Author: Vladimir

Term Limits, the chimera.

Posted on by Vladimir

I know, I know, my opinion on the subject of “term limits” is not mainstream. Sometimes I wobble a little, but each time I study the problem I end up back at my original conclusion.

Term limits are NOT a solution to “better governance of the country”.  It is leaving the 800 pound gorilla of elections  unaddressed.

Elections are about voters and our choices.

Term limits is about restricting voter choice. It is about imposing an arbitrary limit on how many elections a candidate will be allowed to win.

It is promoted as a way to get rid of the entrenched old fossils, those representatives who are making a life career out of slavishly following their party line and not representing their electorate.  And, I concede, that is a good argument for it. But my biggest argument against it is simple – the voters have the opportunity to oust any politician at any election. But they do not. They tend to vote in the same party and candidate.

If “term limits” advocates wish to change the outcome of the status quo they need to work out how to persuade voters to change their habits. This is the ONLY way to succeed.

Several States have enacted term limits – how has that work out for those States? And I am really asking that question out of a desire to know – personally I do not know the answer. But as I have seen no campaigns touting the raging success of “term limits” I tend to be skeptical.

The biggest block to term limits are the two Parties – The Republicans and the Democrats. It costs the parties less if they are re-electing the same candidate, the candidate makes contacts, takes more of the load of fundraising etc. If there are term limits then when the change arrives the most important point of continuity is the Party Organization. They will choose their candidate and they will elect a candidate like the one that just left.

Without a sea-change in the Electorate, without us teaching  an influential minority in EACH party that  evaluating candidates, really looking at what they have done and are doing and exercising the judgement that a new person is needed and the old one has to go, judging the worth of candidates based on what they do for the country is our DUTY as CITIZENS. We are not “voters” we our citizens using voting to exercise our control over our servants, the politicians.

Speech is, well, speech.

Posted on by Vladimir

It seems that every sub, self- identified grievance group wishes to have it’s name attached to some sort of “hate speech” legislation.

Some of these “grievance groups” are huge. Islam for example. Some are minute “trans people” for example .

Many of the whole range of diverse groups wishes to have some form of speech prorogued in order to avoid offense falling on their ears and eyes. Some of them deploy activist outrage in order to drive home their point that whatever has offended them has REALLY offended them. And for a few the implicit threat of force is included in the activism. Salman Rushdie and Charlie Hebdo are grotesque examples and there are plenty of lesser ones.

And now we have that phenomenon of our modern world – cancel culture. A mostly digital representation of the worst aspects of the Terror in France and lynchings in the USA. The motivating factor in all cases is insane levels of anger aimed at destroying as much of a person as possible.

Free Speech , vigorously defended, is the ONLY antidote to this mob insanity. Reasonable people from all sides MUST speak out, every time these egregious attacks happen. We must be “out there” talking logic and reason. We must be pointing out the utter insanity of this behavior and we must not leave the field to the mob.

Free speech is powerful and fragile. Once lost it is incredibly hard to recover. Once governments discover they can pander to the mob by reducing Freedom of Speech is there any doubt, at all, that they will continue to do it? The UK has become an awful example of this. They even have policemen tracking down offenders who dare to post something controversial on-line that “offended” someone. This in a country that used to revel in Free Speech.

Speak out.

Utinam populus Romanus sed unam cervicem haberet!

Posted on by Vladimir

Translation “Would that the Roman people had but one neck!” attributed to Caligula – Emperor of Rome 37-41 AD.

Caligula’s rule as Emperor is littered with reports of cruelty, insanity, torture, wanton killing, a long list of possibly debatable stories. The quote is his expression of his desire to be able to rid Rome of it’s people by hewing through one neck.

Where can we see this being expressed in our modern times?

The insane drive by the British Government to move everyone in the country from using natural gas for heating and for cooking, the drive to move everything to one energy supply – electricity. This is being done to achieve their “climate goal” of Net Zero – no carbon emissions.

