So who is reporting the narrative?

California governor Jerry Brown is blaming the wild fires on global warming.  President Trump blames the fires on poor forest management, failure to log off dead trees.  Several people on Face book  support that view.  The MSM haven't said boo about forest management.  Certainly, back here in NH,  we know that wood lands need some logging to take out the dead and fully grown trees to remove fuel and open up the leaf canopy to let in some sunlight and encourage new growth.  I haven't been in California for thirty years, and I never got out in the California woods to see how things were, and I am not enough of a forester to tell a well tended forest from a poorly tended one.  We get a lot more rain in NH than they do out in  California, which surely reduces our fire hazard.  Nevertheless I find President Trump's position, poor forest management,  fairly convincing. 

Hillary to run again in 2020

That's what the TV newsies and the internet are saying this morning.  The never ending presidential campaign rolls on.  Speaking as a Republican, I hope she does run again.  She is as weak a candidate as you can find.  In 2016 she had no platform, she brought a whole railway car full of ugly baggage, she made no campaign promises, and she never spoke about anything except in that neutral campaign speak tone that pols use when they wish to conceal their true thoughts.  If the Democrats are misguided enough to nominate her, again, Trump will have no trouble beating her handily, again. 

World War I ended 100 years ago today

World War I ended just 100 years ago today.  It was a terrible war.  It lasted four awful years.  The war wrecked Europe.  It created Soviet Communism, a menace to civilization that would not be defeated for 70 years.  Before the war, Europe had ruled the world.  After the war Europe could barely feed itself. 

    The tragedy is that no one in Europe knew why they were fighting.  Woodrow Wilson had to create the 14 points to explain to Americans what their war aims were and why we should join the fighting.  The Europeans didn't have a clue as to why they were pouring out their blood and treasure. 

    The spark that set off WWI was a Serbian terrorist assassinating the heir to the throne of the Austro Hungarian empire.  Naturally the Austrians wanted to retaliate and kick some Serbian tail.  Serbia was a small backwards 3rd or 4th class power, and what should have happened was a short "police action" where the Austrian army occupied Serbia, hanged a few more terrorists, and incorporated  Serbia into the Austro Hungarian empire as a province.  Unfortunately the Russians, for reasons that have never been explained, decided they would protect Serbia from Austrian aggression.  The Austrians looked to their German ally for support, and they got it.  "I'm 1000% behind Austria" was the tone of the German reply.   Germany was run by a nincompoop emperor in those days.  A more developed state would have a foreign office, an effective parliament, and various other institutions of government, that would prevent a single klutz from leading the entire nation into war, especially a war over a worthless piece of real estate like Serbia.  

   None of the leaders of the time had any understanding of how the industrial revolution had increased the populations, the economies,  and the will to fight all over Europe.  The European great powers were able to field million man armies, where as the last serious war, the US Civil War,  General Grant only had 100,000 men under his command at Appomattox.  Ten times the manpower, and armed with small arms so good we still use them today.  After the war, all the surviving leaders of 1914 said that if they had known how bad the war would be, they never would have allowed it to break out.

We need more nutcase control, not more gun control

Many, more than half, of the dreadful mass shooting are done by deranged people, people who every one, friends, family, police, school teachers, pastors, neighbors, knew had heavy duty mental illness.   These deranged people should have been committed to a mental hospital long before they cut loose and kill a dozen or more innocent people.   It's not the guns, it's the nut cases pulling the triggers.  Put the nut cases away and we will have less mass shootings.
   This needs very careful safeguards to prevent abuse.  We are talking about committing some one against their will, someone who has not committed a crime, yet.  The Soviets used to put their political opponents away in mental hospitals on flimsy evidence.  There ought to be some kind of board, with an experienced cop, a psychiatrist or two,  an experienced teacher, a priest and a minister, and perhaps more.  In each case they should take testimony from the accused nut case, his parents, siblings, friends, teachers,  and others.  The accused should be able to call witnesses in his behalf.  There ought to be some review. 
   Short of this, authorities, police, schools, should be more pro active when they encounter one of these nut cases.  Right now the authorities tend to just dismiss the matter to save  themselves a lot of paperwork.  They ought to take an interest, do some checking around, do a little surveillance, with an eye to prosecution.

It's snowing up in Franconia Notch

It's full dark so I cannot see much, but I have a lotta snow in the deck light.

Why I think the Mueller investigation is a crock

Mueller is trying to prove that the Russians tried to get Trump to win in 2016 by doing something, nobody knows what, to help Trump and hinder Hillary. 
   This is a crock because the Russians wanted Hillary as the new US president.  Benghazi showed that Hillary had no stomach for retaliation for destruction of a consulate and killing four of her people.  She isn't very brave, she isn't very smart, and she would not give Putin any trouble as he invaded various small countries around the Russian borders.   Trump on the other hand was an unknown quantity,  who might be belligerent, who would oppose Russian takeovers along their border, and might do almost anything. 
   Putin is an old KGB hand, he has good intel, and I am sure he understood the differences between Hillary and Trump back in 2016.  He probably expected Hillary to win in 2016 because the entire US mainstream media thought that Hillary would win. 
   I think the whole "collusion" (what ever that means) and Russian interference in the US election is a Democrat idea to give Trump some flak and conceal Democrat corruption of US intelligence agencies, especially the FBI.

New Hampshire, a red wave? or a red ripple?

Despite a good economy, low unemployment, rising wages, all the things a good economy brings, New Hampshire voters went Democrat.  They elected enough legislators to give the Democrats control of both houses and the executive council.  Democrats claimed both US representative seats.  Chris Sununu, the Republican governor survived with about a 5% margin over Democrat Molly Kelly.  Kelly is mostly known for her desire to raise taxes, all kinds of taxes.   I won the District 1 seat in the NH Senate, with no support from radio, TV, or print press.  This happened partly due to placing yard signs all over the district, and partly due to my Democrat opponent's indictment on charges of domestic violence back in August. 
   Why did all the voters go Democrat despite excellent economy and a balanced state budget?  All I can think of is a LOT of voters have been turned off by President Trump.  Despite excellent numbers on the economy (GNP growth is up, unemployment is down, stock market is up, taxes are down) Trump's personal style is offensive to many.