Gambit (1966)

Harry Dean (Michael Caine) follows a woman through the streets of Hong Kong.  She goes into a club.  There, Dean and another man watch as she performs with other dancers in a floor show.  Both agree that the woman is perfect for their plan.  Dean offers Nicole Chang (Shirley MacLaine) $5000 and a British passport if she will pose as his wife.  When Sir Harold and Lady Nicole arrive in a middle eastern country, she is now a brunette who bares an uncanny resemblance to the dead wife of Ahmad Shahbandar (Herbert Lom).  Shahbandar, reportedly the richest man in the world, invites them to dinner and marvels at Nicole.  In Shahbandar's apartment, there is a priceless sculpture of an ancient Chinese empress; the resemblance to Nicole is startling.  This is what Harry intends to steal.

Here is a heist/comedy/romance.  Like many movies of this type, there is the idealized heist as planned which looks foolproof and then the actual heist that sees a variety of comical setbacks.  This comes off quite well and is entertaining.  The romance is not only secondary, but something of a surprise.  The scenes between Harry and Nicole are mostly him being annoyed at her chattiness.  When he professes his love for her, it comes as a surprise.  Really, I thought it was just as likely that he would abandon her to be caught.

Fun and light.  A must for fans of either Michael Caine or Shirley MacLaine.  Good popcorn fun.

Failure of Intelligence

A week ago, if asked to pick the country least likely to suffer a large-scale surprise attack, I would have chosen Israel.  I would have been wrong.  Considering the extent of the attack, it is almost inconceivable that Israel didn't see it coming.  Much as many believe that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming and that George W. Bush knew 9/11 was coming, I expect that many will believe that Netanyahu knew this was coming.  This provides an excellent pretext for reoccupying Gaza and a huge distraction from his domestic troubles.

If Netanyahu didn't know, this was a catastrophic failure Israeli Intelligence.  Such a large-scale operation cannot be easily arranged without leaks.  Many Palestinian fighters were armed with American weapons, the very ones left in Afghanistan after the withdrawal.  Thousands of rockets were smuggled into Gaza.  The attacks were launched by land, air, and sea.  How did this get missed?

Of course, the Israelis will push the Hamas fighters back and retake all the territory that has been seized.  Moreover, seeing the danger, the IDF is likely to flatten large parts of Gaza.  Hamas must be crushed, removed from any leadership role.  Much as Germany had de-Nazification after WWII and Iraq had de-Baathification after the Iraq War, Gaza needs a de-Hamasification.  Will that help? Probably not.  But whatever replaces Hamas will require years to become as organized.

Another surprising thing about this attack was that Israelis were not armed.  For years, the news has reported how Israelis wander the streets with automatic weapons.  For years, whenever I saw a report on the news (usually ABC back in the day), there were also pictures of random citizens with an Uzi or some other weapon casually slung from a shoulder.  However, many videos show Hamas fighters stalking down residential streets unopposed.  Did Israel impose gun control?  If not, gun sales are going to go through the roof after this.

Fair & Balanced Kilmeade

I came across this clip of Brian Kilmeade 'interviewing' one of the 8 Republicans who voted to oust Speaker McCarthy.  Kilmeade spends the entire time attacking Representative Burchett.  The tone of Kilmeade's questions is extremely combative while Burchett is calm and collected.  This is clearly neither fair nor balanced.  Kilmeade comes across very poorly when compared to Burchett, who tries to answer the loaded questions equanimously.  Burchett makes great points while Kilmeade offers nothing but excuses for McCarthy's failures.  At no point does Kilmeade concede any of Burchett's complaints about the speaker.  The big one - "we're bringing in $5 trillion and spending $7 trillion" - was brushed aside.  "That's not McCarthy's fault."  Okay, Brian, whose fault is it?  No one?  Who do we hold accountable?  Maybe the leadership?

Again, the contrast between the two was stark.  Kilmeade was belligerent and irritated, while Burchett was composed and concise.  It felt like Kilmeade was demanding that Burchett admit wrongdoing and beg forgiveness.  Great objectivity, Brian.  Now I understand why Gutfeld is always down on Kilmeade.

