Farewell to Heat and Eats

They aren't the greatest, they aren't the worst, and they do heat up and serve just one, which is nice for us who live alone.  But now, it looks like heat and eats are off my menu.
  Reason?  More and more heat and eats now say "Microwave only" and "Do not heat in conventional oven or toaster oven".  I don't have a microwave, my kitchen is very small and I just don't have any counter space to put a microwave.   And I don't plan on remodeling my kitchen just so I can microwave heat and eats.
   I wonder why the heat and eat makers only want us to microwave their product?

How Hollywood can improve its product

Let's start with the actors.  Actors must speak up.  Mumbling, or whispering means we the audience don't hear your lines. Do enough of that and we loose interest in the movie.  And in the same vein, sound men need to take especial care to place the microphones in just the right places.  And when editing the sound track, mixing in the score and the sound effects, don't obscure the dialogue.  Mute both score and sound effects when the actors are speaking. 
   First rule for camera men.  Put the camera on a tripod and leave it there.  Those arty shake the camera shots which were are the rage a few years ago are just plain annoying to us in the audience.  And turn the lights on set ON, before starting to film.  Don't do those black on black shots, with all the lights out.  Game of Thrones, season 6 is a prominent offender in this respect. 
   Directors need to help us in the audience by putting different costumes on the various actors to help us tell one from another.  Don't have everyone wear the same costume, or even worse, same uniform.  They used to have the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black hats.  That was a good idea, and should be kept up. 
   A movie needs a protagonist ($2 word meaning hero or heroine) with whom we can identify, and like.  Don't show us scumbag protagonists, we won't like them, or the movie.  Female protagonists are fine,  Katniss Everdeen and Rey did just fine.  Protagonist needs a challenge to overcome.  And we in the audience need to know what that challenge is, early on, it helps us understand what is going on.  Tolkien handled this in the second chapter of Lord of the Rings, where Gandalf tells Frodo about the ring and what has to be done with it.  For the rest of the trilogy, it was clear to us readers what was going on.  Build the movie to a climax, where the protagonist faces his/her challenge and either defeats it or suffers defeat him/herself.  We like movies where the good guy[s] win, but we will put up with a tragedy if it's well done.
  And we have enough comic book movies.  If you lack the originality to do your own story, there are plenty of good books that have not yet been used as the basis for movies. 

How did those refugees get on the train roofs??

TV has been talking up a caravan of central American refugees, traveling up thru Mexico, riding on the roofs of boxcars, heading for the US border.  Hoping to be granted refugee status in America.
Question.  How did all those people get up on the roofs of the boxcars?  In America, the Federal Railway Administration decided that allowing railroad workers on top of cars was just too dangerous.  They ordered the roofwalks and the ladders removed.  Back in the dawn of time, before the invention of the Westinghouse air brake, railroad brake men used to run along the tops of the cars, tightening up the handbrake wheels when the engineer whistled for brakes on.  This hasn't been necessary for the last hundred and something years, the engineer now pulls a brake lever in the engine cab, and compressed air puts the brakes on, thruout the length of the train.
    Anyhow, about 1970, on American railroads, new cars were purchased without roofwalks or ladders giving access to the roof.  By now, no freight cars in the US have easy access to the roof.  I assume the Mexican railroads follow US practices since they interchange cars with US roads, and vice versa.
   I assume that an athletic 20 something can climb up on top of a boxcar without ladders.  But what about women and children?  Surely not all of those refugees are athletic 20 somethings? 

Is there a difference between Democrats and Republicans?

