Smart Phones bad for you

Thus sayeth the Wall St. Journal this morning.  They cite some studies, but do not get down to the nitty gritty such as how large was the sample, how did they measure increase of stupidity of subjects. There were some vague and subjective statements, using the blandest of language. 
   Me, I'm an old fogey, I don't have a smart phone.  I do have a laptop that will do anything a smart phone will, and I pack it along when I travel.  The laptop has a real QWERTY keyboard and a mouse, which the smartphones lack, and I find essential.  I do notice that my smartphone equipped children tend to whip them out during discussions and pop up information to support their points of view. 
  And I an old enough to remember all the things teachers and parents said against television back when it was just coming in.  My buddy Dewey Walsh's family had a 21 inch B&W TV back in the late 1940's.  I do remember watching Howdy Doody and Hopalong Cassidy on it.  My family didn't get a TV until 1956. 
   Could it be the people railing against smartphones are the same sort of people who railed against TV?

There must be something in the water

On Wall St that is.  Something that turns brains to mush.  Only a totally mushed  brain would have loaned $93 billion to Puerto Rico over the years.  It was obvious to anyone that Puerto Rico, a nice place to visit during the New England winter, had no way of ever paying the loans back.  The money was frittered away on salaries and graft, and this and that, it didn't create anything like industries that made money.  Most of  the new loan money went to rolling over old loans.  But Wall St kept on making loans to Puerto Rico.  Must be something in the water.
   And then Puerto Rico, after getting a special act of Congress to allow it, declared bankruptcy last month.  You would think that lower the value of outstanding Puerto Rican loans.  Not on Wall St.  They kept right on trading Puerto Rican bonds at around 90 cents on the dollar, right up to last week.  After Hurricane Maria blew down every electric wire on the whole island and President Trump made an off hand comment that Puerto Rico's loans would have vanish, then finally did Wall St start trading Puerto Rican bonds at 60 cents on the dollar.  Not quite worthless, yet, but a solid hit.  Anyone with two brain cells firing knew that after filing for bankruptcy, Puerto Rico was never going to pay off those bonds.  Which makes them worthless.  But Wall St kept swapping them around at a mere 10 percent discount for weeks.   Must be something in the water.

Let's outlaw Bump Stocks!

I never heard of "bump stocks" until the Las Vegas massacre this week.  And I am a medium savvy gun guy.  Not a total expert, but reasonably knowledgeable.  From what the MSM is telling us (you can believe as much of that as you like) the bump stock is some kind of spring loaded rifle stock that gets an otherwise legal semi automatic AR15 to fire at 700 rounds per minute, machine gun speed.  And the Las Vegas shooter used some.  Apparently the Obama administration ruled bump stocks to be legal a few years ago.
   And the Congress is so happy to find something to ban, that most of us would not object to banning.  They can pass a law, gain some favorable publicity, what's not to like? 
   Depends upon what the letter of the proposed law might be.  Congress critters (mostly dumb as rocks) might vote for language so broad as to outlaw perfectly ordinary shooting accessories like slings, sights, cheek pads, and rests.  I agree that such a law needs to define what it is banning.  Just banning "bump stocks" doesn't work, the makers simply rename the product some thing else, anti recoil stock for example, and go right on selling them.  They gotta come up with words that only ban devices that raise the rate of fire.
 

Gerrymanders, how to detect them, what to do about them.

The term goes way back.  Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, vice president of the US under Madison, fairly heavy duty guy for his time, signed off on a Massachusetts redistricting.  One district came out long and thin and looked kinda like a salamander.  Gerry's political enemies, of which he had a decent number, called the district a Gerrymander, designed to make Gerry's party win the next election. The term stuck.
   Today, skillful politicians attempt to draw district boundaries to win elections.  The idea goes like this.  Pack the opponent's voters into a few districts where they form 100% of the vote.   Spread our voters out so they form 51% of the vote in as many districts as possible.   This way we win more districts than the opponents do, which gives us control.
   Wisconsin Democrats have gotten a case to the Supremes claiming the last redistricting by Republicans is unfair to Democrats because the "Efficiency Gap"  exceeds 7%.  What is the "Efficiency Gap" you ask? Good question.  I never heard of it before.  According to the Wall St Journal it is the sum of "wasted" votes from Party X less the  sum of "wasted" votes for party Y over the sum of all votes.  Chief Justice John Roberts wasn't fond of "Efficiency Gap".  He called it sociological gobble-de-gook.
   I could get with rules against weird shaped districts, such as "The longest distance across a district shall not exceed 1.5 times the shortest distance across the district."  I can get with rules requiring all districts to have the same population, give or take 10%.  I could get  with rules against districts formed of several blobs connected by ultra thin connecting strips.   But I don't like the "Efficiency Gap" idea, it sounds like "You have to redistrict until my party wins."      
  

Electric cars

The Chinese are pushing sales of electric cars.  To keep down the traffic in their biggest cities, they conduct license plate lotteries. Out of millions of hopeful car owners, only a few tens of thousands get plates.  Unless it's an electric car, electric cars get plates immediately. And, the Brits and the Euro's are talking about the same thing, everybody drives an electric by 2040.  Yesterday GM and Ford made similar noises over here.  GM has actually made and sold electrics for twenty years now, abet not many of 'em.
  Is this really the wave of the future?
  Not for me.  The best electrics only go 200 miles on a charge, most of 'em are worse, like 100 miles.  I regularly drive 400 miles down to see my daughter, my new grandson, and my son-in-law, who is a perfectly nice and decent guy, but I am a little closer to my daughter than my son-in-law.  My Buick will make the trip on a single tank of gas.  A best electric would have to recharge once, the lesser electrics would have to recharge three times.  Even with a high powered 440 volt charger, it takes two hours to get a charge.  Lesser 220 volt home chargers take all night.  I don't want to spend two hours waiting on a charger, and turning a 10 hour trip into a 12 hour trip.  I'm sticking with 87 octane gas engines. 

Las Vegas Shooting

Just awful.  My sincerest condolences to the victims, their families, and the wounded. 

This Blog is now TEN years old.

Yep, started posting back in October 2006.  For the first years I got no page views at all.  Nowadays I can count on 10-20 pages views a day  Some hot days the page view count hits the hundreds. That doesn't happen all that often, but it feels good when it happens. 
  Any how, thank you all for reading here.