Sunday, September 18, 2016
The Push Polls are running for Maggie
I've gotten two telephone push polls pushing Maggie Hassen this weekend. Both poller's command of English was so poor that I had great difficulty understanding them. Lots of luck Maggie. If this is the best you can do, Kelly will beat you like a drum.
Will the Hillary-Donald presidential debate be worth watching???
I mean they both have said a lotta mean things about each other, what's left to say? Can either of them present a substantive idea that makes any real sense, as opposed to promising pie in the sky? Will the moderator try to help Hillary and bash Trump? Watching presidential debates is like watching a bull fight. You watch on the off chance to see a matador get gored. Not that you wish the competitors any harm, but if blood flows you don't want to miss it.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
John Kasich supports TPP
Kasich did an op ed in the Wall St Journal yesterday. He came out four square in support of TPP, saying that it would increase exports, create jobs, and reduce consumer prices. All good stuff. That's stuff I would like to believe.
Trouble is, Kasich said nothing about that TPP is. Does it reduce other country tariffs against US exports? How much? When? What else does it regulate?
I am OK with a TPP that brings other country tariffs down to US levels. US tariffs (except for sugar) are really really low. That's why you see so many Japanese and South Korean cars on the road, and why pretty much everything on sale at Walmart is made in China. Fair trade means other countries lower their tariff barriers to match ours.
And I am OK with a TPP that tries to lower "non tariff barriers", hard to meet safety regulations , pollution limits, and the like.
I am not OK with lowering US tariffs any further. I am not OK with using TPP to impose international minimum wages, worker safety, and worker benefit laws. Or to impose controls on money exchange rates.
Or other things that have nothing to do with tariffs.
So far Obama has kept the contents of TPP secret. It could have anything in it. I am not in favor of ratifying a secret treaty that might well hurt us.
Trouble is, Kasich said nothing about that TPP is. Does it reduce other country tariffs against US exports? How much? When? What else does it regulate?
I am OK with a TPP that brings other country tariffs down to US levels. US tariffs (except for sugar) are really really low. That's why you see so many Japanese and South Korean cars on the road, and why pretty much everything on sale at Walmart is made in China. Fair trade means other countries lower their tariff barriers to match ours.
And I am OK with a TPP that tries to lower "non tariff barriers", hard to meet safety regulations , pollution limits, and the like.
I am not OK with lowering US tariffs any further. I am not OK with using TPP to impose international minimum wages, worker safety, and worker benefit laws. Or to impose controls on money exchange rates.
Or other things that have nothing to do with tariffs.
So far Obama has kept the contents of TPP secret. It could have anything in it. I am not in favor of ratifying a secret treaty that might well hurt us.
Friday, September 16, 2016
Brits approve Hinkley Point nuclear plant
Back in July the new British government of Theresa May ordered a "review" of the project. Back then, the "review" was seen as an indefinite delay. Well, will wonders never cease? Today the Wall St Journal announces that the Brits have given the project a go ahead. The work will be done by Electricite de France, with financing by China General Nuclear Power Corp.
The Brits have imposed some restrictions on the builders selling out their shares in the plant without Her Majesty's government approval.
The announced price of $23.8 billion is way high. You can put up a 1 Gigawatt nuclear plant for $4 to $5 billion in this country.
The Brits have imposed some restrictions on the builders selling out their shares in the plant without Her Majesty's government approval.
The announced price of $23.8 billion is way high. You can put up a 1 Gigawatt nuclear plant for $4 to $5 billion in this country.
Air Force bites off more than it can chew.
Or fund. The big three money suckers. The F35 fighter. Cost is outta sight. The software isn't finished. The gun doesn't fire, the engines cannot take more than 5.6 G. The KC-46 tanker project. The Air Force managed to gold plate a simple "put tanks inside a well proven airliner" project into an ongoing boondoggle that is running late and over budget. The new B-21 strategic bomber, this is going to be a somewhat smaller, and hopefully cheaper, version of the B2 bomber. It's just getting started, but the project did make it thru a bid challenge by the loser[s] (Boeing and Lockheed). Aviation Week did not offer much in the way of cost estimates on the big three. I'd guess $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
And, after the top three projects, we have a four projects in to the Request for Proposal, going out for bids, study project phase. We have a new jet trainer to replace the capable but ageing T-38 Talon. A new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III. The Long Range Standoff Missile to arm the new B21, and re arm the B-52, B1, B2 fleet. A new helicopter for VIP transport.
And even further out, an A10 replacement. Which is hard to think about. The existing A-10 is good at what it does. It's a ground attack fighter that can fly low enough and slow enough for the pilot to see and hit his ground target. Once the airplane can do that, it isn't fast enough to dogfight with mach 2 jet fighters. The answer to this short coming is to provide fighter cover for the A-10s as needed. Bombers have needed fighter escort ever since WWII.
