The Coming Grid Failures

Avoidable - almost completely avoidable. And, likely to cause many deaths.

A working energy system - NOT powered by unicorns and fairy tales - is essential to a modern society. We have hit a crisis point.

1. The supply system is trashed. Both the shipping screw-ups, and the diesel shortages/ridiculous prices are the major contributors to that mess. ALL have been allowed to happen by political and corporate action. The politicians have bent their knees to the Enviro-Nuts, and corporate has attempted to go around barriers to American manufacture and sales by outsourcing everything except their own bodily functions. As a result, when these delicaely balanced systems fail - as they almost inevitably will - chaos ensues.
2. Deliberate "shortages" of essential inputs to American business - power, people to move goods, stockpiles of essential goods without punitive taxes being imposed on them, raw materials mining/manufacture at a competitive price, and a host of other government-imposed barriers to Free Trade within American borders, have all contributed to thte mess. The Enviro-Nuts provide the EXCUSE for regulations and legislations; the problem is that too many people in a position to impose a stranglehold have gained power, and are loath to lose it.
3. Hardening the grid against physical or cyber-attacks is a program that Trump tried to get moving. In the future, when a president identifies a security risk, and the bureaucrats/placeholders refuse to implement it, those obstructionists need to be FIRED. Immediately. That is why I'm increasingly supporting DeSantis for 2024 - Trump talks a good game, and certainly had some successes, but DeSantis has a track record that is better.

In another story, a respected medical doctor, researcher, and university professor has been banned from Twitter - for referencing a scientific study that found that men's sperm was reduced after injection with the Covid shot. Apparently, Liberal Arts and Humanities grads are more qualified to judge the science than doctors.

Good to know. Nice to know that our REAL masters are on the job.

ONE City. 800,000 Potentially Eligible Foreign Nationals Could Have Voted

NYC's recent election of mayor, won by Eric Adam, was decided by less than 1% of that headline number.

Still think election registrations are fair, and not slanted to one side or the other?

Fortunately, a NY state judge actually READ the NY Constitution, and struck it down.

THAT'S why Constitutions count. Because they stop people who are temporarily in power from loading the dice to keep themselves PERMANENTLY there.

At this point, the overwhelming majority of the Civil Rights Enforcement mechanism, at the national level, is simply not needed. They keep trumpeting cases of "Horrifying" voting rights abuse, that, when examined, turn out to be:

The Establishment Left didn't win, and they're PI$$ED!

That's it. In one Black majority area in the South, where ALL the elected officials were Black, the Office on Civil Rights refused to let them make some inconsequential changes to their election regulations. Because, at one time, White Democrats kept Black people from voting. And, because of that history, the elected officials needed to have potential changes PRE-CLEARED with the OCR. Even thought, as I remember, Black people were in the majority of those elected.

So Black people, who overwhelmingly supported the changes, were being told they were not permitted to do so. The OCR would make that decision for them. 

It's all about the POWER.

How Access to Abortion and the Sexual 'Revolution' Happened

It's not as easy as the Official Women's Movement (Gloria Steinem et al) would have it. Nor, were all of the people and groups involved with it completely honest (in some cases, deliberate liars).

Here's a good starting point for beginners: Subverted (if you're broke, send me a message with contact info, and I can lend you my Kindle edition for a short time).

Another valuable resource is this link to an examination of the Socialist leanings of Betty Friedan. Her pushing of Feminism was in great part due to her Leftist philosophy, not the reverse. Her politics were not typical of the average American woman, and she deliberately hid them from the public for quite some time.

Another Leftist who downplayed her Leftist roots was Gloria Steinem. She weathered criticism from the Left when her CIA backing was revealed. The link is to a friend's page on Freethought. Dr. Singh is CWRU Physics professor, born in Sri Lanka, who has been associated with teacher education for decades. He is a moderate, politically and socially, neither Conservative nor Leftist.

How has America changed over recent years, and why is that a bad thing?

