The Thing Keeping The USA Together? Pork Barrels.

Oh my:

… Earlier this year, lawmakers set aside $436 million for the construction and maintenance of the mighty M-1 Abrams tank, of which the Army currently has more than 2,300—with another 3,000 in storage.

That might sound like enough tanks for the American military, and sure enough the Army agrees. “If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way,” Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army’s chief of staff, told the Associated Press in April.

So why build more tanks? General Dynamics, the tank’s manufacturer, has aggressively lobbied to keep the M-1 in production. There’s also just one factory in the whole country that manufactures the Abrams: the Lima Army Tank Plant in Ohio. Such a seemingly precious facility is sure to inspire a fierce defense by backers against any attempt to shut it down. …

Once the money stream to "defence" contractors and to the banks from the state starts to dry up, you will see "interesting times".

In other news: CIA claims release of "Bay of Pigs" files would "confuse the public"

What Andy Warhol got wrong about “Campbell's Soup Cans”

I recently read a Salon.com piece titled:
What Stanley Kubrick got wrong about “The Shining”.

O.o

Oh, Kubrick got The Shining somehow wrong?

Quite interesting assertion. Maybe akin to the assertion that Andy Warhol got the "Campbell's Soup Cans" wrong, when he painted them in false colors.

(And no, I am not going to dignify such a piece of click-bait with an link. Go use a internet search engine, if you must.)

Bruce Hoglund: Why Don't We Use Nuclear Waste?

Bruce Hoglund shows us how to take spent nuclear fuel (aka "nuclear waste"), store it, store it safely, and at the same time produce energy:

Digging a hole in the ground and bearing your spent fuel seems a bit stupid now, does it?

Nuclear? What Type Of Nuclear?

Hypothetically, there are 900 types of nuclear reactors:

The enormous difficulty of choosing a proper path for reactor development is easily seen by estimating the number of conceivable reactor types. With  

• 3 fissionable fuels [²³³U, ²³⁵U, ²³⁹Pu], 
• 2 fertile materials [²³²Th & ²³⁸U],  
• 3 neutron energy ranges [slow or thermal, epithermal or resonance, & fast], 
• at least 5 coolant types [2 waters {light & heavy}, sodium, CO₂, He, & air], 
• 5 moderators [light & heavy water, graphite, beryllium, & beryllium oxide], 
• and 2 general categories of geometrical arrangement (heterogeneous and homogeneous), 

there are 900 possible combinations! [3 x 2 x 3 x 5 x 5 x 2 = 900]

Of course not all of these are sensible; for example a fast reactor could hardly be cooled with H₂O. Even so, there are probably at least 100 combinations which are not obviously unfeasible.

Plus there are liquid salt and liquid lead as possible coolants of the future. Which raises the hypothetical 900 to hypothetical 1260. At least.

Say It Ain't True

The Day Mandela Was Arrested, With A Little Help From the CIA – Newsweek

"McIntyre’s Razor has a Stihl edge."

Best comment ever.

"Majored In Journalistic Hypocrisy"

Seldom one finds more hypocritical pieces that the one I saw today on the "Huffington Post" about how badly Amazon treats their employees, and how lousy Amazon pays…

IPCC's Southern Hemisphere Reconstruction – Made With European Instrumental Record!

Steve McIntyre (emphasis mine):

A question for readers: which of the following proxies are used to reconstruct past Southern Hemisphere temperature in the IPCC’s graphic (Figure 5.7b) showing SH reconstructions:

1. Graybill’s California strip-bark bristlecone chronologies
2. upside down and contaminated Finnish lake sediments
3. European instrumental temperature data
4. Antarctic ice core d18O isotope data covering the medieval period

The answer, rather remarkably, is that IPCC’s SH temperature reconstructions in their signature spaghetti graph (Figure 5.7b) used California bristlecone chronologies, upside down Tiljander and European instrumental temperature data, but did not use Antarctic isotope data covering the medieval period. …

What I find interesting is that Michael Mann hasn't been recognized as the hack he is.

Maybe in two or three decades people will look back at the current period and mutter things like "… they were so stupid back then …", only to follow new hacks (all the while telling themselves "… thankfully this can't happen today …"). But maybe it will take longer.

Will I see the day when Michael Mann fully gets the credit he rightfully deserves? After all, people still think that Robert Gallo was helpful in discovering HIV…

Wrong Angle

The Capenhurst Phone-Tap Tower – Richard Lamont:

…
I was slightly surprised at the `GCHQ bugged Dublin' angle in these reports. For me the issue has always been `Did GCHQ bug Dublin illegally?'. To be legal, there would have to have been a warrant. If there was a warrant, GCHQ could have presented the warrant to BT, which would then have been obliged under the terms of its Oftel licence to provide the tap. Much cheaper, and much more discreet.

If it was legal, why did GCHQ do it the hard way? …

Trust the media to get any story wrong. Not hugely wrong, but wrong enough to make a discussion of the topic meaningless.

… For SIGINT anoraks and anybody who is worried about governmental nosey-parkering, the Capenhurst tower has become part of the Echelon furniture. The story has disappeared from the public gaze as suddenly as it arrived. It seems that few people give a damn.

We, The People, Demand Bug-Free Software!

Matt Bors:

Thinking further about the bugs on Healthcare.gov, it occurred to me that I’ve *never* been able to apply for health insurance online. Perhaps things have changed since the last time I applied — which was only a couple years ago — but I’ve always had to fill out pages and pages of forms. It was excruciating, and often took upwards of a week with all the researching of my own medical history. Yes, it would have been nice if the website rollout hadn’t been fubared, but I’ll probably be able to sign up next month with the help of a navigator. I’m dreading this process much less than I did in the past.

This clearly shows that the American people the vocal "right leaning" majority don't particularly mind being fucked in the a treated like shit, as long as they are treated like shit by major corporations, and not the government.*

Because, you know, major corporations are good while the government is bad, because major corporations work in the interest of the share holders, while the government works only in their own lazy self-interest (I take it the government is mainly interested in burning large stacks of money on the National Mall every Friday afternoon, while the shareholders of major corporations stimulate the economy through the purchase of luxury goods as often as they can).

And so when private insurance companies make arcane websites (since the Internet exists, I'm tempted to write) that look like they are purposely made to be unusable, this is OK. But ho, when the government on the other hand lets the cheapest bidder roll out (under time pressure, considering what a large project such a "website" is) something that initially does not work as it should, then this is clearly evidence of the malfeasance, ineptitude and/or general evilness of the government.

* They are perfectly happy to get sub-par health treatment (even embargo-stricken Cuba seems to be better, if only slightly) for twice the price the rest of the industrialized world pays. Seriously, it is – on average – twice as expensive to get treatment in the USA than any other industrialized nation, and that is not including the cases where people get robbed blind if they end up un-insured and in need of medical assistance (and don't choose to let Nature do its thing – which sometimes might be better than seeking medical attention). If how ever Obama – grasp! – picks up Romney's (!) half-way sensible plans for health insurance, it is the end of the world. But thankfully they can discuss shortcomings of cheaply-build and freshly-rolled-out websites, while tragically missing the point. Americans are stupid The vocal majority is stupid.

The Lost Song – "Wish I Was A Kennedy"

There is a song from ages ago that is still in my head. And I can't find find the song. It drives me mad (not literally, but still).

It was maybe the early 1990s. Maybe it was the 1980s. I have this line of "Wish I were a Kennedy" stuck in my head, being sung by a woman. Some slow melodic Eights pop-song. I think it was interspersed with bits of some speach JFK gave.

I have no particular interest in the Kennedys. I am not a fan, nor particularly aggrieved by the Kennedys. But this song just got stuck in my head, somehow.

A Google search for "wish i was a kennedy" OR "wish i were a kennedy" song OR lyrics turns up (as of now) six results, non of which are usable…

And then I find it: Shona Laing - (Glad I'm) Not A Kennedy


Its a bit faster then I remember, a bit less melodic. It was from 1986. And my memory of the central line was off…

The State Of The Union

I started this several weeks ago. It is unfinished. I lack the energy to finish it. Maybe one day I will finish it. Maybe not. Does it matter?

Hallelullah!
It works.
We blew the shit out of them.

We blew the shit right back up their own ass
And out their fucking ears.

It works.
We blew the shit out of them.
They suffocated in their own shit!

Hallelullah.
Praise the Lord for all good things.

We blew them into fucking shit.
They are eating it.

Praise the Lord for all good things.

We blew their balls into shards of dust,
Into shards of fucking dust.

We did it.

Now I want you to come over here and kiss me on the mouth.

Harold Pinter -- American Football
(A Reflection upon the Gulf War)

Once a week the POTUS – Barack "This is contrary to who we are" Obama – meets with the military and the "intelligence" community and decides who to murder. Advise to Michelle Obama: Never rub your husband the wrong way. IANAL, but this is warrant-less, court-less, cold-blooded murder, and therefore IMHO in violation of *EVERY* law – US and international, civil and military – written for the protection of people against being robbed of their life.

