Making a hash of it

 

I'd never thought much about beef hash or corned beef hash, except that I occasionally enjoy them for breakfast along with eggs and toast.  However, it turns out hash goes back centuries, and there's a clear development in that timeline from what they called hash way back then, to what we know as hash today.

Townsends has produced this video introducing hash and its history.  It makes interesting viewing for foodies, and may be the basis for some new hash ideas in the future.  I'm pondering hash made with chopped dried fruit, to add a little sweetness.  Different, certainly, but possibly also very tasty . . .

Suddenly I feel hungry . . .

Peter

A self-inflicted tragedy in Gaza

 

A report on Thursday claimed that children were being deliberately targeted - executed, in so many words - by Israeli snipers in Gaza.

Dr. Mark Perlmutter, an American surgeon with heavy catastrophe-zone experience, is among those stunned by the civilian devastation they've recently witnessed in Gaza, and especially by a high volume of what appear to be precision rifle-fire wounds on children -- including toddlers.

"All of the disasters I've seen, combined – 40 mission trips, 30 years, Ground Zero, earthquakes, all of that combined – doesn't equal the level of carnage that I saw against civilians in just my first week in Gaza," Dr. Mark Perlmutter, an orthopedic surgeon and vice president of the International College of Surgeons, told CBS's Sunday Morning.

. . .

Perlmutter, a Jew who grew up in New Jersey and who now lives in North Carolina, was also disturbed what what he attributed to precise rifle fire directed at children, some of whom were "shot twice." 

"I have two children that I have photographs of that were shot so perfectly in the chest, I couldn't put my stethoscope over their heart more accurately, and directly on the side of the head, in the same child. No toddler gets shot twice by mistake by the 'world's best sniper.' And they're dead-center shots."

His description of the phenomenon was confirmed to CBS News by more than 20 other doctors who'd recently visited Gaza. An American doctor had such a problem grasping what he was seeing that he double-checked using CT scans, saying he "didn't believe that this many children could be admitted to a single hospital with gunshot wounds to the head."

There's more at the link.

It should be noted that the gist of that article has been repeated in sources such as Common Dreams (an explicitly progressive-left outlet), Politico and Democracy Now!  I have no idea of the political views of Dr. Perlmutter, but I suspect the views of such outlets are clues.  I note, too, that neither he nor any of the others involved have spoken about Hamas atrocities on October 7, 2023, or at other times.  It seems a rather one-sided perspective.  That does not, of course, affect the very real disaster that has befallen the people, particularly the children, of Gaza, but it does - must - condition one's perspective on it.

It's tragic to read about that disaster, and even more tragic to see it in real life.  I speak from all too bitter personal experience, because in the terrorist wars in southern Africa during the 1970's and 1980's, children were cold-bloodedly and brutally used as couriers, cover, even as armed combatants, by the terrorist movements.  The kids were given no choice in the matter, and their parents had no option but to let them do so - or be killed themselves as "counter-revolutionary sell-outs".  In rural areas of Rhodesia (today Zimbabwe), and to a certain extent in the Ovambo regions of South West Africa (today Namibia), it became common for terrorist gangs to kidnap whole schools full of kids and send them across the border to be trained as guerrillas/terrorists in their turn.  The security forces attempted to rescue them before they could be taken out of the country, but seldom succeeded - and when they did, many of the kids died or were wounded in the crossfire.

There were many incidents where security forces were deliberately placed in a no-win situation by terrorists using kids as cover, or to take military equipment to fighters by concealing it in their schoolbags (for example, magazines of ammunition, hand grenades, or even a land-mine or two).  Some children were even used as soldiers, not in uniform, but carrying grenades or other lethal devices and throwing them at a patrol while walking with a group of their fellow kids.  When fire was returned, it wasn't just the guilty ones who died.

I described some years ago how a baby was used to camouflage a land-mine, positioned to catch a patrol.

I remember Gavin, who was a member of a patrol that found a baby, too young to walk, sitting in the middle of a dirt road in a township, crying. As the point man and a couple of others walked up to see why the baby was just sitting there, the terrorists waiting in ambush blew up the landmine they'd buried beneath her, killing the point man and savagely mutilating the other two soldiers. Bits of flesh and blood from the soldiers, and the baby, splattered all over Gavin . . . across his face . . . in his eyes, nose and mouth.

For years, Gavin would start awake in the small hours at night, a scream of horror on his lips. "They blew up a baby! A baby!" Gavin's wife eventually left him, because she couldn't handle the strain of living with his nightmares. Psychiatric treatment couldn't break the cycle; nor could alcohol, or drugs (legal and illegal). Gavin took his own life at last, too tormented by what he'd seen to endure any longer, in the small hours every night, the parade of images across his closed eyelids. He was a hero in my book . . . and I'll always remember him as such.

There was another case where a dead baby was literally hollowed out, presumably by its mother.  Its body cavity was filled with explosives, and then carried through a military checkpoint to conceal the ordnance.  It worked the first time . . . and the second . . . but by the third time, decomposition had set in, and a whiff of it came to the nostrils of one of the soldiers at the checkpoint.  He investigated, and uncovered the scheme.  (The mother claimed - possibly truthfully - that she'd been forced to cooperate with the terrorists;  therefore, no action was taken against her.  I had my doubts.)

I was present when a vehicle-mounted patrol was passing through a very volatile area.  A woman rushed out from behind a hut, with a baby strapped to her chest in the typical African manner.  She charged the lead vehicle, holding a Molotov cocktail in either hand, their fuses lit.  The soldiers on the vehicle had a very simple binary choice.  Shoot her - which meant snap-shooting, probably through the baby on her chest, because there was no time to take careful aim and avoid it - or be immolated when the gasoline bombs exploded inside the load bed of the patrol vehicle.  You can imagine their feelings . . . but they were left with no other options.  She, and her baby, died.  Whose fault was that baby's death?  Not the soldiers', I would argue.

Older kids, as noted earlier, were used as couriers, pack mules, and resupply trains, particularly where the presence of international journalists might be presumed to inhibit troops - who knew exactly what they were doing - from shooting at them.  It seldom worked.

