Standing for the national anthem

Why I stand for the national anthem - because in this country, we don't have to. We have the right (and the obligation) to make our voices heard when we think we need to. I respect our institutions even when some are not worthy of them. I also respect and support those who see the need to protest. 

These two ideas can exist together.  The American reality is that we can express our opinions and work to change things that are wrong or unjust - that is what makes us strong. That reality is why many others around the world still want to join us.  Authoritarianism has no place here.

Just remember that you may have to fight to preserve those rights, because some who say they believe in them want to take them away.  To their way of thinking, those rights only belong to those who look and act and believe like them. So stand up (or kneel) for what you believe in. Keep fighting.

Still looking for Amelia

Noonan at far left by pole; Earhart (red arrow)???

A “recently discovered” photo may show Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan on a pier at Mili Atoll (Marshall Islands).  The photo is inconclusive – at least to the eye of someone looking at it as published. It is of poor resolution, so trying to clarify the subjects by zooming in isn’t possible to someone with my limited capabilities.  

[Note that the photo in question was later identified as one that allegedly predated Earhart's round-the-world flight by a couple of years, so the subjects in it cannot have been Earhart and Noonan after all.]

The woman in the photo looks like she (if it is a she) could be Amelia Earhart. The man, whose face is partially visible does in fact look much like Fred Noonan.  In neither case do I see anything in the photo that eliminates the possibility that it could be them.  

There is also an object near a ship close by that could be part of Earhart’s Lockheed 10.  Maybe.  The story as proposed is that Earhart and Noonan crash landed on Mili Atoll or nearby, and were subsequently taken into custody by the Japanese where they later died (or were killed).  The fact that this photo languished hidden in the US National Archives may point to a possible cover-up on the part of the US government and its spy network.  The question would then become “what were they trying to hide?”

Radio transmissions while Earhart was still in-flight indicated (by their signal strength) that she was very near Howland Island close to the end of her fuel-range-time.  Based on an over-the water speed of 170 mph (against a 25 mph reported headwind), she had 3,400 miles of range to make it the 2,550 miles to Howland The Marshall Islands would have been at the extreme edge of that range with nothing left over (roughly 950 miles NW of Howland), but why would she turn that direction?  There were closer islands (the Gilberts) directly behind her she could have returned to.  The other hypothesis that she flew south to the much closer Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro) is also a stretch – but it was in fact an achievable distance based on her stated fuel consumption of 50 gph and the 1,000 gallons with which she left Lae.

The obvious problem that I see with either of these theories is she had been very communicative up to that point, even though she was unable to have a direct two-way voice conversation with the Coast Guard stationed near Howland.  If she was deliberately heading off to look for some other place to land, why didn't she communicate that fact? That makes it seem more likely to me that she continued to search for Howland in the same area until she went dry and crashed at sea.  [On the other hand, she DID radio that she was flying "
the line" and that line would have taken her in the direction of Nikumaroro, depending on how badly she was out of position on the approach to Howland].

The fact is that neither of the groups proposing these two theories have “proven” their case.  Not yet anyway.  The Nikumaroro hypothesis has resulted in multiple expeditions to that locale to search for hard evidence.  As yet, nothing has been definitively proven by what they’ve found – only tantalizing, maybe even promising, “possibles.”

The Marshall Island theory group has this photo, a couple of pieces of airplane aluminum that could be from the Electra (or might not be), and the (purported) eyewitness testimony of islanders who stated they saw the plane land on the reef and saw the pair taken away by the Japanese. Why was their testimony discounted?  Is it because they were brown people and thought to be less reliable?  Don’t scoff, that’s been a common problem and I can cite examples.  On the other hand, there have never been any eyewitnesses that can corroborate the Nikumaroro theory.

At the request of American officials after the War, Japanese researchers claim to have looked for evidence that Earhart and Noonan were ever in Japanese custody – and they never found anything that indicated they might have been.  I think in general, Japanese record-keeping was pretty good.  At the same time, there might have been reasons the Japanese would have wanted to hide that kind of evidence.

I’ve been leaning toward the Nikumaroro hypothesis in recent years – and have followed TIGHAR’s progress in leading expeditions seeking hard evidence on that island.  While they have found promising artifacts, there has not been any one thing that has proven Earhart was actually there.  However, I keep hoping that TIGHAR will find the evidence that solves the mystery.

The leader of that group (Ric Gillespie) has gone on record stating he thinks this most recent photo is a fraud – despite the fact that other experts have examined it and said they don’t think it is – that it shows zero signs of having been tampered with.  Then, Gillespie states that the photo doesn’t look like Amelia, and it doesn’t look like Noonan.  He says the woman’s hair is wrong.  Yet I looked at a photo of Amelia as she was preparing to leave Lae on that last flight – and based on what I can see, I cannot rule out that the hair isn't a possible match. Gillespie said the hair on the person in the photo is too long.  But the person in the photo is hunched over - and that could easily make shorter hair look longer.  And the fuzzy photo of what might be Fred Noonan?  It does look like it could be him.  But neither of these "facts" proves that the photo is actually them.