It would be bad enough if the military went, based on an "presidential murder decree" (is this something like a fatwa? Or more like a ukaz?), and apprehended a person, identified him (without a doubt) and then execute him (or rather Mafia style: execute him, make some trophy photos as evidence for the boss, and then proceed to dump the corpse in the ocean). It is be bad enough that those in power in Washington murder without habeaus corpus. It is already bad enough that they only denied their murder victims a fair trial for their crimes (real and imaginary). But Washington does not care to actually find out what those murder victims did, Washington does not care to find out if they actually did all those evil things.

But what is even worse is that the US murder machine does not even bother to properly check someone's identity before killing them. And why should they? Washington does not even need to check the identity of their murder victims after they kill people! In a tradition going back to (at least) the "Vietnam" war, every person killed by the US military is declared an "enemy". Kill, and don't ask questions.

On the topic of "quality assurance", I would say leading a "war on terror" like that should not be considered "good practice".

An huge problem arises because the "war on terror" is an "asymmetric" war. For a "normal" war the rules are (somewhat simplified): You can stop the enemy by any means necessary (including killing the enemy, but not including cruel means) if you are engaged with him – and the enemy can be readily identified because his soldiers wear different uniforms than yours.* As an example: You are wearing an US army uniform and mowed down with your machine gun a group of people wearing an Wehrmacht uniform, who were running across the street 100 yards from your position? Good job! Get a cookie! That is the advantage of a clearly identifiable enemy. Mow down in the same street a group of people wearing civilian cloth? Uh, uh. Better hide that war crime. That's the beauty of the Hague Conventions. Easy and instant quality assurance!

But in an asymmetric war? The enemy is not different from an civilian in a readily identifiable way (unless he is foolish enough to drive an "tactical" pickup truck, or carry an RPG). Whether in the post-2001 failed state of Afghanistan, or in the post-2003 failed state of Iraq (with the survival of both failed states hinging on the continued military support of US): Civilians are routinely armed. Civilians wear the same cloth, drive the same vehicles, and even carry the same weapons as "insurgents" or "al Qaeda operatives". So if you have an regular army operating by the same rules as in "normal" war – identify the enemy, kill the enemy – but no longer have criteria by which your army grunts can clearly tell an enemy from an civilian, you get a huge problem. Cue in "collateral murder": They have identified the enemy, they have killed the enemy. Good job, get a cookie. And nobody in the military even notices that they have just committed an war crime. Like everyday. Probably. Nobody knows. Nobody cares.

Because everybody killed by the US is per definition an enemy. Simple as pie.

The Hague Conventions does not apply here. All those rules that are meant to protect the civilians, and limit warfare to the armies of the belligerents just flew out of the window. People living in some poor country the US is waging war against (or using any some form of "restricted" military force, or somesuch euphemism) have no protection against being falsely killed. 

Image how many people (so called "civilians" or even "innocent civilians") have been killed, poeple who's sole "crime" was that the lived in a country that found itself at the wrong end of the US military machine? And the US does not even apologize for these killings. How could they, if they don't even investigate them. Imagine what it does to the population of such an country if the US kills and maims countless civilians (and they are countless, as the US does not bother to actually count them) without even the slightest bit of remorse? Would you be motivated to fight against the USA after having your friends and relatives murdered like that?

But shouldn't there be legal restrictions that protect people against being falsely killed? False imprisonment can be made undone. But a false killing? How do you undo that? And aren't there already legal restrictions already? Like "international laws" and "human rights"? And shouldn't those restrictions be more demanding than those against being falsely imprisoned? And shouldn't we enforce those "international laws"? Draw a red line? Maybe bomb Washington? At least a little bit? One Tomahawk for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and one for the Capitol, and one for the Pentagon? You know, to send a signal. Maybe bomb a TV station in Atlanta and a military hospital in Bethesda? Destroy some bridges in New York? Or how about some signature drone-strikes against US generals? Or one could bomb the shit out of the Los Angeles harbour? And as icing on the cake, maybe impose some crippling trade sanctions to bring the US back to the negotiation table? Freeze the bank accounts of all US citizens? After all, this is the way transgressions of international law (real and imaginary) are usually punished by the US imperial machine.

Speaking of falsely imprisoning someone: In Guantanamo almost 200 people still languish in an extra-legal limbo, now for over a decade, their access to the legal system, lawyers and even basic information severely restricted (not that the crooked US legal system would help much). IANAL, but regardless whether you consider them PoW or suspected(!) criminals, this is in violation of *EVERY* law, US and international, civil and military, written for the protection of people against being robbed of their freedom. Out of the almost 800 people who had been interned in Gitmo, only 7(!) had been sentenced by a court to have done something that would warrant a punishment – for comparison, in the same time 9 prisoners have died in Gitmo.

Now the extra-legal limbo of Gitmo would be bad enough, but you will be hard pressed to find a prisoner of Gitmo who had *not* been subjected to several forms of cruel and unusual punishment. Prisoners, 99% of who had *not even* been charged with any crime by a court of law. These human beings were transported shackled, gagged, hooded, chained to the floor of a cargo plane – like cattle, I want to write. But even if the human rights would not apply to these prisoners, you couldn't treat a cow in the US like that. These prisoners were depraved of sleep by being exposed in their cells for day and night to bright lights and loud music (and don't think the US military played their favourite music – I take it they liked to play Heavy Metal). Many had been waterboarded multiple times, a form of torture that is indistinguishable from drowning for the prisoner. The target was, I take it, that the prisoner confesses to their crimes (I take it KSM admitted to shooting Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, setting fire to the Reichstag in Berlin, while working for our eternal enemy Eastasia).

Granted, some of the worst transgressions happened during "Dubya" Bush, not during "contrary to who we are" Obama. Yes, the brutal force feeding of hunger-striking prisoners happened while Bush was commander in chief – but it continues on Obama's watch. This is the only means the prisoners have left to petition the government for redress of grievances: refusing to eat, to starve themselves, to death if necessary. (But then again they are probably not "people" in the sense of the US constitution, and the "contrary to who we are" Obama administration is not "their" government). Not only are those protesting prisoners brutally force fed, but it is insisted that it is for their best. And to add insult to injury, those who died in the past as a result of their protest, who have took their life in protest of torture, those are maligned as doing it to spread terror in their terrorist-ways – as if it was their great terrorist plan to get captured, cruelly punished and then to protest it by the only means left to them.

The extra-legal limbo and torturous treatment in Gitmo alone would have been bad enough, but the prisoners who reached Gitmo had it good, I take it. Many did not survive long enough to be shackled, gagged, hooded and strapped to the floor of a cargo plane.

There are those prisoners (supposedly surrendered "al Qaeda" fighters) who died in containers at Sheberghan prison, as recounted in "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death". How many died? Nobody knows. To cite Pinter: It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. Where were the cries that the UN is doing nothing to stop this? It didn't matter, as the prisoners fought for al Qaeda. Has General Dostum, an US ally, been investigated for these alleged crimes? That was of no interest to the US. Dostum still does politics, without being threatened by the US like Assad is now. By the way, it seems to have never been of interest that Dostum fought on the Soviet side in the eighties – Dostum changed his allegiance fast enough, and after all, an ally is an ally, right?

Then there is the way in which many prisoners landed in the custody of the US. You see, when the minds of US citizens are not occupied by bombing the shit out of far away nations, then their thoughts start to revolve around money. So Americans seem to think it is a good idea to pay a substantial prize for every "al Qaeda fighter" they get delivered by the local Afghans tribes – no questions asked. So the local tribes round up some unlucky fools (be it some foreign fool, or some unlucky chaps from some rival tribe) and sell them to the US. And the Americans say: "If the locals say these are al Qaede fighters, then by god they must be al Qaeda fighters." Why bother to find out the truth? Nobody ever got in trouble for falsely imprisoning an "al Qaeda" member (real or imaginary) – and quality assurance is unnecessary work after all.

Leaving shortly Afghanistan, I suppose one could write books on the topic of "extraordinary renditions". And expect lengthy apologies by the US government. Possibly something along the line: "This is contrary to who we are." And maybe someone from Fort Benning (Florida) would disagree: "No, this exactly who we are." I leave the topic of extraordinary renditions to the so inclined reader, as it would burst this already lengthy column.

Then there is Bagram, which alone should be basis for the US to never stop apologizing. The "Bagram Theater Internment Facility" (as it was known among other names) did give Abu Ghraib a run for its money. What was used by the US at these sites as "interrogation methods", like for example "stress positions", had been developed by SS-"doctors" in KZ-camps. But of course it is a dirty rumor that Henry K. Beecher had learned these torture methods from Walter Schreiber (who had been involved in human experiments in KZ-camps) at the CIA run "Villa Schuster" facility in Kronberg ("Camp King", West-Germany) during the cold war. So of course it is an coincidence that the US uses fascist KZ-camp torture methods.