US forces encountered precisely the same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It's happening in Gaza, too.  We've all seen videos on YouTube and elsewhere of how Gaza kids are brainwashed and indoctrinated to seek martyrdom, to hate Jews, and to lash out at them whenever and wherever they can.  If you or I were an Israeli sniper or designated marksman in Gaza right now, and saw a baby being used as "live cover" by its mother in a critical situation, or an older kid making a run towards our troops or carrying supplies towards a known enemy strongpoint . . . I daresay we'd take the shot in a heartbeat, because if we didn't, our own troops would suffer the consequences.  That's the cold, hard, brutal reality of a terrorist war.  There are no morals.  There are no rules - except, "Survive!"  Allow me to assure you:  if you hesitate, you won't.

When you're dealing with a ruthless, homicidal movement like Hamas, which has openly stated that civilian casualties serve its purpose as propaganda, it's even worse.  I wish we could know precisely what side shot each of those children.  The answer might be very revealing.  We do know that for years, Hamas has routinely trained children at summer camps to be terrorists.  It has sent children to confront Israeli soldiers on patrol, throwing stones at them, in the hope that the soldiers will shoot back, thereby creating more propaganda about "Israeli atrocities" for dissemination.  Hamas wants child casualties.  It glories in them.

Yes, Israeli forces almost certainly are targeting kids who show themselves in suspicious circumstances.  I'm more saddened by that tragedy than words can say, but I'm not surprised by it.  I'm more surprised at how few kids in Gaza have been shot like that.  As a proportion of the population, I daresay it's minuscule.  I submit that speaks to the discipline and training of the Israeli troops involved (see, for example, the videos linked in the previous paragraph).  There may be a few renegade souls in Israeli uniform who are actively seeking to murder innocent kids in Gaza, but I think it's very unlikely.  I hope and pray I'm not wrong.

May God receive the souls of the children who die like that;  and may He visit condign punishment on those who force them into situations where that can happen to them.

*Sigh*

Peter

Not a fruitful headline...

 

The subject of the article is actually innocuous (i.e. the fruit), but given North American slang (i.e. not the fruit), the headline left something to be desired.

Cherries line up for a controlled modal switch

Um . . . yes!  Quite!

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  The headline appears to have been modified since then, but it's still funny.

The terrible truth about the "Pyramid of Cheese"

 

Several years ago, Francis Porretto published an essay on cheese (more specifically, the sort used in macaroni and cheese).  It first appeared on his previous blog back in 2007.  He linked to it the other day, which is what recalled it to mind.

The Great Pyramid Of Cheese

I think it's essential reading for all cheese lovers;  and if you have "finicky eater" kids, who think that off-the-shelf cardboard-box macaroni and cheese is all she wrote, this will hopefully educate them.  I've no idea what flavoring is applied to cardboard-box cheese, but the reality of the food underlying it is truly ghastly!

Peter

Unintended consequences: Russian crime edition

 

As I'm sure most readers will remember, when the Russian invasion of Ukraine kicked off, Russia soon found itself short of fighting soldiers.  One of the ways it sought to address that was to allow convicted criminals to volunteer to serve with the Wagner Group, a private military contractor.  If they served six months, the remainder of their prison sentence was excused and they became free men once again.  The body count was allegedly very high, but a significant proportion of the thousands who volunteered are once again out and about in Russia.

Turns out that might not have been such a good idea . . .

According to Bloomberg, citing data from the Supreme Court of Russia, crimes committed by soldiers (but not those on the front line) increased by more than 20% in 2023. Although their number is still "small," and many soldiers do not commit offenses, the number of violent acts, thefts, and drug-related crimes are rising.

However, the data do not include crimes committed by thousands of convicts. It's important to recall that they were released from prisons to join a program founded by the late Yevgeny Prigozhin. Those who survived six months on the front could receive a pardon from President Vladimir Putin and return to Russia as free men.

As sociologist Iskender Yasaveev explained in an interview with Bloomberg, they are treated horribly on the front. "The experience they return with is a trauma that will manifest itself for decades," he argues.

According to Bloomberg, the return of prisoners who fought for Wagner provides an early picture of what might happen when hundreds of thousands of men return from the front to civilian life. The agency notes that while minor crimes have decreased, the number of murders and sexual offenses, especially against children, has not reduced in the past two years.

According to Bloomberg's calculations based on Supreme Court data, the number of assaults on minors increased by 62% compared to the pre-war period. Meanwhile, the number of crimes involving military personnel quadrupled - to 4,409 in 2023, compared to 2021.

Bloomberg describes that the return of Wagner recruits to Russia has shocked city and village residents. They discover that men they thought were serving long prison sentences are living among them again. Among those pardoned were people convicted of murder and even cannibalism.

There's more at the link.

Yeah . . . I can understand that finding the person who raped, killed and ate your daughter is back in your village, free as a bird, might be just a leeeetle bit upsetting to her parents.  However, they have no recourse;  the pardon has already been issued.  If they try to take justice into their own hands, they make themselves guilty of a crime, and will land up behind bars or executed.  There's no future in that.

On the other hand, it appears that Russian soldiers are turning on each other with increasing criminality - possibly due to the presence in their ranks of precisely the same released convicts?

The journalists pointed out that from January to October 2023, 135 cases of murders committed in areas occupied by Russian soldiers were settled in courts. "It turns out that the Kremlin's army kills its own soldiers every two to three days — due to mistakes or negligence," reports Onet. Importantly, these are incomplete data, as there is no information from garrison courts in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

It turns out that more crimes are committed in these areas than murders committed by war veterans throughout Russia ... Crimes occur both in trenches along the front lines and in camps. Many murders are successfully covered up by reporting deaths resulting from combat actions. Many cases reach the courts, though it's hard to say what percentage of this represents.

An analysis of verdicts shows that, in most cases, alcohol is a factor. This was the case in 83% of cases. As many as 76% of the perpetrators were drunk at the time of the murder. Some of the accused were confirmed to have alcoholism, drug addiction, and in some cases, mental and behavioral disorders, including PTSD.

Again, more at the link.

I can understand Russia wanting more troops;  but this way of getting them seems to have had more than a few unintended (and very undesirable) consequences.

Peter

Very good questions. Will we ever get any answers?

 

I've deliberately refrained from much comment about the assassination attempt on President Trump and the fallout from it.  Things appear to be getting murkier and murkier, and the number of unanswered questions and mysterious coincidences are growing by the day.  One wonders whether we'll ever get (honest) answers to them all.  (If the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and the current Attorney-General are running the investigations, I'd say that's very unlikely.)

Aesop, writing at Raconteur Report, puts together a list of points that, taken together, are a searing indictment of the so-called "Deep State".  Here are a few examples.

Somebody made the decision to half-ass Trump's protective detail all along.

