The Seattle Times on Monday reported that the FBI and the department of Justice were searching for two men who have been indicted for Hacking a Software company for fluid dynamics analysis programs used in the creation of GPS guided artillery shells. The issue the Seattle Times was noting is that these two men, who are still at large, where connected to a third Iranian who was pardoned by President Obama as part of a prisoner exchange with Iran.

The software stolen is clearly ITAR restricted, so its a national security issue. But one has to wonder what the pardoned Iranian did to get arrested and held by the United States. The two men being sought by the FBI, may in fact be in Ira; they may have done the Hack over the internet and never entered the United States. That being said, did the third person in this story, the man actually held by the Justice Department, set up some kind of back door to this company for the other two men to exploit via the internet. And, if this is the case, by exchanging him with the Iranians did we then give them the information on how to enter said back door.

I hope we really got someone good back in that prisoner swap. Otherwise its another Bergdhal case.

Apologies to George Will and his wonderful concern Trump can't speak clearly: I think Mr Wills is the one who can't hear clearly. But a lot of twitter and facebook time has been spent over Trump supposedly saying Andrew Jackson was around for the Civil War. What Trump actually, clearly said, was if Andrew Jackson had been around in 1860 we wouldn't have had a Civil War. Now of course why would he (Trump) say that?

Trump was noting that Jackson would not have tolerated the secession of the first Southern State, something that James Buchanan, president at the start of the conflict, allowed. Lincoln's election may have laid the charges, but it was out-going president Buchanan who let the initial States secede and seize US forts within their borders. As Buchanan said "The power by force of arms to compel a State to remain in the Union," was not among the "... enumerated powers granted to Congress."

Jackson may have been a slave owner, but he was also a man of action and a patriot. When the State of Delaware passed a law effectively disbanding the State militia Jackson threatened to arrest the legislature (since he as commander in chief commanded that militia). He fought some of the most prominent politicians and business men of his time, taking on even the Supreme Court. Call him an imperial president if you wish, but Jackson would not have sat on his hands as Buchanan did when South Carolina Seceded in December of 1860.

Now would Jackson have ended Slavery, Its pretty obvious he held with the institution. But while in office as president he made no attempt to roll back the ban on importation, or the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which had prevented Civil War back in Monroe's presidency. At the same time he did sign the 1830 legislation forcing the removal of the Cherokee indians (who had declared themselves an independent nation in 1927). 

And he was a believer in freedom of travel. In 1811 Silas Dinsmoor, Indian Agent for the Choctaws got on the bad side of Andrew jackson when he ordered enforcement of a law that required anyone traveling the Natchez Trace through Choctaw territory to carry papers with them proving their ownership of any enslaved people accompanying them.   It was an old requirement, just as freedmen were required to  keep the documents attesting to that. For Jackson, who used the Natchez trace to move goods from Nashville to Natchez when the river was low, it was an unacceptable requirement. Exactly when Jackson threatened to arm his slaves and then to burn down the home of Dinsmoor (after hanging him) is uncertain. But the war of words matches the time when Jackson was marching his troops back to Tennessee along the same Natchez trace. And one would expect Jackson had a few servants with him on that march where he gained the title old Hickory. 

In short Jackson was a man who didn't tolerate things. He fought duels, and threatened to hang others (Dinsmoor wasn't the only one). As stated he ignored the Supreme Court Justice Marshall and yes, he threatened both the State legislature of Delaware and of South Carolina (who was implementing Nullification). And in all cases, prompt action on his part stopped things from advancing further. 

When Shawn Spicer stated that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons, he actually was correct. And suprisingly, the people who demanded he apologise don't appreciate how the truth needs to be told. And by the way, I haven't said Hitler didn't kill people with poisonous gas. I just know there is a difference between a chemical bomb dropped from an aircraft, and the fixed gas chambers of Hitlers camps.

To get to the point, people like Chris Mathews have stated for years North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons. Their distinction between a nuclear device, which they recognize they have, and a nuclear weapon is the presence of a delivery system. And thus until North Korea actually fires a missile with a live nuclear warhead against a target, These nay sayers  will continue to claim the North Koreans don't have a nuclear weapon. 

The significance between this and Hitler's death camps: the people were forcibly delivered to the gas chambers, not the gas chambers launched against the people. For it to be a chemical weapon it had to be employed/delivered. Further there has to be an expectation of a similar response. If North Korea was to fire a live nuke, there would be an expectation of a military response. Hitler never employed chemical weapons during the war simply because of the fact the allies would respond with the same. 