To do this the UK has built 10,793 Wind Turbines with a stated capacity of  24.2 GW. Capacity is a word that means “what this generator could produce in ideal conditions”. Then there is what it actually produces over time as wind conditions vary and the less wind there is the power produced is dramatically reduced. Wind turbines deliver between 15 to 30 % of their capacity. Now there are reports from the UK Wind Industry that the offshore wind capacity factor has approached 40% .

Solar has an installed capacity of 13.5 GW and a capacity factor of around 10%.

These two renewable sources are unreliable. Not enough sunshine and Solar is reduced, not enough wind and Wind is reduced. At night there is no solar of course. The only way to keep the grid stable is by using electric power generators, nuclear, gas and “bio mass”. These non renewables have to be up and running all the time in order to make up the shortfalls in solar and wind.

There is no solution yet in sight for this. There is talk that battery storage will enable the grid to achieve stability but the cost is astronomical and still there is no idea when such batteries could even begin to be deployed that could supply power to the grid for an extended time.

The demands on this shaky grid arrangement are, by government decree in the UK about to skyrocket. The UK wants to only have electrical vehicles (cars, buses, trucks – everything) all of which will need vast amounts of electrical power to be charged from the grid. Plus the Government has also decreed that all appliances must be electric and so must all heating.

Finally – energy use in the UK will skyrocket in the coming two to three decades. Why? Immigration. The population of the UK in 1970 was 55,650,166 by 2022 it had risen to 67,508,936 an increase of 21.3%.  How is this vastly increased electrical demand to be met?

 

What the UK has, in abundance, is shale gas, coal, and sometimes wind. What it does not have in abundance is sunshine.

 

The UK Government under the leadership of Quasi-conservatives has committed the country to one over-arching energy goal. To have no carbon emissions of any kind by 2035 , a plan referred to as Net Zero.

Currently there is one reliable and scalable Net Zero source of electrical grid supply – and that is Nuclear power. And , of course the UK Government has gone full bore on shutting down it’s Nuclear Program. Insane? Well, yes, of course it is. But wait! It gets worse.

So that leaves Britain with three sources of “no emissions ” power production. Solar, Wind and Wood.

Wood? Wait – wood? Yes, wood. The Drax power station in the UK which is set up to provide 2.6 GW of electricity from “bio-mass”. Bio-Mass is basically minced wood chips produced from wholesale cutting of forests in Louisiana. By some tortuous mental logistics this has been deemed a “renewable energy source” by the International Institute of Insane Climate Science because when wood burns it gives off CO2 BUT the trees of the world absorb CO2 as they grow therefore there is no net gain of CO2. But what it carefully avoids is the 20 year extra build up of CO2…

Farmers’ protests in Europe.

Posted on by Vladimir

Wow. It somehow feels pre-ordained.

                  Wheat fields in Ukraine

The world is facing food shortages brought on, in part by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The little known fact is that Ukraine is a key agricultural supplier of grain and vegetables, particularly to the middle east, where much of the wheat goes into producing the daily bread of millions of people in Egypt and Lebanon. Interrupting Ukraine agricultural production puts a damper on predicted supply and thus prices in the world market start to rise.

At the same time many western countries have just announced initiatives that will result in reducing food supply from many countries. Several European countries are moving to take agricultural land out of use by government fiat. The one that has attracted the greatest interest has been the Netherlands because the farmers’ reaction to being told that one third of them are going to lose their family farms to reduce nitrogen fertilizer use has brought about massive protests from the farming community. But the Netherlands is far from being the only country to announce this measure – Germany, Italy, France, Belgium and Canada have announced similar measures. Great Britain has opted for paying the farmers to get out of farming, offering buy outs to the oldest (and most experienced of course) farmers.