Nevertheless...

In the end, as I’ve been saying for all these years, it will take more than what any of them have yet found to prove what happened to Earhart and Noonan - and that evidence might never be found.  I won't be surprised if it never is; that's a BIG ocean. No matter what, the ill-fated pair are dead and have been for many years. The question for me has always been, why are these folks spending MILLIONS of dollars searching for the truth about a story that was old news 75 years ago? There are better ways to spend that money.

My best fish tacos so far...

Cod filets

-        Mix together: ½ cup flour, 1 TB corn starch,  1 TB Panko crumbs (or corn meal), 1 tsp or so cilantro (dry), ¼ tsp smoked paprika, ½ tsp salt, ½ tsp pepper.

-        Milk

Sauce

-        ½ cup mayo

-        2 or 3 tsp white wine vinegar

-        2 or 3 tsp lemon juice (or lime if you prefer)

-        ½ tsp garlic powder (or fresh minced)

-        Black pepper (to taste) (I use coarse ground, as fresh as possible)

-        1 TB torn cilantro leaves

-        ¼ tsp red pepper flakes (or some chopped jalapeño)

-        Mix these sauce ingredients and refrigerate one or two hours ahead of time. Thin to a thick but pour-able consistency with a small amount of milk.

Cabbage Slaw

-        2 or 3 cups coarsely chopped cabbage.  Rinse the cabbage in fresh cold water, then cover with cold water with a TB of vinegar and a couple teaspoons salt. Let the cabbage soak for about 30 minutes, then drain, rinse and spin dry.  Dress with –

-        2 or 3 TB vinegar

-        2 or 3 TB sugar

-        1 tsp salt, plus the same or less pepper

-        2 TB olive oil

-        Let the slaw marinate in the refrigerator for about 45 minutes. 

Then: Chop the fish into bite sized nuggets.  A few at a time, soak them in milk and then dredge in the mixed flour ingredients.  Fry in hot deep oil (in a skillet) until golden  - do not fry them too long, they will cook fast.  Drain on a paper towel while you fry the rest – do not crowd the nuggets while they cook.  As they drain, dust them with some salt.

Finally, these are BEST with corn tortillas.  You can use fresh soft ones or the crunchy pre-fabricated kind.  Warm the tortillas (if using fresh, you can fry them for a few seconds on each side until they are as crisp as you like them, or just nuke them for a few seconds until they are soft.

Place three or four fish nuggets in each tortilla, top with a generous amount of the sauce and then top with the cabbage slaw.

I decided two was the proper serving size.  I ate those two.  Then I went back and made another one.  I ate these so fast I couldn't get a photo. I am forbidden to eat tomatoes – but if I could, I’d also top these with some chopped tomato.

How to make great tacos

Mrs. Molina's Guadalupe Tacos

These are "spicy" tacos but not overly so.  If you like them fiery, use El Pato jalapeno sauce (green can) instead of the milder tomato sauce (yellow can), and you can buy the spicy Rotel tomatoes instead of the original milder ones. That oughta be sufficient to heat things up. These tacos are not “crunchy.”   If you like them that way, you can buy the crunchy shells instead and warm them in the oven or microwave.  Nothing wrong with that.

Ingredients needed:

Ground beef, chuck is good.  About 1 lb.

Corn tortillas

Shredded iceberg lettuce

Shredded cheese (your favorite, I usually use M Jack)

1 can “Duck” sauce (El Pato Tomato Sauce, from the Mexican section)

1 can Rotel tomatoes

Taco Seasoning

First, put the beef in a skillet and brown it.  Heat a griddle on low for the tortillas (I use a cast iron pancake griddle).  I don’t usually buy pre-shredded lettuce, simply because a head of iceberg is much cheaper.  But you can cheat iffen you want.  Same with the cheese.  It’s pretty quick to chop up the lettuce with a good knife, and grate some cheese.

After the beef is browned and broken up well, drain off the fat, and then mix the beef back in the skillet with a couple TB of the taco seasoning, and the Duck sauce.  Cook this down until the sauce is mostly cooked away or absorbed.

When the meat is ready, turn the heat up on the griddle to medium, and add a bit of corn oil. Fry the tortillas one at a time.  Fry the tortilla on the first side for a few seconds (just enough to soften it), then turn it and as you turn it, fold it in half.  I just do this with my fingers and a fork.  Once folded, fry it on both sides until it starts to brown nicely, then set aside on paper towel while you do the rest (add a bit more oil for each tortilla).  I usually spoon some cheese inside as I take them off the griddle, so they are still hot and the cheese will melt.