Somebody made the decision, despite multiple requests from the campaign, not to increase Trump's protective detail.

Somebody decided, despite clear and credible threats of an Iranian assassination plot, not to increase Trump's detail in the days prior to the Butler assassination attempt.

Somebody decided to deliberately and knowingly lie about that, and claim that just the opposite had happened.

Somebody on Trump's detail made the jackassical decision to place the nearest building to Trump's podium outside Secret Service responsibility, against all common sense and basic SOP.

Somebody made the jackassical decision not to put Secret Service countersnipers on top of that very building.

Somebody made the decision to not have everyone on the same radio frequencies, and not to have liaison officers from all agencies in each others' command posts, to literally make sure everyone was on the same page at all times during the event.

Somebody made the decision to pull all of Trump's actual Secret Service bodyguards from him at this event, and replace them with fat-assed, half-assed, untrained and unqualified fifth-string security bumpkins from DHS. And just pretend Trump was being protected by the Secret Service.

There's much more at the link.  Recommended reading.

Next, the Oversight Project of the Heritage Foundation came up with some awfully suggestive coincidences concerning the would-be assassin's electronic devices and others associated with them.

I know there will be those who say, "Oh, they're just coincidences!  You can't draw any meaningful conclusions from them!"  Perhaps . . . but taken with Aesop's points to ponder, plus the known mendacity of the FBI and related agencies, I'm not so sure.

All I can say is, if I were President Trump, I'd want to hire my own security agents to watch the "official" ones whose duty it was to "guard" me.  I'd feel a lot safer that way.

Peter

Looks like others have the same fear...

 

A few days ago I put up a blog post titled "Biden quitting the race? That could be very risky for all of us".  In it, I postulated that President Biden, freed from any restraint connected to his re-election, could go "scorched earth" on his policies, using executive orders and other measures to ram through actions and decisions that might impact the whole country very negatively.  After all, he'd have nothing left to lose.

It looks like the New York Post has similar fears.

In an irony that would seem absurd in any election cycle but this one, Joe Biden is now liberated to do exactly what he wants without fear of reprisal for the first time in what has been a half-century political career full of triangulation and calculation.

He can even embrace the “Dark Brandon” persona his online fans have yearned for in recent years.

In short, there’s a realistic chance that if the president doesn’t step down and isn’t driven out — via a 25th Amendment scenario as Republicans from JD Vance on down would like — it’s entirely possible his term’s last few months could include some of the most radical moves any chief executive would make.

There’s no one left to cater to. So Biden, who presented himself as something of a caretaker president in the 2020 cycle, can assume his final form as an executive order-wielding change agent as he runs out the clock on his political career.

. . .

Could he increase American involvement in Ukraine? Could he impose more conditions on aid to Israel amid its struggles with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran?

What’s stopping him is the real question.

And of course there is the case of Hunter Biden, a key White House adviser of late who was recently convicted of three felonies in a federal gun trial.

Republicans aren’t the only ones who can talk about “lawfare,” and Biden — despite pledging he wouldn’t pardon his son — has nothing to stop him from breaking that vow.

There's more at the link.

I'll be watching developments very carefully.  I think there might be all sorts of mischief coming out of the White House over the next few months - not least because the mainstream media are going to be focusing on the election campaign, and paying less attention to the "old guard" (something the Biden administration might be relying upon).

Peter

Clarification is important

 

From Stephan Pastis' "Pearls Before Swine" comic strip.  Click the image to be taken to a larger view at the cartoon's home page.

Reminds me of a Franciscan friar who told me, when I was a student at seminary, "Prayer is such a dangerous thing.  Before you know it, you're heard - so better be careful what you ask for!"

Peter

Thankyouthankyouthankyou!!!

 

Out of the blue, an unexpected package arrived yesterday from Killer Bees Honey, whom I first mentioned on this blog back in 2016.  Their bees (or "ladies", as the beekeeper refers to them) produce what may be the finest, best-tasting honey in the USA - and I don't say that lightly.  It's remarkable stuff.

 Once opened, the package revealed two jars of honey and a note from an anonymous reader of this blog, commiserating with me over my "recent medical misadventures" and hoping the honey "will help speed your recovery".  How can it not?  I couldn't resist opening a jar at once and sampling a big teaspoonful of its delicious contents.  Best medicine I've had in weeks!

To my anonymous benefactor:  thanks a ton!  It was a wonderful and very thoughtful gift.  To the rest of my readers:  if you haven't tried Killer Bees Honey for yourself, you truly don't know what you're missing.  It is, quite literally, the best honey I've ever tasted.  I may possibly meet a honey that's their equal, but I don't expect to ever find one better than these.  Award yourself a taste "fix"!

(No, I'm not being compensated in any way to advertise Killer Bees Honey.  A friend founded it, and I first mentioned it here to give him a boost.  After tasting it, my wife and I have ordered from them every year.  It's not cheap, but it's the best!  We visited them in 2019, and hope to do so again if we're ever in the area.)

Peter

"Myths Hollywood taught you about guns"

 

I'm obliged to Zendo Deb at the 357 Magnum blog for linking to a useful video about Hollywood's myths about guns.  It's one of the most propagandized - and most misunderstood - subjects in the entertainment world, and any attempt to set the record straight is worthwhile, IMHO.

If you have friends who don't understand firearms, or are afraid of them, tell them to watch this video clip.

Let's get the truth about guns out there, so that we can debate with anti-gunners based on facts rather than fanciful fiction and emotion-driven excess.

Peter

A mass murderer is unrepentant

 

An article and video at the BBC's Web site has highlighted one of the more horrific mass murderers of the apartheid era in South Africa.  As they emphasize, the perpetrator was tolerated, even encouraged, by the police forces and justice system in that country until it became no longer possible - due to public outrage and a change in the political climate - to do so;  and even then, he received a minimal sentence, with most of his murders being judicially ignored.  I remember his case from that time, and the horror and outrage it aroused in parts of the local community, particularly because he apparently felt no remorse.  He regarded himself as a savior and defender of public order.

Let me start by saying that, in writing about the apartheid era in South Africa, I've frequently run into comments claiming that black people were actually better off under apartheid than they are under the present government there;  that apartheid itself wasn't so bad, and neither were Afrikaners;  and that allegations of mass ill-treatment of black South Africans under apartheid are nothing more than revisionist exaggerations.  I think I answered most of those comments in previous posts.  In particular, see these four:

My heroes

Was apartheid South Africa really that bad?

