It's been out a few years, I have seen it before, but I Netflixed it just for old times sake. It's a perfectly watchable Bond movie. Daniel Craig plays as good a Bond as any of them, tough, humorless, relentless, and a lady killer. The special effects are good, for openers Bond shoots a couple of bad guys thru an upper floor window. By the time every one's gun runs out of ammunition, the entire multi story Mexico City building collapses. Not bad for some small arms fire. And Bond manages to shoot Blofeld's helicopter out of the air using just a hand gun. Bond's handgun is bigger than the puny Walther PPK that shows up in most of the earlier Bond movies. Looks to be a Smith and Wesson or Sig Saur 9mm automatic.
The script writers have some continuity problems. We have Bond in London, getting chewed out for exceeding his authority in Mexico City by blowing up a couple of bad guys without proper paperwork. Next thing we know, Bond, with a brand new Aston Martin DB10, much sleeker and lower than the DB-6 he drove in back in Goldfinger, is in Rome. How he and the car get from London to Rome is not even hinted at. Did he drive the Chunnel? Or put the car on a Channel ferry? Just a short clip showing Bond and the Aston Martin doing either would have been helpful to us viewers. Apparently Bond does intercontinental travel instantaneously, like magic. He and the Bond Girl get from Rome to North Africa, and then back to London from North Africa all instantaneously, Never a clip of him boarding an airliner. The Bond Girl is cute, as all Bond Girls are. I never picked up on her name watching the movie. I had to look it up on IMDB.
Filming in 2015, three years ago, the annoying "Shake the Camera" style of camera work was gone, but the "Film it in the Dark" style is fully there. Lots of night action, with the lights out, where I could not tell Bond from Blofeld. Not as bad as Game of Thrones, but annoying. The sound man was only fair, I missed some of the more breathy dialog.
Saturday, August 25, 2018
Farewell John McCain
TV just reported his death this evening. We will miss him. I was in South East Asia with the Air Force the year McCain got shot down over North Viet Nam. That year my unit, 343 Tactical Fighter Wing, lost a plane a day, for the first 90 days I was in the wing. It took enormous courage to climb into the cockpit and fly into North Viet Nam, and our pilots did it every day. So did John McCain.
Years later, John McCain, campaigning for president, came to an event at the Littleton VFW. I and my brother were there. It was winter, the place was full of shaggy people, all wearing parkas and snow boots. When John McCain entered the room, every one stood up for him as a mark of respect.
Over the years I have been to a lot of campaign events, for a lot of presidential candidates, and I have never seen another man get that mark of respect that we gave John McCain just automatically.
Years later, John McCain, campaigning for president, came to an event at the Littleton VFW. I and my brother were there. It was winter, the place was full of shaggy people, all wearing parkas and snow boots. When John McCain entered the room, every one stood up for him as a mark of respect.
Over the years I have been to a lot of campaign events, for a lot of presidential candidates, and I have never seen another man get that mark of respect that we gave John McCain just automatically.
Friday, August 24, 2018
Why Communism/Socialism/Democratic Socialism is a disaster
Historically, all this started with Karl Marx, a writer back in the mid 19th century, say 1850 or so. In those days, and on continental Europe especially, there was a serious discrepancy in wealth. The workers got little, the owners, capitalists, got a whole bunch more than the workers. Marx felt this was unfair. His solution was to share the wealth equally. The state would own all the means of production, from steel mills, railroads and farmland, down to corner bodegas and restaurants. The state would set equal wages for all. Marx wrote all these ideas in his book "Das Kapital" which was widely read.
The messy part of Marx's plan is how the state obtains owner ship of nearly everything. The owners resisted this idea strongly. In Russia it took a massive social revolution in 1917 to bring this about. Owners, kulaks the Russians called them, were liquidated. Massive propaganda efforts and a powerful secret police were used to overcome resistance of kulaks. Kulaks, entrepeneurs, who escaped liquidation fled the country. Taking their ideas and initiative with them.
Production sinks under socialism because the highly motivated entrepreneurs are gone. Since every one gets paid the same, nobody is motivated to work hard, since there is no reward for hard work. Starting a new business is forbidden by law. You can see this in Soviet Russia, even today, 30 years after the fall of communism. You can see it today in Venezuela. "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work" was a cliche from Soviet times.
The only real difference between Communism and Socialism back in the day, was how the party would obtain power. Communists believe they should obtain power by revolution and force of arms. Socialist believe they should obtain power thru political action and the ballot box. Once in power there is little difference between them.