It is worth noting that none of these decision are being made with the intent of INCREASING agricultural production. Removing high nitrogen fertilizers from use will, provably (see Sri Linka), reduce crop yields dramatically and, at the same time they are taking land out of production.

Sri Lanka some three years ago banned the import of high nitrogen fertilizer. The President claimed it was a virtuous move to reduce emissions, but, in reality it was forced because the country lacked foreign reserves to pay for the import of high nitrogen fertilizer. The results? Crop yields collapsed and the middle class disappeared into poverty.

A person whom I admire, very much, Neil Oliver who has become an international figure for his sane commentaries and observations on real life as seen from Scotland has, in recent weeks, been stating that amidst all the confusion of Covid, lock downs, energy bills spiking, Inflation, energy supplies in Europe becoming problematical one philosophical principle helps make things understandable:

“The simplest explanation that fits all the facts is probably the correct one” – a paraphrase of Occam’s Razor. I heartily agree with Mr Oliver on this.

Why are the governments of Europe enacting a policy that most voters seem to have no clue about? Why are they choosing (or being told to choose) such a course of action at this time?

At the same time that they are doing this, those self same governments have been investing untold billions of dollars into windmills and solar panels, forcing their populations to transfer their transportation to Electric Powered vehicles, adopt electric heating and not gas, in the UK’s case they wish people to adopt “heat pumps” instead of gas heating, Note all these “choices” will cost far more than the current options, Installing a heat pump is a minimum of ten thousand pounds, electric vehicles are more expensive to buy than petrol or diesel vehicles and will require a massive increase in building up of the national power grid.

The investments required for all this are ENORMOUS.  And the results are not even definite, there is no proof at all that this will result in some sort of perfect planet. Or that things will magically become cheaper. Most people will be financially much worse off than they are now.

Neil Oliver said it best – at least for me. “They are taking away choice“. The governments of this world, or at least the western part of it, have decided that it is time to restrict the ability of ordinary members of their country to make choices. They are adopting policies that will increase the cost of energy and travel which will force us out of cars and onto buses, they are adopting policies that will dramatically increase the price of food, particularly meat, so that anything other than a very basic meal plan will be out of most of our reach. They are doing this without asking. They are merely telling.

In T.H. White’s seminal work “The Once and Future King” there is a part where Merlin the Wizard is instructing the young Arthur by using examples from the animal kingdom. You may remember the Walt Disney cartoon “The Sword in the Stone” which was a telling of part of this. He turns Arthur into a fish and a bird as life lessons. In the book there are more examples – one of which involved turning Arthur into an ant. Arthur got to see what the motto of the Kingdom of the Ants was;

“Everything not forbidden is compulsory”

Speech, free or not?

Posted on by Vladimir

The USA is one of the few countries in the world where Freedom of Speech is a part of the very structure of the country and is enshrined in its founding documents.

But as many have pointed out, the First Amendment is a stricture laid upon the GOVERNMENT. The government may not prohibit speech that it does not like, thinks is inimical , is abusive of the government. Government agents may not prevent any citizen from speaking or uttering in any fashion.

But that does not extend to private companies or individuals from doing so. For example a private company can forbid an employee from commenting on anything to do with the company to anyone inside or outside of the company itself – this does not deny or transgress the First Amendment. In someone’s home they can tell a visitor that they may not use foul language and to show them the door if they do not obey. Again the home owner is not bound by the First Amendment.

The Government cannot, also, compel our speech. I do not have to express an agreement with the government against my will.

So where do free and compelled speech by Government entities impinge the most?

State funded Colleges. Colleges like University of Colorado and Colorado State may not restrict free speech and may not compel speech. Yet around the USA there are colleges, funded by the State that attempt to enforce speech codes, attempt to strongarm people into using someone’s preferred “pronoun”. It is not the purview of the government to be regulating and enforcing speech.

Yet it still does.

Zouma steps in it.

