Used to be, the DOT had national standards for specifications on car headlights that included brightness. For some years now, there doesn't seem to be any standard in how bright headlights may be and they get brighter and brighter with every passing year.
I can't speak for what's going on in other parts of the country, but young pukes around here like to install extra-bright lamp bulbs in their little Japanese cars and blind everyone else. Like with the blue lights, for example. I'm not sure why they do this; a form of aggression I guess, like they have brighter lights that you do, hahaha. Having the brightest light is like having the fastest car; it's a form of oneupsmanship. Or they get a feeling of power from being able to blind other motorists.
There's no getting around it, but for some people their eyes become more sensitive to light as they age. However; I've never liked having bright lights pointed in my eyes at any age.
Remember the days when the police would pull you over for headlight offenses? These days, there aren't enough of them around to waste time on such trivial matters. Also, as bright as headlights have gotten on newer cars, how would they even tell if someone was driving around with their high beams on?
Then there's the deal with fog lights. Lots of people who live in the city and the 'burbs feel compelled to drive around with fog lights on in addition to headlights, in any weather. Just because. I know extra illumination is nice to be able to see, but it comes at the expense of every other driver that is forced to deal with overly-bright lights.
I guess some of this comes as a consequence of of the lack of civility and manners that keeps creeping insideously into our society. In times past, motorists might've had some consideration for other drivers on the road. Now, it's "I've got mine and screw you, Jack."
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Age of Aquarius was Horse Puckey
Now that I've gotten to be an old codger, it gives me a bit of experience and perspective to look back on in reflection. Maybe a little license, too. Sometimes, I hear Boomers talking about the Hippie generation, or the "Age of Aquarius" as if it was some golden time when everybody got along, there was this new awareness, etc. Horse puckey. Being carefree Hippies just enabled some young people to get along somehow in life without having to work for a living.
How about life in the communes? I've heard enough stories about this to know that many of those people lived in squalor and their own filth, too lazy or disorganized or factionalized to make a serious, honest go of country life.
And what about "Free Love"? It was free sex, without taking responsibility for the consequences and without having to make a commitment to a relationship.
How about Flower Power, the "Counter Culture", smoking pot, dropping acid, psychedelic music, weird hair and weird clothes? I repeat, it was all horse s**t no Boomer revisionist will convince me otherwise about all these years later. Just like the Japanese revising the history of WW2, the passage of decades doesn't change what happened.
How about life in the communes? I've heard enough stories about this to know that many of those people lived in squalor and their own filth, too lazy or disorganized or factionalized to make a serious, honest go of country life.
And what about "Free Love"? It was free sex, without taking responsibility for the consequences and without having to make a commitment to a relationship.
How about Flower Power, the "Counter Culture", smoking pot, dropping acid, psychedelic music, weird hair and weird clothes? I repeat, it was all horse s**t no Boomer revisionist will convince me otherwise about all these years later. Just like the Japanese revising the history of WW2, the passage of decades doesn't change what happened.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Incompetence in Government
I've just finished reading the book, Killer Spy, by Peter Maas which is about the CIA traitor spy Aldrich Ames. For some reason, I've been interested in the stories of contemporary American traitors and have read similar stories about Jonathan Pollard (Navy employee who gave secrets to Israel), the Walker family (a navy family that made spying a cottage industry), and James Hall (US Army warrant officer who sold highly classified communications security information to the East Germans and the Soviets) and others. In terms of damage to US intelligence operations, Aldrich Ames has to rate way up there near or at the top of the list. His revelations to the Soviets resulted in the rolling up of numerous CIA intelligence operations which in turn resulted in the deaths of numerous US-recruited agents.
A consistent undercurrent in this story is the downright incompetence, inefficiency and malfeasance of the CIA. Ames fed material to the Soviet Union and later the security services of the Russian Federation for many years. During this time, he was an known alcoholic, flunked agency lie detector tests, left plenty of evidence of spending beyond his means, and the agency was aware that he had failed to report contacts with Soviet representatives. Ames frequently entered counterintelligence sections of the CIA where he was no longer assigned, trolling for information. This was a clear and repeated violation of the simple "need to know" principle of security.
I well recall that during the Cold War, the CIA was the dreaded know-all agency in the eyes of our Iron Curtain enemies. Mention of the letters "CIA" and people around the world would shivver. They did not know that it was just another bureacratic government agency, fumbling along, often with indifferent, sometimes careless employees.