The Air Force isn't going to be able to round up the funding to do all of this stuff at once.
And, after the top three projects, we have a four projects in to the Request for Proposal, going out for bids, study project phase. We have a new jet trainer to replace the capable but ageing T-38 Talon. A new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III. The Long Range Standoff Missile to arm the new B21, and re arm the B-52, B1, B2 fleet. A new helicopter for VIP transport.
And even further out, an A10 replacement. Which is hard to think about. The existing A-10 is good at what it does. It's a ground attack fighter that can fly low enough and slow enough for the pilot to see and hit his ground target. Once the airplane can do that, it isn't fast enough to dogfight with mach 2 jet fighters. The answer to this short coming is to provide fighter cover for the A-10s as needed. Bombers have needed fighter escort ever since WWII.
The Air Force isn't going to be able to round up the funding to do all of this stuff at once.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Trump proposes 6 week paid family leave for new mothers.
Not a bad idea. Birth of a child is the most important event in a person's life. New born infants require pretty much full time care. Mothers, and fathers, feel an enormous compulsion to gave that care. Any responsible employer ought to be willing to cough up six weeks wages to ease the stress on their valuable employees.
There were some other ideas from Trump, mostly making child care costs deductable. You could do that, but simpler, just as effective, and requiring less paper work is to raise the exemption taxpayers already get for each dependent.
There were some other ideas from Trump, mostly making child care costs deductable. You could do that, but simpler, just as effective, and requiring less paper work is to raise the exemption taxpayers already get for each dependent.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Vetting or "extreme vetting" of refugees
"Vetting" nice bureaucrat word, not defined in dictionaries. The word appears in my Webster's but the definition concerns veterinary care for animals. We think the bureaucrats mean checking a refugee's background with his home country authorities. You ask questions like "is this person really a citizen of your country?" and "can we see his police records?" and "Was he gainfully employed before he left your country for America?" and "Did he have a driver's license?" and "What are the names of his wife and children?" and "How far did he go in schooling?"
For real countries, for example England or Japan, this works. There are authorities over there, we know who they are, they have access to written records and they want to cooperate with the United States because of the 800 pound gorilla effect. (What do you say to an 800 pound gorilla? Ans: Sir!) We can believe what the authorities of real countries tell us.
This doesn't work for Syria and similar places. In Syria the authorities are either the Bashar Assad regime or the various rebel groups. Depends on where you telephone. We cannot believe anything that either group will tell us. The records may well have been bombed or shelled or burned.
So no matter what anyone says, admitting a refugee from places like Syria is a risk, they might be enemy agents looking to do us harm. We cannot get trustworthy information from their home authorities, mostly because there aren't any left. The best we can do is interview them, using sympathetic interviewers who speak their mother tongue, and know the area from which the refugee claims he is coming from. I'd say a good interviewer could catch many, but not all, enemy agents pretending to be refugees.
The refugees have suffered terribly, you don't flee your homeland unless things get really bad. I feel sorry for them and want to help them out. Letting them into the United States is a great big help out. And, we need young working age immigrants to keep our population growing.
And, I don't worry about enemy agents infiltrating as refugees. Was I ISIS or the like, and I wanted to get an agent into the US, I'd come up with papers and plane fare to Canada. Then he could walk across the border just about anywhere. More dependable than being a refugee who might or might not get admitted.
For real countries, for example England or Japan, this works. There are authorities over there, we know who they are, they have access to written records and they want to cooperate with the United States because of the 800 pound gorilla effect. (What do you say to an 800 pound gorilla? Ans: Sir!) We can believe what the authorities of real countries tell us.
This doesn't work for Syria and similar places. In Syria the authorities are either the Bashar Assad regime or the various rebel groups. Depends on where you telephone. We cannot believe anything that either group will tell us. The records may well have been bombed or shelled or burned.
So no matter what anyone says, admitting a refugee from places like Syria is a risk, they might be enemy agents looking to do us harm. We cannot get trustworthy information from their home authorities, mostly because there aren't any left. The best we can do is interview them, using sympathetic interviewers who speak their mother tongue, and know the area from which the refugee claims he is coming from. I'd say a good interviewer could catch many, but not all, enemy agents pretending to be refugees.
The refugees have suffered terribly, you don't flee your homeland unless things get really bad. I feel sorry for them and want to help them out. Letting them into the United States is a great big help out. And, we need young working age immigrants to keep our population growing.
And, I don't worry about enemy agents infiltrating as refugees. Was I ISIS or the like, and I wanted to get an agent into the US, I'd come up with papers and plane fare to Canada. Then he could walk across the border just about anywhere. More dependable than being a refugee who might or might not get admitted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)