Abolish ICE?

Democrats, led by their newly elected New York rep Ocasio-Cortez, are calling to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  
Plan A:  replace the current ICE with a newly raised border control force.  This plan just costs money, it won't change anything much
Plan B:  Abolish ICE, lay off all their personnel, sell all their vehicles, office equipment and buildings.  Don't replace them with anything.  Create open borders, anyone can enter the US, bringing in anything they please, drugs, weapons, bombs, cute young sex slaves for sale,  nuclear material, anything.  Everyone all over the world would love to live in the United States, we have made it a very attractive, pleasant, prosperous, comfortable, free place to live. After we have built it, they will come.  En masse.  Will our country remain the United States we know and love after 50 million foreigners move in, settle down, take jobs, and vote in our elections? 

College didn't used to be so darned expensive

Way back in 1968 I got out of the Air Force and went to University of Delaware.  I got an electrical engineering degree that served me well for forty years.  At the time, my veteran's benefits were enough to pay all my tuition.  Tuition was so cheap that some semesters I paid more for textbooks than I did for tuition.  They hadn't invented student loans back then. And Delaware was a good school.  I never had an employer sniff at my Delaware degree over my forty years in the workforce.  
   Now a days I wound up paying $13K a year to put youngest son thru Pratt Institute in Brooklyn.  I hear that any decent public university wants $8K a year.  This is about ten times what it cost me to get thru Delaware fifty years ago.  
   I think the drastic inflation of college costs was caused by student loans.  If there is plenty of loan money to be had, the students will sign up for anything, even being deep in debt for twenty years after graduation.  All the extra money has gone into really nice college buildings, and lots of college administrators, who don't teach, they just draw their pay.

Looking after their own, NEA

Word seems to get around.  I have been a candidate for NH Senate for a little more than a week.  Today I got a letter from the National Education Association (NEA), asking me where I stand on a number of issues.  Of the five questions on their questionaire, three of them concerned teachers pay and benefits, rights to unionize, and how I felt about charter schools, a long time teacher's union bete noire. 
   Clearly NEA doesn't care about teaching children, they only care about teacher's union rights, teacher's union dues and teacher pay and benefits. 
   After working out a decent answer, I consulted with an experienced friend.  The friend suggested I just not answer the NEA questionaire, since NEA is nothing but Democrats, who will twist anything I might write to use against a Republican candidate like me.

Strict Construction versus the living Constitution

The late Supreme Court Justice Scalia was famous for his belief that cases should be decided upon the original intent of the founders.   Since the founding occurred way back in 1789, it requires some research, some history, to understand the intent of men who lived better than 200 years ago.  There have been changes in the language over that much time, but the founders intent is discoverable with only a modest effort.
   Strict constructionists feel the duty of the courts is to judge cases according to existing law, not to make new law from the bench.  If new laws are needed it is the duty of the elected legislature to vote them in, not for single judges, or small groups of judges to make up new law out of whole cloth.
   Living Constitution people say that things have changed since 1789 (true enough) which requires changes in the way we interpret the Constitution to bring it up to date.  And these changes should be made by the courts.  This view is popular with people who have not been able to muster the votes to get their changes passed by the legislature[s].  It is also popular with judges, since it puts them in the driver's seat.  And it is popular with law schools and legal pundits because it makes legal history more interesting.  In modern times it has been easier to sell new ideas to the nine justices of the Supreme Court than to sell new ideas to the general public or  to the elected legislatures.
   I hope President Trump nominates a strict constructionist to fill retiring Justice Kennedy's seat on the Supreme Court.   I don't want to live under a dictatorship of the bench.

Representative Government

The ancient Greeks invented democracy.  In those days all the citizens of the city state would meet and vote on public issues.  This was clumsy, did not scale well, (what works for a city-state, won't work for the entire Roman empire), and led to some really disastrous decisions (the Athenian Syracuse expedition for example). 
   The solution was representative democracy, pioneered by the British parliament and championed by the United States.   Individuals are selected as representatives of their district and they meet to pass laws.  This works, as long as the representatives remember that they are supposed to represent.  In today's US Congress we have a horrific example of representatives failing to vote as their district wants and getting totally wrapped up in petty feuds and back stabbing.  At the rate the Congresscritters are going, I doubt that they will be able pass anything for the next 10 years.  They will draw their pay however.
   Look at today.  Polls show that 70% of Americans want us to do something for the "DACA" people, immigrants brought to the US illegally as small children and who grew up in America.  The third try to pass a DACA bill failed a few hours ago.  In short, all the Congresscritters are failing to pass a law that 70% of the population want passed.  That ain't representative democracy.
   We voters do have a remedy coming up in November.  We could vote all the current Congresscritters out.  