Many who want a return to a country that is not aggressively ruled by non-elected people with no real stake in the organization they are inserting themselves into, are often accused of "wanting to return the USA to Jim Crow". That is a malicious and completely wrong interpretation of the sentiment. The presence of Neo-Nazis in many non-Leftist public actions is taken by those accusing their opponents, as EVIDENCE of rampant Fascist activity.

Face it - SOME of those uniformed people are idiots. Just low-IQ people who are captivated by the opportunity to strut around in the "Bad Guys" uniforms. They are no more Nazis in fact than Prince Harry, who put on a Nazi Halloween costume was. Just dumba$$es who liked to preen before  a mirror, posing as a tough guy.

SOME of them are FBI informers, currying favor with the Feebs by egging other, dumber participants to more and more outrageous acts, in a effort to keep their subsidized gig going. Some prod and nudge the clueless to go along with criminal acts; the Michigan 'plot' to kidnap the governor, was one such activity - which, a jury decided, would not have happened without some serious pressure AND procurement of tools to commit the crime by the FBI. So, they acquitted the accused, confident that they were basically not dangerous.

And a few many even sympathicize with Fascists. Which, in America, is actually NOT a crime by itself.

One pernicious ideology is the concept of Stakeholders, person/organizations without a serious financial committment (other than perhaps a stock share) nor any legal interest in a company or organization, who, nonetheless, wants veto power over corporate decisions. What Stakeholders are, generally, is buttinskies or bystanders who want to tell others what they should do.

Stakeholders are deeply embedded in European countries, both in and independent of government. Their presence (as demonstrated in the above link) has contributed heavily to the oppressive taxation that - along with unregulated immigration - is bringing those EU countries to the edge of bankruptcy.

One book that was highly influential when it was written is Aborting America, by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the early promoters of abortion reform, who personally aborted over 60,000 babies in his career, before having a change of heart, and becoming an active proponent of abortion restrictions.

Funnily (OK, NOT so funnily), his book is NOT available in ebook format, nor are reasonably priced used copies available. Why, it's ALMOST as though there was a conspiracy to keep this book unavailable to the public. There are (a handful) of books for sale (both hardcover and paperback), but they are priced at HUNDREDS of dollars per book. And, yet, despite many inquiries, the publishers are completely uninterested in issuing a reprint in e-format.

Curious, isn't it?

That book is only available for hundreds of dollars; if you are lucky enough to find it in libraries, I highly recommend checking it out.

Allied to abortion and contraception is loosening of divorce laws. Here's a post that connects all of them.

Whittling Away at 2nd Amendment Rights

Funnily enough, advocating or promoting violence against the 'dreaded White people' - who apparently pose a grave threat to other's existence, just by living, never seems to quality as hate.

Even the mildest expression of concern or even dislike of viewpoint - for example, saying that bringing in sexually related discussion to K-3 classrooms is inappropriate, or that people possessing a penis, however they dress or present themselves, are men - is "Evidence" of hate.

And, therefore, a reason to deny a citizen their 2nd Amendment rights (no, NON-citizens do not have that right).

Properly, 2nd Amendment protections for carrying a gun (whether openly or concealed, depending on the laws in that state), are best described as "you have the right to own and use a gun, unless you present a CLEAR and GRAVE danger to the public". That's the idea behind "SHALL issue" vs. "MAY issue" when it pertains to issuance of gun permits. In the first case, barring a clear and grave reason for denying the permit - such a SERIOUS mental illness (not just mild depression or anxiety), a CRIMINAL record - conviction, not just an arrest, or demonstrated threats against others or violent actions in public (like the people calling for Justice Thomas' assassination, or the guy that assaulted Rand Paul), the authorities must issue the gun permit.

A person should have a way to appeal a denial, in court, using evidence. They might point out that the crime they were convicted of was many years in the past, for example. Or that, despite some physical actions during a marriage, or near its end, they have healed the relationship with the ex, and that person is willing to state so in a notarized form.

The VAST majority of gun crimes, whether involving property or threats/acts against a person, are committed by persons who wouldn't qualify to buy a gun or get a license. They have records, they are too young, they are addicted to drugs or alcohol (I prefer to refer to both as chemical addictions - there really is little difference, other than possibly the legality of buying one type).

