Those DACA kids/young people. When your parents decide to slip into the United States, kids don't have a choice, they have to go where mom and dad go. Ain't the kids fault that mom and dad are illegal immigrants.
For the ones that have grown up in the US, have stayed out of serious trouble with the law, have reasonable English language skills (speak even if with a thick accent, read a road sign, and sign their names) I am willing to extend them US citizen ship. Especially if they have graduated high school, or even better college, have a job, are married, are veterans. These are desirable citizens, and we need more good citizens.
Polls show that a fair number of my fellow citizens think the same way. Can the Congress Critters get their act together to pass a law letting the stay in the country, or even better make them US citizens? I know that a lot of 'em will vote for Democrats once they are registered. but that's OK. I'm happy to have good US citizens even if they don't vote Republican.
Thursday, January 25, 2018
World is getting noisier
Watch some TV news, which is pretty much all from an indoor studio somewhere. Notice the background noise of ringing phones, emergency vehicle sirens, yelling and shouting, car crash noises. Let's hope all this noise is coming from outside the studio. It's pretty damn loud. Out on the street it's gotta be worse.
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Walls, Border type.
The Trump administration is now talking about a combination of masonry wall, cyclone fencing, and electronic surveillance. The MSM is criticizing them for backing off from a 2000 mile masonry wall. Does not bother me much, at least the cyclone fence part. A good cyclone fence, with three strands of barbed wire on top is pretty effective. You cannot get vehicles thru such a fence, at least not without leaving a whacking big hole which is a tip off to the Border patrol.
I am not impressed with the electronic surveillance idea. I was in South East Asia during the war when we tried electronic surveillance along the Ho Chi Min trail. We air dropped a humongous load of sensors, microphones mostly, up and down the trail. Mostly the sensors went dead in a few days. Some of them picked up monkeys howling in the jungle or water buffalo snorting and stomping. Never did detect a Cong.
I am not impressed with the electronic surveillance idea. I was in South East Asia during the war when we tried electronic surveillance along the Ho Chi Min trail. We air dropped a humongous load of sensors, microphones mostly, up and down the trail. Mostly the sensors went dead in a few days. Some of them picked up monkeys howling in the jungle or water buffalo snorting and stomping. Never did detect a Cong.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
USAF talking about buying lightweight fighters
The first line jet fighters (F22 and F35) cost $50-80 million a piece, and cost $35000 per flying hour. They are fast, loaded with fancy avionics and expensive missiles, and need long paved runways.
For ground attack missions, something simpler and cheaper with modest performance can do the job. Some recon, some close air support bombing, some strafing, and some training. Modest performance might be 500 knots top speed, 100 knots landing speed, propeller driven, 700-800 horsepower turbine engine. With some really sharp bargaining, you might be able to buy such a plane for $1 million apiece. If the enemy doesn't have an air force, or a squadron or two of our high performance fighters takes care of enemy fighter opposition, such a modest performance (approximately the performance of a good WWII fighter) aircraft could be very effective.
There are a number of American allied countries that have security problems, that a little air power might solve, who could afford some $1 million warplanes, but could never afford high performance high cost jet fighters. If USAF were to demonstrate the effectiveness of light weight fighters, they would be encouraged to try some. "If the Americans are flying them, they must be OK."
For ground attack missions, something simpler and cheaper with modest performance can do the job. Some recon, some close air support bombing, some strafing, and some training. Modest performance might be 500 knots top speed, 100 knots landing speed, propeller driven, 700-800 horsepower turbine engine. With some really sharp bargaining, you might be able to buy such a plane for $1 million apiece. If the enemy doesn't have an air force, or a squadron or two of our high performance fighters takes care of enemy fighter opposition, such a modest performance (approximately the performance of a good WWII fighter) aircraft could be very effective.
There are a number of American allied countries that have security problems, that a little air power might solve, who could afford some $1 million warplanes, but could never afford high performance high cost jet fighters. If USAF were to demonstrate the effectiveness of light weight fighters, they would be encouraged to try some. "If the Americans are flying them, they must be OK."
Oscar Nominations for Best Picture 2018
They nominated nine movies. Five of them I never heard of before. Fine publicity work there. Two of em (Dunkirk and Darkest Hour) I have seen, in theater, and they are not bad. I had actually heard of another two (The Post and Shape of Water). I cannot imagine ever going to see either them.