And there are supposedly still prisoners in Bagram.

For some prisoners that US had in their custody, it got worse after they had been flown out of Afghanistan. As Bob Baer put it:

If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear—never to see them again—you send them to Egypt

Wait, what? The US extradited prisoners to Syria to be tortured? Isn't Assad like Hitler, or something? Were was the outcry of the political class back then? Surely it must be a shameless lie that the US worked together with Syria! Otherwise the current US government would have to apologize for this, now wouldn't it? Right? RIGHT?

Right.

Then in addition to countries like Syria, Egypt or Jorda – which could be used as convenient "black holes" for unwanted humans – there were countless black sites jointly created by the US and (among others) the "democracies" of "New Europe". How many have there been? What happened there? Are they still operating? Has there been an investigation? I apologize for again using that Pinter quote: It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. Well at least Obama closed those black sites, though it is hard to assert what has and has not been done in that regard.

If it is true that the black sites no longer operate, than a reasonable assumption is that the system of "extraordinary renditions" has simply been replaced be the "presidential murder decrees" – by US President "contrary to who we are" Obama. Give him a Nobelprize for Peace for that! Why extra-legally kidnap and torture people, when you can simply murder them? Much cheaper, and less fuss.

So, how should one classify those acts ordered by the POTUS? The political class makes very fine distinctions that such acts are not warfare (even so it is part of a so called "war on terror"). A very nuanced vocabulary is used when other nations are attacked by the USA, the euphemistic character of which goes all the way to eleven:

• An (limited) intervention (the military is doing stuff the military does, but this is most definitely not war)
• Sending a signal (possibly by bombing the communication infrastructure)
• Drawing a red line (as opposed to threatening a nation with war)
• If necessary: low intensity warfare (and promised to be 100% free of war crimes and 100% free of civilian deaths, but 100% the same taste as real war – or your money back!)
• The afore mentioned fight against terrorism (as opposed to committing acts of terrorism against an civilian population)
• Bringing someone to the negotiation table (where one resides supposedly all the time, and not at the warfare table, where only the enemy resides)
• And most of all: upholding international law (which is constantly broken by the enemy, and it falls again and again to the US government and its valiant military to restore international law, alone) in order to keep the world a safe place (Yeah!)

Words have no rights. And Fort Benning (Florida) houses the world's largest production facility for freedom and democracy. Feel free to expand that list – truth will not be on it.

So again, what are these "presidential murder decrees", and the acts committed based on them? Are they act of wars? Contrary to what the political class in the US claims, these acts bear some hallmark features of acts of war. For these acts, the US uses mainly military means (I sure hope that kill lists and murder-drones will never be considered part of reasonable police work). These acts thoroughly lack criminal investigation and due process. The information basis is – as with all "intelligence" information – dubious at best. The legal basis is thin ice, which would not stand in any legal system worth the name. These acts are not directed at apprehending and questioning a suspect. (Why do I even have to write this? Shouldn't this be obvious?). That it is not a declared war (declared in the classical sense, as not even the "war on terror" had ever been formally declared in any way by any side) does not really make things better. De facto, these are acts of war.

But if these are acts of war, then probably they should be considered war crimes. Persons "hors de combat" (outside of combat), and those not taking part in hostilities, shall be protected and treated humanely – or so Wikipedia claims. The political class must therefore claim that these acts are not, and can not be considered, acts of war.

Fine, what about the contrary position, that these acts are not acts of war? After all, the targets of these presidential kill lists live in a murky twilight of not really being considered as "soldiers of an army" by the Hague Conventions. But what position would kill lists and murder-drones have in international law or any "civilian" legal system? The simple answer is that no Rechtsstaat – a "state of justice" – can operate like that and still be considered a state in which there exists justice. There is however a term for states in which the head of state orders people to be killed without oversight through an independent legal system: Such a state is called an dictatorship.

But what are these acts then, if they are not warfare? Imagine the Head of State of Iran, Russia or Syria ordering such acts based on whimsical "intelligence", and they would be rightfully branded as state terrorism. And that is what they are: Terrorism, no qualifier needed. And it is only through the American military might, and the collaboration of "US-friendly" governments, that it is possible to keep such acts of blatant disrespect for international law in a Heisenberg like state of being both acts of war and not being acts of war – existing outside of international law, unchecked and unchallenged. America is enforcing its grotesque version of international law, and not for the "benefit of the nation" (nor for the benefit of its population), but in the interest and for the benefit of a ravenous alliance between political class, military and capital.

When John Pilger wrote about "the silent military coup that took over Washington", one of his main points was that the US military has an relinquishing grip on US (foreign) policy, an grip that remained untouched by "contrary to who we are" Obama. After all, Obama said it quite clearly when he remarked that the "Afghan" war (and therefore the "war on terror") is a war of necessity. The military however came to power long before Obama. Pilger carefully avoided to pin-point the time this coup had happened. One could argue that the military–industrial complex is as old as the Pentagon, and was forged in the Second World War (as Eisenhower infamously tried to warn us about). One could argue that the Monroe doctrine formally established US militarism (and imperialism) a good hundred years before WWII, to reign in a era when the US military was used both inside and outside of the USA (with its expanding territory) in the interest of American corporations, banks and generally America's financial interests. Or one could go back fifty years before that to the American Revolutionary War, and polemically claim that rich white fucks used military force in their own interests (mainly to rid themselves of the rivals for power, in the form of British feudalism and imperialism), laying the foundation for US militarism. And speaking of British imperialism: One could probably argue that there is a good bit of British heritage in US imperialism. Arguably imperialism packed with a bit more proclaimed civil liberties and rights to make it more palatable for the masses. (Rights which in effect mainly protect those old white males wielding power in the name of US imperialism, rights which were not made for women, or blacks, or – good god! – slaves when the "Union" started its imperial business.)

My point is: This is nothing new. Michael Parenti was once asked (and I paraphrase here): "Is Iraq like Vietnam?", to which he answered "No. But Washington is still Washington."

But yeah, "we" urgently need to bomb the shit out of Syria. It is for the good of the Syrian people that we bomb the shit out of them. Their human rights demand it that we bomb the shit out of them. Gavrilo Princip (alone) started the first world war, and Hitler (alone) the second. Assad is like Hitler, therefore we have to bomb Syria, there is no way round. It is the right thing to do for Washington, as it always have been the right thing to bomb Hitler, as it was America that killed Hitler. The Russians are protecting Assad, as they have never done anything to fight against Hitler.

Munich 1938: The international community is paralysed by Russia's veto, which prevents action to be taken against Hitler.

9th of May 2005, the 60th anniversary of the end of fascist Germany: Like every year Russia celebrates its decision to do nothing against Hitler.

// This is a generic comment on the United States of America
// I could have written more (maybe), but what I have written is already too much in every respect
// Adjust things like $POTUS_NAME and $ENEMY_NAME were needed, and add current US transgressions to keep it up to date
// Don't ever attempt to create a exhaustive list of US transgressions
// Any sarcasm is intentional

Let me add one last thing. Harold Pinter once read an excerpt from Pablo Neruda's "I'm Explaining a Few Things" in the context of the 2003 war against Iraq:

And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires
leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children
and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children's blood.

Jackals that the jackals would despise
stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate.

Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide
to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives.

Treacherous generals:
see my dead house,
look at broken Spain:
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers
from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges
and from every dead child a rifle with eyes
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find
the bull's eye of your hearts.

And you will ask: why doesn't his poetry speak of dreams and leaves
and the great volcanoes of his native land.

Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood in the streets.

Harold Pinter then added:

Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I quote Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral description of the bombing of civilians.

I have nothing to add to that.

--
* The Hague Conventions became necessary as the governments were leading wars that were more and more ugly, much more ugly than wars already were – hence some rules were needed to keep the business of killing thy enemy a bit "civilized", to remain acceptable in the population (nobody minds killing an dangerous enemy, but slaughtering "innocent" civilians makes it all to clear what wars are about…). BTW: Special, more murky rules apply when one is not directly engaged with the enemy. It was probably the bombing of civilians through the fascist Luftwaffe, followed by the retaliationary bombing of civilians through the RAF a few years later (as at the time it was the main thing the RAF was build to do) that made it acceptable to bomb civilians. This regression should have been rolled back – but then again if you start questioning parts of "modern" warfare, you might end up questioning the entire business of war, war that is usually fought in the name of some never quite clearly defined "national interests", so better not go there…

News from the Climate Debate

Barry Brill: The Taxonomy of Climate Opinion

…
The debate over climate change is not, and never has been, divided into two monochromatic tribes who have been brainwashed into unanimity . There are as many different opinions are there are participants in the discussion. (“quot homines tot sententiae” as Christopher Monckton might say).

For those who insist upon a tidy taxonomy, I offer the following first draft:



…
It is only a matter of time (and not much time) before the ECS is repositioned to 1-3°C and the TCR to1-2°C. At that point, many more people who are near the upper end of the ‘Sceptics’ grouping with join with those multitudes who are at the lower end of the ‘Mainstream’ grouping to form a new “Orthodox” group.