Chevy Equinox

I had to leave the Buick at the dealer for some heavy duty and super expensive repair work.  The dealer loaned me a brand new (2018 1880 miles) Chevy Equinox.  It's quite a car.  Actually I would call it a minivan but I dare say Chevy calls it an SUV, or a crossover (car industry jargon for small SUV).  Minivan is too closely associated with soccer moms to be a good name for a product these days.  SUV  sounds much cooler.  And the Equinox has four regular car doors rather than the one big side sliding door that was the mark of Dodge and Plymouth minivans.  It only seats two in front and two more in back.  The Dodge and Plymouth minivans would seat two in front and five in back.  
   It's got plenty of power.  It charged right up three mile hill without pausing for breath.  It's lost the ignition key.  You have a clever radio gizmo in your pocket, and if the car detects the gizmo, then the "Start" button works.  Press it to crank and run.  Press it again to turn the engine off.  It doesn't have AM_FM radio, it has satellite radio.  Which is cool, but last time I checked you have to pay the satellite company cash money to keep the satellite radio working.  This satellite radio only picked up half a dozen channels.  It lost the parking brake.  Either I could not find it, or it is all automatic.  It's got rear view mirrors AND a snappy color rear view TV camera that comes on when you put the tranny in reverse.
   The owner's manual was not in the glove compartment, so I could not figure out how a lot of stuff works.  Chevy must figure owners are illiterate.  All the dash board controls have cute little pictograms instead of real English language labels.  Lot of the pictograms meant nothing to me.  
   Any how all this fanciness makes my 2003 Buick feel like a Model A.  Only $36K.  Back when I was driving minivans, (80's and 90's)  I got them new for $12K.  If you got kids, then each kid can have his/her own seat, a blessing on long trips  I didn't measure to be sure, but it looks like it would take 4 by 8 sheet goods, or modest sized furniture in the wayback.
  Further update.  The Equinox does have a parking brake, it's a tiny shiny ring on the transmission shifter housing. It's a power operated parking brake.  It also has radio controls hidden underneath the steering wheel.  You can change channels and work the volume without taking your hands off the wheel.   The windshield wiper control acts oddly, but it does work after you figure it out. 

A newsie writes about engineering history

Saturday's Wall St Journal had book review of Richard Rhodes "Energy a Human History".  The reviewer was Charles R. Morris.  Reading Morris's review made it clear to me that Mr. Morris is one of those "cannot change a light bulb" newsies.  For instance, Morris is describing early steam engine operation.  Morris says " Steam was pumped into the piston".  Not so.  The piston is a round metal part that moves back and forth. No where for steam to go into.  The piston moves inside the cylinder, into which steam can go.  Any motor head, like me, knows the difference between pistons and cylinders. Apparently Mr. Morris does not.  Plus, you don't pump steam into anything.  Just open the intake valve and steam under boiler pressure will flow in freely.  No pump required.
   Then Mr Morris writes "Franklin's famous wet-kite experiment demonstrated that ordinary static electricity and the same stuff as lightening by capturing its charges in Leyden jars, primitive batteries."  Not so.  The Leyden jar was an early version of a capacitor, not a battery.  Improved versions of the Leyden jar were called condensers up until the 1950's when the name capacitor was introduced.  All your electronics, TV, stereo, smart phone, desktop, whatever, contain lots and lots of capacitors. 
   And then we read "DC systems drew their power from low-voltage battery storage."  "DC was dependent on battery charging, it had limited range, only a half mile or so."   Not so.  Both DC and AC systems obtained their power from steam driven DC generators or AC alternators.  Edison's first commercial power station at Pearl St in New York city  had a generator.  So did all the later power stations, both AC and DC.  It isn't right to say that DC has limited range.  The right thing to say is that there was/is  no way to change the voltage of DC.  For transmission over distance, you want to set the voltage as high as you dare, thousands of volts, to reduce line losses.  Once the electricity gets to where is was going, you want to reduce the voltage.  Nobody wants thousands of volts in their lamp sockets and wall outlets.  A hundred volts or so is plenty running around your house.  With AC, transformers can change the voltage up for transmission and and then down again for use.  Transformers only work on AC.  Which accounts for the universal use of AC by today's electric companies. 
  "the disgraceful story of leaded gas-its toxicity especially on the brains of children."  Not the problem with leaded gas.  When we got serious about cleaning up the smog problem we put catalytic converters on all our cars.  Leaded gas poisoned the catalyst rendering the converters inoperative.  So the industry switched over to unleaded gas some time in the late 60's to early 70's.  They put smaller fill pipes on cars requiring unleaded so the standard leaded gas nozzles would not fit, and put smaller nozzles on the unleaded gas pumps. 
   I was surprised that the usually dependable Wall St Journal would publish a piece with so many glaring errors.