The other category is suicides. Many of them will commit suicide, no matter that they cannot own a gun. They may choose other methods. They may obtain a gun from some other person, either by borrowing/taking it, or stealing it.

The gun doesn't kill a suicidal person. Their mental/emotional state DOES.

The Sudden Concern About the Gerontocracy in America

Now, after President Trump had the opportunity to appoint Justices who would return the Supreme Court to their original (Marbury v. Madison) focus on assessing the Constitutional legitimacy of legislation and regulation, the Dems are SUDDENLY concerned about old folks in elected or appointed seats.

They were fine about doddering old Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Maxine Waters, Bill Pascrell, Grace Napolitano, and Eddie Bernice Johnson. All are in their 80s or older. There are Republicans on the list, too, including Chuck Grassley, among others.

But, look to younger, potential competitors to spread "concern" about them in anonymous comments to reporters, and, with luck, clear the way for younger players. THAT'S what is behind the push to get rid of the old people in government. They are afraid that, should that incumbent run against a younger, more energetic opponent, the Dems could lose that seat. They want to shove that long-serving member out before that happens.

Now, is Di-Fi really losing it? Very likely. But, the right way to remove her is to get the leadership to pressure her to retire. For many of these geezers, not gonna happen.

So, take the sudden "concern" about senility or health of an aging politician with a heavy dose of salt. It's not that they care about the old person's functioning. It's that they care how it affects their chances of staying in power.

However, I would be thrilled to have a mandatory retirement age for government paid workers of around 80. Yes, there are a few who stay alert and able well into their 80s and 90s - but not many. And, the decisions need to be made by people who are young enough to have skin in the game. 

I would also like a cap on post-retirement income for military, Congress, and people who can affect administration of government funds. For 2-5 years, they should NOT be able to take jobs with those who could have been affected by their actions. That's not the case, currently.

Abortion, Guilt, and Conscience - Not an Outdated Concept

I was reading Instapundit, and found a link to a First Things article about moral choices.

Now, I'm definitely NOT a philosophical person. In matters of deep thinking that involves complex and high-level thought, I'm the own in the audience, nodding off. Just not my normal turn of mind.

This article, The Revenge of Conscience, is squarely aimed at people like me. It addresses the issues, without getting bogged down in esoteric hair-splitting. Kind of a Philosophy for Dummies version.

Most of us in the Baby Boom Generation, I think, learned about morality in the context of religious frameworks. Abortion was a tough sell to my generation, as it directly contradicted what had been hard-wired into our moral codes.

That effort to bring about changes in the abortion laws was specificially pushed by the women's magazines - Redbook, Cosmopolitan - and the general news magazines, as well. I remember Redbook having a lengthy series of articles on various forms of contraception. Life Magazine published multiple stories about the thalidomide babies (there were only a few in the United States, although many in Europe). Once people had begun to accept the idea of aborting children with major birth defects (or, those that had a good chance of having those defects), the push moved on to targeting Down's Syndrome babies.

Several prominent women told their stories of getting a prenatal diagnosis of Down's, and their decision to terminate their pregnancies. As I remember, the wife of a state politician went public with her decision, as well as a newscaster. Once the barrier to public disclosure of a procedure that was largely illegal at the time was broken, many women joined in public confession of their abortions, including a long list of women in Ms. Magazine.

Ms. magazine was certainly the most prominent supporter of abortion by mother's decision alone. They spent a lot of money working to push the stories by Planned Parenthood. After a while, you began to believe that a woman choosing NOT to abort was a freak.

The initial Right to Life movement was small, and widely perceived of as a fringe movement. It took decades to build up their organizations, and begin to have an effect on public opinion. Legislation had little effect, at first. The courts solidly supported abortion, and were loath to restrict it in any way.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court released the Dobbs decision today. As expected, the protestors are livid.

What does this mean?

One of the BIGGEST changes is that, in states that take advantage of the decision,  a pregnant woman only has to hide her pregnancy from anyone until after the 15th week. At that point, she can no longer be coerced or pressured to abort.

