I had no idea that one of my favorite Jethro Tull songs - "Wond'ring Aloud", from their 1971 album "Aqualung" - had an extended version. I'd only heard the abbreviated version from the album. However, there was a longer edit, on the 40th anniversary re-issue of the album.
That made my week to hear that. After 55 years, an old favorite lives again!
Peter
I'm obliged to the anonymous reader who sent me the link to Matt Shumer's latest blog article about the current state of artificial intelligence (AI). It's a remarkable article - so much so that I can't begin to cover all its points in a short post like this. Here's a small sample to whet your appetite.
For years, AI had been improving steadily. Big jumps here and there, but each big jump was spaced out enough that you could absorb them as they came. Then in 2025, new techniques for building these models unlocked a much faster pace of progress. And then it got even faster. And then faster again. Each new model wasn't just better than the last... it was better by a wider margin, and the time between new model releases was shorter.
. . .
I've always been early to adopt AI tools. But the last few months have shocked me. These new AI models aren't incremental improvements. This is a different thing entirely.
And here's why this matters to you, even if you don't work in tech.
The AI labs made a deliberate choice. They focused on making AI great at writing code first... because building AI requires a lot of code. If AI can write that code, it can help build the next version of itself. A smarter version, which writes better code, which builds an even smarter version. Making AI great at coding was the strategy that unlocks everything else. That's why they did it first. My job started changing before yours not because they were targeting software engineers... it was just a side effect of where they chose to aim first.
They've now done it. And they're moving on to everything else.
The experience that tech workers have had over the past year, of watching AI go from "helpful tool" to "does my job better than I do", is the experience everyone else is about to have. Law, finance, medicine, accounting, consulting, writing, design, analysis, customer service. Not in ten years. The people building these systems say one to five years. Some say less. And given what I've seen in just the last couple of months, I think "less" is more likely.
. . .
The models available today are unrecognizable from what existed even six months ago. The debate about whether AI is "really getting better" or "hitting a wall" — which has been going on for over a year — is over. It's done. Anyone still making that argument either hasn't used the current models, has an incentive to downplay what's happening, or is evaluating based on an experience from 2024 that is no longer relevant. I don't say that to be dismissive. I say it because the gap between public perception and current reality is now enormous, and that gap is dangerous... because it's preventing people from preparing.
. . .
This is different from every previous wave of automation, and I need you to understand why. AI isn't replacing one specific skill. It's a general substitute for cognitive work. It gets better at everything simultaneously. When factories automated, a displaced worker could retrain as an office worker. When the internet disrupted retail, workers moved into logistics or services. But AI doesn't leave a convenient gap to move into. Whatever you retrain for, it's improving at that too.
. . .
We're past the point where this is an interesting dinner conversation about the future. The future is already here. It just hasn't knocked on your door yet.
It's about to.
There's much more at the link.
I can only recommend very strongly that you click over to Mr. Shumer's blog and read the entire article. He knows whereof he speaks, and does so with far more authority and experience than most so-called "experts" in the field. If you wish, compare what he says with Elon Musk's views on the short-term evolution of AI. They're pretty much in step with each other.
This is extraordinarily important. It's going to affect all of us in ways we can hardly foresee or imagine right now. Naysayers who dismiss AI as "just another fad" or "only a large language model" or "only as good as its programmers" are missing the point. AI is becoming a self-perpetuating, self-improving, self-expanding phenomenon that may well have a greater impact on human society - in a vastly shorter time - than the Renaissance. Its impact is likely to be at least as great.
Go read the whole thing, and talk to your spouses, your children and those of your friends who are in the workforce about these things. How can we prepare for the "Brave New World" that confronts us? Mr. Shumer offers several very useful suggestions. Which of them can we apply to ourselves?
Peter
Artificial intelligence (AI) is having some unexpected consequences, and they're still shaking themselves out as the impact spreads. Jeff Childers reports:
The Financial Times reported that KPMG— one of the world’s Big Four accounting firms— bullied its own auditor into a 14% fee cut. Their argument was elegant in its simplicity: if your AI is doing the work, your people shouldn’t be billing for it. KPMG’s hapless auditor, Grant Thornton, tried to kick but quickly folded like a WalMart lawn chair, dropping its auditing fee from $416,000 to $357,000.
