Friday, April 11, 2025

Talk about being asleep at the wheel!

 

According to D.O.G.E. yesterday:



This is absolutely mind-boggling.  Claims for unemployment from people not yet born???  How could even one of those applications have passed initial scrutiny, let alone been paid?

What's worse is that this is just one instance of a government department failing the most basic test of competency and thoroughness in doing its duty.  How can we, the taxpayers and voters of America, trust our government in future when we keep getting this drumroll of departments, agencies and individuals who have signally failed in their task and squandered our posterity?

I won't be satisfied until every government employee who should have caught these applications, but didn't, has been fired;  and until everyone who made such spurious claims has been charged and convicted of the relevant crimes.  It would be nice if the government would also refund taxpayers the amount of tax dollars that have been wasted . . . but I guess that's the definition of a "sunk cost".  We won't see that money again.




Peter


Thursday, April 10, 2025

Busy for the next few days

 

Today sees the start of our annual invitation-only Foolzcon, named initially because it was held as close as possible to April Fools Day.  Old NFO began it several years ago, and it's grown into a long weekend filled with friends, food and frolics.  We generally have a lot of fun together.

We'll have two houseguests over Foolzcon, plus our own participation in the festivities, so blogging will be light until Monday.  I'll try to put up a post here and there, but they may appear at unusual times for me.  It all depends on what we're doing, and where and with whom we're doing it.  If you get bored, amuse yourselves with the blogs listed in the sidebar.

Peter


It's not just a military conflict in the Middle East

 

Matthew Bracken, former SEAL, author and astute observer of the world around us, reminds us that the staggering cost of a potential war with Iran over that country's nuclear program is not just military.


In the event of a kinetic war against Iran, all petroleum tankers will be blocked from leaving the Persian Gulf, not only Iranian ships. Iran has hundreds of mobile truck-mounted anti-ship cruise missiles hidden in rugged mountainous terrain on a wide arc north of Oman and controlling the Strait of Hormuz. This arc is 300 miles wide and 100 miles deep. Iranian missile forces may well act under standing orders to attack all shipping once an American attack on Iran begins. Even a total decapitation strike against Iranian communications will not prevent these standing orders from being carried out. Iran will be determined to share their pain across the region and around the world.

Iranian anti-ship missile forces will not fire all their rockets at the beginning of this conflict. Instead, missile teams will have separate standing orders. Teams will be instructed to scout for shipping and fire at anything in the strait on different timelines after the war begins. Their goal will be to prevent the resumption of shipping for weeks or even months. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards in charge of these missiles will not care about the pain being inflicted upon civilians in Teheran. They will follow their orders with the dedication of Japanese holdouts in the Pacific ... To root out hundreds of these mobile anti-ship missiles “the hard way” using infantry troops would require a land invasion greater than Normandy and Okinawa combined.

. . .

The ongoing missile war in the Red Sea gives us some hints about what to expect. Yes, the U.S. military can kick the hell out of the Houthis in Yemen, but this is no real test when compared to what we will face if we go to war with Iran ... In my opinion, any military planners who assume we can destroy a wide range of strategic military targets inside Iran, from their nuclear to their ballistic missile programs, without suffering an extreme economic blowback, is a damn fool.


There's more at the link.

If the USA goes to war with Iran, it'll inevitably involve Israel, and probably at least half of the nations in the Persian Gulf area will take sides and join in.  That, plus Iranian countermeasures, will pose a severe threat to a very large part of the world's oil supply.  Half to three-quarters of the oil consumed in China, Japan and South Korea (to say nothing of other Asian nations) comes from the Persian Gulf.  If that supply is interrupted the economic costs to those countries, and to all other countries that rely on their industrial production, would be incalculable.

I agree that we have to rein in the fanatical religious government in Iran . . . but doing so in a way that inflicts minimum damage, destruction and disruption on the rest of the world will be far from easy, and probably very costly.  Here in the USA, we'll certainly feel the heat from it.