Some Random Links

This one, about the structure and functioning of groups, is interesting - by Virginia Postrel, who I've followed - off and on, for quite some time.

I've been sporadically writing - blog posts and fiction. Just too tired to make a sustained effort, post-Covid, and because the darned weather is too hot (OH is in an unusual heat cycle - some rain, but not enough to cool it to normal temps). June is normally a very pleasant month - relatively cool in the morning and after dark, and warm during the day.

But, not soul-sucking torrid. We've been hitting the mid-80s before noon - for us, that's sit in a cool room, with the lights out to keep the temps down weather.

So, I've been binging TV shows - Perception, Unforgettable - that had relatively short lives - only a few seasons. The various free TV channels - FreeVee, Tubi - have given these shows a new life. So many of the old shows are now on the streaming services, at little to no cost to the viewer, that we can likely bypass much of the old ways of providing entertainment.

2000 Mules also showed a new way of getting a message out. They blitzed the internet with promotions, offered tantalizing previews, and made it an event in selected cities. AND, offered a paid-for stream to anyone who wasn't close enough to the cities to catch it there.

Which, apparently (from the success of that method) is MOST of us. I live far from one of the targeted cities - not only hate to drive great distances in the evening, but the cost of gas is a serious factor.

So, the streaming offer was worth it to me. We've gotten used to having things delivered to our homes - food, office supplies, books, dog food, tchotkes - and have accepted the increased price for the convenience. $20 for a show that I wanted to see wasn't out of range.

The other advantage - uninterrupted chance to make a non-Progressive case for what happened with the election - was priceless. No wonder that the "outrage" about insurrection was not picked up by viewers of the J6 hearings - not even the pitifully small audience they attracted. We knew that the protesters that day had REASON to object to the forced rush to confirm the "results".

Despite all Leftist efforts, they have not been able to shut off all sources of information and news analysis. It's gotta be KILLING them. My family and I regularly swap links to News the Elite Don't Want You to See. What little presence I have on FB or Twitter is dedicated to keeping up with family, and spreading memes. Over and under gates, around roadblocks, the News Alternatives are continuing to get their message out.

Here's a post from Tom nighton (Substack) about interacting with Liberals. He believes that the person who is arguing the Leftist viewpoint is not really your audience - and, in that, I believe he's right. It's a reminder to us that we need to be firm in our convictions, but not accept abuse. Also, our 'tone' does matter - I have a tendency to be snide, and I'm sure that is not helpful to persuasion. Here's a link to it - put any suggestions for how to manage those conversations in the comments.

I'm not a subscriber to all the people I read on Substack, but I'm leaning towards committing some money to that site's posters.

China is desperately holding back the Deluge. Their economy is shot, and only the most repressive actions keep it from openly melting down. The good news is - if China's government melts down, we may be able to re-negotiate our current loans at more favorable terms. Just another reason to bring Trump back in 2024 - he really does understand lending, and is prepared to drive a hard bargain without any hint of compassion or fear about seeming to be ruthless.

The Watergate myth persists; but the FACT is that the disloyal leaks of Mark Felt, who was acting from pique about not having been appointed to head the FBI, was the number one reason that their stories got so much traction. (Or, as us Law & Order types would have it, felonious release of classified information). Rather than hitting the streets, working to develop a variety of sources, the duo benefited from Woodward's Elite Connections. Not the Little Guy against Big, Bad Government, but Rival Gangs of Elites.

And, those gangs aren't Harvard (Sharks) vs. Yale (Jets). It's Military-Industrial Complex, NGOs and the Leftist money that drives their agenda, and the Multinational/Investment/World Bank/WEF/Corrupt Regimes that hope to funnel some of that cash into family pockets.

Against the Normals, who represent the flock they hope to shear.

Got Food?

Can't verify the numbers in the link, but it sounds about right.

If you're storing grains, rice, or beans, get a cat. The mice will eat you out otherwise.

I'm too sick to raise the effort today, but I'm getting worried - VERY worried.