Posted on by Vladimir

In Britain yesterday and today, the Sun Newspaper showed a video on its website  of a footballer name Kurt Zouma who plays for Premier League team West Ham United. The video shows an irate Zouma kick and slap one of his pet cats in front of his children.

This morning it looks like the entire country is ready to send Zouma to jail, force him out of professional football  and out of the country  (Zouma is French).

I have some advice for Mr Zouma, for West Ham and even for the RSPCA.

Do not underestimate how pissed off Brits will get about cruelty to animals – especially cats and dogs. The outrage will be unrelenting. Mr Zouma apologized but truly, that is not enough, he has proven that he should not have pets. People who abuse pets do not reform. Mr Zouma should surrender the cats and to pay the expenses to a reputable rescue for adoption to people who will take good care of them. He should be banned from having pets and maybe fined. If he does that he could probably save his 126,000 pound a week job. If he doesn’t, he will probably find himself back in France.

It was a despicable act. Contrition and amends are the way to go.

More stupidity about climate change in the United Kingdom

Posted on by Vladimir

A recent article in that bastion of intellectual analysis, The Sun newspaper in the UK published a lovely piece of drivel about how the Government MUST create “thousands of  plumbers” who will be need to install heat pumps to “fight rising energy bills”.

That headline manages to enclose acres of horse puckey – in 15 words the Sun manages to miss every important point about a) heat pumps b) fighting rising energy bills c) thousands of plumbers.

The link to the article is t the end of this post.

a) Heat pumps – are not actually effective in heating houses. They are loud and then run constantly. And they are very expensive to install and your hot water heating will need supplementation. They are NOT cheap to run.

b) there is no evidence, at all, that heat Pumps reduce the cost of heating. They use a lot of electricity and heat to low levels that require – in most cases -spot heating (also electricity driven) to warm sedentary locations to an acceptable level of comfort. It is the electricity price in the UK that is spiking right now – and which will not be going down – and it is electricity that powers heat pumps.

c) If “thousands of plumbers” are to be recruited what happens when the conversion slows down? what will these surplus of plumbers do then?

The article contains this stupid quote from some “researcher” named Amy Norman “we need government to call up a generation of climate heroes” . If that sounds familiar (and it should) the Heroic Worker is a PR construct of the USSR and Soviet Propaganda. Hero Projects were the standard of industrializing the Soviet Union. As a classic example – Chernobyl was a “Hero Project” when the Soviet Union built it, it became another “Hero Project” when it blew up.

That some “researcher” (as an aside what on earth does Amy Norman ‘research’? Old Soviet documents?) opines that the Uk should adopt Soviet tactics to push through a project that is going to crucify the working class with crippling expenses.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/17567094/plumbers-heat-pump-energy-bills-recruitment/

Why do people “panic buy” when they fear a shortage, thus, apparently, making it worse?

Posted on by Vladimir

The recent fuel “crisis” in the UK is a case in point. On Monday September 28th 2021, Mike Graham, the host of the TalkRadio morning program “The Independent Republic of Mike Graham” has been loudly and frequently snorting with derision and contempt for those who are “panic buying” and who are “making it worse”.

 

What is ironic is, that Mike himself is creating part of the “panic”. Once you discuss IN PUBLIC a possible shortage of something that people need for every day use you are making them aware of a possible problem in THEIR LIFE. Even if you are poo-pooing the idea of a shortage, it makes no difference.

Why? Because for everyone who hears that “there could not possibly be a shortage” the idea of “shortage” had not been on their minds. Now it is.

 

Having been advised that the item “fuel shortage” is now in the public domain how is an ordinary motorist supposed to react? First of all – if there is a shortage how long is it going to last? Answer – no way to tell because people are only talking about “no need to panic”. What to do? Fill up your tank (or tanks if you own more than one car) !

