So what's wrong with the the Ex-Im Bank?

Ex-Im has been around since the Roosevelt administration.  It borrowed money on the good credit of the United States, , and loaned the money to foreigners to buy US built products.  It returned a modest profit on each deal to the US treasury.  It surely boosted exports at no cost to the taxpayer.  Export mean jobs.
   Granted, the main beneficiaries were big companies like Boeing and Caterpillar.
    So?  They are US companies, employing US union labor.  All that is good.  I see no reason why the US government should not support US industry.  Industry creates jobs, and that deserves support.

Camelot, The TV series

It came out on Starz back in 2011.  I don't pay for payTV channels, so I saw it for for first time from a Netflix disc last night.  Which makes it a little old.  Being an old King Arthur fan, I had high hopes for this one. 
   Disappointing.  First it suffers from the curse of the soundman.  Much of the dialogue is inaudible, lost under the score, or the actors mumble, or the mike isn't placed right. Then it's hard to tell the characters apart, they all wear the same hairdo's and the same clothes.  I failed to distinguish Morgan Le Faye (villain) from Ygraine (goodguy) several times.  King Lot (villain) looks pretty much like Sir Kay (goodguy).  Arthur, the only blonde guy in this thing, is at least distinct in appearance.   
   The story starts around the end of "The Sword in the Stone" with a young Arthur pulling the sword from the stone and being acclaimed King of the Britons.  Jamie Bower is an unsatisfactory Arthur.  Although he looks the right age for the part, he isn't very handsome, he doesn't get any memorable lines (thanks scriptwriters),  his costume doesn't help him (huge fur trimmed cape with broaches the size of saucers), and he never does anything very heroic. Even in the climatic scene pulling the sword from the stone he never looks heroic.  He never displays the commanding presence that makes knights and warlords do his bidding.  In most scenes Merlin is obviously pushing Arthur into position on stage, and giving him his lines to say.
  

WHO goes there!

WHO == World Health Organization, although the TV newsies didn't say so.  WHO announced that processed meat causes cancer.  Actually they were not that straight forward, they said that eating processed meat increases your risk of cancer.  By-by hot dogs, bacon, ham, breakfast sausage, BLT's, bacon and eggs, bangers and mash, lotta good comfort food. 
Of course, the TV newsies did not bother to say HOW MUCH your cancer risk was increased  by eating stuff that has been part of our diet since prehistoric times.  Nor did they give any evidence, studies, biochemistry, anything of substance.  We peasants are expected to believe anything the TV newsies dish out to us without proof.  Like global warming. 

War is Hell, Combat is worse.

Apparently the Obama people are having trouble with the word :"combat".  Master Sgt Wheeler was killed in action against an armed enemy of the United States.  This is a Master Sgt, nearly 20 years in the Army, kind of guy who knows all the answers, an old pro, it's not some 18 year old private who doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain. Sgt Wheeler knew what he was doing. 
   Let the Dem pencil necks quibble about words.  I mourn the loss of an American fighting man. 

Tactical lessons from the US Civil War

Defense always wins.  That's the lesson.  In most of the great battles of the Civil War, Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Antietam, Chickamauga, one side got there first, dug in, and awaited assault.  The offensive side would give enemy lines as much artillery fire as possible, and then send the infantry forward.  The new rifle-muskets of that year could reach out a couple of hundred yards and get hits.  The assaulting infantry had to cover the last two hundred yards under accurate fire.  In all cases, the defenders shot so many attackers down that they no longer had the numbers to win the hand-to-hand bayonet struggle for possession of the trench line.  Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg is the classic example, but there were plenty of others. 
   Grant was the only Civil War general who seemed to understand this.  Grant's decisive victories, Island Number 10, Shiloh, and Vicksburg were all won by maneuver, rather than bloody frontal assault.
    This tactical lesson held true thruout WWI.  Few European generals had read much about the US Civil War. 

Does Government funded R&D pay off?

Matt Ridley, writing in the Wall St Journal today says "No it doesn't."  As a retired engineer, who spent forty years gainfully employed in private industry, doing R&D, I can relate to this.  I created, either in part or in whole, an medical ultrasonic imager, a portable Holter monitor, a data acquisition system running off an IBM PC, a digital oscilloscope,  a cardiac Xray system, a video compression chip, and an overfill protection system for fuel tank trucks.  All of 'em privately funded, half of 'em made it to market.  Government funding is not required for technological advance.  Nor was basic scientific research in to basic scientific principles needed.  In fact, the one time I picked up some basic research from a scientific journal for a project, it turned out to be wrong, it worked, but at only one half the performance claimed in the journal article.  I looked up the author and telephoned him. After a lengthy conversation, the author admitted that yes, he had exaggerated his claims a little bit.
   On the other hand, during the existential struggle that was World War II, government funded R&D produced nuclear weapons, jet aircraft,  radar, airborne magnetometers, proximity fuses, handheld two way voice radios, and effective back pack anti tank weapons.  In the following Cold War, government funded projects took us to the Moon and launched the Internet.
   Much university research is funded by government grants.  On the other hand you have all seen the video of a shrimp on a treadmill, government funded all the way. As long as corporations are allowed to deduct R&D expenses for tax purposes, progress will be made.  
   

So who is our best candidate against Hillary?

The Dems are weeding out their field.  Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Lincoln Chaffee have all pulled out, leaving just Hillary and Bernie Sanders.  To me, a Republican, there is little to chose between them. Hillary is a liar who throws people under the bus, running on Wall St money.  Bernie is a Commie nutcase, locked in a time warp back to the 1960's, promising free stuff for all.  The pundits all say Hillary is gonna be the Dem candidate, and that's believeable.
   So who should we pick to maximize our chances next November?  Can Trump beat Hillary? Can Ben Carson? What about Cruz, Rubio, Carly, Kaisich, JEB, and the rest of 'em?  Right now, I got my doubts about The Donald, I think his negatives are too high.  Carson is polling well these last couple of days, but is he too soft spoken to make a decent president?  The rest of 'em are a tossup.  Carly was looking good, but then she said there is no need for entitlement reform, which I don't believe.  Either she is totally clueless, or she is lying.