No, the Afrikaners were NOT "The Heroic White Tribe of Africa"

Defending my thesis about South Africa and the Afrikaners

They put the case of Louis van Schoor and his (at least) 39 victims (he's known to have boasted about shooting 100 or more) into perspective.  He did not act alone.  He was part and parcel of the system of apartheid, and his actions were deemed to be enforcing "law and order" - for the white community, and against the black community.  Here's an excerpt from the article.

Over a three-year period in the 1980s under the country’s racist apartheid system - which imposed a strict hierarchy that privileged white South Africans - Van Schoor shot and killed at least 39 people.

All of his victims were black. The youngest was just 12 years old. The killings occurred in East London, a city in South Africa’s windswept Eastern Cape.

Van Schoor was a security guard at the time, with a contract to protect as many as 70% of white-owned businesses: restaurants, shops, factories and schools. He has long claimed that everyone he killed was a “criminal” who he caught red-handed breaking into these buildings.

“He was a kind of vigilante killer. He was a Dirty Harry character,” says Isa Jacobson, a South African journalist and filmmaker, who has spent 20 years investigating Van Schoor’s case.

“These were intruders who were, in a lot of cases, pretty desperate. Digging through bins, maybe stealing some food… petty criminals.”

Van Schoor’s killings - sometimes several in a single night - struck terror into the black community of East London. Stories spread through the city of a bearded man - nicknamed “whiskers” in the Xhosa language - who made people disappear at night. But his shootings were not carried out in secret.

Every killing between 1986 and 1989 was reported to the police by Van Schoor himself. But the release from prison of anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela in 1990 signalled an end to this impunity. Ripples of change swept across South Africa and, following pressure from activists and journalists, the security guard was arrested in 1991.

Van Schoor’s trial was one of the largest murder trials in South Africa’s history, involving dozens of witnesses and thousands of pages of forensic evidence.

However, the case against him largely collapsed in court. At the time of his trial, much of the apparatus of the apartheid system was still in place within the judiciary. Despite killing at least 39 people, he was only convicted of seven murders. He would go on to serve just 12 years in prison.

His other 32 killings are still classified as “justifiable homicides” by the police.

There's more at the link.

Here's an hour-and-a-quarter-long video documentary about van Schoor.  It's even more chilling than the article.

If you have young people in your family (not too young, of course!), I highly recommend that you show them that video, or let them read the article.  Believe it or not, there are people like van Schoor still alive in the USA today.  They did similar things (although, please God, with a lower body count) in this country during the Civil Rights era, and many were never caught, or charged, or tried.  I've met several of them.  Our young people today need to be forewarned that such barbarism exists, because it's part of human nature, and it can arise again at any time if the conditions turn favorable for it.

May Almighty God have mercy on our souls . . . even, if it is possible, that of Louis van Schoor and those like him . . . and especially of his and their victims.

Peter

Following on from my July 3 post...

 

... which, if you missed or can't remember it, may be found here:  the next step in the "call your doctor" process.  Click the image to be taken to a larger version at the comic's Web page.

It's felt like that to me, too, at times . . .

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  Sorry, the link didn't work.  I edited the post, and now it works.

Kamala Harris defied court rulings as California's Attorney General. Imagine what she might do as President.

 

I think the prospect of Kamala Harris as President of the United States is one of profound danger for the rule of law in this country.  When she was Attorney General of California, she disobeyed and displayed open contempt for court rulings - including the Supreme Court - ordering the State to fix its prison problems.  If she was that recalcitrant and obstructionist back then, what would she be like when wielding Presidential authority?

Kamala Harris ... repeatedly and openly defied U.S. Supreme Court orders to reduce overcrowding in California prisons while serving as the state’s attorney general, according to legal documents reviewed by the Prospect. Working in tandem with Gov. Jerry Brown, Harris and her legal team filed motions that were condemned by judges and legal experts as obstructionist, bad-faith, and nonsensical, at one point even suggesting that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to order a reduction in California’s prison population.

The intransigence of this legal work resulted in the presiding judges in the case giving serious consideration to holding the state in contempt of court. Observers worried that the behavior of Harris’s office had undermined the very ability of federal judges to enforce their legal orders at the state level, pushing the federal court system to the brink of a constitutional crisis. This extreme resistance to a Supreme Court ruling was done to prevent the release of fewer than 5,000 nonviolent offenders, whom multiple courts had cleared as presenting next to no risk of recidivism or threat to public safety.

Despite a straightforward directive from the Supreme Court to identify prisoners for release over a two-year period, upholding a 2009 ruling that mandated the same action over the same timeline, the state spent the majority of that period seesawing back and forth between dubious legal filings and flagrant disregard. By early 2013, it became clear that the state had no intention to comply, leading to a series of surprisingly combative exchanges.

. . .

Harris’s office launched into a campaign of all-out obstruction, refusing to answer why they could not simply release low-risk, nonviolent inmates to conform to the Supreme Court’s request. “Defendants offered no explanation, however, why they could not release low-risk prisoners early,” the June 2013 ruling stated.

But Harris’s office didn’t stop there. Instead, they claimed on behalf of the state that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to even request such a release, refusing to answer questions as to how they would implement the Supreme Court ruling, and courting a constitutional crisis. That resulted in a stunningly sharp rebuke from the three-judge district court panel in a June 2013 ruling.

When asked by what date the state could identify their list of prisoners who are unlikely to reoffend, “defendants defiantly refused,” the judges wrote, “and stated, somewhat astonishingly, that our suggestion that we might order defendants to develop a system to identify low-risk prisoners, a system that the Supreme Court had suggested we might consider ordering defendants to develop ‘without delay,’ is a prisoner release order that vastly exceeds the scope of any of the Court’s prior orders.” The Supreme Court, in fact, ruled that the three-judge district court panel had exactly that authority in its 2011 ruling. “In tortured logic,” the district court continued, “defendants suggested that the Supreme Court’s statement ‘did not authorize the early release of prisoners,’ or even the consideration of that question.”

Harris’s attorney general’s office, the ruling added, “continually equivocated regarding the facts and the law,” to the point that the panel strongly considered holding the state in contempt.

There's much more at the link, including links to other articles providing more details.  A tip o' the hat to Francis Turner for drawing my attention to the source.

