Why is Washington so disfunctional?

This came up in a discussion with youngest son.  We are still close enough to talk politics even though his politics don't always agree with mine.    To which I said, neither side (party) has enough votes to pass their program.  The Republican majority in the Senate is now down to one since the Alabama election.  The Republican majority in the house is a little bigger, but  the "House Freedom Caucus"  RINO's all, cannot be counted to vote with the party.  In short, the Congress is deadlocked between the two parties, neither has enough votes to vote their program thru and get on with things.
   The only solution is to convince more voters to join one side or the other, and give their side a solid majority.  This is hard.  First off, neither party has made (and published) a clear and simple statement of their views.   Partly because they cannot come together on one view, and partly because of the modern conviction that stating your views just makes you enemies, never friends. Which is why politicians refrain from saying any thing of substance  and talk about motherhood and apple pie. 
   Lacking any thing from the two parties, the voters will listen to respected public figures.  But we don't have many of those any more.  Used to be guys like Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer,  and David Brinkley had the respect of the public and were listened to.   Now a days all we have is Dan Rather,  Rachel Maddow, and Opray Winfrey.  Nobody respects them much.  And the entire MSM has destroyed any confidence the public might have held in them.  Nobody believes any politician much.   Public opinion isn't going to change much in the current absence of trusted voices urging change. 
   So, the current deadlock looks like it will continue for a long time. 

America needs more good citizens

Those DACA kids/young people.  When your parents decide to slip into the United States, kids don't have a choice, they have to go where mom and dad go.  Ain't the kids fault that mom and dad are illegal immigrants. 
   For the ones that have grown up in the US, have stayed out of serious trouble with the law, have reasonable English language skills (speak even if with a thick accent,  read a road sign, and sign their names) I am willing to extend them US citizen ship.  Especially if they have graduated high school, or even better college, have a job, are married, are veterans.  These are desirable citizens, and we need more good citizens. 
   Polls show that  a fair number of my fellow citizens think the same way.  Can the Congress Critters get their act together to pass a law letting the stay in the country, or even better make them US citizens?   I know that a lot of 'em will vote for Democrats once they are registered. but that's OK.  I'm happy to have good US citizens even if they don't vote Republican. 

World is getting noisier

Watch some TV news, which is pretty much all from an indoor studio somewhere.  Notice the background noise of ringing phones, emergency vehicle sirens, yelling and shouting,  car crash noises.  Let's hope all this noise is coming from outside the studio.  It's pretty damn loud.   Out on the street it's gotta be worse.  

Walls, Border type.

The Trump administration is now talking about a combination of masonry wall, cyclone fencing, and electronic surveillance.  The MSM is criticizing them for backing off from a 2000 mile masonry wall.  Does not bother me much, at least the cyclone fence part.  A good cyclone fence, with three strands of barbed wire on top is pretty effective.  You cannot get vehicles thru such a fence, at least not without leaving a whacking big hole which is a tip off to the Border patrol. 
   I am not impressed with the electronic surveillance idea.  I was in South East Asia during the war when we tried electronic surveillance along the Ho Chi Min trail.   We air dropped a humongous load of sensors, microphones mostly, up and down the trail.  Mostly the sensors went dead in a few days.  Some of them picked up monkeys howling in the jungle or water buffalo snorting and stomping.  Never did detect a Cong. 

USAF talking about buying lightweight fighters

The first line jet fighters (F22 and F35) cost $50-80 million a piece, and cost $35000 per flying hour.   They are fast, loaded with fancy avionics and expensive missiles, and need long paved runways.  
   For ground attack missions, something simpler and cheaper with modest performance can do the job. Some recon, some close air support bombing, some strafing, and some training.  Modest performance might be  500 knots top speed, 100 knots landing speed,  propeller driven, 700-800 horsepower turbine engine.   With some really sharp bargaining, you might be able to buy such a plane for $1 million apiece.    If  the enemy doesn't have an air force, or a squadron or two of our high performance fighters  takes care of enemy fighter opposition,  such a modest performance (approximately the performance of a good WWII fighter) aircraft could be very effective. 
   There are a number of American allied countries that have  security problems, that a little air power might solve, who could afford some $1 million warplanes,  but could never afford high performance high cost  jet fighters.   If USAF were to demonstrate the effectiveness of light weight fighters,  they would be encouraged to try some.  "If the Americans are flying them, they must be OK."

Oscar Nominations for Best Picture 2018

They nominated nine movies.  Five of them I never heard of before.  Fine publicity work there. Two of em (Dunkirk and Darkest Hour) I have seen, in theater, and they are not bad.   I had actually heard of another two (The Post and Shape of Water).  I cannot imagine ever going to see either them. 
   Perhaps there is a connection between mediocre to miserable Oscars and the worst year for box office receipts?

Darkest Hour 2017

Good Flick.  Gary Oldham plays Winston Churchill and plays him well.  Churchill was the key allied leader in WWII.   The movie shows Churchill  rallying the British rank and file, silencing the appeasers,  launching Operation Dynamo (the evacuation of the British Army from Dunkirk).  This is a crucial period in WWII.  England was the only important European power that Hitler never conquered.  Had England crumped, Hitler and his Nazis would have owned Europe, pretty much forever.  The movie ends with Churchill giving his "fight them on the beaches, fight them on the landing grounds.  We shall never surrender." speech in Parliament.   Far as I can tell, the movie follows the real history of the time.   The real history is so dramatic that nobody can imagine a way to make things more dramatic. 
    I liked this movie better than Dunkirk.  We watch one key protagonist (Churchill)  leading his country to fight against the Nazis.  Dunkirk was more into battle field views of anonymous British soldiers.  
    Costumes and sets were excellent.  Sets were ingeniously lit with the brightest light centered on the important actors in the scene.  Most scenes were the famous smoke filled rooms, the air blue with tobacco smoke.  Lots of very fancy period bric a brac every where, on desks, bureaus, and whatever.
    I saw the movie at the Lincoln NH theater on a Sunday night.  Crowd was light.  In fact there was only one other person, aside from myself in the theater.