Modern "Democratic Socialism" is mostly undefined, especially by its advocates, say Bernie Saunders, Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez, and Elizabeth Warren and their followers. The followers are looking to a regime of more free stuff, and the leaders are looking for political power. Elizabeth Warren was talking about the federal government taking over all of big business, which sounds pretty Marxian to me.
The messy part of Marx's plan is how the state obtains owner ship of nearly everything. The owners resisted this idea strongly. In Russia it took a massive social revolution in 1917 to bring this about. Owners, kulaks the Russians called them, were liquidated. Massive propaganda efforts and a powerful secret police were used to overcome resistance of kulaks. Kulaks, entrepeneurs, who escaped liquidation fled the country. Taking their ideas and initiative with them.
Production sinks under socialism because the highly motivated entrepreneurs are gone. Since every one gets paid the same, nobody is motivated to work hard, since there is no reward for hard work. Starting a new business is forbidden by law. You can see this in Soviet Russia, even today, 30 years after the fall of communism. You can see it today in Venezuela. "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work" was a cliche from Soviet times.
The only real difference between Communism and Socialism back in the day, was how the party would obtain power. Communists believe they should obtain power by revolution and force of arms. Socialist believe they should obtain power thru political action and the ballot box. Once in power there is little difference between them.
Modern "Democratic Socialism" is mostly undefined, especially by its advocates, say Bernie Saunders, Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez, and Elizabeth Warren and their followers. The followers are looking to a regime of more free stuff, and the leaders are looking for political power. Elizabeth Warren was talking about the federal government taking over all of big business, which sounds pretty Marxian to me.
Thursday, August 23, 2018
Things I don't understand about Manafort and Cohen Cases
I understand Manafort made substantial money (like $millions) overseas, advising or fixing or something for the Ukrainians. He put the money in an overseas bank. The government claims this is tax evasion. Just what law requires US citizens to report income from overseas sources, left overseas, to the IRS? And how soon must the report be made? None of the TV newsies addressed this issue.
And, just what were those 10 counts the Manafort jury deadlocked on? Was the prosecution railroading Manafort with a bunch of trumped up charges? Ham sandwich nation? As Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) said, "Under current US law I could indict a ham sandwich."
On the Cohen case, I don't understand how paying hush money to bimbos is a campaign finance violation. Campaign finance laws concern money given to politicians as campaign contributions. Giving money to bimbos to keep them quiet is not the same thing. It's distasteful, and reflects badly upon the payer, but I cannot see how it is a campaign finance violation.
What is clear, is that if the Democrats take control of the House in November, they will proceed to impeach the President, starting in January 2019. Which will make all the newsies turn pink and glow in the dark from pure happiness. And figure impeachment will go on and on and on, at least a year, probably two. The newsies will report on nothing else. And the Congress will be unable to pass anything for a year or two. In short, it impeachment will stall the federal government for the next couple of years, like Watergate did.
Voters who want to keep the feds moving need to vote Republican, in large numbers. Trump has got the country moving and moving in a good direction. Like lower unemployment, more GNP growth, lower taxes, rising stock market, less red tape. Taking a two year timeout for impeachment will bring all that movement to a screeching halt.
And, just what were those 10 counts the Manafort jury deadlocked on? Was the prosecution railroading Manafort with a bunch of trumped up charges? Ham sandwich nation? As Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) said, "Under current US law I could indict a ham sandwich."
On the Cohen case, I don't understand how paying hush money to bimbos is a campaign finance violation. Campaign finance laws concern money given to politicians as campaign contributions. Giving money to bimbos to keep them quiet is not the same thing. It's distasteful, and reflects badly upon the payer, but I cannot see how it is a campaign finance violation.
What is clear, is that if the Democrats take control of the House in November, they will proceed to impeach the President, starting in January 2019. Which will make all the newsies turn pink and glow in the dark from pure happiness. And figure impeachment will go on and on and on, at least a year, probably two. The newsies will report on nothing else. And the Congress will be unable to pass anything for a year or two. In short, it impeachment will stall the federal government for the next couple of years, like Watergate did.