McCarthy Out

I did not like the choice of McCarthy as speaker.  He has been in DC too long.  He is part of the swamp.  Republican voters are not in favor of more money for Ukraine.  As part of a continuing resolution, McCarthy agreed to send more money to Ukraine.  And why are we doing a continuing resolution?  What happened to the idea of drafting a budget and passing it?  We've had months to write a budget.  No, we're just going to spend willy nilly?  Sigh.  When looking at how thin was McCarthy's election to the job, he should have been more wary.  McCarthy bargained with the Democrats to get them what they wanted and they repaid him by joining a tiny cadre of Republicans to kick him out of the speakership.

Much as McCarthy may have deserved this fate, does it advance the goals of the Freedom Caucus?  Many say no.  All those Republicans who voted to keep McCarthy are unlikely to rubber stamp whoever the Freedom Caucus want in the job.  With aisles crossed to kick McCarthy out, it is possible that aisles will be crossed to get his replacement.  If so, the speakership will move left toward the Democrats rather than right toward the Freedom Caucus.  If the establishment Republicans disliked Matt Gaetz before, he is downright hated now.

However, it is important to know that the US is in a downward spiral.  The borders are so out of control that the mayor of New York City has railed against immigrants.  The debt has grown by $7 trillion in the last 3 years.  The Congress shows more interest in Ukraine than the United States.  The president is clearly suffering age-related dementia.  So are some of the leaders in the Congress.  Criminals are coddled and victims are charged when they defend themselves.  Insanity reins.  Throwing a wrench into this system might be helpful.  Worst case, it brings the inevitable crash forward, but we are on the path to destruction.

Let the government shutdown for a few months and have the states fend for themselves.  Really, the federal government does more harm than good these days.

Doniphan's Epic March

With the start of the Mexican-American War, President Polk launched an ambitious plan of attack.  He would have three armies press into Mexico, seizing the territory he wanted to annex.  There would be the Army of Occupation (General Zachary Taylor's forces on the Rio Grande), the Army of the Center (General John E. Wool in San Antonio who would march for Chihuahua), and the Army of the West (Colonel Stephen Watts Kearny who would secure New Mexico and California).  Of course, the US Army was tiny, fewer than 10,000 regular troops.  As such, volunteers were needed.  In Missouri, the 1st Missouri Mounted Volunteers were raised and joined Colonel Kearny at Fort Leavenworth.  As a volunteer regiment, the men elected their officers.  Alexander Doniphan, a noted lawyer from Liberty, MO, was chosen as Colonel.  Doniphan's Regiment (856 men) constituted the largest part of Kearny's army and this made him the second in command of the Army of the West!

The march across Kansas began in late June.  By mid-August, the army had captured New Mexico without firing a shot.  Kearny claimed the territory for the US and put Doniphan in charge of establishing a government for the region.  When Kearny left for California in September, Doniphan was left as military governor.  Now responsible for the populace, Doniphan set out to treat with the native tribes, most notably the Navajo.  He secured peace, in theory, before he set off to meet General Wool.  He started toward El Paso in early December.  On Christmas Day, the 1st Missouri had its first battle.  They defeated a larger Mexican force at El Brazito and marched into El Paso soon after.  There was no sign of General Wool.

General Wool had left San Antonio in September and marched to Monclova.  Rather than go to Chihuahua, he was ordered to reinforce General Taylor at Saltillo.  Of course, Doniphan didn't know this.  Doniphan waited in El Paso just long enough for the artillery to arrive then marched toward Chihuahua.  On the last day of February, the 1st Missouri once again met a larger Mexican force.  Moreover, they were entrenched.  By flanking the Mexican positions and using their wagons as mobile armor, the Americans trounced the Mexican forces.  Soon after, they occupied Chihuahua City.

The 1st Missouri were not suited to garrison duty.  Also, the one-year enlistment was drawing to a close.  Doniphan sent an express to General Wool to find out what he should do.  The orders came in late April: march to Saltillo.  On the way, a detachment of Doniphan's forces assisted Mexicans in recovering kidnapped women and children along with cattle from a band of Comanche.  When the 1st Missouri arrived in Saltillo, General Wool saw a ragged bunch of unshaved men, no two of whom wore the same uniform.  He congratulated them on their victories, thanked them for their service, and sent them on their way back to Missouri.  When they met General Taylor outside Monterrey, he offered similar sentiments.  The men liked his informal attire.