This merging could be an uncomfortable time for both parties. Kuhn argues in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm. Will that remain the case when views of TCR are only a fraction of a degree apart?
…

Marlo Lewis: IPCC Calls Off Planetary Emergency?

…
As BishopHill and Judith Curry report on their separate blogs, IPCC now believes that in the 21^st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is “very unlikely,” ice sheet collapse is “exceptionally unlikely,” and catastrophic release of methane hydrates from melting permafrost is “very unlikely.” You can read it for yourself in Chapter 12 Table 12.4 of the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report.
…

My New "Cheap Astronomy" Blog

I started a "Cheap Astronomy" Blog and will be posting new astronomy related content on that blog! Have fun!

No Consensus

Or as the IPCC puts it:

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

A Robust Debate

Steve McIntyre is smoking hot again:

The IPCC assessment has also been compromised by gatekeeping by fellow-traveler journal editors, who have routinely rejected skeptic articles on the discrepancy between models and observations or pointing out the weaknesses of articles now relied upon by IPCC. Despite exposure of these practices in Climategate, little has changed. Had the skeptic articles been published (as they ought to have been), the resulting debate would have been more robust and IPCC would have had more to draw on its present assessment dilemma. As it is, IPCC is surely in a well-earned quandary.

"You Won't Believe That Mind Blowing Must See Video about how NASA confirmed they faked Moon-Landing UFO alien Monuments!"

If the title of a video contains any of the following (or variations thereof), I'm pretty sure I don't want to see the video:

• "You won't believe…"
• "Mind blowing"
• "Must see video"
• "NASA" and any of the following: "hides", "confirms", "secret", "alien", "UFO", "monument", "faked", "photo", "reality" or "evidence"

If these fools insists to upload such spam (and they DO spam the world with it), then it is my right to filter out such spam – and may you die of easily preventable deaths.

There are very very few exceptions (I'm looking at you, Vsauce), but in general: I don't want to see such dreck.

(And as a bonus point: I avoid anything with Michio Kaku in it…)

[Update 2013-10-28] XKCD along the similar line.

"Left" or "Right", the MSM lies

A lesson from WUWT to not trust MSM, regardless of political affiliation (slightly edited by me for clarity):

From: Jeff Goodell
To: Anthony Watts
Subject: Rolling Stone inquiry

Hi Anthony

I’m a writer for Rolling Stone, working on piece about upcoming IPCC report. I’m checking in with a few people to get their views on how they think it will be received. Thoughts?

Thanks

Jeff

Anthony's reply:

From: Anthony Watts
To: Jeff Goodell

My view is that AR5 is going to stillborn, mainly because it is already outdated by new science that won’t be included.

There have been 19 separate peer reviewed papers published in climate sensitivity to CO2 by 42 scientists since January 1, 2012 all describing a lower climate sensitivity.

There have been recent revelations in journals (Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie Nature 2013 and de Freitas &McLean, 2013 International Journal of Geosciences) that demonstrate ENSO (El Niño) in the Pacific is responsible for the 15 plus years of global warming slowdown known as “the pause”. These two papers strongly suggest natural variability is still the dominant climate control.

Then there is the lack of reality matching what the climate models tell us, such as this leaked graph from an AR5 draft:

Original from AR5 draft: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png

Annotated version: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif

All this while global CO2 emissions have been growing steadily. The lack of temperature match to models, “the pause”, combined with these new ENSO findings tell us that global warming has gone from a planetary crisis to a minor problem in a Banana Republic where only a few vocal science rebels are arguing for immediate intervention.

The costs of mitigating the perceived problem are also staggering compared to the benefit, as the 50:1 project demonstrates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0

best regards,

Anthony Watts

And what did Jeff Goodell write?

But, of course, this is nothing new. In 2007, when the IPCC released its Fourth Assessment Report, it was also nearly certain that human activity was heating up the planet, with grave consequences for our future well-being. And six years before that, when the IPCC released its Third Assessment, scientists were pretty certain about it too. But phrases like “high confidence” in warming do not, to the unscientific ear, inspire high confidence in the report’s finding, since they imply the existence of doubt, no matter how slight. And in the climate wars, “Doubt is what deniers thrive on and exploit,” says Bob Watson, who was head of the IPCC from 1997 to 2002. The final report has not even been released yet, and already prominent bloggers in the denial-sphere, like Anthony Watts, are calling it “stillborn.“

Rightfully, Anthony is a bit pissed:

What is most galling, is that Goodell asked me for my opinion prior the release of the IPCC AR5 report, then chastises me in his article for giving it. Whatta guy.

On "Runaway Greenhouse" Climate

From a comment I left on another blog:

One stumbles upon this term sometimes, but what does it actually mean for an planetary body to be "in an RG [runaway greenhouse] state"?

Considering that the influx of energy is (more or less) stable, any process that lowers the outflux of energy will only raise temperature up to a point, when a new equilibrium is reached (as increased temperature leads to increased outflux). To get an true runaway climate, one would need to lower the outflux to zero, something that is only possible at absolute zero – a state that will be quickly left behind in the case of influx of energy.

I can only assume that by saying "runaway" scientists actually mean "reaching a higher equilibrium temperature". So to me the term "runaway greenhouse" is nonsensical, sensationalistic, misleading and anti-scientific, and this reflects badly on any scientists using such terms uncritically.

George W. Obama

Dear Mr President – STOP

Dear Mr. President
the world has gone astray
Brothers are dying
they won't live to see today
Was it all worth it
you had to lie to get your way
Bloods thicker than water
what a price we had to pay

I can no longer see an difference from Mr. Obama to Mr. Bush

An Ancient Meteorite Impact Crater in Saint-Laurent-la-Vernède?

Now I might be seeing things that are not actually there (an old human trait, I take it), but to my (untrained) eye it looks like there might have been (during our geologic past) an meteoroid impact at an oblique angle in the area where today lies Saint-Laurent-la-Vernède (44°06′21″N 4°27′31″E, in the south of France, department Gard):

The French township of Saint-Laurent-la-Vernède lies in an depression, the elongated green ring of forests constitutes an ridge, and the fields around that again form an depression. The ring has an very coarsely approximated length of something over 7 km (heading 280 degrees) and a width of 1.5 km. The western end of the ridge is more rounded than the eastern end, and there in the west is a hill of sorts around the town of La Bruguière. The larger green forest are part of some local hills, framing the entire area (except to the east-south-east). Forests and fields do not exactly follow hills and depressions, but give a good indication of the topology in that area.

Now I am no expert in these matters, and there might have been other geologic forces creating this, like for example glaciers and long gone streams shaping some geologic fault. But damn, wouldn't that be cool, if this were the result of an meteorite impact?

In the south-east, the D166 road (44°05'50.33" N, 4°30'52.30" E) were the small river "La Tave" pierces through the ridge to drain to the east towards the Rhone. Some strata are visible in Google's Streetview. What could a geologist find around here?

Surely there should be geologic reports about that region? Alas, my search engine skills are not good enough to find something… When, a couple of years ago, I stumbled in Google Earth upon the old river valley of the Donau ("Urdonau") in the "Wellheimer Trockental" between Rennertshofen and Dollnstein, I was at least able to find sites about this. But here? I found nothing in the internet about this geologic formation.

Cheap Astronomy – Ancient Wisdom

A man can't stand, he can't fight. A man can't breathe, he can't fight. A man can't see, he can't fight.
-- The Karate Kid, Part III

In the matter of hand-to-hand combat (in which I have no experience, thankfully) one needs three things according to ancient wisdom:

• Being able to stand
• Being able to breathe
• Being able to see

Or maybe not ancient wisdom, this is at least according to the motion picture "The Karate Kid, Part III", which I have not seen seen (and can furthermore not vouch to its authoritativeness on the matter of hand-to-hand combat).

But it reminded me of basically three areas you need to do visual astronomy (to paint a very simplified picture):

• Optics, seeing and eyes, to be able to see
• Some sort of mount, for stability
• And "usability"

Well, the first point should be plain and obvious: if you can't see, you can't do astronomy. While the area of optical quality of the telescope is most accessible to objective measurement, it is not something that can be put into one number. There is too many things to know beyond aperture and f-ratio: MTF, contrast, stray light reduction, field of view (or rather field of view free of mechanical vignetting), chromatic aberration, spheric aberration, coma, astigmatism, field curvature, distoration, RMS wavefront error, Strehl ratio, and so on. (And that is not accounting for tolerances and errors during production…) But at least one can try to get a measured idea of what to expect from a scope.

Another point not on the radar for beginners: To be able to see is more than just the quality of "optical tube assembly" (and more than the combination of OTA with eyepieces). Unfortunately this is a topic of its own.