It's hard to tell by listening to the politicians.  They mostly bland down their words until they really don't mean anything.  They have learned that speaking out on one side of any substantive issue just looses them votes.  The voters that don't like what they hear will remember and make a point to vote against them, where as the voters that like what they hear don't care enough to get to the polls on election day.  So the professional politicians practice saying as little as possible while sounding good.  Hence all the happy talk about motherhood and apple pie.  Donald Trump is an exception to this rule and it hasn't killed him, yet.
  But there are real differences between the parties.  Consider the matter of helping the poor.  Republicans believe the real solution to poverty is plenty of decent jobs. Which means they favor things that help business because business creates those decent jobs. Democrats believe the real solution to poverty is government handouts, welfare, food stamps, single payer health care and such.  Paid for by confiscating (taxing) wealth from the wealthy and giving it to the poor.  With some nice fat skimming off  the top for deserving friends of the party.
   Modern Republicans believe that America, as the largest and strongest country in the world, needs to take action to oppose foreign tyranny, obnoxious ideologies, nuclear proliferation, and out right banditry.  Modern Democrats are isolationists and peaceniks.  They don't believe that anything outside our borders deserves our attention.  This is a reversal of the party positions from the early years of the 20th century. 
   Republicans are respectful of Christianity and organized religion.  Democrats favor removing religious symbols (creches) from just about everywhere, and punishing anyone who offers prayer in public.
  

Is Fiction Really Dead?

Every Saturday the Wall Street Journal publishes a best seller list.  They break it down into hardcover fiction, ebook fiction, hardcover non ficition, ebook nonfiction and business titles.  Often as not, best sellers in hardcover fiction will be Dr. Suess, or Shel Silverstein.  Both of these are classic children's books, every child has, or ought to have, a copy.  Parents, grandparents and grown up friends and relatives buy these classics for birthdays and Christmas presents.  There is a steady market, proportional the the number of small children in the country.  When one of these steady sellers makes it to the top of the best seller list, it really means that no other author has been able to sell all that many copies of their work.  The last real best seller fiction were the Harry Potter stories, that J.K. Rowling fed into the market every other year or so.  I can remember riding the Boston subway to and from work where a quarter of the riders in the subway car would be reading the latest hardback Harry Potter yarn.  That's a best seller.  We don't seem to have any best sellers of that magnitude any more.
   Partly the dropoff in best seller fiction is the fault of the big publishers.  They won't look at any new fiction unless the author has acquired an agent.  There aren't all that many agents in the world and the ones that are out there, are swamped with clients.  They won't take on a new author.  They are too busy.
   Even best selling author Tom Clancy had to go all around Robin Hood's barn to get into print back in the 1980's.  His best seller, Hunt for Red October , was finally published by the Naval Institute Press,  a specialty house for technical works for Navy officers.  After  the smash hit success of his first book, Tom had no trouble getting his second best seller, Red Storm Rising, published by GP Putnam.
   What this means, is as the established authors die off,  (for example Clancy died quite recently) there is nobody in the pipeline to replace them. 

Slow News Day

Friday's Wall St Journal.  Front page color photo.  Heartwarming shot of  Senator Tammy Duckworth bringing her new born baby into the Senate chamber for a vote on something.  All the adults in the photo have fond smiles, everyone likes small children. 
   It's cute and all that, but is this the most important thing happening the world on this Friday?

Probably a bad idea.

Florida Republican Rep Ron DeSantis, and ten colleagues sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff  Sessions asking for criminal investigation of Obama people Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Hillary Clinton, and Andrew McCabe. 
   Much as all these low lives deserve some criminal investigation, trial and jail time, doing so is a bad idea for the country.  We don't want to criminalize loosing an election.  If politicians understand that loosing the election will put them in jail, they will fight all the harder, and use even dirtier tricks to stay in office.  Even the Russians let Krushchev retire to a dasha on the Black Sea and write his memoirs, rather than executing him they way they did Beria, Trotsky, and perhaps Stalin. 
   American politics is so difficult, demanding and dangerous that few first rate people go in for it.  First rate people go into business, high tech, the military, doctoring, Hollywood, lawyering, and professional sports, rather than politics.  If we make politics even less attractive by adding the risk of going to jail when you loose the election, even fewer decent people will go out for it. 
   It's best for the country in the long run to let those who are defeated in the election go on about their lives in peace.