Voters who want to keep the feds moving need to vote Republican, in large numbers. Trump has got the country moving and moving in a good direction. Like lower unemployment, more GNP growth, lower taxes, rising stock market, less red tape. Taking a two year timeout for impeachment will bring all that movement to a screeching halt.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
The Shannara Chronicles Season 2
I Netflixed Season 1 a year or two ago. It was OK, a fantasy story that borrowed from both Game of Thrones and Tolkien. Season 2 just turned up on Netflix and I watched the whole season. Things have changed a bit. Handsome boyish hero, Wil, has got a new and more becoming hair cut. We also see some broad shoulders, narrow hips and six pack abs, making him more of a hunk than he was in season 1. Good chick Amberle mostly appears in dream sequences. Makes me think I missed catching her death somewhere. In season 1 she had a magic talisman that she was trying to take somewhere. She doesn't talk about that in season 2. Bad Chick, Eretria has come over to the good side and she is helping Wil as much as possible. Her highway bandit father does not appear this season. Both Good Chick and Bad Chick still dress alike, in riding leathers which show their figures to advantage, and they still look alike. A couple of new good looking girls show up, one is Alenon's daughter, not quite sure what the other one is. Nobody ever addresses anyone by name on stage, making it difficult to follow the story. At least the cameraman knows enough to turn the lights on before filming, and the soundman does a fairly good job.
Season 2 lacks plot, I was unable to understand what the heroes were trying to do. It is entertaining to watch, the characters are all good looking and interesting, but I had no idea what was going on.
Season 2 lacks plot, I was unable to understand what the heroes were trying to do. It is entertaining to watch, the characters are all good looking and interesting, but I had no idea what was going on.
Monday, August 20, 2018
Why capitalism is superior to Communism/Socialism
To put it crudely, capitalism works and makes us all rich. Communism/Socialism is about equal sharing of misery [and control of everything by the government]. Years ago I did Friends Service Committee work weekends in darkest Philadelphia. That neighborhood was poor by American standards, no doubt about it. But everyone had decent clothes (important in a Philadelphia winter) color TV, plenty of heat in their homes, and nobody looked undernourished. Some years later, on duty over seas, I saw plenty of people who were a lot worse off than that Philly slum. In short, capitalism produces better living conditions in city slums than either Thailand or the Philippines did thru out the country.
What makes capitalism so productive? Answer: Bunches of entrepreneurs who build factories, housing, electric grids, aircraft, telephone networks, trade commodities, buy and sell everything and anything, open mines, drill oil wells, irrigate desert lands, build railroads, and in general create wealth.
What does a society have to do to get capitalism working for them? First off, the society needs to create a rule of law that protects private property from seizure by warlords, political bosses, competitors, gangs, the EPA, and other assorted nogoodnicks. Entrepreneurs are motivated by the money they can make, and the social standing that successful entrepreneurs enjoy. If everything they create can be swiped in a few hours by some thugs, it is intensely discouraging to the ripped off entrepreneur. He/she is likely to be discouraged and give up trying, or to pick up stakes and immigrate to America. So, the society that wants the benefits of capitalism has to protect the capitalists from all the various sorts of bandits who will otherwise rob them blind.
Next comes defense. Nothing wipes out more capital and capitalists than an invading army. It took the American South a hundred years to recover from the devastation of the Civil War. One thing that allowed capitalism to flourish in England was the English Channel and the Royal Navy. They have prevented invasion of England ever since 1066. And effective defense requires enough patriotism in military age citizens to enlist in the armed services, or at least, not resist draft notices with violence.
And now we come down to freedom. Freedom to set prices and wages in response to market forces. Freedom of workers to change jobs for better wages, and move about the country to take the best paying jobs available. Freedom to form unions.
And probably a few other things. I am not an economist and so a few things probably escape me.
It would help if we taught our children that capitalism makes everyone rich. I note that a couple of recent surveys found that millennials prefer communism/socialism. What kind of schools did they go to?
What makes capitalism so productive? Answer: Bunches of entrepreneurs who build factories, housing, electric grids, aircraft, telephone networks, trade commodities, buy and sell everything and anything, open mines, drill oil wells, irrigate desert lands, build railroads, and in general create wealth.
What does a society have to do to get capitalism working for them? First off, the society needs to create a rule of law that protects private property from seizure by warlords, political bosses, competitors, gangs, the EPA, and other assorted nogoodnicks. Entrepreneurs are motivated by the money they can make, and the social standing that successful entrepreneurs enjoy. If everything they create can be swiped in a few hours by some thugs, it is intensely discouraging to the ripped off entrepreneur. He/she is likely to be discouraged and give up trying, or to pick up stakes and immigrate to America. So, the society that wants the benefits of capitalism has to protect the capitalists from all the various sorts of bandits who will otherwise rob them blind.