The second point is usually overlooked as well by inexperience beginners (and exploited by the industry sell them undersized mounts): One is using high magnifications and any shaking caused by a mount will make it hard (if not impossible) to use an astronomical telescope. There is the measure of maximum telescope weight supported by an mount, but (beyond the question of how this is measured) this is not a simple number or measurement: A long telescope will put more strain on a mount than a short telescope with the same weight. Person A is more tolerant to shaking than person B. And so on. But it stands: The more stable a mount, the more enjoyable a view through a scope.

And while the third point seems simple (to the point of being a tautology), it is the hardest to grasp: If an telescope setup lacks usability, it is not usable. If you can't find things in the night sky with it, what good is a telescope? What good is a telescope and mount, if it is so heavy that you rather leave it at home than drag it with you? What good are high magnifications if the focuser shifting is so bad that you can't actually reach focus?

Now if it were just "Good, But Expensive Astronomy" I'm after, I would recommend the best setup that money can buy (and there are some out there).  Some of these question can be solved by throwing money at them. But only up to a point.

If you want to do astronomy, you have to invest time, acquire knowledge and skills – just like any other hobby, just like a craft or a sport. Sure you can have fun just "dabbling" in astronomy, but for me the fun in is improving, advancing, progressing.



And for me it is "Cheap Astronomy" I'm after, or rather affordable astronomy, with a good ratio of cost to optical quality, stability and usability. With some some measured modifications. Investing time to save money and gain knowledge.

More to follow.

Cheap Astronomy – Things That Are Free: Meteoblue's "Astronomical Seeing" Prediction

When I prepared myself for the Triple Conjuction, I had to drive to another site – so I wanted to know beforehand how the weather would be, and especially if there were clouds or not.

One thing I found mildly helpful was looking into nearby airports. I have two small airstrips near by, and both have some interesting weather information. One is military and has some cloud predictions, the other is a small private one with temperature and dew point record for the last 24h, plus current webcam images

Since then I tried to find a website which is more dedicated to weather in the context of astronomical seeing. Of course one immediately finds the "Clear Sky Chart" website and Weather Underground's Astronomy service – but unfortunately they cater mainly to the continental US and Canada.

I then searched some more and found the "Astronomical Seeing" service by Meteoblue. Until now I have mainly used their cloud prediction and found it to be quite reliable.They have many more features (like "seeing"), and I hope to utilize them in the future – but I am neither proficient enough nor have I used it other informtion to comment on the quality of their "seeing" information.

Sow what else do they offer? They offer quite some information, with hourly resolution for three days. Most of it presented in color, so one can immediately grasp what one has to expect for the next days.

The Meteoblue information for the current day for a semi-randomly selected city in Russia – things like daytime/nighttime and cloudcover are immediately obvious. Notice the "mouse-over" with planet information in the lower right corner.

The information about astronomical weather they display is:

• Cloudcover (low, mid and high)
• Different seeing indices (different calculation methods)
• Jet stream and "bad" layers
• Temperature and humidity

Furthermore they show some information about our Solar System:

• Daily Sun rise and Sun set
• Daily Moon rise, Moon set and Moon phase (both as number and as text)
• Hourly information for visible planets* (with coordinates via "mouse over")

It is all presented very nicely and I usually look once a day to know if I should prepare for an astronomical session (or not).

*All eight planets except the Earth – duh – plus the dwarf planet Pluto.

Cheap Astronomy – Put Some Flock On Your Barlows!

I would have wanted to look at the Moon tonight, but the clouds are prohibitive today. So I played a bit around with an artificial target I have and to my horror found out that my Barlows were not useful for looking at bright targets. By now I have six Barlows and – with the sole exception of the "KSON 3x achromatic" – each and everyone had problems with internal reflections. Thankfully in each case the usefulness of the Barlow was hugely improved by putting flocking material on the cause of the internal reflection.

These are the Barlows I have now:

• 3x "long barrel" cheap plastic Barlow (0.965 inch)
• 2x all metal "Japan" Barlow (0.965 inch)
• 2x "shorty" cheap plastic Barlow with singlet glass lens (1.25 inch)
• 2x Knight-Owl Barlow (1.25 inch)
• 3x Knight-Owl Barlow (1.25 inch)
• 3x KSON achromatic Barlow (1.25 inch)

And as I said the KSON was the only one that did not need any modification. All the others had internal reflections that degraded contrast and made the image blurred. This was especially annoying when looking at the Moon, as the image became so "washed out" that the Barlows were useless – a child's marble would produce a better image.

What to do?

To check a Barlow, put the Barlow in the focuser (best to test in the fastest scope you have and do not put a eyepiece in), and then shine a flash-light in the scope: When looking into the Barlow, do you see any reflections? Flock 'em! Smoke 'em out! Only a flat black surface is a good surface.

Similarly you can go and remove the Barlow, shine a flash-light into the scope's front end and then look into the focuser: Do you see any reflections were they shouldn't be? Flock 'em!

And for ultimate satisfaction, put eyepiece(s) in the focuser, shine the flash-light from the front and then look from the front: Do you see any reflections? Remove 'em! All my eyepieces (and all my star diagonals) had chrome barrels were the front edge and the inside of the barrel reflected light like crazy. And even if the inside of the barrel was painted in flat black, it was not nearly enough. Especially in the case of the 2" star diagonal I had a huge improvement by flocking the barrel.

So, if it shines in the flashlight, it is bad for contrast. It is most obvious on objects like the Moon or the planets. In other cases (e.g. when there are bright stars a little bit out of the FOV for a dark nebula) the result may be a little less obvious (though probably worth a try as well). As one of the next objects I want to see is Jupiter, I will be needing my Barlows, and I will want every bit of contrast I can squeeze out of my scopes. So the cloudy skies tonight were a blessing.

And one last thing I found: My SR6mm eyepiece has a lot of shiny black plastic surfaces at an right angle to the optical axis – putting some flocking material on it improved contrast especial in when used in combination with a Barlow.

BTW: In many cases I do not stick the flocking material on. I simply leave the protective foil on, roll up the flocking material and put it on the inside of e.g. a barrel. One just needs to cut it to the exact inner diameter of the tube (first make it a bit to long, then cut off small slices until it is "just right"), then one can lay it there "flush" and it will have a little bit of tension that holds the material there.

On other surfaces I try to put it in there so the flocking material holds there "mechanically".

Only in stuborn cases (were the material will not hold "by itself") do I need to remove the protective foil and stick it on the surface (point in case: the inside of the plastic retaining ring).

The Effective Spy?

Adam Curtin: BUGGER

… The spy world became a fascinating other universe that was full of layer upon layer of deception, where the men who inhabited it spent their time trying to penetrate through the circles of falsehood to the inner sanctum of truth.

It was an image that was powerfully helped by John Le Carre's novels - and his anti-hero George Smiley. Le Carre's novels were a clever piece of PR - because they appeared to be more gritty and realistic than the glamourised James Bond image.

But it was just another layer of deception - because Smiley and his search for a hidden mole expressed powerfully the paranoid and unfounded fantasies of the dissident MI5 agents.

But it was a world that was all made-up. Le Carre - who had himself been a spy - admitted this, and described what the true reality of the spy world was:

For a while you wondered whether the fools were pretending to be fools as some kind of deception, or whether there was a real efficient service somewhere else.

Later in my fiction, I invented one.

But alas the reality was the mediocrity. Ex-colonial policemen mingling with failed academics, failed lawyers, failed missionaries and failed debutantes gave our canteen the amorphous quality of an Old School outing on the Orient express. Everyone seemed to smell of failure.

Cheap Astronomy – Blast From The Eighties: 60 / 900 Refractor With EQ-2 Mount

I could not resist it, I had to buy another cheap scope… :-) The scope was incomplete, and I bought it mainly for the EQ-2 mount – but it might turn out to be a nice entry level scope.

Some data:

• Bresser Art. Nr. 45-1200 
• Labelled "Circle T" (which means it came from the Japanese Towa company)
• No indication in which country it was actually manufactured (Japan? Taiwan? China?)
• Achromatic doublet refractor (commonly referred to as "Fraunhofer-type")
• The nominal aperture is 60mm
• The nominal focal length is 900mm
• This comes out to a long focal ratio of f/15
• Silver OTA
• The eyepiece size is 0.965 inch
• Came with an EQ-2 mount
• 6x30 finderscope with cross-hairs
• Focuser has "dual action": Rack-and-pinion and "pirate scope" sliding drawtube
• Almost everything is made from metal

The scope seems to be very similar to what has been (during the same time) sold under the Tasco Meade brandname in the USA. As far as I can see it is very similar to the Meade model 291 refractor. As far as I can see the 291 were made by Towa as well, though I could be mistaken. The silver series was supposedly the "slightly better" one from Bresser back then.