And now every CFO on Earth is reaching for a calculator.
Here’s the dark comedy. Grant Thornton’s UK audit leader bragged in a December blog post that AI was making their work “faster and smarter.” KPMG took note, and immediately asked why it was still paying the slower-and-dumber price. This is why lawyers tell their clients to stop posting on social media. The marketing department just became the billing department’s worst enemy.
As a lawyer who bills by the hour —and I suspect many of you work in professions that do the same— I can assure everyone that this story sent a terrifying chill racing through the spines of every white-collar professional who’s been out there cheerfully babbling about AI adoption at industry conferences.
The billable hour has survived the fax machine, personal computers, email, electronic filing, spreadsheets, and the entire internet. The billable hour has the survival instincts of a post-apocalyptic cockroach and the institutional momentum of a Senate tradition. But AI might finally be the dinosaur killer, and KPMG just showed everyone exactly how the asteroid hits: your client reads your own press release and demands a discount.
. . .
The billable hour won’t die overnight. But it just got a terminal diagnosis. Every professional services firm that’s spent the last two years bragging about AI efficiency is now staring at the same problem: you can’t brag to your clients you’re faster and also charge them for the same number of hours. As they say at KPMG, it doesn’t add up. Somewhere in a law firm right now, a partner is quietly deleting a LinkedIn post about how AI is “transforming their practice.” Smart move.
There's more at the link.
It's not just company-to-company billing, either. How many professional services do we, as consumers, use, and get charged by the hour?
How many of these services will be affected by AI? Quite a few, I'm guessing. A mechanic can use AI to finish his repairs more quickly, as the software guides him through the process on an unfamiliar vehicle. The tax preparer is almost certainly going to use AI to do his job, so the number of hours they spend on the job should go down - and so should your bill. Even domestic service calls should be quicker and easier if the technician or professional can look up a reference to what he's doing, possibly on equipment on which he's never been trained, and do the job faster and better.
I think AI can be considered the monkey wrench that just got tossed into the professional billing pool. This should be interesting . . .
Peter
Yesterday saw yet another example of a transgender individual going insane and trying to destroy everyone around him - taking them with him, so to speak.
Ten people including the shooter are dead after an assailant opened fire at a high school in western Canada in the town of Tumbler Ridge on Tuesday in one of the country's deadliest mass casualty events in recent history. Initial reports by local police and the Canadian media described the shooter as female.
However, the authorities reluctance to release the identity of the suspect was an immediate red flag. Their reports only indicated that the shooter was a female in a dress.
Independent journalists now say they have the identity of the alleged shooter, corroborated by family members: Jesse Strang, a 17-year-old biological male who started identifying as a "woman" in 2023, is reportedly the culprit behind the school massacre which left 10 dead and 25 wounded.
. . .
The tragedy represent yet more evidence that transgenderism is a dangerous mental health crisis. Multiple mass shootings (including school shootings) have been perpetrated by transgender suspects in recent years, and suspected Charlie Kirk shooter, Tyler Robinson, was living with his transgender boyfriend at the time of the shooting.
In almost every instance, the transgender status of the shooter has been covered up or dismissed by authorities and the establishment media.
There's more at the link.
One has to ask whether someone who suffers from gender dysphoria, particularly if they insist on living a transgender lifestyle should not be automatically classified as potentially dangerous. Not all of them are, of course; I've known three genuinely transgender individuals, all of whom have undergone permanent sex-change surgery and lived as their chosen gender for decades. However, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. I've met dozens, perhaps scores, of "pseudo" transgender people whose behavior, outlook, etc. demonstrate serious mental problems, to the point that some might better be labeled as bat**** crazy. Where does one draw the line? Is it possible to draw a line and say that, if someone crosses it in any measurable way, he or she is more or less dangerous to society?
Strang killed nine victims, including his mother and younger brother, and injured 25. The small, close-knit community where they lived will be haunted by the horror of his crimes for years to come. May the souls of the victims of yesterday's shooting receive mercy from God, and may those who mourn them receive what comfort they may. May the injured be blessed with healing, and may their families be given grace to help them recover. And, please God, may the rest of us learn from this and all too many other tragic examples, and do what we can to protect ourselves and our loved ones from transgender insanity and violence.