Joseph C. Dawson III has written an outstanding book, offering a detailed account of all facets of Doniphan's March, from the raising of the companies from specific counties along the Missouri River to the fate of the more noteworthy survivors (especially as regards the Civil War).  The audacity of Doniphan to march such a small army deep into enemy territory and succeed is something to behold.  It is no wonder he was compared with Xenophon, a Greek general who successfully fought his way out of enemy territory.  Here is a straight history book that is a real page turner!

Highly recommended.

2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)

Dr. Heywood Floyd authored a report on the Discovery mission to Jupiter in the wake of its failure.  Years later, the US is preparing a new ship to find out what happened.  However, the Russians also have a ship that will go to Jupiter; they will arrive a year earlier.  Despite rising tensions between the US and the USSR in Central America, Dimitri Moisevitch (Dana Elcar) suggests a joint operation.  Three Americans - Floyd, Curnow (John Lithgow), and Chandra (Bob Balaban) - travel to Jupiter with the Russian crew.  By the time they arrive, tensions between the US and the USSR are on the brink of war.  This makes cooperation between the Americans and the Russians difficult.  While flying near Europa, they send a probe and are on the brink of seeing something when the probe is destroyed.  Hmm.  Later, they airbrake in the Jovian atmosphere before rendevousing in orbit around Io with the Discovery.  Doctor Chandra reactivates HAL and investigates what went wrong.  Meanwhile, strange events are happening.  Visions of Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) abound and the massive monolith destroys another Russian probe.

The movie's big failure is that it takes place in a future that never came.  The USSR was gone less than 10 years after the film was made.  The inclusion of Cold War politics was a mistake and adds very little.  Also, despite being made 15 years after the original, the special effects are less impressive.  Though there are lots of Russian cosmonauts on the Leonov, only two get much development.  There is Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren) as the commander and Max (Elya Baskin).  Baskin and Lithgow have good chemistry during the spacewalk transit between the Leonov and the Discovery.  Baskin proves to be a very likable character, which was doubtless intentional considering his fate.

A sequel that is very different from the original.  Just okay.

Term Limits Desperately Needed

Little did the voters of California realize in 1992 that Dianne Feinstein had been elected Senator for Life.  More than 30 years later, Senator Dianne Feinstein has died.  She was 90.  A couple of months ago, she was participating in an appropriation meeting when one of her aides told her to "just say aye."  Feinstein said, "Aye."  Was the senator the one making the decision or was it the aide?  Or was it some unseen person behind the scenes.  Clearly, Senator Feinstein's mental faculties were not what they had been earlier in her political career.  She should have long since retired.  She is not alone in this.

Senator Mitch McConnell (age 81) has repeatedly frozen midsentence in recent months.  He is more than a decade beyond the traditional retirement age.  Joe Biden (age 80) regularly loses his train of thought, speaks incoherently, and rambles off topic.  The leading candidate for the Republican Party is Donald Trump (age 77) and would finish another term older than Joe Biden is now.  Clearly, term limits are needed.  In the case of the Presidency, we already have that.  However, we may need a maximum age.  Maybe an amendment that you can't run for president after the age of 70.  Heck, that could go for the House and Senate too.

One of the problems with term limits is that they only apply to elective offices.  They should apply to federal service in general.  After all, a bureaucrat who has been working in the system for 30 years is going to walk all over some newbie Senator or Representative.  I have already stated my desire to return to the spoils system, which would allow a full housecleaning every 4 to 8 years, but term limits would be a second best choice.  Say 12 years on the federal payroll and out.  Careerism in government is anathema to limited government.

For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority was created during the Great Depression to bring the Tennessee Valley into the 20th century.  90 years later, it is still operating.  Why?  Because, as Ronald Reagan often said, "a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life."  The bureaucrats have a disincentive to success; success will reduce funding and perhaps eliminate their jobs.

The current system is an obvious failure.  Time to reboot the system.