The scope came with the OTA, an EQ-2 mount without tripod legs, one prism diagonal, one "Porro" erecting prism for terrestrial use, a 6x30 finderscope with bracket and all of the little screws and most of the caps (plus the packaging from a similar "Apollo" telescope). What was not included were eyepieces, nor were there any tripod-legs, the eyepiece tray or light for the tray (but the tripod legs from my EQ-1 fitted somewhat, so I borrowed them). Missing as well was the counterweight-rod and control cables for the EQ-2 mount (again, borrowed from my EQ-1), as well as one nut for closing the OTA-bracket.

Both the scope and the mount seemed like they have been seldom (if ever) used, though there was some wear on the finderscope and the prism diagonal. There is even still the protective foil on a scale of the mount and on the knobs of the focuser!

Granted, the aperture is small, but the focal length is long, so I should be able to try higher magnifications for planetary viewing on Saturn or Jupiter with my still limited selection of eyepieces.

And of course, when one buys a scope, the weather turns bad. So I made only some preliminary tests. The chromatic aberration seems very small, as should be expected from a f/15 focal ratio. During the daytime I could increase the magnification so far (with my cheap 3x Barlow) that I started to see dust on my Ortho10mm, and started to see some floaters and other crud in my eyes with my H6mm.

Some of the things I noticed:

• OTA outer diameter is 63mm
• The counterweight-rod for EQ-2 mount has probably an UNC 1/2"-13 thread, (unlike the M12 thread on my EQ-1)
• The counterweight-bar of the EQ-2 rotates with the scope (unlike the EQ-1)
• The tension of the "pirate scope" focuser is maintained by cardboard – obviously this cardboard has deteriorated over the years, and the focuser has lost tension. So I needed to take the focuser apart, put one carefully placed piece of electrical tape on the cardboard (not on the circumflex, but along the length of the cardboard) and reassemble it all. Now it is a bit too firm, but that is OK.
  [Update] I had to completely remove the cardboard from the drawtube, it was getting loose again and adding tape made it worse. I put three strips of "textile" tape in there, padded it with several layers of electric tape and topped it of with thin "aluminium tape" – now it seems good. And what's more, it is easy to add tension by adding layers of aluminium tape. [/Update]
• Little pieces of the cardboard (from inside the focuser) had found its way on the rear surface of the lens. And there were some defects in coating of the rear surface, probably caused by the rotting cardboard pieces. But after removing the dirt, the damage seems benign.    
• The finderscope seems OK.
• The finderscope's bracket is of "single ring" type, with three set-screws – and adjusting it is impossible without modification, as the end (opposite of the set-screws) is too wide for the finderscope. After I put a layer of electrical tape around the finderscope (opposite the set-screws) I could adjust the finderscope reasonably well (and when tightened down all screws a bit, the finderscope seems to stay in alignment – everything is metal, after all).
• The 60/900 is much lighter than my 76/700 Newton – the one counterweight I have (which is just about enough for the Newton) is too much for the 60/900!
• The OTA and focuser seem to be properly baffled. The baffles inside the focuser's drawtube are small, however both a rough estimate and a visual inspection confirm that the baffles are very well placed. (Only minor point is that both baffles inside the drawtube are not painted black, but instead have their "natural" metal brass?/galvanized? finish)
• [Update] The focuser had some shifting, and I when I dismantled it to remove the cardboard, I removed the single piece of textile tape that was put there in the focuser – focuser shifting is awful at an telescope and most of the time it would be completely avoidable during production with some simple measures. But one can make a simple DIY solution: Instead of the single piece of tape, I put two "rails" from flocking material in the focuser (as I did in the 70/300). That greatly reduced focuser shifting, but there is still some. I will have to improve the "rails" at least once more, but I'm confident that I can remove the shifting almost completed within two iterations. [/Update]

I'm going to play around with a bit, and ask a friend to make me make myself some simple wooden tripod-legs for it. And then I need to get another counterweight rod and something as counterweight.

It seems like a nice scope.

[Update 2013-08-14]
Today I tried solar projection using an Carl Zeiss Jena microscope-eyepiece (Huygens 35.7mm) and I must say this scope (with its small aperture, long focal ratio and metal baffles) is well suited for observation of sunspots. As long as we still have observable sunspots, that is.

An image made today (14th August 2013) by the SDO solar space observatory captured in the 4500Å continuum. The image shows the two medium sized sunspot groups (or rather several groups), which I could spot as well with my 60mm/900mm refractor by using eyepiece projection.

Cheap Astronomy – A Quick Look At The Bresser 76 / 350 Table-Top Dobson

A supermarket chain here has been selling off the "Bresser 76 mm (3 inch) f=350mm table-top Dobson telescope" at a very very low price. So naturally some of those sold wound up at eBay, with an surcharge (naturally), and naturally I had to buy one. (Had I known of this offer by the supermarket chain in the first place, I would have obviously bought directly there, saving myself a bit of money – but I digress, back to Cheap Astronomy).

The scope has arrived this morning, so I hadn't had a chance to test it on the night sky. I however played around a bit with it, and I thought I write down what I learned so far (and as I doubt I have the energy at the moment to do a proper review of it anyway). [Update] And of course the weather turned bad the afternoon… [/Update]

What's in the box:

• The table-top Dobsonian telescope (Art. No. 88-43201)
• Nominal aperture is 76 mm (3 inch)
• Nominal focal length is 350 mm (13.8 inch)
• The nominal focal ratio is f/4.6
• An H20mm Huygens(?) eyepiece (1.25 inch), giving a nominal 17.5x magnification
• An SR6mm Ramsden eyepiece (1.25 inch), giving 58x magnification
• An 2x "shorty" Barlow (1.25 inch), increasing the nominal magnification to 35x and 117x respectively
• And blue "Moon filter"
• Caps for focuser and Barlow, canisters for the eyepieces
• An planisphere
• An CD with the Stellarium software
• Some documentation
• A finderscope is not included

The telescope (and mount) features:

• An 1.25 inch focuser 
• A single-arm secondary mirror support
• The OTA has an outer diameter of about 95mm (the end caps are about 1mm larger in diameter)
• Two setting circles, one for azimuth and one for altitude
• The tension of the altitude axis can be adjusted with a large knob
• An wobbly compass in the base

A quick estimate regarding the secondary and effective aperture:
The secondary mirror has about 19mm diameter (small axis, +/- 1mm) and is about 235 mm (+/- 10mm) away from the main mirror.

If I did not make an mistake:
To illuminate an 20mm diameter field at the eyepiece, the secondary diameter would have to be about 40mm – for 5mm this comes out to about 29mm diameter. With an 19mm secondary, the on-axis aperture becomes around 60mm.

Taking into account the (arguably small) obstruction of the secondary with sqrt(60*60 - 19*19) sqrt(30*30-14.5*14.5)*2, we end up with about 57mm (2.25 inch) effective aperture. (For comparison a 29mm secondary would yield an effective aperture of about 70mm)

Blunders, big and small:

• The main mirror is probably spherical (will see how the stars look)
• The main mirror is not adjustable (adjustment on mine seems fine though)
• The secondary is (probably) too small
• [Update] After a short visual inspection I can confirm that the secondary is definitely too small.
• [Update] Furthermore the position of the secondary is not centred when viewed from the focuser (the secondary is moved too much towards the front). The collimation screws of the secondary are too short and make achieving a proper collimate impossible! One has to replace the screws with longer versions!
• [Update 2013-10-06] I replaced the secondary's screws with a bit longer versions – now I could put the secondary were it belongs. (And I need to buy some long M3 screws.) I collimated the secondary (no Cheshire, no laser) and I hope it should now be better – a daytime test was promising. Before collimation the image from the Pleiades was a bit disappointing compared with my 70/300 refractor – let's see what it does the next time at the nightsky after collimation.
• [Update 2013-10-07] With longer screws and after collimation the scope is much improved. Looking at the Pleiades the view is almost like that from my 70/300 refractor – the Pleiades were not a pretty sight before collimation in the little Dobson. Maybe with proper collimation tools (Cheshire and Laser) I could improve it a bit more beyond that – but this has to do.
• The focuser shifts quite a bit. 
• The eyepieces are not parfocal (which is aggravated by the focuser shifting)
• Using the eyepieces with/without the Barlow is not parfocal (again bad due to focuser shifting)
• The altitude setting circle has some +/- 5 degrees play with respect to the telescopes altitude (with 0 degree deviation from true altitude being on the end of the play!)
• The altitude setting circle furthermore is black on silver
• The altitude tension is very difficult to adjust
• The azimuth tension seems a bit to light (and is not easily adjustable)
• Already during the daytime the planisphere is impossible to read!!! Seriously, WTF???
• The mate black paint in the OTA is not fully dark. It seems however to be somewhat OK (and I refuse to flock anyway).
• There are no provisions to add an finder 

Other

• The H20mm eyepiece has its field stop before the field lens – this indicates that it is in fact not a Huygens type eyepiece. (The optics looks the same as those from the H20mm eyepiece supplied with my 70/300). Whether this eyepiece is a Ramsden or a Kellner eyepiece, I don't know.

