Well, with a news report like this:
... what other common expression could I possibly use to headline this post?
(Those understanding artillery and/or explosive terminology can doubtless provide other useful terms to describe the situation. Being a family-friendly blog, at least some of the time, I shall refrain - but with difficulty...)
Peter
Yesterday reader Paul M. made this comment on Larry Lambert's blog. He's referring to California taxes.
‘Tax us to death’…saw this:
Payroll taxes, Building Permit Tax , CDL license Tax , Cigarette Tax , Corporate Income Tax , Dog License Tax, Federal Income Tax , Federal Unemployment Tax, Fishing License Tax , Food License Tax , Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon) , Gross Receipts Tax , Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax , Liquor Tax , Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax , Medicare Tax , Personal Property Tax , Property Tax, Real Estate Tax , Road Usage Tax , Recreational Vehicle Tax , Sales Tax , School Tax, Social Security Tax , State Income Tax , State Unemployment Tax, Telephone Federal Excise Tax , Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax , Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax , Telephone State and Local Tax , Telephone Usage Charge Tax , Utility Taxes , Vehicle License Registration Tax , Vehicle Sales Tax , Watercraft Registration Tax , Well Permit Tax , Workers Compensation Tax.
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
When you lay it all out like that, it's a breathtaking tax burden, isn't it? That list isn't even comprehensive: it doesn't include firearms taxes, ammunition taxes, and regulatory fees for this, that and everything else. Now they want to add a wealth tax on top of it all! They say it'll be a one-time tax, but if you believe that . . .
I wondered for a brief moment why any sane California taxpayer would vote for a government that robs them blind like that, but then I realized that most sane California taxpayers probably don't vote for those measures. Taxpayers who've drunk the liberal/progressive Kool-Aid do; but they're not the biggest margin of support. The people who don't have to pay those taxes, but who benefit from the money they bring in, are mostly the ones who vote for them (and the politicians who impose them).
Peter
In an interview a few days ago, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections in Minnesota raised what I think is a very worthwhile question.
On Friday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Minnesota Department of Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell discussed cooperation between local sheriffs and immigration officials and said that “having judicial orders or detainers or holds that are signed by a judge would address this issue. But, to date, we have not seen a willingness on the part of DHS to pursue those.”
. . .
"... sheriffs are in a very difficult position, because they face legal liability if they hold people beyond their appointed time. And having judicial orders or detainers or holds that are signed by a judge would address this issue."
There's more at the link.
That may be a smokescreen, of course, glossing over the real issue that Minnesota's policy is not to cooperate with Federal authorities over immigration issues, including arrests. However, the question of administrative versus judicial orders or detainers is, I submit, more important than it may seem at first glance.
In criminal law, a warrant is typically required to arrest someone or search their property. These types of warrants must be issued by a judge; thus, they are also known as “judicial warrants.”
A judicial warrant is a document issued by a judge (or magistrate judge) that authorizes law enforcement officers to perform certain actions (like conducting a search, making an arrest, or seizing property). Judicial warrants are typically issued based on probable cause, which means there must be reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the action authorized by the warrant will yield evidence related to that crime. These warrants serve as a safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that law enforcement actions are conducted within the bounds of the law and respect individuals' constitutional rights.
. . .
An administrative warrant doesn’t need to involve a judge or court at all (though an administrative law judge may review some). Instead, it’s issued by an administrative agency or official, as the name implies.
. . .
Administrative warrants are used for regulatory or administrative purposes, not criminal prosecution. Another difference is that administrative warrants generally have a lower standard than "probable cause,” which is required for judicial warrants. Finally, administrative warrants are based on statutory authority rather than Fourth Amendment requirements (like judicial warrants).
Judicial warrants typically deal with criminal law, whereas administrative warrants typically deal with civil law. That’s part of why the standard for a judicial warrant is higher: life and liberty are on the line. That’s also why judicial warrants will be in the form of either arrest warrants (to apprehend a suspect), search warrants (to search a specific location for evidence of a crime), or seizure warrants (to seize specific property or evidence related to a crime). Judicial warrants are considered more protective of individual rights, as they require a neutral judge's independent review of the evidence and a finding of probable cause.
