You gotta call 'em something.

You gotta name the enemy before you can fight him effectively.  Obambi refused to name them and they took over Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and other places.  The Trump administration is calling them radical Islamic terrorists. 
   Democrats and even some Republicans object that the word Islamist makes Muslims worldwide feel we are persecuting them.  Which has some truth to it.  But what else to call them?  In the past, we called enemies by their ideology (Nazi, Commie, Fascist).  Far as I can see, this enemy's ideology IS Islam and so calling them Islamic is fair enough. 
  I suppose we could call them Jehadis.  Except that word doesn't carry enough  juice to be a biting epithet.  Using acronyms, ISIS, ISIL, AQAG, also doesn't seem to cut it.  Using their own names like Al Quaeda suffers when they stop using the name themselves. 
   Perhaps we could call them scumbagies? 

Jeff Sessions schmoozing with the Russians??

The New York Times, a sleezy rag that's been spreading disinformation for 70 years that I know of, quotes an unnamed Justice Dept official the the effect that Jeff Session had two contacts with the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak.  Sessions has denied the reports.  The TV newsies are going full bore with this story, this morning's Fox News has talked about little else today.
   I got some questions.  1.  When did these alleged contacts occur?  2.  What's wrong with a US Senator talking to anybody, including the Russians?  3.  Sessions was a US Senator until very recently.  How does a Justice Dept official know anything about what a Senator is/was doing?  4. Who is this mysterious Justice Dept official that the Times hangs the story on?  5. Are there any other sources?  Named or anonymous?  6.  Sessions has a pretty good rep for honesty, why should I not believe him over an unnamed source? 

Can we cut the State Department?

Good question.  State has 13000 employees.  It has missions in 172 countries.  That's 75 employees per country.  While 75 employees might be reasonable for a major county like Russia, it is overkill for minor countries like Luxembourg, or Bermuda. 
   In the 21st century, State has two missions that make sense to me.  First to gather intelligence.  There is a lotta useful stuff we can pick up by just reading the local newspapers.  Like who is who in their government, and in the government's opposition.  What are the important industries and businesses?  And who runs them? How does the general population feel about things? Geography, good maps are important, and they remain useful for years.  During WWII North African operations relied on maps made by the US marines fighting the Barbary pirates of old.  All this stuff is important, and gathering it and filing it, is legal. 
  Second is to give aid and succor to US citizens abroad.  Lost or stolen passports, arrest by local authorities, kidnappings,  and Lord knows what else.  As a mid to lower class American, I like to hope that if I get into trouble in a foreign land I can call on the US consul or ambassador for help. 
   And, in this day and age of air travel and world wide instantaneous communications, heavy duty international negotiations are handled out of Washington DC, not by US ambassadors abroad.  In fact president Eisenhower created the National Security Counsel to bypass a State Department that he considered inefficient, and infiltrated by communist agents like Alger Hiss.
  So, if we allowed 20 state department employees per country, that yields a headcount of 5120, a helova lot less than the 13000 bodies they have warming chairs today.  If we figure each state department bureaucrat costs $100K a year,  than laying off 7840 of 'em would save $784 million a year.  That's not quite real money in DC speak, but it's still a useful piece of change.

Game of Thrones, Season 6

I'm three DVDs into it and it loosing its cool for me.   The TV miniseries has run off the end of the George R.R. Martin books, which are decent and I have read them all.  Now that the TV is running it's own course, independent of the books, I am loosing track of what's going on.  The show's habit of never calling anyone by name makes things tougher.  An actor will appear on screen, I will say to myself "This guy was in the show a while ago, but I cannot remember his/her name or what he did."  Not knowing frustrates this viewer of the show.
   Then things don't seem to ever get anywhere.  Denarys is still leading the Dothraki toward invading Westeros.  In six whole seasons she hasn't been able to get her Dothraki to the seashore, let alone boarding ship for Westeros.  Arya is still wandering around looking for something to do.  Brendan is still a paraplegic having visions that don't lead anywhere. 
   Then they killed off so many characters over the past seasons that they have decided to bring some back to life, by witchcraft and magic.  Running out of talent I suppose.  They bring Jon Snow back to life in an early scene, but they never spoke his name.  The episode was half over before I decided it was Jon Snow and not his half brother Rob Stark.
    And the camera man is still refusing to turn on the lights.  Pure black scene follows pure black scene.  Arya has gotten her self into a strange place where another girl her size takes some pleasure in beating the stuffing out of Arya with a quarterstaff.  In the fight scenes both Arya and the other unnamed girl wear identical black ankle length dresses.  The scenes are so dark, I can't tell Arya from her opponent.  
   Continuity is weak.  The show has at least six story lines (Denarys and the Dothraki, Brenden, Sam Tarly and his wildling wife, Jaime and Cersei Lannister,  and Tommin the new teenage king)  They cut from one to story line another so fast there is no time to get anything accomplished, and we viewers get confused as to where we are.  And if the rapid story line shifts don't confuse the viewers, they do flashbacks and dream sequences.
   Anyone know if they will do a season 7?

The news, All Trump, all the time

Fox News and the Wall St Journal cover Trump every day, all day.  Nothing else in the whole wide world gets any coverage.  And most of the Trump coverage is repetitive and negative.  I've heard every kind of anti-Trump trash talk there is.  I don't need to hear more of the same.
  I propose the newsies cut back the Trump coverage to maybe 10% and go out and cover some other stories.  For instance the Iraqi Army, backed by USAF and US special forces has taken half of Mosul and is planning to assault the other half.  All the coverage I have seen is from independents like ITV.  No American newsies are on scene, talking to the troops and the locals, and using a Mosul byline. 
   How about some coverage from the South China sea, maybe some close up video of Chinese gun and missile emplacement from a drone? 
   How about some live coverage from the Ukraine?  Or Poland where we deployed a US Army tank brigade last month? 
    I'm tired of the all Trump, all the time news coverage.  I want to see/hear what is going on in the rest of the country and the rest of the world. 

Words of the Weasel Part 48

"Substance" as in "substance abuse".  Used by snowflakes who shrink from calling them druggies or drunkards.  If you cannot name the problem, you cannot deal with it.  And a good strong dose of social disapproval helps druggies kick their habit. 

What's with all this Russia talk by TV newsies?

First they make a big deal about the Russians hacking the DNC and releasing some embarrassing emails to WikiLeaks.  Then they have a field day over the Mike Flynn affair.  Meet the Press spent a lotta time yakking about Russians this morning.   They were clearly trying to sell the idea that the Russians tipped the election to Trump AND that talking to the Russians before the inauguration is treason. 
   Does anyone in the real world believe either idea?