What's nice:

• The focuser has enough travel (especially compared to my 76/700 Newton)
• The focuser position is located at an angle (some people like that, some people hate that…)
  
• The focuser retention ring can be (with some fiddling) exchanged with my 70/300 refractor, making it possible for me to use both 0.965" and 1.25" eyepieces – though this fiddling will be a bit hard under night-time observation conditions…
• The telescope vibrates when touched, but being so lightweight the vibrations die down completely within an second (give or take).
• The setting circles, are both quite large – during the daytime they helped me measuring out the local horizon at one observation site. Whether they are helpful during the night is doubtful though.
• The azimuth setting circle is printed white on black, which is good (though the font and scale used is a bit "thin", which is bad).
• The compass looks like a toy (and behaves like a toy compass), but it is a nice touch.

tl;dr

• Focuser shifting is awful. Fixing the shifting is difficult, as the space between drawtube and focuser is small – the "two rail" solution I employed at my 70/300 refractor is not easily possible here…
• The secondary mirror is too small (which is probably for the better, considering the probably spherical main mirror): The effective aperture is probably about 57mm (2.25 inch) according to my calculation (which might be wrong)
• The actual focal ratio therefore is probably closer to f/6.1
• But other than focuser shifting, the telescope seems usable to play around – though I have not tested it properly yet.

[Update 2013-08-17]
I shortly tested it on the Moon tonight. The phase was 45° (waxing gibbous) and the Moon was already very bright. I forgot to bring the "Moon filter" with me (nor any of the other filters I have) which was a big oversight – after the session my observation eye was in photopic vision. o.O

Both the H20mm (which is really a Ramsden or Kellner) and the SR6mm performed admirably when observing the Moon in this table-top Dobson. I brought my other 1.25" eyepieces with me (an PL10mm, an SPL12.5mm and an SPL25mm among others) and they too provided very nice views of the Moon.

I then tried the supplied 2x Barlow and the result was quite a bit visible "false color", blue and orange/purple fringes – regardless of which eyepiece. Furthermore the field seemed a bit tilted, which made focusing the entire field not really possible, plus the color seemed not the same on all edges. Possibly the Barlow's lens is tilted. So at least in this fast scope such an cheap supplied Barlow is not a good choice. However with an good Barlow on the Moon this scope should be able to provide more than 120x, or so I would guess. I have ordered (hopefully better) Barlows and I will see how they do in this scope.

This observation of the Moon was followed by a serendipitous naked eye observation of an ISS pass (As Tony Darnell says: "Keep looking up!"). It was quite a sight! But the ISS's magnitude of -3.2 was, with an waxing Moon, "only" comparable to one magnitude less without the Moon in the sky… Still, it was very nice.
[/Update 2013-08-17]

[Update 2013-08-20]
I took a good look at the Barlow and found that the retaining ring (coarse plastic thread) was threaded in tilted. I removed the retaining ring, removed the white goo from the lens (what seems to be a singlet(!) lens, but at least a glass lens), blackened the edge of the lens and put it all carefully together again. Then I made another threaded hole for the retaining screw, as the original was slightly angled in such a way that it pushed out an eyepiece if you tightened it down.

Then tonight I made a short test at the Moon. This time I had my filters with me. I tried them all. The supplied blue "Moon Filter" has a nice color, but is not nearly dark enough. Of all my other filters only the "B+W #103 8x" (optical density 0.9, adds 3 stops) brought down the light level enough, and just barely at that. A combination of filters would have been interesting, but the reflections on two adjacent filters meant a stark degradation of the image – so only the ND filter.

First of all: the "strange color" which I saw is only visible in the supplied H20mm – whatever it is, it seems to be a problem of the eyepiece design. Otherwise the H20mm eyepiece seems sharp. Will see how it does with longer a focal length telescope.

I again tried the Barlow with my H20mm, PL10mm and SR6mm eyepieces (as the other eyepieces have no threads for filters). It was not possible to focus the combination of SR6mm and 2x Barlow – there were always weird halos and everything was washy. Both the PL10mm and the H20mm gave an somewhat sharp image, but it was discernibly worse than without Barlow – not but a large margin, but noticeably.

So as expected the Barlow is not something one should pay money for.

And while the focuser shifting is somewhat reduced with the "two rail" measure I took, it is still awful.
[/Update 2013-08-20]

[Update 2013-08-24]
After fixing one last problem, I can say that the Barlow is not so bad after all!

I found one more spot in the Barlow were there was a black shiny plastic surface causing an internal reflection: The inside of the lens' retaining ring! Small, but vicious. After I put a little strip of black flocking material on the inside of the retain ring I was rewarded with an hugely improved contrast! All my eyepieces now produce a (almost) sharp image. It is not "tack sharp", but it is not so bad compared with my other (more expensive, and better) Barlows.

It is of critical importance to track down and remove all sources of internal reflections! This is especially important in fast scopes, as their divergent light path is much more susceptible to cause internal reflections.
[/Update 2013-08-24]

"The SLS is draining away the lifeblood of the space program"

Looks like Orion/SLS will be an unmitigated disaster for spaceflight (both crewed and uncrewed) – sigh. At the current rate, a single (!) launch of an Orion capsule by an SLS launch vehicle will cost up to 14 billion (!) USD.

Instead of worrying of their "dependence" on Russian launch vehicles, the people in the US space industry should worry that they are being robbed blind by the major privateers private companies in the aerospace industry.

Top 5 Worst Movies Of All Times

Well, I lied in the title: These are the worst movies that I have seen. And there are certainly bad movies that I have not seen, which should be rightfully in this list.

#5

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

What a disappointment AvP was. Two Sci-Fi classics, that were thrown together into one movie – this had to end badly. I knew it was a mistake to watch it, but I had to make certain.

Let's never speak of that movie again.

#4

Wild Wild West (1999)

Now I knew one should not take this movie seriously, but it fell so much behind what it could have been, it makes me sad.

While certainly not the first Steampunk work, it was made in a time before Steampunk became more widely known (if not to say "mainstream"). And it had Will Smith in it. And Kevin Kline. It was directed by Barry Sonnenfeld, who brought us the wonderful Man in Black with Will Smith. Kenneth Branagh played the villian. And did I mention Will Smith?

Yet it failed. So hard.

A glimpse as to "Why?" can be found here. Such a wasted opportunity.

#3

Lost in Space (1998)

The Nostalgic Critic had some true words to say about it. The trailer for LiS was simply AWESOME. Gary Oldman played the villian. It stared William Hurt, Matt LeBlanc Joey from Friends, and Heather Graham. It had the Bullet Time special effect, which predates its use in the first Matrix movie. By right, it should have been an amazing Sci-Fi flick.

Yet it got lost in its plot. So sad.

#2

Prometheus (2012)

As with AvP above, it mixed two things that would have been awesome in their own right, but mixing them failed awfully. Exploring the "Ancient Aliens" and "Meet Your Maker" theme would have made for a great movie. Having an Alien prequel / tie-in would have been great. But by trying to tackle both, and achieved to do neither properly, this turned out to be an awful film.

And letting Ridley Scott direct is a gamble. That some of his films turned out the fantastic way they did – e.g. Blade Runner or Alien – is down to pure luck. That man can't direct, he is more of a good luck charm on the set of a movie he directs.

#1

New Rose Hotel (1998)

An Abel Ferrara movie. Based on a William Gibson story. Starring Christopher Walken and Willem Dafoe, who play "corporate extraction specialists, half headhunters, half kidnappers". What could possibly go wrong?

My theory as to why the film turned out as it did is as follows: Half way through filming, the entire crew is kidnapped by the Italian Mafia. Consequently the janitor finds the discarded reels of what was filmed so far, and he goes on to cut the film together. He sends this movie off to the distributor, but the distributor complains that the movie is only 60 minutes long. Insulted by this, the janitor adds angrily another 30 minutes at the end of the movie, simply adding alternative takes from scenes already in the first 60 minutes. The distributor is happy to have a 90 minutes Abel Ferrara movie starring Christopher Walken and Willem Dafoe, and promptly releases the movie.

I think, this is the most realistic reconstruction of how the movie NRH was made.

Honorable Mention

Traffic (2000)

What a awful propaganda flick.