I don't think anyone in his/her right mind could actually want someone who's displayed such contempt for the rule of law to be elected to a position where she could defy the law, ignoring Supreme Court decisions, enacting her own will through executive orders, and daring opponents to take her to court to overturn her rulings.  With the power of the Presidency behind her, she could throw the entire legal and judicial system in the United States into disarray.

(This, of course, has nothing to do with her political affiliation.  I daresay there are some Republican - and other Democrat - politicians who would be just as dangerous to our legal system if they ended up in the White House.)

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 219

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

I mentioned yesterday that I'd been "Working too hard.  Not able to switch off my mind and relax."  I got some more sleep during the day yesterday, and so far tonight's been OK . . . to bed at about 9.30 PM last night, up at 2:20 AM as expected (my permanent spine injury won't let me sleep much longer than 4 or 5 hours at a time without locking up solid, so that I have to get up, walk around, have some tea [and sometimes a painkiller], and wait an hour or two until -if - I can get back to sleep).

At any rate, Friday night reminded me of one of my favorite songs from the 1960's:  "The Windmills Of Your Mind", sung by Noel Harrison in the film "The Thomas Crown Affair".  One of the composers, Alan Bergman, said of it:  "We felt that the song had to be a mind trip of some kind ... I think we were thinking, you know when you try to fall asleep at night and you can't turn your brain off and thoughts and memories tumble."

Apart from being a brilliant musical summation of a central dilemma in the film, it's certainly an accurate description of lying awake, sometimes for hours, trying to get one's mind to stop flitting from subject to subject, and instead slow down enough to get some sleep!

Peter

No Snippet today

 

It's about 2.30 am on Saturday morning, and I still haven't gone to bed.  Working too hard, not able to switch off my mind and relax.  So, I'm afraid there's no Snippet today;  instead, I'll have a last cup of tea, then head to bed and just lie there until my eyes decide it's OK to close.

Peter

Mike Williamson describes military frustrations. Veterans will more than understand.

 

Michael Z. Williamson, friend, author, blogger, knife vendor and all-around good guy, has written a magnificent rant about the trials and tribulations of dealing with military administration - and administrators.  I've never served in the US military, but my memories of the South African military pretty much match his, and I spent a while giggling (unhappily) over the memories his article brought back to mind.  It's a lengthy rant, and will take some time to read in full, but if you're a veteran of military service, you'll appreciate it.

Getting Some Old Military Frustrations Down On Paper

Click over there and have fun!

Peter

Chain reaction?

 

Here's an interesting and impressive video showing how giant ship anchor chains are forged.

A lot of people assume that the flukes, or "hooks", at the end of an anchor chain is what holds a ship in place.  Actually, that's seldom the case.  They're there to allow the anchor to "dig in" to the seabed, which in turn enables the chain to pay out in approximately a straight line from that point back to the vessel deploying it.  Usually, what keeps a major vessel anchored is the sheer weight of anchor chain paid out by the ship.  If, say, the water depth is 50 feet, you might find ten, twenty or even more times as much anchor chain paid out, laid out along the sea bed to act as a living "brake" against the forces of wind and tide.  The part of the chain that curves up from the sea bed to the vessel acts as a shock absorber, lessening the direct strain of the ship on the chain lying along the sea bed.  That chain weighs so much that to overcome its inertia and move whatever is attached to it takes a great deal of effort.  Even so, a big enough force (say, a major storm) can certainly accomplish that - which is why so many ships put to sea if a big storm approaches, to ride it out at a safe distance from the land.

See for yourself how big those chains can be.  The video title mentions "warships", but chains this big would apply only to the largest of them (say, an aircraft carrier or amphibious assault vessel).  Even bigger ones will be used aboard supertankers, ultra-large container ships, etc.

Here's how the process works.

Impressive!

Peter

Biden quitting the race? That could be very risky for all of us

 

The news and social media are full of rumors that President Biden may announce his withdrawal from the 2024 Presidential election.  That doesn't mean he'd leave office as well, of course:  that could happen, but there's no certainty that he'd be prepared to bow out early.  I suspect he'd be more likely to continue in office until his present term expires in January next year.

That could be a very big problem.  Biden has already demonstrated on repeated occasions that he can be vindictive, nasty and vengeful to those he thinks have slighted him.  Just how much damage could a lame-duck president do in the final half-year of his term in office?  I suspect the answer is "A heck of a lot!"

It may be that Congress and the Senate could prevent or mitigate the worst of the damage, by refusing to pass enabling legislation.  However, presidential executive orders can operate without such support.  Biden could install his supporters in critical positions in the Executive Branch;  reallocate budgets to support his preferred agenda, even at the expense of defunding other parts of government that are just as (or even more) essential;  increase his efforts to dilute the electorate by bringing in millions upon millions of foreign "migrants", and getting as many of them as possible to register as voters, even though that's illegal (just as his administration and Blue states are doing right now);  and so on.  Sure, some of those steps may be actionable in court - but it takes time to get such measures on a court docket, and there's no guarantee they could be blocked or suspended in time to avert the damage they might do.  So much depends on the perspective of possibly biased judges that it's hard to make that call.

It might be better for the country if he were to leave office at the same time that he withdraws from electoral contention;  but we have no idea how well Vice-President Kamala Harris would perform in his stead.  Based on her track record, I think she'd get even less respect and cooperation, nationally and internationally, than would President Biden - and that might make her vengeful, bitter and retaliatory in her governance.

A lesson one learns early on the African plains is that an animal is never so dangerous as when it's wounded and weakened.  It'll lash out and try to kill those threatening it, no matter who or what they are.  (I've never forgotten the dik-dik - a tiny antelope - that charged a game ranger near Rhodes Memorial on the slopes of Table Mountain in Cape Town.  He was trying to see whether any young were in her bush nest, but she was having none of it.  Her short, sharp horns penetrated his thigh and punctured his femoral artery.  He bled to death next to the nest before help - only a few minutes away - could reach him.  I was nearby that day.)

Biden and/or Harris might demonstrate similar pugnacity.  If they're politically weakened to the point that they believe they can't win, and/or have nothing to lose, they could retaliate against Democrats, or Republicans - even the entire nation.  That's a prospect not to be taken lightly, particularly given President Biden's ever-loosening grasp of reality, and Vice-President Harris' growing (and, IMHO, probably justifiable) outrage at the lack of respect, verging on contempt, shown towards her by her own party's leaders.

We might all live to regret something like that happening.

Peter

Kinda busy...