Except for a big jump in the unemployment statistics, were half of all federal government employees to be laid off, most people in the US wouldn't know the difference. When you get right down to it, most government agencies are reactive in nature. Since most of them exist to perform a regulatory function, they mostly wait for events to happen and come to them. For this reason, it's difficult to measure efficiency in terms of work produced. So, an efficient employee who empties his in-box quickly is probably working on the same playing field as a slothful one who drags his feet along and whose in-box stays full. I've heard it all before, "Each individual worker has different capabilities."
Saying it another way, most federal agencies don't produce anything with some notable exceptions. The US Postal Service might be termed a productive agency, in that they perform a service and it's of a measurable quantity. Of course they are
flawed and suffer some of the same problems of inefficiency as other agencies. Other examples of "productive" government agencies might be the Bonneville Power Authority or the Tennessee Valley Authority, both of which actually provide a service, i.e., electrical power. Interestingly, these "productive" agencies that I mention have been reviewed for possible privatization and governmental divestiture in past; that's right, get rid of the only government entities that actually produce something and save money for people.
Many of the other government agencies are either road-block or obstacle creators or they have some purpose for giving money away. Regulation wouldn't be a bad thing in all cases, but so often in recent years we have seen so many examples where such regulation either favored special interests or didn't work at all.
Part of the problem with efficiency in federal employment are worker protections. Some of these go back in history to times when employees could be punished for their viewpoints in a system of political patronage. The protections were put in place to protect them from arbitrary management abuses. The political patronage system went away long ago but not the protections. In the meantime, they have also come under the protection of EEO, unions in some cases, and the nation-wide fear of litigation. Consequently, it's very difficult for federal employees to be let go for cause. Simply being a lousy worker won't do it (as it would in the private sector). Aldrich Ames was a good example. Even before he turned to spying, he was known to be an often ineffective employee and some of this was documented (but not all of it because much slipped through the cracks). Do we really want to retain ineffective employees in our intelligence services? The CIA didn't do any more to shed themselves of employees like Ames than the Social Security Administration might have.
Then we come to the Department of Defense. There isn't a valid argument for eliminating this agency, as a structure that provides for a national defense will always be needed given human nature. However, this one is overripe for reform. Many years ago, I worked with a Regular Army Major who espoused that the armed services, in addition to their normal function in providing national defense, also performed a service of social welfare. One facet of this service was to provide an employer of last resort for the unemployed and for youth with a lack if direction in their lives. The other main facet of this theory was that defense expenditures kept defense contractors in money, which not only enriched companies and corporations, but provided jobs for those employed by such enterprises. As time goes by, this theory is more and more supported by facts in evidence as we continue to maintain a large standing military.
There are plenty of arguments for not keeping a large standing force, number one of which is a serious reappraisal of defense priorities. Number two would be a realistic look at what can be financially sustained. Three and beyond involve considerations as to how warfare is likely to be waged in the foreseeable future. The days of elaborate and fantastically expensive super weapons systems might logically be considered a thing of the past. Laser beams nor scalar weapons are going to be any good against a suicide bomber with a dirty nuke in a suitcase. Reducing the active force and rebuilding the National Guard and reserve forces as true week-end warrior outfits might help offset the argument for having a force in place when it's needed in a hurry. In recent times, the reserve components have been looked upon as mere pools of easy manpower for the active forces.
A consistent undercurrent in this story is the downright incompetence, inefficiency and malfeasance of the CIA. Ames fed material to the Soviet Union and later the security services of the Russian Federation for many years. During this time, he was an known alcoholic, flunked agency lie detector tests, left plenty of evidence of spending beyond his means, and the agency was aware that he had failed to report contacts with Soviet representatives. Ames frequently entered counterintelligence sections of the CIA where he was no longer assigned, trolling for information. This was a clear and repeated violation of the simple "need to know" principle of security.
I well recall that during the Cold War, the CIA was the dreaded know-all agency in the eyes of our Iron Curtain enemies. Mention of the letters "CIA" and people around the world would shivver. They did not know that it was just another bureacratic government agency, fumbling along, often with indifferent, sometimes careless employees.
Except for a big jump in the unemployment statistics, were half of all federal government employees to be laid off, most people in the US wouldn't know the difference. When you get right down to it, most government agencies are reactive in nature. Since most of them exist to perform a regulatory function, they mostly wait for events to happen and come to them. For this reason, it's difficult to measure efficiency in terms of work produced. So, an efficient employee who empties his in-box quickly is probably working on the same playing field as a slothful one who drags his feet along and whose in-box stays full. I've heard it all before, "Each individual worker has different capabilities."
