The New York Times, a sleezy rag that's been spreading disinformation for 70 years that I know of, quotes an unnamed Justice Dept official the the effect that Jeff Session had two contacts with the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak. Sessions has denied the reports. The TV newsies are going full bore with this story, this morning's Fox News has talked about little else today.
I got some questions. 1. When did these alleged contacts occur? 2. What's wrong with a US Senator talking to anybody, including the Russians? 3. Sessions was a US Senator until very recently. How does a Justice Dept official know anything about what a Senator is/was doing? 4. Who is this mysterious Justice Dept official that the Times hangs the story on? 5. Are there any other sources? Named or anonymous? 6. Sessions has a pretty good rep for honesty, why should I not believe him over an unnamed source?
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Can we cut the State Department?
Good question. State has 13000 employees. It has missions in 172 countries. That's 75 employees per country. While 75 employees might be reasonable for a major county like Russia, it is overkill for minor countries like Luxembourg, or Bermuda.
In the 21st century, State has two missions that make sense to me. First to gather intelligence. There is a lotta useful stuff we can pick up by just reading the local newspapers. Like who is who in their government, and in the government's opposition. What are the important industries and businesses? And who runs them? How does the general population feel about things? Geography, good maps are important, and they remain useful for years. During WWII North African operations relied on maps made by the US marines fighting the Barbary pirates of old. All this stuff is important, and gathering it and filing it, is legal.
Second is to give aid and succor to US citizens abroad. Lost or stolen passports, arrest by local authorities, kidnappings, and Lord knows what else. As a mid to lower class American, I like to hope that if I get into trouble in a foreign land I can call on the US consul or ambassador for help.
And, in this day and age of air travel and world wide instantaneous communications, heavy duty international negotiations are handled out of Washington DC, not by US ambassadors abroad. In fact president Eisenhower created the National Security Counsel to bypass a State Department that he considered inefficient, and infiltrated by communist agents like Alger Hiss.
So, if we allowed 20 state department employees per country, that yields a headcount of 5120, a helova lot less than the 13000 bodies they have warming chairs today. If we figure each state department bureaucrat costs $100K a year, than laying off 7840 of 'em would save $784 million a year. That's not quite real money in DC speak, but it's still a useful piece of change.
In the 21st century, State has two missions that make sense to me. First to gather intelligence. There is a lotta useful stuff we can pick up by just reading the local newspapers. Like who is who in their government, and in the government's opposition. What are the important industries and businesses? And who runs them? How does the general population feel about things? Geography, good maps are important, and they remain useful for years. During WWII North African operations relied on maps made by the US marines fighting the Barbary pirates of old. All this stuff is important, and gathering it and filing it, is legal.
Second is to give aid and succor to US citizens abroad. Lost or stolen passports, arrest by local authorities, kidnappings, and Lord knows what else. As a mid to lower class American, I like to hope that if I get into trouble in a foreign land I can call on the US consul or ambassador for help.
And, in this day and age of air travel and world wide instantaneous communications, heavy duty international negotiations are handled out of Washington DC, not by US ambassadors abroad. In fact president Eisenhower created the National Security Counsel to bypass a State Department that he considered inefficient, and infiltrated by communist agents like Alger Hiss.
So, if we allowed 20 state department employees per country, that yields a headcount of 5120, a helova lot less than the 13000 bodies they have warming chairs today. If we figure each state department bureaucrat costs $100K a year, than laying off 7840 of 'em would save $784 million a year. That's not quite real money in DC speak, but it's still a useful piece of change.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Game of Thrones, Season 6
I'm three DVDs into it and it loosing its cool for me. The TV miniseries has run off the end of the George R.R. Martin books, which are decent and I have read them all. Now that the TV is running it's own course, independent of the books, I am loosing track of what's going on. The show's habit of never calling anyone by name makes things tougher. An actor will appear on screen, I will say to myself "This guy was in the show a while ago, but I cannot remember his/her name or what he did." Not knowing frustrates this viewer of the show.
Then things don't seem to ever get anywhere. Denarys is still leading the Dothraki toward invading Westeros. In six whole seasons she hasn't been able to get her Dothraki to the seashore, let alone boarding ship for Westeros. Arya is still wandering around looking for something to do. Brendan is still a paraplegic having visions that don't lead anywhere.
Then they killed off so many characters over the past seasons that they have decided to bring some back to life, by witchcraft and magic. Running out of talent I suppose. They bring Jon Snow back to life in an early scene, but they never spoke his name. The episode was half over before I decided it was Jon Snow and not his half brother Rob Stark.
And the camera man is still refusing to turn on the lights. Pure black scene follows pure black scene. Arya has gotten her self into a strange place where another girl her size takes some pleasure in beating the stuffing out of Arya with a quarterstaff. In the fight scenes both Arya and the other unnamed girl wear identical black ankle length dresses. The scenes are so dark, I can't tell Arya from her opponent.
Continuity is weak. The show has at least six story lines (Denarys and the Dothraki, Brenden, Sam Tarly and his wildling wife, Jaime and Cersei Lannister, and Tommin the new teenage king) They cut from one to story line another so fast there is no time to get anything accomplished, and we viewers get confused as to where we are. And if the rapid story line shifts don't confuse the viewers, they do flashbacks and dream sequences.
Anyone know if they will do a season 7?
Then things don't seem to ever get anywhere. Denarys is still leading the Dothraki toward invading Westeros. In six whole seasons she hasn't been able to get her Dothraki to the seashore, let alone boarding ship for Westeros. Arya is still wandering around looking for something to do. Brendan is still a paraplegic having visions that don't lead anywhere.