Peter
That's the punch line to a recent article by Restricted Daily on X. I think it makes good sense, although it doesn't offer solutions. I think it's important enough that I'm going to re-publish it here in full, hoping that the author of Restricted Daily will permit that.
We keep pretending this is just another rough chapter in American politics, but deep down everyone knows that’s a lie. This isn’t disagreement anymore. This is disillusion. This is two completely different nations trapped inside the same borders, pretending we share values when we don’t. The Declaration of Independence was written when people finally admitted they could no longer coexist under a system that no longer represented them. That same feeling is back, whether people want to admit it or not.
We don’t argue over tax rates or road funding anymore. We argue over reality itself. Over biology. Over speech. Over history. Over whether borders matter. Over whether personal responsibility even exists. One side believes the country should be preserved, protected, and handed down stronger to the next generation. The other believes it should be dismantled, reprogrammed, and endlessly apologized for. You cannot reconcile those worldviews. You can only delay the inevitable by pretending compromise still exists.
Every election now feels like an existential threat, not a policy debate. Every law feels like an act of force instead of representation. People don’t feel governed anymore, they feel ruled. And when a large portion of the population feels that way for long enough, the social contract is already broken. You can wave flags and sing songs all you want, but unity doesn’t come from slogans. It comes from shared beliefs, and those are gone.
The truth nobody wants to say out loud is this: forcing people who fundamentally despise each other to live under one federal system is not unity. It’s pressure. And pressure always finds a release. History doesn’t care about feelings. Empires don’t fall because people stop loving them, they fall because they stop believing in them. When laws feel illegitimate and elections feel meaningless, separation stops sounding radical and starts sounding logical.
Maybe it’s not about hate. Maybe it’s about honesty. About admitting that the experiment has split into incompatible outcomes. About recognizing that peaceful separation is better than perpetual cultural warfare, political revenge cycles, and a federal government that half the country views as hostile. Coexistence requires mutual respect, and that left the room a long time ago.
You can call it the Declaration of Disillusion. You can call it dissolution. You can call it whatever you want. But pretending we can duct tape this together forever is the real fantasy. The bottom line is simple: we’re already divided in everything but name. The only question left is whether we keep lying to ourselves, or finally have the courage to admit it.
I fear the author is correct. I don't see how we can restore unity to a nation so far divided as ours has become. It's a lot more difficult than during the American Civil War of the 19th century, because there are many issues dividing us, not just one central debate. Furthermore, we don't have neatly divided states: we have representatives from multiple perspectives in every state. Big cities tend to be "blue", smaller towns and rural areas tend more towards "red", but overall the states are "purple" - and I don't see any practical way of satisfying all the blended colors in our present political melange.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." Jesus Christ said that. Abraham Lincoln made it the focus of his famous "house divided" speech almost two millennia later. It's as true today as it's ever been. Unless we find a way to bridge the gaps between us - and I have no idea what that way might be - our house, our nation, is probably going to fall.
Peter
Watts Up With That? links to this tweet. Click the image below for a larger view on X.com.
That's a beautifully simple explanation - and every word of it is true. You'll never hear vegetarian and vegan activists admit to that, though. If they did, they'd expose their scam operation for what it is. They rely on scaring people into taking them seriously - and this tweet demonstrates that they're anything but serious. Their loud screams about the permanent climate damage caused by eating meat and breeding cows are nothing more than "sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Pass it on. The more people who understand this, the better.
Peter
This cartoon is a fun reminder of the early stages of relationships, when one is still finding out about the other's haps and mishaps, mistakes and corrections. Click the image to be taken to a larger view on the "Foxes In Love" Web page.
Ah, memories . . . !
Peter
Since my last health update, there's been a lot of "hurry up and wait" and several frustrating disagreements among medical professionals who can't agree on what they want to do to me. I'm beginning to feel like a laboratory guinea-pig.