Saying it another way, most federal agencies don't produce anything with some notable exceptions. The US Postal Service might be termed a productive agency, in that they perform a service and it's of a measurable quantity. Of course they are
flawed and suffer some of the same problems of inefficiency as other agencies. Other examples of "productive" government agencies might be the Bonneville Power Authority or the Tennessee Valley Authority, both of which actually provide a service, i.e., electrical power. Interestingly, these "productive" agencies that I mention have been reviewed for possible privatization and governmental divestiture in past; that's right, get rid of the only government entities that actually produce something and save money for people.
Many of the other government agencies are either road-block or obstacle creators or they have some purpose for giving money away. Regulation wouldn't be a bad thing in all cases, but so often in recent years we have seen so many examples where such regulation either favored special interests or didn't work at all.
Part of the problem with efficiency in federal employment are worker protections. Some of these go back in history to times when employees could be punished for their viewpoints in a system of political patronage. The protections were put in place to protect them from arbitrary management abuses. The political patronage system went away long ago but not the protections. In the meantime, they have also come under the protection of EEO, unions in some cases, and the nation-wide fear of litigation. Consequently, it's very difficult for federal employees to be let go for cause. Simply being a lousy worker won't do it (as it would in the private sector). Aldrich Ames was a good example. Even before he turned to spying, he was known to be an often ineffective employee and some of this was documented (but not all of it because much slipped through the cracks). Do we really want to retain ineffective employees in our intelligence services? The CIA didn't do any more to shed themselves of employees like Ames than the Social Security Administration might have.
Then we come to the Department of Defense. There isn't a valid argument for eliminating this agency, as a structure that provides for a national defense will always be needed given human nature. However, this one is overripe for reform. Many years ago, I worked with a Regular Army Major who espoused that the armed services, in addition to their normal function in providing national defense, also performed a service of social welfare. One facet of this service was to provide an employer of last resort for the unemployed and for youth with a lack if direction in their lives. The other main facet of this theory was that defense expenditures kept defense contractors in money, which not only enriched companies and corporations, but provided jobs for those employed by such enterprises. As time goes by, this theory is more and more supported by facts in evidence as we continue to maintain a large standing military.
There are plenty of arguments for not keeping a large standing force, number one of which is a serious reappraisal of defense priorities. Number two would be a realistic look at what can be financially sustained. Three and beyond involve considerations as to how warfare is likely to be waged in the foreseeable future. The days of elaborate and fantastically expensive super weapons systems might logically be considered a thing of the past. Laser beams nor scalar weapons are going to be any good against a suicide bomber with a dirty nuke in a suitcase. Reducing the active force and rebuilding the National Guard and reserve forces as true week-end warrior outfits might help offset the argument for having a force in place when it's needed in a hurry. In recent times, the reserve components have been looked upon as mere pools of easy manpower for the active forces.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
We mourn the loss of our pets
Back around 1958 or '59, we had two cats, which were both white. One was named Frisky, and the other was named Homer. Frisky we got as a kitten from I don't remember where, and Homer was a stray that had come around where my dad was working and was brought home. We had a neighbor lady across the street who didn't like cats, and one day made a pointed complaint that our two cats had been in her yard and messed things up and what was my dad going to do about it? Well, in those days most people didn't think about keeping cats strictly indoors. My dad was angry about
this complaint, not at the cats but at the neighbor. Nevertheless, he wanted peace in the neighborhood (which most people were still interested in in those times), so he took both of our cats to the pound (which it was called then, not the "animal shelter") where they no doubt were destroyed. He didn't feel good about it, because he liked cats in general and these animals in particular but at the time, he didn't see another solution to keeping the peace with this neighbor. I was very upset at the time, but of course the passage of time heals wounds especially when we are young. Still, I think about and kind of mourn the loss of these two animals all these years later.
this complaint, not at the cats but at the neighbor. Nevertheless, he wanted peace in the neighborhood (which most people were still interested in in those times), so he took both of our cats to the pound (which it was called then, not the "animal shelter") where they no doubt were destroyed. He didn't feel good about it, because he liked cats in general and these animals in particular but at the time, he didn't see another solution to keeping the peace with this neighbor. I was very upset at the time, but of course the passage of time heals wounds especially when we are young. Still, I think about and kind of mourn the loss of these two animals all these years later.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Why Home-grown Terrorists?
Home-grown terrorists aren't much of a surprise. This happens when people substitute their own self-interests with an ideology and abandon allegiance to a support system. We've had the American communists way back to the '30's through the '60's, some of whom spied for Russia. We've had the German-American Bund before WW2, and later the American Nazi Party. These are examples of groups who choose an ideology over their own national interests. Now we have terrorists of different stripes but mostly Islamic types. They reject police protection, fire protection, all the government support network that they get here, for a nebulous attraction to some terrorists who can't do anything for them.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Warbirds are darkening the skies again...