Then they killed off so many characters over the past seasons that they have decided to bring some back to life, by witchcraft and magic. Running out of talent I suppose. They bring Jon Snow back to life in an early scene, but they never spoke his name. The episode was half over before I decided it was Jon Snow and not his half brother Rob Stark.
And the camera man is still refusing to turn on the lights. Pure black scene follows pure black scene. Arya has gotten her self into a strange place where another girl her size takes some pleasure in beating the stuffing out of Arya with a quarterstaff. In the fight scenes both Arya and the other unnamed girl wear identical black ankle length dresses. The scenes are so dark, I can't tell Arya from her opponent.
Continuity is weak. The show has at least six story lines (Denarys and the Dothraki, Brenden, Sam Tarly and his wildling wife, Jaime and Cersei Lannister, and Tommin the new teenage king) They cut from one to story line another so fast there is no time to get anything accomplished, and we viewers get confused as to where we are. And if the rapid story line shifts don't confuse the viewers, they do flashbacks and dream sequences.
Anyone know if they will do a season 7?
Monday, February 27, 2017
The news, All Trump, all the time
Fox News and the Wall St Journal cover Trump every day, all day. Nothing else in the whole wide world gets any coverage. And most of the Trump coverage is repetitive and negative. I've heard every kind of anti-Trump trash talk there is. I don't need to hear more of the same.
I propose the newsies cut back the Trump coverage to maybe 10% and go out and cover some other stories. For instance the Iraqi Army, backed by USAF and US special forces has taken half of Mosul and is planning to assault the other half. All the coverage I have seen is from independents like ITV. No American newsies are on scene, talking to the troops and the locals, and using a Mosul byline.
How about some coverage from the South China sea, maybe some close up video of Chinese gun and missile emplacement from a drone?
How about some live coverage from the Ukraine? Or Poland where we deployed a US Army tank brigade last month?
I'm tired of the all Trump, all the time news coverage. I want to see/hear what is going on in the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
I propose the newsies cut back the Trump coverage to maybe 10% and go out and cover some other stories. For instance the Iraqi Army, backed by USAF and US special forces has taken half of Mosul and is planning to assault the other half. All the coverage I have seen is from independents like ITV. No American newsies are on scene, talking to the troops and the locals, and using a Mosul byline.
How about some coverage from the South China sea, maybe some close up video of Chinese gun and missile emplacement from a drone?
How about some live coverage from the Ukraine? Or Poland where we deployed a US Army tank brigade last month?
I'm tired of the all Trump, all the time news coverage. I want to see/hear what is going on in the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
Words of the Weasel Part 48
"Substance" as in "substance abuse". Used by snowflakes who shrink from calling them druggies or drunkards. If you cannot name the problem, you cannot deal with it. And a good strong dose of social disapproval helps druggies kick their habit.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
What's with all this Russia talk by TV newsies?
First they make a big deal about the Russians hacking the DNC and releasing some embarrassing emails to WikiLeaks. Then they have a field day over the Mike Flynn affair. Meet the Press spent a lotta time yakking about Russians this morning. They were clearly trying to sell the idea that the Russians tipped the election to Trump AND that talking to the Russians before the inauguration is treason.
Does anyone in the real world believe either idea?
Does anyone in the real world believe either idea?
How long do curly bulbs last, really?
The traditional incandescent bulbs claim a 800-1000 hour life. That's the best compromise between light per watt hour and bulb life. They sell long life incandescent bulbs, and they do last longer, but they don't give much light. A 60 watt conventional bulb throws as much light as a 100 watt long life bulb. 800-1000 hours for say a living room lamp that goes on at sundown and burns til bedtime, is 200-300 days, call it a year.
The curly bulbs claim 8000 hour life, ten times the life of an incandescent. That ought to mean ten years service life.
And I suppose some curly bulbs do last that long. A lot of 'em don't. I have had at least four, die in place after only a year or two of service. That's out of a total of 8 curly bulbs in my house. Half the population of curly bulbs dies young. Mostly the dead ones come out of the fixture with a burn mark on the base, suggesting that some electronic part inside the solid state ballast has failed, rather than the glowing curly tube. Let's guess that the marketeers who pushed for the 8000 hour life claim were thinking that the only part that could fail was the curly tube, analogous to the filament in an incandescent bulb. Solid state ballast failures were ignored.
On the other hand, as a homeowner, I don't care why the curly bulb died, I gotta replace it for $5 or live in the dark. But I do think anyone computing lifetime costs of incandescent vs curly bulbs ought to call the curly bulb life as 4000 hours rather than the 8000 hours marked on the package.
The curly bulbs claim 8000 hour life, ten times the life of an incandescent. That ought to mean ten years service life.
And I suppose some curly bulbs do last that long. A lot of 'em don't. I have had at least four, die in place after only a year or two of service. That's out of a total of 8 curly bulbs in my house. Half the population of curly bulbs dies young. Mostly the dead ones come out of the fixture with a burn mark on the base, suggesting that some electronic part inside the solid state ballast has failed, rather than the glowing curly tube. Let's guess that the marketeers who pushed for the 8000 hour life claim were thinking that the only part that could fail was the curly tube, analogous to the filament in an incandescent bulb. Solid state ballast failures were ignored.
On the other hand, as a homeowner, I don't care why the curly bulb died, I gotta replace it for $5 or live in the dark. But I do think anyone computing lifetime costs of incandescent vs curly bulbs ought to call the curly bulb life as 4000 hours rather than the 8000 hours marked on the package.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)