All the doctors agree that "Something Must Be Done!" - but they can't seem to agree what that Something should be. The main point of contention appears to be whether I need three more vertebrae to be fused, adding on to my present fusion site, or whether the existing fusion should be removed and a sort of reinforcing tube or grid built around all the vertebrae in my lumbar spine. The latter is agreed to be the strongest option, and the least likely to give further problems in future, but it's also the most invasive and potentially harmful if something goes wrong. (Doctors: "Nothing Will Go Wrong!" Their nurses, talking to me when the doctor has gone out for a moment: "Don't You Believe It!" I think some of the doctors want to do it purely so they can say they've had experience with the procedure, but I'd rather have a doctor who's done it before, as many times as possible, so he's not graded low on the learning curve.)
I've just about finished with the tests that were required to get this far. (Believe it or not, it's taken over six months to go through them all!) The file of test results is pretty thick by now, but it still hasn't provided enough evidence for the doctors to decide on the best approach. I'm going to give them until the end of February, then, if there's still no decision, I'm going to take the entire file and CD's of all the imaging and go to a completely different hospital network in the DFW area for a second opinion. That will delay proceedings, but I hope will provide greater clarity. Besides that, the doctors in the other network appear to be considerably more experienced than those in the local one, so I hope I'll be dealing with specialists who've faced this combination of issues before and treated it/them successfully.
Meanwhile, thanks to your generosity, dear readers, the bills are paid up to date, and so far (cross fingers, touch wood, etc.) things look manageable in terms of future planning. I remain very grateful to you all. I'd hate to have financial worries hanging over the physical ones! Thanks to you, I haven't got that added complication. Pain remains a daily problem, but I've added another medication targeting peripheral neuropathy issues, which has helped reduce the dosage of painkillers I've been popping. That makes me feel less zombie-fied, if you know what I mean, and is yet another reason for gratitude towards God, the doctors and all of you.
So far, so good. I'll provide another update in a couple of months.
Peter
Gathered from around the Internet over the past week. Click any image for a larger view.
Joe Satriani needs no introduction to electric guitar aficionados. He's had a long and extraordinarily talented career, and is one of the top performers in his field. Go read his bio at Wikipedia to get some idea of how creative he's been, and how many others he's taught and/or influenced along the way.
I couldn't possibly list all his hits and noteworthy performances; a blog post containing them would take days to write and probably break Blogger's download bandwidth. Instead, I'm going to take the simple approach and play just one: "The Forgotten (Part 2)" from his third studio album, 1989's "Flying In A Blue Dream".
There's an enormous number of his tracks recorded on his YouTube channel and elsewhere. Go enjoy them all!
Peter
Yesterday's rough and tumble will continue today, with all sorts of loose ends to be tied up and put out of the way. Nothing earth-shattering (at least, I hope not!) but enough to keep me from blogging as per usual.
Regular blogging will recommence with next Sunday's musical miscellany. Please amuse yourself with the bloggers in the sidebar until then. They write good, too!
Peter
I'm being bombarded with various bits and pieces of life, the universe and everything. I'm arguing with doctors, trying to sort out a tax question, cleaning up and throwing out a bunch of "stuff" in the garage, doing normal domestic chores, and trying to research a particular issue for inclusion in the book I'm currently working on (the second volume of a US Civil War naval trilogy).
Basically, I have to take a day off blogging to catch up with myself and some of these issues. I'll try to make time to put up a proper blog post tomorrow.
Have fun, y'all!
Peter
Fellow blogger Eaton Rapids Joe mentioned Republic Ammunition in a recent post, particularly their low-cost primers. I took a look at their product line, and was intrigued to find this.
Er... um...
I can understand wanting to give your better half (?) a Valentine's Day gift that expresses your love.
However...
Is it wise to give your (current) better half a Valentine's Day gift that he/she can use against you if they (or you) decide that he/she/you is no longer their/your better half?
Not the sort of "target market" in which I'd like to participate!
Peter
Courtesy of a link provided by DiveMedic, we learn that human breast milk is one of the most complex systems nature has ever devised.
Milk is not just nutrition.
It is information.. . .
When a baby nurses, microscopic amounts of saliva flow back into the breast. That saliva carries biological signals about the infant’s immune system. If the baby is getting sick, the mother’s body detects it.
Within hours, the milk changes.
White blood cells surge.
Macrophages multiply.
Targeted antibodies appear.When the baby recovers, the milk returns to baseline.
This was not coincidence.
It was call and response.A biological dialogue refined over millions of years. Invisible—until someone thought to listen.