Again, more at the link.
I can see both sides of this issue. ICE and other federal agencies often try to arrest hundreds, even thousands of people in a given area (a city, a suburb, at an employer's premises, etc.). To get individual judicial warrants against every potential suspect in that area might be so great a burden on their administration that it's effectively impossible. However, that also runs a greater risk that some, at least, of those they arrest might have their civil rights ignored in the process. We've already seen reports of that; for example, US citizens arrested and detained for extended periods (sometimes days or even weeks) until they could prove they were legally resident in this country. ICE and its defenders will protest that they could have produced such proof at any time, but if they were denied access to telephones and other means of communication (a routine occurrence, or so I understand), how were they to ask a family member or other person to deliver such proof? If they lived alone, how could they get such proof from their place(s) of residence when they were detained, preventing them from traveling to their homes?
A judicial warrant demands a higher standard of proof from law enforcement authorities before they can make an arrest. If a suspect's rights are to be restricted or infringed by arresting him/her, a judge or magistrate must confirm that there is enough evidence to justify that interference. The warrant can also be challenged in court, as can the process leading to its being issued. If an officer mistakenly asks for a judicial arrest warrant because he/she had unreliable or insufficient information, that can be held against the officer if it comes out in court. An administrative warrant lacks all such protection - it was (normally) never reviewed by a judge or magistrate before being issued. In so many words, it's nothing more than a bureaucratic rubber stamp.
I'm firmly of the opinion that illegal aliens should be deported, except for genuine, repeat, genuine, verifiable cases where refugee status might be awarded. However, regardless of one's perspective on immigration, I think the use of only administrative warrants for mass arrests is legally questionable, and might become a tool of actual oppression if the "wrong people" issue such warrants without judicial scrutiny. I think ICE may have to reconsider this issue. Certainly, I'll be more comfortable from legal, moral and ethical perspectives if they do.
At the same time, those opposed to enforcing immigration laws will have to accept that it's a federal government issue, not a state or local issue. If they want to protest it, there are legal avenues for them to do so. To physically assault federal officers in the performance of their duties is not one of them; nor is using state and local laws and regulations to obstruct and interfere with their operations. Administrative warrants are too often used as an excuse to disrupt such legitimate law enforcement activities, without examining the rights and wrongs involved.
Peter
Gathered from around the Internet over the past week. Click any image for a larger view.
Just one brief instrumental track this morning, from the British progressive rock group Audience. It was recorded in 1971 on their album "The House On The Hill".
I'm not a major fan of the group, but I like a few of their pieces. You'll find more at their YouTube channel. I don't know why the group called that track "Raviole" . . . perhaps to pasta the time?
Peter
Karl Denninger has written extensively about the effect of extreme cold on your home's plumbing, heating problems, and related issues. His article is too long to excerpt here, so click over to his place and read it for yourself. Very interesting and useful information.
Stay warm, friends.
Peter
A few days ago, the New York Post published an article headlined "China is facing a demographic bomb— and it could handcuff Beijing’s ambitions". Here's an excerpt.
Last week, Beijing’s release of China’s national birth count for 2025 left demographers stunned.
The national birth total plummeted by over 17% from 2024 to 2025, the PRC disclosed.
That sort of precipitous drop is almost never seen in stable modern societies, where births tend to inch up or down from one year to the next.
A decline of this magnitude qualifies as a demographic shock of the sort typically associated with dire calamities like famine or plague — a sign that a disaster or convulsion is taking place.
And these are only the latest readings from the astonishing birth crash that’s commenced under Xi Jinping’s rule: a drop by over half in just eight years that shows no sign as yet of abating.
Tumbling birth rates have already thrown China into depopulation, with over four deaths for every three births in 2025.