Why? Because it gives you more control over your life. Pure and simple. If you have errands to run, children to drop off and pick up, work to commute to, business to attend to, you are probably going to need to have the car available. If you car is not full then the correct step now is to fill it so that you can plan to attempt to do things so that the one tank of gas will last as long as possible. If the shortage turns out to be a rumor, at least you have full tank of gas. If it turns out to be true, well there will probably be rationing and if you start with a full tank, chances are good you will be able to cope.

 

If you do nothing? Well if it turns out not be true you might be inconvenienced by those who have decided to fill up but if you have enough gas in your car the whole thing should blow over. If it turns out to be true; then you are getting into the game late and now you are faced with the inconvenience – possibly- of not having enough gas for your needs. A huge potential problem for a person in many circumstances.

 

It is clear from the choices that, unless you have a full tank of gas already, the sensible choice, even it is only a rumor, is to fill up your gas tank at your first opportunity. Now that is not necessarily the best choice for society. This is what Mr Grahame loudly and frequently pointed out on his radio show. It also was loudly bruited around on social media about what ‘wankers’ people were to “panic buy”. Nowhere in the loud din was there the mention that maybe it was ordinary people trying to take the best course open to them THAT THEY COULD CONTROL.

 

And that to me is the crux of the matter. If you throw uncertainty into the lives of ordinary people, especially if the uncertainty deals with thing that they need to function. People will react. The smart ones will try to get as much control of the situation as they can. That is their responsibility.

 

Why does anyone believe Biden’s administration?

Posted on by Vladimir

Just recently we have seen the Biden administration and it’s hyenas in Congress and its jackals in the press explode with fury at an imaginary outrage. They have yapped out in loud chorus about how Border Patrol on horseback “whipped” Haitian illegal immigrants  attempting to enter the USA.  It was clear from the video they were whipping themselves up to a frenzy about did NOT show the Border Patrol “whipping” anyone.

In fact – all videos of the “incident” and testimony from those who took the videos merely show horsemen with split reins attempting to use their horses to block the forward progress of the illegals. Nothing else. Even on the soundtrack there is no evidence of animosity from the Border Patrol, merely men doing their job.

The manufactured outrage from the Biden campaign and the cohorts of the agit-prop department is verifiably false. Why are the Republicans in Congress not calling them out on their lying – and doing so loudly and repeatedly.

Leftists ALWAYS lie. We need to stop treating with them like they are talking in good faith – they are not.

The looming threat of violence generated by the left

Posted on by Vladimir

There are perceptions and narratives that abound in the current climate, the oft repeated Government line that “the biggest threat to the USA from a terrorist perspective is White Supremacy” is one, the leftist cry of  “if only the rich would pay their fair share what a paradise we would build” is another. There are more of course.

But one thing that is never questioned is what destruction will be wrought if the left has its way on destroying or dismantling Capitalism.

It is something that few seem to be able to visualize.

What happens if the left succeeds in bankrupting the country? Overwhelming the systems that exist? What happens when the trucks stop running – and they will when the fuel does not arrive, when the means of paying for the freight are not available? How will hospitals be funded? When paychecks no longer arrive or in a currency that is no longer supported what happens? What happens to the nations food supplies when farmers can no longer hedge their harvest on a futures market that will no longer be there? How will energy supplies be secured?

The cost in lives lost is going to be huge. Not just in the confusion and and struggling for control but in starvation and illness. The gradual reduction in treatment of serious conditions will reduce the lifespans of those who are receiving service.

No-one that I have been able to see has modeled what the left’s programs will do in real life.  The reality is that leftist regimes always have shortages. Leftist regimes rely upon government force executed by heavily armed police and loyal military units to enforce government fiat.  The only people who will be somewhat more able to cope will be those furthest from the centers of government.

As for the rich, well most will have transferred a lot of the wealth out of the country and beyond the reach of the USA – this will have been done during the runs on the currency that precede the total collapse.

What the left wants to do comes with a HUGE price in human lives lost, human misery expanded and human existence devalued.

It is, by far, the worst option for any country or government.