To serve, spoon the desired amount of meat into the folded tortilla, and top with the cheese, a spoon of the Rotel tomatoes (drain them against the inside of the can as you dip them out), and plenty of shredded lettuce.  You can top with taco sauce if you wish, but they are good just as they are because of the duck sauce in the meat mixture.

These are authentic Arizona/Sonoran tacos – I got the method from an Apache-Mexican friend whose Mom (Mrs. Molina) used to make them this way.*  I like them so much I don’t always take them to the table – I just eat them right over the skillet. (Well, you know, I live by myself...)

*Except she didn’t add the duck sauce to the meat as it cooked.  Instead, she poured it over the finished taco like taco sauce.  I misunderstood when my friend told me the recipe.  However, they’re great MY wrong way also, so I never changed it.

Lindbergh in 1927

The French loved him too

Charles Lindbergh was Time’s “man of the year” for 1927; he was Time’s first man of the year – ever.  He accomplished the theretofore unthinkable – a solo flight across the Atlantic in a single engine airplane.  One of the differences between Lindbergh and others who accomplished aviation “stunts” in those early years was that Lindbergh’s flight was not a stunt.  He carefully planned the flight, he carefully planned the aircraft.  He studied the problems he thought he would encounter and he got it all correct.  

His judgments were proven in the success of his accomplishment. His flight turned the endeavor from something unheard of, to something on the way to normal. The Spirit of St Louis was brand new when he made his flight to Paris. He supervised it's building, to his specifications, at the factory (Ryan Aircraft) that made it in San Diego. He tested it but little - and then left for the flight to New York. That flight was epic in itself.  On arrival in New York, he tarried only long enough for the right weather conditions before departing for Paris.  If you look carefully at the photos of his airplane, you might notice that it does not have a windshield.  Lindbergh didn't feel he needed one, since there wasn't anyone else where he was going (if I remember right, he also mounted a fuel tank there, which precluded the windscreen). Gas was more important than the view, although he did acquiesce to a small periscope.

First flight of the Spirit of St Louis - in San Diego

He wasn’t new to aviation – he was already an expert and experienced aviator – he was an Army Air Corps captain by that time, having completed their extremely rigorous flight training program. Over 90% of those who were accepted to that training “washed out" and never finished it.  Lindbergh graduated with a reserve commission. He was afterwards a contract mail pilot on the run between St Louis and Chicago.  He had saved his own life four times by parachuting out of malfunctioning airplanes (or because of bad weather making it unable for him to get down) – more than any other man we know of (in his time).  He was known by others for his level-headed good judgment.

At Le Bourget AIrport, 05/21/1927

When Lindbergh landed in Paris, he was welcomed by about 200,000; same in Belgium, same in England.  Through it all, most who saw him said he never got his head “turned” by the tumultuous receptions and the adulation of millions.  He remained humble and graciously shared his moment of glory with the many who he said assisted him in the planning and the flight.  So much so that his book commemorating the experience was entitled “We.”  He received the same kind of “welcome home” when the US Navy brought him and the “Spirit of St Louis” back to the USA, by millions this time, first in Washington, then New York City, then all across the nation. He endured dozens of “talking head” speeches with grace and humility. He was given the Medal of Honor by the president. 

Through all of that, he apparently refused to capitalize (financially) on his moment; his focus was on the advancement and promotion of aviation and its advantages for the nation. All of that hysteria did have an affect on him later – while there was more to the story, one of the results was a life-long aversion to publicity and crowds.  He did continue to work and promote aviation – he blazed ("surveyed") long distance air routes across this country and around the world.  He founded and helped place airports.  He helped organize the bomber-producing factory at Willow Run (for WWII).  He assisted our military pilots with learning and practicing long-distance over-water navigation (and flew combat missions himself in the South Pacific. He got into trouble with his pronouncements about the preparation (and readiness) he saw in Nazi Germany before the war.  Others misunderstood his frank assessment of their strength as Nazi sympathy and promotion; I believe he was somewhat misunderstood on that issue – but he was blowing the whistle on our own unpreparedness.  And he was right.  He had wanted the US to stay out of that war - but when we were attacked, he contributed as much as anyone and more than most.

The Loening that took Lindbergh to meet the Mayor

On June 13, 1927, after his reception in Washington D.C. and a breakfast at the Mayflower Hotel, he flew on to New York for the welcoming crowds there – more speeches, a ticker-tape parade, etc.   The motor in his Ryan monoplane was hiccuping somehow, so the Army loaned him a “Pursuit” (a fighter) for the flight – and hundreds of planes accompanied him on the short flight. The cities they all passed over along the way turned out to cheer him on as he passed overhead – with whistles, sirens, etc.  The Mayor of New York was to greet him near the waterfront on the Mayor's yacht, so as he arrived in New York, he landed and transferred to an amphibian, so he could arrive “by air.”  That amphib was also a famous, record-setting aircraft, just returned from its own famous flights to South America.  See the photo.  It is also part of the collection at the Smithsonian now, along with the “Spirit of St Louis.”  Lindbergh was already accomplished in aviation, and he went on from that moment to accomplish much more. 