It's that time of year. The weather gets nice and the warbirds come out at Paine Field in Everett, WA.
For whatever reason, Paine Field has become something of a concentration of warbird activity. There are two flying collections, plus a restoration facility for the Museum of Flight in Seattle. There are other privately-owned warbirds stored there as well.
The Historical Flight Foundation opened their doors not long ago with their flying collection. Since then, there has been a B-25D (old USAAF number 43-3318) in the air most days and making numerous flights most weekend days. Paul Allen's P-47 and P-51 have been zooming around lately as well.
I'm starting to wonder about the safety of all this flying of 65 plus year-old planes. I know these planes are well-restored and maintained, but still the fact remains that on average over the past 20 years, there have been about ten warbird crashes every year in the US. All those B-25 flights keep piling up against probability. I know some morning, I'm going to pick up the newspaper and read about a splash-down. It's going to be on take-off or landing, and it's going to be by a low-hours pilot.
Not too difficult to understand is that buying, restoring and flying warbirds is a millionaire's hobby. But we see some of these people at the gun shows all the time, it's just that they don't have the millionaire's money. They watch "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers" and the first thing they've got to do is buy an M1 Rifle so that they can be "part of history." I'm thinking this may be the same deal with wannabee B-25 pilots. I'm sure that pilots with plenty of experience are flying that B-25 much of the time, but I also imagine that there are interested people lined up to get "checked out" on the B-25 so they can say they too are a B-25 pilot. It's going to be one of those guys in the right seat.
I hope I'm wrong.
Anyway, there's big money in the warbird business, and as I said, it's a millionaire's hobby. It seems that they are now scouring the jungles for warbirds that crashed in WW2. Here's a link to an interesting article about that.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/05/25/remains_are_lost_in_race_for_relics/
For whatever reason, Paine Field has become something of a concentration of warbird activity. There are two flying collections, plus a restoration facility for the Museum of Flight in Seattle. There are other privately-owned warbirds stored there as well.
The Historical Flight Foundation opened their doors not long ago with their flying collection. Since then, there has been a B-25D (old USAAF number 43-3318) in the air most days and making numerous flights most weekend days. Paul Allen's P-47 and P-51 have been zooming around lately as well.
I'm starting to wonder about the safety of all this flying of 65 plus year-old planes. I know these planes are well-restored and maintained, but still the fact remains that on average over the past 20 years, there have been about ten warbird crashes every year in the US. All those B-25 flights keep piling up against probability. I know some morning, I'm going to pick up the newspaper and read about a splash-down. It's going to be on take-off or landing, and it's going to be by a low-hours pilot.
Not too difficult to understand is that buying, restoring and flying warbirds is a millionaire's hobby. But we see some of these people at the gun shows all the time, it's just that they don't have the millionaire's money. They watch "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers" and the first thing they've got to do is buy an M1 Rifle so that they can be "part of history." I'm thinking this may be the same deal with wannabee B-25 pilots. I'm sure that pilots with plenty of experience are flying that B-25 much of the time, but I also imagine that there are interested people lined up to get "checked out" on the B-25 so they can say they too are a B-25 pilot. It's going to be one of those guys in the right seat.
I hope I'm wrong.
Anyway, there's big money in the warbird business, and as I said, it's a millionaire's hobby. It seems that they are now scouring the jungles for warbirds that crashed in WW2. Here's a link to an interesting article about that.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/05/25/remains_are_lost_in_race_for_relics/
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The time I saved the day in Vietnam
On the softball field. I worked in the headquarters of the 79th Maintenance Battalion in Long Binh. Some of the athletically-inclined soldiers in my unit played softball against teams from other units. One day a game was scheduled with another unit, the team was loading up to go play and discovered one of the players was missing. I was still piddling around in the building and one of the men on the softball team rushed in, looking for a live, breathing body - any body - to avoid a forfeit of the game due to not having nine players. I wasn't a softball player and wasn't really interested in the whole deal. Still, they grabbed me and hauled me along to the game. I was sent to the place where I was likely to do the least damage, left field. I had no glove as the regular players brought their own. I was cannon fodder, a body being used to plug a hole in the line. After a couple of innings, I was standing out in left field, watching the birds fly across the sky when I heard a commotion and a lot of people yelling at me. I shifted my gaze to the game and noticed the ball was aloft in a high fly coming right at me. I put my hands up in a defensive gesture and the ball fell right into my bare hand and by some miracle didn't fall out onto the ground. As it happened, the opposing team had men on base and two outs. My astonished would-be team mates were pleased with my unexpected and accidental performance. After that, I commanded a little more respect from the softball players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