. . .
Milk changes by time of day.
Foremilk differs from hindmilk.
Human milk contains over 200 oligosaccharides babies can’t digest—because they exist to feed beneficial gut bacteria.
Every mother’s milk is biologically unique.. . .
Milk has been evolving for more than 200 million years—longer than dinosaurs walked the Earth. What we once dismissed as simple nourishment is one of the most sophisticated communication systems biology has ever produced.
Katie Hinde didn’t just study milk.
She revealed that nourishment is intelligence.
A living, responsive system shaping who we become before we ever speak.
There's more at the link.
That may be one of the most mind-blowing scientific analyses I've ever read. I had no idea . . . and I guess most of the scientific and health community didn't, either. It took one researcher who caught a glimpse of something tantalizing, enough to make her look further and go deeper - and she revealed a whole new wonder of nature. Here's a TED talk she gave in 2018, before much of the most recent research was revealed.
The more I learn of this sort of complexity in nature, the more I shake my head at those who claim that evolution is responsible for everything, that we're merely cosmic "accidents", that there's no such thing as "intelligent design". If there isn't, how does one account for the immense intelligence revealed just in the biological system of human milk - never mind everything else about us, and about life?
I know we'll never agree on that, but that's OK. I'm just going to say, "Thank you, Lord", and leave it at that.
Peter
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
As we gently "melt out" from the snow and ice of the past few days, a number of readers e-mailed me to describe problems they'd encountered, and to ask about aspects of emergency preparation in such weather. Of particular importance to them was solutions that will work in extreme cold, when the power's out for an indeterminate period.
Let's start with light. The simplest, easiest and cheapest way to light your home for a few hours, or days, or even weeks, are the pull-up camping lanterns available under various brand names (but probably all made in the same Chinese factory). This is the cheapest 4-pack on Amazon at the time of writing:
They run on 3 AA batteries, which give several hours' bright light. They're very lightweight, too, and one can use the handle to hang them from any convenient hook or branch, or stand them on a firm surface. To use them, just pull the top up (or partway up if you want less light). I've used them for years. Some may not work very long, because they're Chinesium, and quality is an afterthought for many such products; but at the price, it's hard to complain. I keep half a dozen handy for emergency use. You should also keep a few flashlights on hand to carry around as needed. Candles, tea-lights, etc. are useful if you have a safe place to burn them, but they do add to the fire danger, and you leave them unattended at your own risk.
What about generators? Very useful, but also very noisy, and thirsty for fuel if power remains out for several days. They also have to run outdoors, for safety reasons (carbon monoxide from their exhaust will kill you deader than dead if you run them indoors). I have a smallish, lower-cost model, which I'll use mostly to charge up my battery power banks if and when necessary. It doesn't produce enough power to run all our electrical appliances. (If you can afford it, you can by all means consider a whole-house generator and a dedicated fuel tank to run it for a week or more, but they're usually very expensive.)
Another problem with generators is theft. They're in high demand during weather emergencies. There are those who travel around in such conditions, listening for the sound of generators or evidence of their presence such as lights at night, and then steal them from wherever you've put them. It happened to a friend of mine not far from here a couple of years ago, not 48 hours after he bought the unit. The thieves waited until the small hours of the morning, when the generator wasn't in use, then cut the chain he'd used to fasten it to a pillar and carried it off. He was not a happy camper, to put it mildly!
If you rely on a fuelled generator, make sure you have one powerful enough to run all the appliances you want to use: then calculate its fuel consumption under load (not just idling). A lot of manufacturers won't give you that information in their sales brochure, so you might have to dig around to find it, or establish it by trial and error. Once you know what it is, store enough gasoline or propane to run the generator for however long you might need it. That adds up very quickly, by the way: for a large generator, you may need up to 10-15 gallons per day. Smaller ones are rather more economical. (Don't forget oil: if you have a new generator, you'll normally be expected to change its lubricant after 20-30 hours of operation, and at regular intervals thereafter. Spark plugs of the right size, plus spare air and oil filters, are also worth keeping in stock. A trickle charger to keep the generator battery topped up isn't a bad idea, either.)
