Been There, Done That

Reader JC_In_PA sends me an article about electricity, suggesting that it’s worthy of a 10,000-word rant.  An excerpt:

In our modern age, the electric grid is the mother of all networks. Without electricity, advanced forms of transportation and communications virtually grind to a halt and nearly all digital and electronic devices are rendered practically useless. When the grid goes down, we lose conveniences like air conditioning, lighting, and other amenities that we often take for granted.

Several days ago, Spain, Portugal, and parts of France and Belgium lost power for an extended period of time, demonstrating just how devastating a total grid collapse can be to our modern way of life.

During this colossal blackout, the largest that Europe has ever experienced, more than 50 million people were left without electricity. Traffic signals did not work, creating utter chaos on the roadways. Subway systems couldn’t function, leaving people stranded far from home. Stores and businesses closed, as payments were limited to cash only. Mobile phone service was spotty, at best. Even some hospitals and medical facilities, which generally have backup generators, were left without power.

As of now, it seems that the sudden, system-wide grid collapse was caused by a malfunction at two solar power plants in southwest Spain.

And further down the page:

Now, you may be thinking that enormous, system-wide blackouts could never occur in the United States, the most prosperous nation in human history. That is not only naïve, but dangerous.

As the American Energy Alliance notes, “power outages have increased by 93 percent across the United States over the last 5 years — a time when solar and wind power have increased by 60 percent. Texas, who leads the nation in wind generation, and California, who leads the nation in solar generation, have had the largest number of power outages in the nation over those 5 years.”

Unbeknownst to many Americans, the federal government, in cahoots with state and local governments, has pushed electricity grid operators to build more solar and wind power facilities instead of dependable natural gas plants while prematurely shuttering perfectly operable coal power plants. As is almost always the case, government subsidies, loan guarantees, and tax breaks have created a skewed market in which utility companies are incentivized to build more solar and wind power plants instead of dependable and affordable coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants.

Due to this short-sighted money grab, the long-term reliability of the U.S. grid is being put in peril.

Well, I’d add my two cents to this little diatribe, but Loyal Readers will recall that I have spoken about this issue several times, to wit:  February 2021, June 2021, January 2023, November 2023, and January 2024.  (I have no idea what happened to 2022 — a mild winter, maybe — but there it is.)

Adding all that up comes to somewhat less than 10,000 words, to be sure, but I’m pretty sure that collectively, the “rant” part has been well addressed, e.g.:

We need to stop being fearful about our energy needs, toot sweet, and if the existing electricity providers are being hampered, the reasons for said hampering need to be eliminated before we start having Third World problems of rolling blackouts and “load shedding”.

And by “eliminating” I mean this:

Revenue Streams

As any fule kno, when a government is strapped for cash they will perforce come up with new ideas for “tax revenue streams” (a.k.a. “innovative methods to steal money from the public”).  Needless to say, they can’t just come out and say “we’re going to steal more of your money” because that might lead to public hangings…

…sorry, I went off to a warm and happy place there for a few moments.

Anyway, the theft has to be concealed beneath a maskirovka  of some sort, and the best one (apart from “national interest”) is “public health”, which shouldn’t fool anybody but it does, repeatedly and regrettably.

Examples of this abound, the latest being that of Head Thief, U.K. Division — sorry, I meant Chancellor of the Exchequer — Rachel Reeves, who wants to tax (wait for it) milkshakes.

The Chancellor has drawn up plans to impose a sugar tax on milk and yoghurt-based beverages for the first time, after concluding that they are damaging public health.

The levy will drive prices up by as much as 24p per litre, with officials expecting 93 percent of drinks on the market to be affected unless they change their recipes.

I think the British public should express their  rage  profound disappointment at this proposal by reverting to an age-old mechanism:

But they won’t, because as long as it’s for people’s health, you see, it’s acceptable.  (That sound you hear in the background is the bleating of sheep.)

Old Enough

As I wrote earlier:  if they’re old enough to have consensual sex, to vote, to be drafted, to sign binding contracts and all that goes with being legally adults, they should be old enough to own and carry guns, kinda like the Second Amendment provides*.

As Iowans have just passed into law, and every state should follow suit.

*Okay, I know that when the Constitution was written and ratified, the legal age of majority was 21 — at least when it came to voting and getting married without parental consent.  But seeing as at that time you could serve in the citizen militia at age 16, let’s not go down that rabbit-hole, shall we?

Today’s time is sufficient, and I’m fine with 18.

I keep thinking of the time when my kids were at college, had night classes and had to walk unarmed to their cars in badly-lit parking lots, forced to do so by stupid laws that forbade carrying guns on campus, and gun carry denied to them in toto  because of their age.

And they were the law-abiding ones;  their 50-something Dad was the lawbreaker, as he carried a gun onto campus every time he went there, despite the law.


I should point out that I also had a mental plan in the event of a campus shooter starting his bullshit if I were in a lecture or seminar:  tell everyone — lecturer included — to overturn their desks and take cover behind them, while staying out of my line of fire pointing at the classroom door.

I remember telling one of my erstwhile professors this some time after I graduated, and he thanked me.

Timely Law, Catchy Title

From the U.S. Senate comes this little bit of commonsense:

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) on Monday introduced legislation that would sell off millions of dollars of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) firearms to pay for the national debt.

As America approaches Tax Day on Tuesday, Ernst introduced the Why Does the IRS Needs Guns Act to reform how the agency handles firearms. The Iowa senator introduced the legislation after reports from Open the Books have suggested the IRS would one of the top 50 largest police departments based on its headcount and stockpiling of firearms and ammunition.

“Since 2006, the IRS spent $35.2 million on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment (CPI adjusted). The years 2020 and 2021 were peak years at the IRS for purchasing weaponry and gear. Just since the pandemic started, the IRS has purchased $10 million in weaponry and gear,” Open the Books wrote.

Since 2020, the IRS has spent at least $10 million on firearms and ammunition for its roughly 2,100 special agents.

Here’s Joni, outside D.C.:

And Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) introduced the House companion legislation:

Arming these agents does not make the American public safer. My legislation, the Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act, would disarm these agents, auction off their guns to Federal Firearms License Owners, and sell their ammunition to the public.”

Moore takes the cake with this exit quote:

“The only thing IRS agents should be armed with are calculators.”

As the old (and bitter) joke goes:

“Taxes are funds taken from citizens at gunpoint.”
“No, they aren’t!”
“Really?  Try refusing to pay them.”

Bastards.  Disarm them.  All of them.  Perhaps they’d be a lot less arrogant towards us if they were unarmed.