Some facts when it comes to the second World War. First, Germany stockpiled Sarin nerve gas before the war began: estimate 45,000 tons by 1943. The German Army also required their troops to always carry a gas mask: this was an item that was never present on American and British troops. But with the exception of a couple of cases in 1942 and early 1943 when rogue Army units employed CWs they had with them, the German Army didn't employ chemical weapons. It is reported that after being asked by Goebbels and Bormann to allow the use of  Chemical weapons to stop the advancing Russian Army, Hitler, upset by the previous uses without his authorization, ordered that any further use had to be approved by him. And as the Americans and British drove up through Italy, not only did Hitler order that any stocks of German Chemical weapons in Italy, or Italian CWs, be destroyed.  Hitler made sure their would be no use by rogue units or officers following the previously mentioned actions in 1942 and early 1943.

And Hitler's concern, that the allies would respond with even more gas. He had been informed that German intelligence expected that the allies had twice as much poison gas as the Germans. In point of fact, because of a rumor that Germany would actually implement gas warfare to defend Italy, a shipment of 2,000 mustard gas bombs were sent to Italy by the Allies. We know of these bombs because the ship they were on was hit by a bomb during the German air attack on the Harbor at Bari Italy. Over 600 sailors and medical personnel were victims of these bombs, which the allies wouldn't admit were there since they were only sent  to be used if the Germans used Chemical Weapons first. 

Now that these facts are on the record, what did Hitler do in his camps. The death camps used cyanide gas, no different then that use in gas chambers at American or European prisons until the 1980s. Hitler took the cold bureaucratic system for dealing with criminals to the nth degree as he killed whole races and religious groups. And when they were not using cyanide, they had vans rigged up to kill people in them by ducting the engine exhaust into the passenger area. In this case the poison gas was Carbon Monoxide, no different then when people start their car in a closed garage and then just wait for death. The gas is poisonous, but its not a chemical weapon.

Now for the true point in all this. People are falling over each other to try and claim Trump didn't need to fire missiles at Syria. Some are claiming what happened in this town in Syria is a false flag operation since its the only such incident- running in line with the claims of Vladimir Putin. Others want to claim its no different then the use of a bayonet or a gun. The real issue is the number of these incidents that have happened since the Civil War began: incidents that are not always in the Newspapers or News at 10:00. At present there are over 60 reported cases of the use of poison gas by both sides in the war. Cases involving the ISIS group tend to involve Mustard gas. Cases involving Sarin tend to point back to the Syrian Army as the source. But Sarin is not the weapon of choice for Assad; the weapon of choice is Chlorine gas. Its lethality has been known since World War 1, but since its use to purify water it is not identified as a banned weapon by the UN. Thus numerous CW attacks by the Syrian Army that have injured hundreds of people get little or no attention because the chemical has "practical" uses. 

Monday an interview I had with the host of the History Author Show was broadcast on iHeart Radio.  It was a good interview with several questions. You can hear the whole interview via podcast.

NASA is dealing with the high probability that their wonderful civilian space capsules may not be ready for service in 2018.

First is Space X which likes to violate every rule in the book. From planning to board the astronauts before they load the propellants, to using ultra cold LOX that makes for a tricky fueling cycle, to finally having it come out that the ultra cold LOX was causing the engine turbine to crack when operated.  And none of this includes the fact the Dragon 2 capsule for manned flight intends to use RATO engines for landing.

While SpaceX has these issues, Boeing just has one: man rating its Russian engine for the Atlas V. In truth its real problem is actually making an engine for the Atlas V so we can cut the cord with Russia on Space launch period. The use of the Russian engine has always been a liability and in this time of Ukraine and Syria, we should have had an alternative years ago. No, instead of spending the time to man rate the Delta IV heavy, and potentially allow the use of Orion for low earth orbit, we choose to stick our face in the sand and let ULA continue to offer an engine/vehicle that we can't man rate under any circumstances. Regardless of what their arguments- ULA or SpaceX- someone needs to step forward and give some real answers. For if things between Russia and the United States get any testier, the inability to do manned launches could be viewed as deliberate sabotage.

When I saw this on ABC News I said to myself this had to be a skit from Saturday Night Live. A German Intelligence officer playing an islamic extremist on the internet makes contact with an islamic extremist only to find the extremist was just hired by German Intelligence.  The guy could have been just two cubes over.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/islamic-extremist-mole-german-intel-agency-recent-hire-43866542
​

I read an article recently that Amazon was changing its system for determining who it keeps and who gets the shaft.  The concept they have been using has been called Rank and Yank for decades after it came to prominence by GE CEO Jack Welch in the 1980s.  Today however the policy has gained a new title: The Hunger Games.  From what I have been reading, it’s an example of what happens when people implement policies based on the newest fad and not on what it was designed to do.
 
First, lets note that Jack Welch was downsizing GE when he began using the concept. The idea of determining who were the lower 10% performing employees is a means of determining who should be let go VS who should be kept for a company trying to lower costs in a downturn. But the wholesale use of it by companies today is based on the mis-understanding that to be successful “you must use” this concept. The reason is, as a company expands, Rank and Yank forces people out. Thus a company trying to capitalize on a new product is hamstrung by a lack of personnel to bring it to market, or expand production.
 