Finally, run the generator regularly to make sure it's in good working order. Some recommend every month; others, every quarter. If it won't start when you desperately need it, you aren't going to be very happy (and even less so when your family finds out)!
My preferred solution for electric power is to use one or more electric power banks, which are sometimes referred to as power generators or solar generators. They usually offer a more expensive solution than generators (at least, at today's prices), but they're also much more convenient, can be carried to wherever you need them, can be easily recharged by even a small generator, and don't smell of exhaust fumes or drip fuel and oil on your floor! There are many models, some of which you'll find at the link above, but I'd divide them into three size categories based on likely use.
The first are small power banks up to 1KW (kilowatt - 1,000 watts) in power and a similar storage capacity in KWh (kilowatt-hours - the energy used to produce one kilowatt of power for one hour). These can't run anything very big in power draw, but for lightweight use (portable lights with LED bulbs, charging cellphones or tablets, game consoles, etc.) they can be very convenient. I know some families who keep a couple on hand to let their kids use them while Mom and Dad use a larger power bank for larger power needs (e.g. TV, DVD player, computer, etc.) Small units are also useful to power low-draw appliances such as a CPAP machine or oxygen generating device, which are often important for home health care. Check the appliance's power draw and make sure the battery bank you buy has adequate power and storage capacity to cope with its needs.
The next category is what I'll call medium power banks, 1.5-4KW in power and a similar storage capacity in KWh. These are general-purpose workhorses, usually portable, and with enough stored energy to be useful for several hours before needing to be recharged. My personal favorite at present is the Bluetti Elite 400, for two reasons: one, its capacities are 2.6KW power and 3.84KWh storage capacity, which meet most of our needs, and two, it's on wheels with an extendable handle. Being a larger, heavier unit (about 85 pounds), and because my wife and I both have health issues restricting us from lifting heavy loads, the Elite 400 is much easier for us to move around the house if necessary. There are, of course, many competitors to the Bluetti. Shop around and see which you prefer. Also, don't forget extension cords so you can plug in your fridge, freezer(s), etc. to the power bank, no matter where it is.
Finally, there are whole-house battery banks, some from providers such as Bluetti, some permanent installations such as the Tesla Powerwall. Such banks are much larger than portable units, and many require professional installation, usually along with solar power panels to keep them charged when grid power is shut off for any reason. They're an excellent solution, but very expensive; the least you can expect to pay for all components (batteries, solar panels, wiring, plus installation) is usually $25,000 or more. On the other hand, they tend to work very well, and give owners peace of mind. (For example, you can read Divemedic's blog posts on his Florida installation at this link, from most recent to oldest.)
I find battery banks' convenience and ease of use to be head and shoulders above any other low- to medium-cost solution. We have the equivalent of about 14KWh stored across a few units, charged and ready to go, which should be enough to get us through two to three days before we have to run a generator to recharge them. With judicious use and not wasting power, I think we could go several weeks without electricity from the grid, if we had to.
What about heat? If the HVAC system goes out, we're reduced to what we can power using our battery banks and/or generator. In both cases, in extreme temperatures, we'd move into one or two rooms and heat or cool only them. For heating indoors, a fireplace is a very desirable option, and/or a wood-burning stove: if you don't have one, but can fit one to your home at an affordable price, I highly recommend it. Otherwise, I use and recommend the Mr. Buddy propane indoor-safe heaters, which utilize the familiar green Coleman fuel cylinders and can be fitted with an adapter to run them off conventional propane cylinders. (With any fire or propane heater, remember the danger from carbon monoxide, and take appropriate precautions!)
There are electric options if you don't like fire or other fuel. Given a suitable size of power bank, you can buy low-power electric heaters from 400W up to about 900W. A medium-size power bank can run a 400-500W heater all night long. They're not very hot, but will warm a 10x10 foot bedroom, which will do nicely in freezing weather. Larger rooms, not so much - but then, in an emergency, one has to compensate by adjusting one's lifestyle. If you have an electric blanket, a medium-size power bank will also run that all night long, making things very snug.
What if it's summer, and you want to keep things cool? Air-conditioning units are power hogs, to put it mildly. Even the smallest window or stand-alone unit will drain an average power bank in a couple of hours. I'd suggest using fans instead of air-conditioners, and venting the hot air inside through windows and doors as the day cools down. Only a whole-house power backup system will allow you to run your HVAC as usual, even without incoming power from the grid.