With fewer than 8 million new babies in 2025, China is not only down to the lowest level of natality since the Communists took power in 1949.
It’s actually back to birth levels last seen three centuries ago, in the early 1700s, when the national population may have been no more than 225 million — less than a sixth of China’s current 1.4 billion.
. . .
If this continues, the next generation of Chinese will be only be 44% as large as their parents’ cohort — and the following generation will be smaller still.
There's more at the link. It's worth reading the article in full.
That news was bad enough, from China's perspective. However, it may be a whole lot worse. Yesterday I came across a Web site called "Lei's Real Talk". She's a Chinese lady living in the USA who analyzes events and developments in China, and has developed quite a large following. I know nothing more about her than what she says on her Web site, but she presents carefully thought out and cogent analysis of China's real population in the video clip below. The kicker?
She thinks China's population might already be a third to a half less than what it officially claims.
If that's true, it makes the warnings in the article above even more ominous. See for yourself. This is well worth watching, and listening carefully.
If Lei's claims are true, they provide an entirely new perspective on China's aggressive words and policies directed against other countries and alliances. They might be no more than bluff and bluster, demographically speaking . . . might. We won't know for sure unless and until Lei's calculations can be confirmed in some way.
Nevertheless, it's enough to make one think, isn't it?
Peter
For those in the path of the latest deep freeze:
Given the likely temperatures, one might advise the wearing of underwear irrespective of the wind speed - but that's probably un-Scottish of me, or something like that.
Peter
I was interested (and somewhat amused) to read that the biggest reforestation project in the world has had some - wait for it - unintended consequences. Say it ain't so!
China’s massive tree-planting push has long been hailed as a climate win. But new research shows the country’s ambitious effort to slow land degradation, and fight climate change, has also reshaped its water supply in surprising, and sometimes uneven, ways.
When China dramatically expanded forests and restored grasslands under its "Great Green Wall" initiative, it didn’t just change what the land looked like, it changed how water moves between the ground and the atmosphere.
. . .
“They’ve actually increased forest cover by 15% over the last five decades,” [meteorologist Jennifer] Gray explained. “If you think about the amount of moisture that those forests are releasing into the atmosphere, it is just an incredible amount.”
. . .
What surprised researchers most wasn’t that water moved, it was where it ended up. “What’s so remarkable about this study is the scale of it and the unintended consequences,” Gray said. “The rain was distributed in completely different ways and in completely different places.”
The reason lies in the atmosphere itself.
“The atmosphere and the winds can actually transport moisture more than 4,000 miles,” Gray explained. “So if you plant trees in one area that doesn’t mean that that’s exactly where it’s going to rain.”
. . .
That’s why Gray says climate solutions can’t stop at planting trees. “It puts an exclamation mark on the importance of having city planners get involved, water management folks get involved as well,” she said, “so this can be carefully thought out as to where the water is going to be distributed once you do something like this.”
There's more at the link.
This is fascinating to me. I've never figured out how bureaucrats and political functionaries can dictate to Nature - "We are going to do this, to force you to do that" - without any real understanding of how Nature works, the interplay of forces and influences that mold and shape the world we live in. It seems ridiculous on the face of it; what my father would call "farting against thunder". The power of natural forces is so enormously greater than anything of which we can conceive that it makes fools of the bureaucrats who think that way. Perhaps this is yet another example of the folly that led to Mao's megalomaniac "Great Leap Forward", which led directly to the "Great Chinese Famine" and caused tens of millions of deaths.
I think it's a laudable ambition to halt desertification by reforestation . . . but just reforesting thousands of square miles doesn't mean they'll be transformed into the microclimate you want them to have. I'll be watching the progress of similar projects with great interest. Ethiopia is planting 50 billion trees; there's the Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel; and India has The Great Green Wall of Aravalli. I wonder if they'll all run into the same problem?
(There's also the colonial-era Great Hedge of India, designed to prevent unwanted border crossing in either direction. Perhaps the Border Patrol might like to investigate that project?)
Peter