 

I'm updating the publication text of various books published by my wife and myself;  fixing errors spotted by readers, re-formatting sections, and so on.  (Don't worry:  the content and storylines won't change at all!)  This is occupying a lot of my time at the moment, so I won't be posting more blog content for the rest of today.  Please amuse yourself with the bloggers in the sidebar.  They write good, too!

Peter

Conspiracy theorists are at it again...

 

I've seen several claims that large quantities of shares in President Trump's social media network were "shorted" immediately prior to the assassination attempt against him on July 13.  The inference being drawn is that whoever did this must have had prior knowledge of the plot, and was poised to profit from its success.  Here's just one example of what I've been seeing.

However, few if any of those reporting the alleged short sales bothered to do their own research - they just rushed to repeat a rumor.

The Daily Dot reported more responsibly.

Investors in Trump Media ($DJT) believe that they can prove who had inside knowledge of the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump.

But most of their claims are based on misreading a document filed last week with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).

. . .

But claims that the puts were placed specifically right before the assassination don’t hold water. The filing is a report for a calendar year or quarter ending on June 30, which is the latest the puts could have been placed.

It’s possible firms shorted DJT on July 12, but reports revealing that are not currently available.

There's more at the link.

This always happens after a major crisis event like Saturday's.  Conspiracy theorists rush out of the woodwork to spread their slimy suspicions all over anything and anyone they can imagine.  They don't wait for the initial "fog" to clear, they don't bother to look for authoritative sources (in fact, they frequently quote each other as being authoritative, when all they are doing is rumor-mongering), and they aren't interested in the truth.

Folks, please be very careful where you get your news.  Far too many "independent" sources aren't worth the electrons it takes to get them to your computer or telephone screen.  At a time when a rumor might spark genuine violence, even murder, against political opponents, their deliberate inaccuracy and refusal to fact-check is criminally negligent, IMHO.

Peter

How do you get rid of drug cartels if they're running a government agency?

 

That's the unspoken question posed by a cartel takeover of a Mexican port.

A sharp increase in drug seizures has been reported at Mexico’s west coast ports with caches discovered inside containers and vessels’ sea chests, said protection and indemnity club NorthStandard.

The alert follows the seizure earlier this month of 88 tonnes of chemicals needed for the manufacture of synthetic drugs at the country’s largest container port, Manzanillo.

Ports are a “critical part” of the criminal infrastructure of one of the most powerful cartels, the Sinaloa, which uses them to receive precursor chemicals and South American cocaine for trafficking into the US, according to a May report by the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

. . .

The DEA report said that the Pacific coast port of Mazatlan was wholly controlled by the Sinaloa cartel and they charged other drug trafficking organisations to use the port.

A long history of alliances with drug trafficking groups also gave the Sinaloa access to the port of Manzanillo, said the report.

The port is “strategically significant because of its location on the central Pacific Coast and its high volume of shipping traffic due to widespread use of the port by foreign countries to exchange legitimate trade goods with Mexico and to refuel”, said the agency in its 2024 national drug threat assessment.

There's more at the link.

It's all very well to go after criminals . . . but what if the administrators and bureaucrats controlling government functions (such as a port) are themselves criminals?  Remove them, and you'll have to appoint replacements - who will doubtless be threatened immediately with death or dismemberment, for themselves and/or their families, if they don't do precisely the same as their predecessors did.  "Plata o plomo", remember?

Also, how can any honest law enforcement agent or agency work with a port administration that's so clearly criminal?  Everything the latter learns about the "good guys" will undoubtedly be passed to the "bad guys", who will use the information to target law enforcement and operate with impunity.

Most worrying of all to me, we've just "imported" what are likely to be hundreds of thousands of cartel operatives and other criminals from South America, thanks to President Biden's border policies.  They're now inside our borders, and I'm sure some are already working in our harbors, airports, etc.  How long until they take over one of our transport hubs, and operate it for the benefit of their cartel buddies back home?

Peter

Skyrocketing crime rates - not just in the USA

 

I note that violent street crime, shoplifting, etc. are rapidly increasing in Britain, just as much as they are in the USA.

Shoreham-by-Sea is at the forefront of a retail theft epidemic gripping Britain, as shoplifting soars to a record high.

The number of reported cases in England and Wales hit 430,104 last year, according to the Office for National Statistics, the highest since records began in 2003.

Outside Westminster, the district of Adur that is home to Shoreham-by-Sea had the joint-highest rate relative to the population, at 22 offences for every 1,000 people. 

Neighbouring Worthing, and Mansfield further afield in Nottinghamshire, shared the unwanted crown.

Sussex Police meanwhile had the second lowest solved rate for shoplifting at 10pc, ranking only behind the Metropolitan Police. 

In Shoreham Central and Beach, 97.6pc of reported shoplifting incidents were unsolved, Telegraph analysis shows.

Many businesses all across the country will know these issues all too well. As theft rates have soared, rates of those being solved have plummeted.

Only one in seven incidents of shoplifting in England and Wales were solved last year, according to Home Office figures. The figure has halved since comparable records were first published in 2016 and is now at its lowest. 

It is not just shoplifting that is on the rise. Robberies of businesses have also risen to the highest level since 2005. 

A creaking justice system, large cuts to policing and prisons on the verge of having to turn guilty people away have laid the foundations for this crisis. 

The cost of living, rising levels of addiction and organised criminals seizing the opportunity to steal with impunity have made it worse. 

. . .

It comes as thousands of prisoners will be released early in September to relieve overcrowding.

Britain’s prisons are believed to be just weeks away from running out of space, a situation that Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood blamed on the previous government and said had left left her with “no choice” but to take action.

As a result, some offenders will be released after serving only 40pc of their sentence rather than half. Exemptions will be made for sexual and serious violent offenders.

The alternative would risk “looters running amok, smashing in windows, robbing shops”, Mahmoud said. However, this is not far from what British retailers say they are already seeing.

There's much more at the link.  It's worth reading, to tick the boxes about what Britain is seeing that we're also seeing in many parts of this country.  They're very similar - including the increasing violence of criminals.

There is, of course, another factor besides those named - one the news media dare not name, in either country, for fear of being labeled racists or bigots or whatever.  That is that both countries are dealing with a massive influx of illegal or quasi-legal aliens or "migrants".  Street crime and shoplifting is increasingly being committed by that group, sometimes almost to the exclusion of other groups.  I worked with law enforcement for decades, and maintain my contacts with them.  Almost everyone with whom I speak in that demographic tells me that it's a migrant problem - but they're not allowed to say so.  It's a firing offence if they do.  It's a politically incorrect "third rail" that they dare not touch.