Cooking? Use camping gear such as butane or propane stoves. They're simple, relatively cheap, and work on almost any surface. You won't (I hope!) burn them long enough to pose a carbon monoxide hazard: if that worries you, use them on a table in your garage. I'd suggest having two burners, because a single burner might limit what dishes you can cook (and get extra fuel cartridges for them). The good old Coleman 2-burner camping stove has been around for decades, and still works well, but it's a lot more expensive than it used to be. Buying two single-burner butane stoves can often be much cheaper. Make sure to clean the stove(s) and cooking utensils thoroughly; sanitary cooking conditions are important for your family's health.
I won't speak to needs such as food, clothing, warm blankets, etc. We've addressed those subjects several times in the past, and many Web sites have done likewise. You pays your money and you takes your choice. However, there are a few things you'll do well to remember.
That's a quick pass through most of the questions I was asked. If you have something I haven't addressed, please ask it in Comments: and readers, please feel free to answer such questions, or contribute ideas from your own experience. We can all learn from each other.
Stay safe out there!
Peter
Some readers may not be familiar with the term "color revolution". American Thinker outlined the concept in an article last December.
A“color revolution” ... is a modern form of orchestrated political upheaval designed to replace an existing government without traditional military invasion or civil war ... These operations follow a remarkably consistent playbook, refined over two decades by Western NGOs, intelligence-linked foundations, and State Department-affiliated entities (Open Society Foundations, USAID, etc.).
Authors describe seven stages of a color revolution. The stages include these tactics, which I’ll list in approximate chronological order:
- Portray the target government as illegitimate, authoritarian, corrupt, or “fascist.”
- Front-load allegations: accuse incumbent of planning the crimes the opposition intends to commit (rigging, regression, dictatorship).
- Fund and train NGOs, student groups, and opposition politicians to repeat a unified message.
- Create/amplify a unifying symbol or theme (e.g., Orange Man Bad).
- Manufacture an electoral crisis.
- Street mobilization.
- Public appeals to and moral blackmail of the military and police: “You’re with the people, not the regime.”
- Promises of immunity, future positions for defectors.
- Threats to those who support target government.
- Provoke a response, flood media with images of “peaceful protesters” being attacked.
- International legitimation as foreign governments and media recognizes opposition leaders as “legitimate” authority.
- Sanctions, frozen assets, diplomatic isolation applied to sitting government.
- New elections scheduled under international supervision.
There's more at the link. Notable examples of color revolutions may be found in the so-called "Arab Spring" uprisings, the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia in 2003, the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine in 2004/5, and a number of others. Not all of the factors listed above were present in all the color revolutions, but most of them made multiple appearances.
A noteworthy common factor is that external (i.e. foreign) non-governmental organizations (NGO's) were involved in organizing and supporting almost all color revolutions over the past two to three decades. Most of those NGO's were left-wing or progressive in orientation, and appear again and again in multiple uprisings. Keep that in mind as we consider the current uprisings in Minneapolis and Minnesota.
The situation in Minneapolis right now is clearly an organized uprising against the enforcement of US immigration law by ICE. It shows many of the signs of a typical color revolution in the making. It is not random or haphazard: it is professionally planned and executed, and run very like a military operation by its organizers. As evidence, consider:
I could post many similar links, but those above contain all the important information you'll need to make your own judgment. If you're in any doubt about what I say here, follow them for yourself and learn the truth.
Next, keep in mind that violence against ICE is not widespread. As Kevin Bass points out (his methodology is here), a mere nine counties (out of 3,143 in the entire USA!) have produced two-thirds of all such incidents over the past year. Click the image below for a larger view.
That's hardly the widespread violence and unrest that the progressive left (and its lackeys in the mainstream news media) are trying to portray, is it? That shows very clearly where the left is most organized and active. However, they're bringing activists into those places from all over the country, not just to help their protests, but to learn from them how to do it and then "export" similar unrest to other cities around America. Be prepared for that.
It's also clear that the anti-ICE demonstrations are attempting to divert attention away from the massive fraud uncovered in Minnesota's Somali community, and in which a large number of Minnesota's political figures are apparently implicated. Prof. Glenn Reynolds says this.
