hard drives clean.  Let's guess that "it" is an email from Hillary.  A lot of the stuff Hillary wiped off her server must have been emails to Huma.  And the FBI found them still on Huma's computer?  
   Come on FBI, let us see the dirt too.  It's selfish to hog all the mud to yourselves. 

Wonder how many early voters wish they had waited?

For the latest FBI blockbuster to come out. 

Heat makes light

The blockbuster announcement by the FBI today that they are re opening the Hillary email case is a result of heat applied to the FBI.  Enough heat will make some light.

Old USAF Cliche

"Any landing you can walk away from is a GOOD landing."   I never really appreciated this cliche until the time we ground looped in a Gooney bird at Takli Thailand.   We passengers were VERY appreciative and we all shook the pilot's hand.
   Betcha Mike Pence understands the old cliche now. 

Rail vs Air travel?

Europe and Japan take great pride in their high speed passenger rail.  I've been to both places, ridden the trains, and they are slick.  You board the trains in the center of town, no $100 cab ride to the airport, and you get a fine view of the passing countryside, and they drop you off in the center of town, where you can walk or take the subway to your hotel. 
   Why don't we have trains as nice in America?  Simple, the US is too big, train takes too long to get anywhere.  When I had business on the west coast, I could board a jet liner at Logan and be in California before lunch.  That's 3000 miles at 600 mph.  Even a science fiction 300 mph train would take all day.  A practical 21st century high speed train (150 mph) would take a day and a night. 
   The only place in America with cities close enough for train travel to compete with air is the Boston-Washington corridor up the east coast.  And, we have Acela, a medium high speed train.  Not as fast as the French TGV or the Japanese Hikari superexpress, but fast enough.  Acela can do the Boston New York run fast enough beat airline time, you can skip the taxi to the airport and the hour to get thru security.  Funny thing,  Acela fares are higher than airline fares. 
    Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown out in California is trying for high speed rail the length of California.  It's gonna cost billions.  Real passengers will fly anyhow.  Good luck California taxpayers. 

They voted for this or that awful thing

Hourly now, I have negative TV ads claiming that this candidate or that candidate voted tax breaks for big oil, or supported the "special interests" or some other just plain awful vote. 
   Never do these ads mention the name or number of this dreadful bill the target is accused to voting for, or the date of the vote, or anything that would allow you to fact check the claim. 
   And in this age of Democratic footdragging in Congress, that puts off voting funding bills until the last minute and then voting thru a 5000 page "omnibus spending bill" to keep the government running for another three weeks, it's meaningless.   The Congressperson can vote for the omnibus and keep the government funded, and lay himself open to all kinds of charges, because an omnibus bill contains all kinds of bad stuff.  In 5000 pages they can and do hide funding for damn near anything.  Or he/she can vote against it, and get trashed from all quarters for shutting down the government.  All the feeders at the federal trough will rise up in righteous anger against anyone who threatens to derail their gravy train. 
   So I ignore all the "Did you  know so-and-so made some dreadful vote" ads.

New engines for the B-52 fleet?

Aviation Week had a short piece lobbying for a B-52 re engine project.  From a technical standpoint, this might make sense, it would certainly give a nicer B-52 with more range, better takeoff power, and lower maintenance.  Especially if a modern engine with enough power were selected that would allow the B-52 to fly on four engines instead of the current eight.  As an old flight line maintenance officer, I can tell you, that maintaining four engines is a helova lot easier than maintaining eight engines. 
   But, speaking as a taxpayer, is it worth it ?  Engines are the most expensive part of an aircraft.  For a new airliner, the engines are a quarter to a third of the overall flyaway cost.  The Aviation Week article didn't breathe a word about cost.  The B-52's are old, so old that we ought to replace them all, right now, on general principles.  Does it make sense to plow serious money into a plane that ought to be retired, and probably will get retired in the foreseeable future?  Especially as the engines on the B-52 work, are reliable, and are efficient enough to give the old B-52 better range than any other USAF bomber, either in service or on the drawing boards.