Ground Rules

Inspired by Mark and Steve:

1. Try out things yourself. Play. Learn. Goof around. Be creative. Sometimes even try doing things that are commonly considered "wrong" or "stupid". It is the only way to gather first hand experience.
2. Question other people, question "common wisdom" – but do consider what other people have to say. Take other people's experience and advise as a rough guide, but take it always with (at least) a grain of salt. Try to know where they come from, what might be right and what might be wrong with what they have to say.
3. Do not make costly mistakes. Don't get hurt badly, don't ruin your health, don't ruin your finances, don't sink all your money in adventures that might turn out to be a huge mistake. If a mistake cripples your abilities to do things in the future, then it might be a good idea to know what could turn out to be a mistake (and know it before you do something that might result in a mistake) – and what you should therefore not attempt.
4. But do make mistakes. Don't be ashamed to make mistakes. Learn from them. Be proud of things you learned from mistakes. It is the hardest thing thing to admit learning from own mistakes. Nobody knows everything from day one, and people who pretend to be know-it-alls and never-made-mistakes are charlatans.
5. Move on to the "next level", don't stand still. In some video games, the next level is always a bit harder, the game gets slowly and progressively harder. As you learn, as your experience grows, as your capabilities grow, your "level" will grow. Enjoy it!
6. Sometimes, try the impossible – but only if you know that the consequences will not hurt you badly. Try to measure the weight of the world!
7. Do something completely different once in a while. Act out of character. Maybe do something you think you don't "like", or think is "stupid", or "not for you", or "way out of your league", but have not actually tried yourself (or not tried in a long time).
8. Do reinvent the wheel. Do not reinvent the wheel. It depends. It can be fun to reinvent the wheel (Go ahead, grind your own mirrors for your own astronomical telescope! Build your own Schiefspiegler!). Sometimes it is more prudent to not reinvent the wheel, and simply use what has been build by others (in order to focus on something you want to achieve with it, like astronomical observation).
9. Get to know your interests, your needs and your capabilities. Get to know those of other people. Because there are differences, and there are commonalities. Know where your interests bias you – or where other people's interests biases them.
10. Make your own rules, from your own experience.
11. Don't listen to rules.

Turn Down Those Knobs

Classic Steve McIntyre blog-post, well worth reading in its entirety:

… all the GCMs that underperform the Callendar formula run too hot. It seems evident to me (and I do not claim that this observation is original) that the range of IPCC models do not fully sample the range of physically possible or even plausible GCMs at lower sensitivities. Perhaps it’s time that the climate community turned down some of the tuning knobs.
…

Cheap Astronomy – DIY Tools And Materials

When doing Cheap Astronomy, one needs to modify cheaply bought astronomical equipment – there is no way round. So one needs tools and materials to fix all the shortcomings. Inspired by this Tested.com's podcast and their very excellent list, I thought I put together my own list.

Most of the stuff is not specific to DIY Cheap Astronomy, but instead can be used for other DIY projects you might want to make.

Missing is an extensive material section – like plastic piping, aluminium profiles, wood, and so on. For such material, go to your local hardware stores and see what they have. Especially wood is easy to work with and I can recommend trying out doing some things in wood. I hope I will add a post about materials in the future.

Also missing is an electronics section (soldering iron, wires) – that would be another post for itself.

First of all: you do not need all of this.
You have what you have, so don't buy stuff (unless you absolutely have to) and instead try to do things with what you already have.

But if you see one or the other thing from this list for an affordable price, then by all means get them. In some things I would maybe invest a little bit more (e.g. a good ratchet wrench with sockets), other things I buy as cheap as I can get (e.g. a metal hammer or a set of metal files).

Then when you need a saw, you can get by with only one metal saw – you don't need a hand saw and a jigjaw and a circular saw and an angle grinder. The same goes for hammers – one metal hammer should get you going.

BTW: The versions for working with metal (e.g. metal drill bits or metal saws) are usually fine for working with plastic or wood.

Work area:
What I found helpful is having two working surfaces: One wood bench for "dirty" work (e.g. drilling, grinding) that can be in the basement, garage or somesuch – or even outside! A small bench can suffice for this. And the other work area is then one table for "clean" work, which can be your normal "office" desk or even a kitchen table.

If you have only one work area, then put your vacuum cleaner nearby whatever you do (e.g. grinding, drilling), tape down the hose if necessary and suck away all the dust and slivers before they settle on every nearby surface. But be careful not to use your vacuum cleaner for hot stuff (e.g. when grinding or drilling metal with high speeds)!

Staying organized:

• Get sorting boxes! And get as many as you can afford. Usually quite expensive, so look around and if you see cheap sorting boxes, then get them!
• Drawer units are highly recommendable. Look around for what size(s) suit your needs best.
• Find a place for every bit, where you can easily get things, and can easily put them away again. E.g. keep the drill stand in the shelf, the drill bits in the top drawer, the files and hammers in the drawer below, the ratchet wrench below that, and so on.

Occupational safety and health:

• Get safety goggles to protect your eyes while using powertools. Get some goggles with good ventilation, and maybe some from the "anti-fog" variety.
• Get earplugs or acoustic earmuffs to protect your hearing while using powertools.
• Get a small fire extinguisher for every room you work with powertools like drills or grinders.

Dark out for astronomy:

• Matte black paint
• Black flocking material

Getting things right:

• Tape measure
• Calipers
• Steal ruler

Tools for screwing around:

• A set of metric combination wrenches (or open-ended wrenches): With at least sizes 7mm, 10mm, 13mm and 17mm.
• A 1/4" ratchet wrench and metric sockets: You need the sizes from above, plus possibly other sizes.
• A set of slot/cross screwdrivers or bits (or both): Usually Phillips #1/#2, Pozidriv #1/#2, flat head #1/#2, maybe smaller/larger sizes as well.
• A set of allen wrenches or bits (or both) for metric hex keys: You possibly need all sizes from small to large (2mm, 2.5mm, 3mm, 3.5mm, 4mm, 5mm, 5.5mm, 6mm, 7mm, 8mm and 10mm)
• Maybe some hexalobular socket ("Torx") tools as well
• A good pop-riveter with rivets is nice. (Get one that can handle M3/M4/M5/M6 threaded rivets!)

Bolts and nuts:

• Metric M3, M4, M5, M6 and possibly M8: Bolts, nuts, flat washers, star washers, threaded rods and other such things.

It is difficult to say what you will need, and how many. At first, buy only what you need, and maybe a little bit more than you need. E.g. if you need four M4 nuts, then buy maybe six or eight – but if you can spend a little bit on top of that and get a set of say 20 M4 bolts and 20 M4 nuts, then get it! If you continue working like this then over time you will build up a collection of bolts and nuts. And by that time you usually get a feeling for what you need.

Tools for drilling, cutting, grinding and hammering:

• A drill
• A matching drill stand is helpful (to create a small drill press)
• A "small" machine vise
• A bench vise can be helpful
• Utility knives (e.g. "X-Acto")
• A set of metal files (I find that I need these four: normal sized hand file, normal sized half-round file, small&fine hand file, and small&fine half-round file)
• Metal hammer (small and large)
• Possibly a plastic mallet
• Some metal saws
• A jigsaw with blades for metal
• A angle grinder can be helpful (a small one with an thin disc will suffice). 
• If you combine the angle grinder with a stand for cutting, then this will create a simple chopsaw.
• A proper electric hacksaw/chopsaw (like the one pictured here and here and here) is helpful if you want to cut down the tubes of OTA (and want to make sure to cut at an right angle).

Bits and pieces:

• Metric metal drill bits: I once bought a set of (cheap) drills from 1.0mm to 6.0mm in 1/10 mm increments – this is pure heaven. But what you have is OK (you can even get far with drill bits in imperial sizes).
• Metric threading tools: A tap wrench with a set of metric taps (M3, M4, M5, M6 and M8 should suffice, but you will need some matching 2.5mm, 3.3mm, 4.2mm 5mm and 6.8mm metal drill bits as well!). And maybe a die wrench and M3 to M8 dies as well (usually comes in a tap&die set anyway).
• Imperial threading tools: A 1/4"-20 UNC tap and a 3/8"-16 UNC tap can be helpful (the two sizes used for photo-tripods, cameras and so on).

Chemicals:

• A little bit petrol or diesel fuel: E.g. for getting rid of grease (like in mounts).
• Maybe an dedicated degreaser.
• Paint thinner: Good for cleaning and preparing things you want to paint.
• Some grease: Preferably non-sticky and non-runny, like e.g. lithium grease. But Vaseline or any other brand of petroleum jelly will usually do fine as grease.
• Alcohol, specifically pure isopropyl alcohol: For cleaning optics
• Orange oil based solvent: E.g. for removing residues from sticky tapes or adhesive label.

Some of these things are bad for health and environment: Store the stuff safely. Keep the room ventilated where you use that stuff and avoid extended exposure. Use only what you need, don't waste it, and don't put it in the sewer or in the ground.

Sticky business (glue, tape):

• Electrical tape
• Duct tape
• Doublestick tape
• Foam doublestick tape
• A fast 2-component glue (e.g. 5 minutes / 20 minutes) is helpful.
• A slow but hard 2-component glue is helpful.
• Contact cement is helpful.
• Hot glue (with matching pistol) can be helpful
• Cyanoacrylate (e.g. "Super Glue") can be helpful. But keep this stuff as far away from optics as you can! It will deposit a ugly and hard residue on any nearby surfaces.
• Maybe get some thread-locking fluid as well.

Learn to use each glue properly, and learn what is the right glue for the right job – it really pays off.

This will have to suffice for now. I am sure I have forgotten some things, but I will add them later, I swear!