I'd like to see some properly collected, collated and analyzed statistics dealing with that . . . but we can forget about that as long as left-wing progressive local, state and national governments and bureaucracy prevent them from being gathered.

Peter

The fallout continues after Saturday's shooting

 

Four days after the assassination attempt on President Trump, there's still an awful lot of smoke blocking our view of the fire.  Unfortunately, that's likely to be the case for months to come.  The fact that the would-be assassin was allowed to get "danger close" and fire several shots is an indictment in itself of the US Secret Service and every other agency involved in providing security that day.  It was an unconscionable failure of policies and systems that should have been so well-rehearsed that they were almost on autopilot.  We've had so much experience of providing security to high-risk targets that this should have been a no-brainer.  Clearly, it wasn't.  Heads should roll at the highest level, and if any element of Diversity-Equity-Inclusion and other progressive buzzword policies can be shown to have contributed to the failure, it/they should be discarded at once and all concerned re-trained using more realistic, real-world-applicable frameworks.

Will that happen under President Biden?  Oh, hell no.  Might it happen under President Trump if he's re-elected, and if he stays alive (despite all the Secret Service, the FBI and other agencies can do) until he takes office?  You bet your life!  I daresay there'll be (metaphorically) a swinging sword scything its way through Washington DC, and it'll likely start with those agencies and people who failed so abysmally last Saturday.

I'm having fun watching the Democratic Party almost fall apart under the strain of deciding what to do next.  I'm pretty sure President Trump boosted his electoral chances very highly through surviving the attack;  most political commentators appear to agree.  That means any potential candidate to replace Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket has to face the very real possibility that he/she will be almost guaranteed to lose, all other things being equal (which they seldom are, of course).  That might spell political disaster for their future career.  To run and fail is much worse, in terms of future electoral optics, than to withdraw from the race out of "loyalty for the incumbent", appear to give him as much support as possible, then commiserate with him over his failure as he heads for the old age home.  Most potential Presidential candidates among the Democrats understand that very well.  I daresay they're now pushing for a Biden/Harris ticket in the confident expectation it'll fail, leaving the way open for one of them to replace it in future.

As for President Trump;  he continues to be the motivating spark trying to light a fire in the Republican Party.  I've been very disappointed in the Republican convention so far.  There appears to be a general lack of enthusiasm, drive and energy.  It's largely the same old, same old pious political platitudes.  Trump's selection of J. D. Vance as his vice-presidential running mate interests me very much, for a number of reasons.

1. Vance, like Trump, has for most of his life been outside electoral politics.  He only entered the Senate two years ago.  Prior to that, he made his own way in life, and comes from what many call the "underclass" of society.  He's a self-made man, in that sense.  That means he understands President Trump, and the two will probably work well together.
2. Vance is young enough (almost 40) to have decades left in his political career.  If he and Trump do a good job, he might be elected as President for one or two terms when Trump finally lays down the gavel.  However, would this be best for him?  He'd end up in his early 50's as an ex-President with very little to do.  He's unlikely to take well to that;  he'll be young and energetic enough to want to do more, but what is there that can compare to the Presidency?  It'll be interesting to watch how this works out.
3. I think it's very worthwhile to analyze those who are opposed to Vance's selection, and their reasons for their position.  He seems to be annoying all the right people!  As one source put it:  "If Mitt Romney doesn't like J. D. Vance, then J. D. Vance was the right choice."

I acknowledge that some have concerns about Vance's background, "conservative credentials" and other things.  To them all, I say:  give President Trump and Vice-President Vance space and time to work.  Politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect.  Neither man is exactly who I'd like to see in their positions;  but they're both far better than every alternative currently available.  We're never going to see candidates who tick every box on our lists.  Let's settle for those who tick most of them, and support them as they get to work.

One thing I must say, very vehemently, is that I'm sickened and disgusted by those who latched on to the fact that Vance's wife is of Indian descent (although born here in the USA).  So what?  Does her race make any difference to whether or not she's a good person?  They also object to the fact that she's Hindu, while her husband is Catholic.  It's their business to make that work for their family, not ours.  Leave them alone to do so!  Racism is still alive and well in the USA, and to see it so nakedly on display in the disparaging comments made about Mrs. Vance is nauseating.  I know some few of my readers are among those raising such objections, which saddens me.  I can only suggest that if they feel that way, they shouldn't be reading my blog either, because there's no place for such attitudes here.

In closing, let me repeat that I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat.  I'm genuinely independent in my thinking, and will always support the best candidate for a given position rather than a political party.  (Yes, that means I might vote for a Democrat over a Republican if the former candidate warranted it, and/or the latter candidate was a particularly poor politician.)  However, in the present situation in this country, there's only one side that appears to be trying to restore genuinely constitutional government;  what President Abraham Lincoln famously summarized as "government of the people, by the people, for the people".  I may not agree with every position taken by that party, but its foundation(s) is/are solid in that sense (unlike their opposition).  Therefore, that side, and its candidates, gets my vote.  We'll "sweat the petty stuff" later.

Peter

For everyone interested in military and geopolitical strategy

 

Editor Jeremy Black, already a well-known expert in military strategy, has curated a large number of articles by numerous authors into a collection titled "The Practice of Strategy: A Global History".  The articles include:

• Grand Patterns of Strategy, old and new
• Escalation Dominance in Antiquity
• Powers in the Western Mediterranean.  A Strategic Assessment in Roman History
• A Kind of Strategy: Carthage’s confrontation with Roman soft power during the First Punic War
• Understanding a Different World of War:  Strategic Practice in Medieval Europe and the Middle East
• Ukrainism of Mālum Discordiæ:  Strategy of War and Growth,  Setting up the strategic scene
• War, Strategy, and Environment on  South Asia’s Northwestern Frontier
• Imperial Chinese strategy, A Play in Three Acts
• Spanish Grand Strategy c. 1479/1500-1800/1830
• Confronting Russia at Sea; the Long View (1700-1919)
• How to deter or defeat Russia – the maritime historical experience
• ‘New Paths to Wisdom’: Clausewitz: From Practice to Theory,
• Trade War, War on Trade, War on Neutrals
• Napoleon and Caesar: comparing strategies
• Hitler and German Strategy 1933-1945
• Stalin as Protean Strategist?
• Cold War Strategy and Practice
• Russian strategy across three eras:  Imperial, Soviet, and contemporary
• Swedish Strategic Practice
• India’s Strategy from Nehru to Modi: 1947-2022
• China’s Military Strategy from Mao Zedong to Xi Jinping
• Strategies for the New Millennium

Best of all, you can download a full PDF copy of the entire book free of charge!  That's the best value in this field I've seen for a very long time.  Don't let some early pages in Italian put you off:  the full English translation of them follows.