Next comes defense. Nothing wipes out more capital and capitalists than an invading army. It took the American South a hundred years to recover from the devastation of the Civil War. One thing that allowed capitalism to flourish in England was the English Channel and the Royal Navy. They have prevented invasion of England ever since 1066. And effective defense requires enough patriotism in military age citizens to enlist in the armed services, or at least, not resist draft notices with violence.
And now we come down to freedom. Freedom to set prices and wages in response to market forces. Freedom of workers to change jobs for better wages, and move about the country to take the best paying jobs available. Freedom to form unions.
And probably a few other things. I am not an economist and so a few things probably escape me.
It would help if we taught our children that capitalism makes everyone rich. I note that a couple of recent surveys found that millennials prefer communism/socialism. What kind of schools did they go to?
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Self Driving Cars: Would you ride in one?
Or would you buy one? Long article in the Wall St Journal this Saturday about self driving cars, relations between Silicon Valley high tech and Detroit car makers. Gist of article, Detroit ignored self driving cars until very recently, and now wants in.
Possibly, or perhaps not, the technology will mature to the point where the car's sensors (radar? TV cameras? lidar?) are good enough to detect the road, the shoulder, the center strip, and ignore the humongous radar returns from large signs, detect pedestrians, bicyclists, deer, objects fallen off trucks, and other cars all well enough to avoid collisions. And can handle driving after dark, in the rain, and handle snow safely. Assume that the self driving car will not attempt passing on two lane roads. Assume that the self driver keeps acceleration, steering and braking gentle enough to avoid panicking passengers. And it has mastered things like parallel parking, and pulling up to the gas pumps without bending a fender. All of these are stiff technical challenges that today's self driving car cannot meet, yet.
But assume they do perfect the self driving car. Would you ride in one, in city traffic? Would you feel comfortable riding in one? Would you buy one with your own money, even if the self driving equipment were fairly cheap? I wouldn't. I enjoy driving, been doing it for years, and feel best when I am at the wheel. Even with one of my own grown children at the wheel, I get tense. Eldest son is fairly good, but middle daughter and youngest son are down right scary. Will I feel better about turning the wheel over to a microprocessor?
I can see where the Ubers and Lyfts of the world would buy self driving cars. If they work, don't scare the passengers, and don't get into many expensive traffic accidents, they would eliminate paying drivers, which will do good things for the bottom line. But how many vehicles would Uber and Lyft buy, compared to the 10 million new cars sold each year to the general public in North America? Enough to interest Ford or GM?
Could it be cost effective for third party companies to sell and install self driving equipment in an otherwise standard car? Or is it cheaper and easier to build the self driving equipment into the car on the production line? I can remember when automobile air conditioning was just coming in. You could get air conditioning installed by third parties, but every one agreed that "factory air" was better. Will self driving equipment work out that way? Or not?
Possibly, or perhaps not, the technology will mature to the point where the car's sensors (radar? TV cameras? lidar?) are good enough to detect the road, the shoulder, the center strip, and ignore the humongous radar returns from large signs, detect pedestrians, bicyclists, deer, objects fallen off trucks, and other cars all well enough to avoid collisions. And can handle driving after dark, in the rain, and handle snow safely. Assume that the self driving car will not attempt passing on two lane roads. Assume that the self driver keeps acceleration, steering and braking gentle enough to avoid panicking passengers. And it has mastered things like parallel parking, and pulling up to the gas pumps without bending a fender. All of these are stiff technical challenges that today's self driving car cannot meet, yet.
But assume they do perfect the self driving car. Would you ride in one, in city traffic? Would you feel comfortable riding in one? Would you buy one with your own money, even if the self driving equipment were fairly cheap? I wouldn't. I enjoy driving, been doing it for years, and feel best when I am at the wheel. Even with one of my own grown children at the wheel, I get tense. Eldest son is fairly good, but middle daughter and youngest son are down right scary. Will I feel better about turning the wheel over to a microprocessor?
I can see where the Ubers and Lyfts of the world would buy self driving cars. If they work, don't scare the passengers, and don't get into many expensive traffic accidents, they would eliminate paying drivers, which will do good things for the bottom line. But how many vehicles would Uber and Lyft buy, compared to the 10 million new cars sold each year to the general public in North America? Enough to interest Ford or GM?
Could it be cost effective for third party companies to sell and install self driving equipment in an otherwise standard car? Or is it cheaper and easier to build the self driving equipment into the car on the production line? I can remember when automobile air conditioning was just coming in. You could get air conditioning installed by third parties, but every one agreed that "factory air" was better. Will self driving equipment work out that way? Or not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)