Pun Salad

Not quite what I expected. I was expecting from the title that there would be more stuff about … y'know, engineers. But instead…

The author, Paul M. Kennedy, looks at the specific "problems" that the Allies faced in World War II in order to achieve their eventual victory. Conveniently organized into chapters: "How to Get Convoys Safely Across the Atlantic"; "How to Win Command of the Air"; "How to Stop a Blitzkrieg"; "How to Seize an Enemy-Held Shore"; and "How to Defeat the 'Tyranny of Distance'". Each had its unique challenges, and each (indeed) was "problematic" in the early days of the war. For example, victory against Germany absolutely required that hundreds of thousands of men and massive supplies of food and weaponry be reliably supplied to Britain across the pond. But German U-Boats had dismaying amounts of success at sinking merchant ships, sometimes just off American shores. New anti-submarine warfare tactics had to be developed. And (yes) some technology was involved; for example, the cavity magnetron, invented just in time to make small radar sets practical enough to be installed in sub-hunting airplanes. Within a few years, it was pretty miserable to be a U-Boat crewman.

Kennedy's approach to "engineering" is broad, including more than gadgetry. It's a holistic approach: innovation and flexibility was required in developing new strategies, tactics, and logistics in addition to having workable and effective weaponry in place to defeat the baddies. There are a lot of good stories along the way. For example, Stewart Blacker, inventor of the Hedgehog anti-submarine mortar; he got his start as a "schoolboy in Bedford", designing a mortar that sent a projectile (a croquet ball) 300 yards into a tempting target (his school's headmaster's greenhouse).

Other technical innovations spelled doom for the Germans and Japanese. Putting a Rolls-Royce "Merlin" engine into a P-51 fuselage, replacing the original Allison engine, turned the plane from a dud to a stud. Redesign of the Soviet T-34 tank made it incredibly effective against Germany. The Seabees, whose motto was (and is) "We Build, We Fight." The B-29. And more.

So, a pretty good read, although Kennedy's discussion gets bogged down in plain old history at times.

Five years ago today, I (um) borrowed Mr. Ramirez's cartoon:

Alas, I can't pick on Joe Biden any more. And J. Wellington Wimpy is probably marginally less recognizable to 2026 readers as he was to 2021 readers.

But if you imagine replacing the "Biden" label with "Lisa K Sheldon", you'd have a pretty good illustration of her op-ed appearing in my lousy local newspaper recently, headlined: New Hampshire's family caregivers deserve real support. (You'll probably want to open that incognito.)

You will not be surprised to learn that by "support", Lisa means "money". Specifically, taxpayer money.

Yes, of course. Family members do this voluntarily. Sons and daughters might view it as only fair, remembering a past when parents were supporting them in a similar (often expensive) fashion. Spouses may simply view themselves as fulfilling that "in sickness and in health" vow, made years back, but never forgotten.

I'm as capitalist as the next guy, probably more than the next guy, but doesn't making this about money seem a little tawdry?

Lisa relies on a report from AARP: "Valuing the Invaluable 2026: Family Caregivers’ Contribution Reaches $1 Trillion". The AARP says a mere $4.4 Billion of that occurs in New Hampshire. So she advocates, among other things:

Financial relief. A state reimbursement program for transportation, home modifications, medical supplies, and lost wages would acknowledge what caregivers actually spend - and help keep them financially afloat.

Lisa keeps it vague, but $4.4 Billion would blow a pretty big hole in the state's budget. And (of course) I'm pretty sure that AARPites in other states are making similar pleas for "Financial relief." And (hey) why not make it a Federal program? We're only talking about a trillion! They'll gladly pay you Tuesday…

Also of note:

• Regime uncertainty. Peter Suderman makes an under-appreciated point: Even laws that haven't passed can have unintended consequences.

  If you follow public policy debates, you are probably familiar with the concept of unintended consequences. Laws or regulations implemented with good intentions can, over time, have unexpected, unintended negative effects, sometimes undermining or fully negating the good intention behind the rule.

  But even laws that have not actually passed can have unintended consequences. You can think of them as risk taxes, since they increase the costs of already-high-risk activities.

  Case in point, the Senate's housing bill. The bill is intended to address the nation's housing crisis, making home ownership easier and cheaper for ordinary Americans by increasing housing supply. It's a worthy goal, given that regulations, lawsuits, and price controls have left America with a dramatic housing shortage that has put home ownership out of reach for many. The bill contains a multitude of provisions intended to reduce the time and expense of building homes. A version of it passed the Senate in March with overwhelming support.

  The bill is not yet the law of the land, and it's possible it will change form. But even still, it's already causing developers to nix home-building projects.

  When I was a kiddo, one of the reasons presented for disliking capitalism was that businesses were so short-sighted, concentrating on making the current quarter look good, never planning for long-term sustainability.

  Nowadays, the shoe's on the other foot, and you don't hear that argument made much any more, at least not with a straight face.

• Not a Raymond Chandler title. At the Free Press, Jeff Giesea says hello to The Long Boomer Farewell. Doom is foreseen:

  Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, are wealthier and healthier than any generation before them, deeply embedded in political, economic, and cultural power, and often understandably reluctant to step aside. They control 52 percent of U.S. household wealth, 40 percent of real estate value, and the majority of top political offices. Social Security and Medicare, which primarily benefit them, consume 40 percent of the federal budget. Twenty-four members of Congress are over 80. Harrison Ford is still carrying franchises.

  More fundamentally, the conditions for achieving closure no longer exist. The Greatest Generation’s departure unfolded inside a still-confident, still-cohesive America with solid institutions and younger leaders waiting in the wings. This farewell is happening inside a more fractured society simultaneously grappling with an AI revolution, geopolitical disorder, and a fiscal structure built for 1930s demographics. There is no Brokaw waiting to write the tribute. There may not even be a shared narrative to write.

  What there will be is enormous, grinding, multi-decade stress. America is just beginning to reckon with it.

  I'm (admittedly) a Boomer. And here's the thing with that "52 percent": we are not taking it with us. Whatever's remaining in our IRAs and bank accounts will be inherited. Our houses will not vanish. Jeff does not seem to have grasped this.

  He proposes "three fixes".

  First, honest entitlement reform. […]

  Excellent idea, probably a couple decades too late to avoid inevitable pain. Next?

  Second, greater support for young families.[…]

  Including "smarter incentives for family formation". Who's not in favor of being smarter?

  Third, political representation for young Americans.[…]

  Jeff bemoans the political power of AARP, and wishes there was a similar advocacy group for the younger generations. I agree with him that AARP is awful, but we don't need yet another group arguing for government goodies.

  Summary: read Jeff's article, pick and choose.

• Nothing to see here, even less to emulate. "RushBabe49" blogs at Calling-all-RushBabes ("Dedicated to the Memory of the Great Rush Limbaugh") and she asks and answers: *What’s going on in Washington State? Yeah, just the usual. She quotes a local news station reporting on high gas/diesel prices there:

  What Olympia reported in 2025: Starting July 1, the gas tax will rise from 49.4 cents to 55.4 cents per gallon. Diesel fuel taxes will also increase by 3 cents this year and another 3 cents in 2027. After mid-2026, both gas and diesel taxes will grow by 2% annually to keep pace with inflation.

  Um, fine, except "to keep pace with inflation" should really be "to cause additional inflation."