Highly recommended to all military strategy and strategic planning buffs.

Peter

Training combat drone pilots the hard way

 

There's a very interesting article over at The War Zone on how Ukraine is training its FPV (first person view) drone pilots to take on the enemy, and win.  Here's an excerpt.

It’s one thing to have drones. It is something else altogether to reliably guide them to dynamic targets across a chaotic and bloody battlefield. While the many videos of attacks on tanks, trucks, and troops like the one below make it look easy, it’s not.

“We have a constant need to train our pilots and operators. The world of unmanned systems is constantly changing and the enemy comes up with certain methods or can prevent us from completing our tasks,” said one of the soldiers, who goes by callsign Teenager. “We have the opportunity to constantly train and improve our skills.”

As he speaks, the video cuts to an FPV drone flying through a net-covered tube obstacle. It’s one of the many hurdles new pilots have to navigate as they become familiar with flying and experienced pilots have to use to refresh their skills.

For rookies, just getting to that stage takes time.

“Our training is done in several stages,” said another soldier, callsign Glory. “It starts with a base of basic summer practices, then the second stage is more complex practices, and then there are application tactics, where our pilots learn to counter the enemy, an imitation of what is on the battlefield.”

The obstacle course offers many challenges, from mockups of building facades to slaloming around metal poles to buzzing through hoops. There are also static targets, like an old automobile ... This training teaches pilots to make kills that look right out of a dystopian movie, including strikes through open windows, doors and tank hatches.

There's more at the link, including photographs and links to some spectacular combat footage.

The trainees are also taught to use a 3D printer in the field, so that they can produce their own spare parts to repair their drones when needed.  I hope the US is watching developments like this closely;  our forces deploy tens of thousands of drones of different sizes, and their operators need to be as up-to-date as possible on actual battlefield tactics, defenses, and so on.

As I've said before:  I'm very glad my military service ended several decades ago.  I'd hate to be on a modern battlefield, where the slightest exposure might mean one or more drones hunting me down and blowing me up.  I'd feel pretty darn helpless out there!

Peter

Not the best chosen headline...

 

CNBC put up an interesting article (it's worth reading) about how, since men tend to die earlier than women, older women are likely to receive a lot of money and assets from their husbands who predecease them.

So far, so good.

Unfortunately, the headline CNBC's editor(s) chose was . . . not so good.

Women are set to inherit trillions of dollars in the great ‘horizontal wealth transfer’

The giggling among financially inclined commenters has been epic.

Peter

The Finnish Hobby Horse Championships

 

I had no idea that this was a thing.  Here's a video clip of the 2023 Championships.

Is it a real sport?  Let a participant tell us about it.

As I said, I'm completely unfamiliar with this "sport".  However, a friend points out that after Texas cowhands are thrown by a longhorn bull in the arena, their hobbled gait as they stagger to their feet and try to get away from the bull sometimes resembles that of the hobby horse riders . . . with added sound effects, of course!

Peter

Yikes! - aviation edition

 

A very worrying report indicates that airliners may be vulnerable to a clash of technologies that might "mask" dangerously low altitudes.

French investigation authority BEA believes the prevalence of ILS approaches has obscured an underlying vulnerability of aircraft to the risk of terrain collision arising from incorrect altimeter pressure settings.

BEA made the remarks following its inquiry into a serious incident in which an Airbus A320 descended to just 6ft above ground during a low-visibility approach to Paris Charles de Gaulle’s runway 27R.

The ILS was not operational on the day of the incident, 23 May 2022, and the Airhub aircraft (9H-EMU) was conducting a satellite-based approach with barometric vertical guidance.

But BEA found the pilots had set the altimeter reference to 1011mb instead of 1001mb, after being given an incorrect QNH pressure reading by an air traffic controller. This resulted in the jet’s flying a descent path which was 280ft below the required profile.

Although this triggered a minimum safe altitude warning in the control tower, the controller took 9s to inform the crew – by which time the jet was 122ft above ground – and then used incorrect phraseology. The crew did not hear this call, and continued to descend.

BEA says the approach lights had not been switched on, and heavy rain meant the windshield wipers were operating at maximum speed.

After passing what they believed to be the decision height – but with the jet actually much lower, just 52ft above ground – the pilots initiated a go-around, because they had no visual contact with the runway.

The aircraft descended to 6ft, while 0.9nm from the threshold, before climbing away.

There's more at the link.

That's frightening as hell to anyone who flies frequently.  Basically, the aircrew entered an incorrect value, but did not double-check it;  and then they relied on the aircraft's technology, now mislead by their entry, to keep them safe.  It's only by the grace of God and a couple of seconds' leeway that they didn't fly their airliner straight into the ground, killing everyone aboard.

We're seeing this more and more;  aircrew relying on technology to fly the plane rather than doing so themselves.  Automation has become so advanced (?) and so complex that it's easier to simply set a computer to do what you want, then sit back and let the computer figure out how to do it.  If incorrect values have been entered, and the computer uses them in its calculations, you have no way of knowing that the danger exists.

As another example of relying on technology rather than pilot skill and concentration, consider the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 in 2013.

The Asiana pilots said in interviews with the National Transportation Safety Board that they had set the auto-throttles to maintain an air speed of 137 knots. That’s a significantly faster speed than the plane actually achieved as it came in for its landing at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday.

. . .

The pilots’ statements do not resolve the central question of why the Boeing 777’s speed and altitude fell so far out of the normal range for landing at SFO before it hit a sea wall and crash-landed. But outside air safety experts said the statements suggest a risky reliance on technology when the flight crew should have been constantly monitoring the airplane’s speed.

“Whether it was engaged or not working is almost irrelevant,” said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot and an air safety consultant. “The big mystery of Flight 214 is why in God’s name did these two pilots sit there and allow the air speed to get so low.”

Experts said the pilots should have been monitoring the plane’s speed every few seconds, and could have manually taken control of the engines at any time.

Again, more at the link.

The first report gives me the shivers.  Six feet off the ground???  Oy gevalt . . .

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 218

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.