He lived a complicated life over the following almost 50 years.  He and his wife (Anne Morrow) lost a son, murdered during a kidnapping. He made significant contributions in the medical field (inventing an artificial heart). He became an environmentalist and struggled with conflict because of those beliefs - and the part he had played in bringing our modern environmentally-unfriendly age about.  He may have been an anti-semite, although he denied that. He was (at least) in later life a philanderer with multiple other women and several children as part of a secret life his American wife and family knew nothing about. I don't know what to say about that.  There was so much else to admire about him.  I guess he was fraught with human frailties, just as the rest of us are.

He died in August 1974 and is buried near where he lived at the end of his life - on Maui. 

Attention News Reporters: Small Plane vs. Big Plane

Aviation Lesson Number 1 for news-media reporters: Many times it gets reported that a "small plane" crashed - and then when they identify the craft involved it turns out to be a $6 million business aircraft (like today in Australia). I find this irritating. The meaning of "small plane" as used by the media seems to be "it's scary and incapable."

Little Plane

For the purposes of your education, so you don't continue to look like idiots, here are two photos. One is a small plane, or a "light" plane.

Beech Super King-Air

The other is a highly capable, turbine-powered business aircraft - while it is smaller in size than your average 757, there is little difference in capability or performance when compared to the larger aircraft - they all fly and are controlled the same way. In fact, these Beech King-Airs are quite often used as airliners. The main performance difference between the turbo-prop and a pure jet is slightly lower speed and they operate at lower flight levels than does a jet.

No one in aviation or familiar with aviation would call an aircraft like this sophisticated Beechcraft a "small" plane, like the news people routinely do, and did again today in reporting the crash in Melbourne. No owner of such an aircraft would turn anyone loose in one who was not a highly experienced and professional pilot.

Additionally, within it's realm, the small plane is capable and safe for that matter, when it is piloted by a competent pilot. But that's a fight for another day.

Grocery Comparison Shopping in Phoenix

Once in a while, I do some comparison shopping for groceries and household items.  The clerk down at Basha’s always says “you saved x amount of dollars shopping at Basha’s today."  And that’s hogwash. Basha’s is never cheaper than the other stores – every time I’ve done my little exercise, real world (this is the 4th), Basha’s is always the most expensive local store.  

An employee also recently told me that they always have a more complete selection of products – that you can always find what you’re looking for at a Basha’s store.  That’s not true either – in fact, I often complain that I can’t find everything on my list at Basha’s and have to go somewhere else looking for an item or two – especially if it is something unusual. I cannot help but think they are being deliberately dishonest.  This is not a hate-rant on Basha’s, I often shop there for the convenience – it is the closest to my house.  I have shopped there for years and I like some of the employees there. But that dishonesty does bother me.

Today I shopped for a list of thirty-five items that I normally buy, randomly selected before I left the house.  I don’t sale shop – nor do I use coupons.  I typically go after only what I’ve run out of (for the things I keep on hand) plus what I need to make whatever I’ve decided I’m going to eat.  I will buy the “house-brand” if I believe the quality of that product is the same as the normal national brand. Today, some of the items on my list were on sale, others were not.  I figure that all balances out as it changes every week – and all stores have sales.

TODAY'S LIST

At Basha’s, today, my specific list of 35 items would have cost me $150.31.  The same list at Fry’s totaled $126.63.  At Wal Mart, $122.67.  It comes out like this every time I do the exercise – Basha’s is always significantly higher, Fry’s is always the lowest of the traditional stores, and Wal Mart always the cheapest overall.  In the past, I’ve included Safeway and Albertson’s in this also, and they have always fallen in between Basha’s and Fry’s (but I didn't include them today).  

If I consistently shopped at Wal Mart for my groceries, assuming that I bought a list like this each week, I would save $1,437 each year shopping at Wal Mart.  I think that’s a lot of money, and I think Basha’s just finally lost a customer.   My savings won’t be quite as much, because I don’t usually buy this much at one time, but it will still be a significant amount.  Even if I shop at Fry’s (owned by Kroger, and a much nicer store with a huge variety), I would save $1,196 per year over Basha's, and this would only be $4 per week more than Wal Mart at this level of spending.  That's hard to pass up and those stores (Fry's and Wal Mart) aren't so much farther away that I would lose the savings in extra gas money.