Perhaps there is a connection between mediocre to miserable Oscars and the worst year for box office receipts?
Perhaps there is a connection between mediocre to miserable Oscars and the worst year for box office receipts?
Monday, January 22, 2018
Darkest Hour 2017
Good Flick. Gary Oldham plays Winston Churchill and plays him well. Churchill was the key allied leader in WWII. The movie shows Churchill rallying the British rank and file, silencing the appeasers, launching Operation Dynamo (the evacuation of the British Army from Dunkirk). This is a crucial period in WWII. England was the only important European power that Hitler never conquered. Had England crumped, Hitler and his Nazis would have owned Europe, pretty much forever. The movie ends with Churchill giving his "fight them on the beaches, fight them on the landing grounds. We shall never surrender." speech in Parliament. Far as I can tell, the movie follows the real history of the time. The real history is so dramatic that nobody can imagine a way to make things more dramatic.
I liked this movie better than Dunkirk. We watch one key protagonist (Churchill) leading his country to fight against the Nazis. Dunkirk was more into battle field views of anonymous British soldiers.
Costumes and sets were excellent. Sets were ingeniously lit with the brightest light centered on the important actors in the scene. Most scenes were the famous smoke filled rooms, the air blue with tobacco smoke. Lots of very fancy period bric a brac every where, on desks, bureaus, and whatever.
I saw the movie at the Lincoln NH theater on a Sunday night. Crowd was light. In fact there was only one other person, aside from myself in the theater.
I liked this movie better than Dunkirk. We watch one key protagonist (Churchill) leading his country to fight against the Nazis. Dunkirk was more into battle field views of anonymous British soldiers.
Costumes and sets were excellent. Sets were ingeniously lit with the brightest light centered on the important actors in the scene. Most scenes were the famous smoke filled rooms, the air blue with tobacco smoke. Lots of very fancy period bric a brac every where, on desks, bureaus, and whatever.
I saw the movie at the Lincoln NH theater on a Sunday night. Crowd was light. In fact there was only one other person, aside from myself in the theater.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Coffee, making thereof
Your coffee is good when you can enjoy it black. If you have to do the cream and sugar thing, it means your coffee is coming out bitter.
Step 1 in making good coffee is a clean coffee maker. Brewing coffee releases all sorts of oils and fragrances which stick the the coffee maker innards. After time ( a few hours) the oils turn rancid and make the next pot taste bitter. You need a coffee maker that is easy to clean, inside and out. The French press is good, it comes completely apart and you can get inside it with a wash rag or a sponge. The Silex vacuum coffee makers are good, all glass, easily cleaned. Percolators are bad, the inside of that perk tube is just plain uncleanable.
Step 2 is good coffee. Shop around, try a can of the expensive stuff. Try some cans of the supermarket brand cheap stuff. Keep some notes so you can remember what you like. Up here, Surefine 100% Columbian $4.50 a can makes very good coffee, as good or better than some $10 a can coffee from Dunkin, Green Mountain and others .
I don't do the grind it from beans thing. I buy ground coffee and keep it in the fridge after opening it. Works for me.
Put in one heaping tablespoon of coffee for each cup of water. Give the coffee at least four minutes to brew. Try a little salt with the coffee. Sometimes salt improves the coffee, the US Navy swears by it, sometimes not so much.
Step 1 in making good coffee is a clean coffee maker. Brewing coffee releases all sorts of oils and fragrances which stick the the coffee maker innards. After time ( a few hours) the oils turn rancid and make the next pot taste bitter. You need a coffee maker that is easy to clean, inside and out. The French press is good, it comes completely apart and you can get inside it with a wash rag or a sponge. The Silex vacuum coffee makers are good, all glass, easily cleaned. Percolators are bad, the inside of that perk tube is just plain uncleanable.
Step 2 is good coffee. Shop around, try a can of the expensive stuff. Try some cans of the supermarket brand cheap stuff. Keep some notes so you can remember what you like. Up here, Surefine 100% Columbian $4.50 a can makes very good coffee, as good or better than some $10 a can coffee from Dunkin, Green Mountain and others .
I don't do the grind it from beans thing. I buy ground coffee and keep it in the fridge after opening it. Works for me.
Put in one heaping tablespoon of coffee for each cup of water. Give the coffee at least four minutes to brew. Try a little salt with the coffee. Sometimes salt improves the coffee, the US Navy swears by it, sometimes not so much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)