Rank and Yank’s policy of constantly removing the lower 10% only works for a company that is expanding if you have a huge pool of new employees to fill the void. This void being the number of new people needed to replace the removed 10%, plus the extra people needed to meet the needs of the expansion. As has been noted for the last few years, tech firms are struggling to find engineers and programmers. Thus we constantly hear of the need to bring in foreign workers with H-1B visas. But as even the foreign worker pool has shrunk, the forced reductions in employees required by Rank and Yank continue. Thus, the concept has become counter productive.
 
In regards to those employees removed by Rank and Yank, more then likely new employers look at them as a liability not a potential value. Once you have been “Yanked” you are viewed as a sub performer and thus only fit to go into a new profession. Thus why new college hires with no experience, or foreign workers with dubious credentials, get more favored treatment by hiring managers. The end result being this wonderful shortage of tech personnel constantly talked about, even as the number of early-retired engineers continues to grow.
 
When Rank and Yank begins, yes it can be a good way to clean out some dead wood in various groups within a company. But continuous use of it and its required removal of the lower 10% eventually means the removal of people who were doing well a few years before: their performance hasn’t changed, they were just now the lowest person on the totem pole.  That being said, once they are removed they are then viewed as an under performer by HR managers and thus politely rejected for open positions in favor of the new college hire and foreign workers with no history. The rise of the pre-employment tests, now given to determine the potential future performance of new hires, mirrors the Rank and Yank system within the companies and serves only to insure that there are no “Qualified Applicants” for the positions.
 
Given how long this has been going on its not surprising that companies like Microsoft and now Jeff Bezos’s Amazon are trying to change (key word- Trying). The recession of 2008 masked the negative features of the system as companies downsized. But the economic growth of the last four years has been notably slow, all reported to be due to a lack of trained people. Since Rank and Yank requires reduction, it insures the companies cannot grow. And its obvious, once the system starts it seems impossible to shutdown.

The election of Donald Trump suddenly made a minor Website dedicated to the secession of California into something more media prominent. Originally, this site was for Ultra Libs who didn't feel even Hillary Clinton was left enough for them and thus it was time for California to leave the Union. Of course now people are suggesting that California would take Oregon and Washington with them and make a new West Coast nation. The number of people both viewing this site and even joining is a superb example of how, as Michael Savage states, Liberalism is a mental disorder.  

First, they seem to miss the fact that such an action would leave the United States with no west Coast Ports. Oh, they would allow commerce through, as long as the items met their strict environmental standards. This being said I am reminded of how often the port of New Orleans was closed by Spanish officials to American Commerce until the Louisiana purchase. One disagreement between the new government and Washington and you could expect port access to be rescinded. And the Billions of dollars in losses to East Coast Liberal Millionaires and Billionaires  would be heard all the way to Europe. 

Again, regarding Port access, the US Navy would literally be incapable of operating in the Pacific without Puget Sound or Coronado. And I suspect the leaving of the union would also prompt a pacifist push by the Ultra Libs to remove the few remaining military bases on the West Coast. This would make extremely difficult our supporting of our Pacific allies- Japan and Australia- as well as the defense of California, Oregon and Washington.  I would expect within months following a required US military pull-out military forces from Russia, China and even Mexico would enter the State. What would be there to stop them, the San Jose Police Department? Even the Cal Guard exists only because of the support of the United States government. All the weapons would have to be returned to the United States, the actual owner. And California's own Assault Weapon law has provisions to prohibit the State from raising secondary troops: out-side of the fact they would have no arms to give them because of the quarter century prohibition.

I particularly like the remarks of how the United States would collapse if California left since they had all the tech people. Most engineers I know are getting ready to leave California because the companies were leaving to avoid the high taxes and general costs of the State. The West Coast may be the center for Software manufacture (if you can call it that), but the making of physical items is mostly done out of State. Even Big Bad Boeing has threatened to move all its engineering off shore and has farmed production of key components to Japan and Europe. I doubt a secession would make them want to bring the work back, or slow down the present rate of withdraw.

Finally, The movements backers (mostly Software types) seem to forget that there are a number of conservatives in California and more then a few Democrats who would not want to leave the United States and US Citizenship. 3 million Californians voted for Trump, one third of the votes cast. Even if the total number of conservatives was 6 million, that would be 20% of the population. I doubt California would find such a loss of people a blessing.  They would bring with them all their skills and knowledge and start new companies to fill the gap caused by the California exit. Copyrights would only be valid if they were international.

In short, outside of the general legality of leaving the Union, West Coasters would more then likely find themselves without jobs, without property, and living under either foreign occupation, or United States protection.