The state’s Democratic political machine is reacting like a spooked squid to revelations that the machine and its clients are complicit in multi-billion-dollar frauds against the federal government.
And the “ink” being squirted is the not-at-all spontaneous wave of riots erupting against federal authorities in Minneapolis.
. . .
The House Oversight Committee this month found that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and state Attorney General Keith Ellison were not innocent bystanders to the fraud, but actually took part in the cover-up, taking active steps to silence whistleblowers.
And it all centered on communities of illegal immigrants and refugees, some of whose members siphoned money from federal taxpayers and in turn gave campaign contributions and political support to state Democrats — a self-licking ice cream cone of graft.
. . .
These are not spontaneous uprisings of the aggrieved, but organized actions featuring out-of-state actors and organizations, detailed training programs for demonstrators, and large amounts of intentionally murky funding from organizations like Indivisible, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and others.
They’re coordinating their anti-ICE operations — identifying, chasing and blocking agents to keep them from arresting illegal-immigrant criminals — through highly organized chat groups on Signal, a secure communications platform, Fox News reported.
And Minnesota government officials are proudly touting their involvement in this coordination ... That’s making these often violent, deliberately obstructive demonstrations look less like a civil rights sit-in and more like a government-backed insurrection.
. . .
Whatever investigators determine about how Pretti’s death unfolded, the fact remains that a cynical and corrupt political machine has fostered for its own purposes a situation that’s dangerous for its own supporters, and for the political future of our nation.
There's more at the link.
As a human being, I'm deeply saddened by the deaths of Renée Good and Alexander Pretti in Minneapolis. May their sins be forgiven them, and may they rest in peace: and may their families receive what comfort is possible.
HOWEVER . . .
Let us not forget that both died while actively interfering with law enforcement personnel in the execution of their duties, in situations where tempers and emotions were running high, and where misunderstandings in the heat of the moment could readily be foreseen and expected. In both shootings, it is possible that the law enforcement officers concerned over-reacted to visual stimuli that - under the stress and tension of the circumstances - they did not have time to adequately process. On the other hand, the actions of the victims actively contributed to that stress and tension, and therefore they were at the very least not blameless in their deaths.
It is also possible - although yet to be determined by legal process - that the shootings were justifiable under the laws and jurisprudence governing the conduct of the law enforcement personnel concerned. Until all the facts emerge, and can be evaluated by competent authorities and ruled upon in court, I won't attempt to assign blame. I could wish that others would be slower to judge, and be willing to wait for all the facts to come out. By failing to do so, they're inciting and inviting further violence and bloodshed - which is, of course, exactly what some of them appear to want.
What is now effectively beyond doubt is that both Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti died as part of an uprising against the constitution and laws of the United States of America. It's no good denying that - the evidence (as cited and provided above) is clear. The ultimate responsibility for their deaths sits squarely at the door of those who planned, instigated and organized this unrest. I can only hope that they will be called to account for it.
Peter
The world outside is blanketed with a mixture of snow, sleet and freezing rain, which have combined to bed down into a 3" to 4" thick layer over everything. One can walk on it if one's careful about one's balance, but put a foot wrong and it's slip slidin' away . . .
I won't go out today, because with my spine injury, balance is sometimes hard to maintain - and I don't want to have to call for an ambulance while lying in that icy, snowy blanket on the ground! My wife has had to go to work, but it's only a couple of miles from here, and she's from Alaska! She's been grinning broadly at all the complaints from locals about how snowed-in we are, and how difficult it is to drive, and so on. Needless to say, her comparisons between here and Alaska have been great fun! She should have no trouble driving to work and back.
I guess readers in the north-east are still getting the snow, sleet and freezing rain that left here a day or two ago. Stay safe up there, please. I know you're more used to this than we are, but Mother Nature is still a stone cold bitch who'll kill you at the drop of a hat (and sometimes drop it herself, if she's feeling that way inclined).
I've had a few e-mails asking me why I'm not commenting at greater length on the situation in Minneapolis right now. Three points:
Pray for peace, but prepare for this uprising in case it spreads to your area. If you live in a large city (particularly with left-wing politics) or anywhere nearby, that goes double for you.
Peter