Peter


Wednesday, April 9, 2025

A Malibu liberal loses his California cool

 

From Francesco on X, after the Los Angeles fires.  A tip o' the hat to the anonymous reader who sent me the link.


Look at me. I’m a Malibu Liberal. 

I believe in climate justice. Can you believe I actually said those words?! I’ve posted those words. I’ve whispered them into quartz. I ate kelp-based protein and offset my flights to Tulum through an app made by annoying Stanford kids. I composted at scale. I did all of the things. 

Our home was solar-powered, LEED-certified, AND tastefully non-invasive—except for the footprint, which was enormous. But it was *intentional*. And even though it cost a fortune, I STILL did all of the things. We marched. We meditated. I once cried over a Greta Thunberg speech in my Range Rover outside Nobu. But nature doesn’t care about ANY of that. It just burns—helped along, of course, by decades of political incompetence.

And when it burned, the city sent not one, not two, but THREE lesbian fire chiefs with not a single hose between them. Look, DEI is important, I get that. But not when the hillside’s ON FIRE. The mayor showed up three days later from Africa, only to take a selfie and mispronounce “Malibu.” And I’m all for representation, but that [REDACTED]. 

We lost EVERYTHING! And when we tried to rebuild, we met the final boss: Democrat bureaucracy. Six months for a soil report. A year for coastal variances. Our rebuild “disrespected the ridgeline.” Whatever that means. I met with the Architectural Review Board while on mushrooms and I still don’t know if that meeting was real.

Our contractor was approved, then unapproved, then deported. We got a violation for sandbagging our own driveway. We’ve spent $120,000 just to *not* live in our house. I asked a councilwoman for help. She sent me back a workbook titled ‘Rethinking Home’ and a notice from the county asking us not to disturb owl mating zones while our lives are literally ash.

So **** it.

**** the permits.

**** the endangered sand beetle.

**** the Architectural Review Board.

**** the Democrats.

Where is my MAGA hat.


One can only sympathize, and suggest Francesco moves to someplace that treats him like a human being!  Of course, he'd have to leave his liberal California values behind, or he might get rather short shrift in his new location . . .

Peter


House of Worship security teams: a useful link

 

John Farnam advises that a new policy development aid is available for churches and other houses of worship that want to establish their own security teams.  (In this violent day and age, I fully support such initiatives.)


When such teams are appointed, organized, and charged with various duties, a competent, comprehensive, written policy quickly becomes an acute necessity for safety, competency, and legal reasons.

My esteemed friend and colleague, Manny Kapelsohn has now composed, and is marketing, such a written policy.  I assisted in the final editing.

Manny is simultaneously a renowned attorney and firearms trainer, and the two of us have conducted countess training programs together.  Manny also regularly provides professional expert assistance to litigants in deadly-force cases, both criminal and civil, renders critical trial testimony routinely, and is one of the very few who is genuinely qualified to compose such a document.

This “House of Worship Firearms and Use of Force Policy Bundle” (Policy, Comments, etc) document is now available at:

www.peregrinecorporation.com

On the website, click “Products.”

Upon checkout, enter the discount code “FARNAM25.”

Individual users will, of course, need to tweak this policy document in order for it to specifically apply to their particular situation.  The final version they intend to implement will naturally need to be reviewed and approved by their own attorney before being placed in force.


There's more at the link.

Yes, this is passing on an advertisement, I suppose:  but I trust John Farnam implicitly.  He's one of the best defensive firearm instructors around, and has been for decades.  If he says this policy guide is so good, I'm going to take him at his word:  and knowing how many houses of worship struggle to define what their security team is, what its duties should be, and how it should operate in the legal constraints that apply to their area, I think such a guide can only benefit all of us.

If your church or house of worship has, or is considering setting up, a security team, I suggest you mention Mr. Farnam's article and the link above to your pastor or church administrator.  I think they'll find it useful.

Peter


Tuesday, April 8, 2025

An important reality is in danger of being forgotten

 

When it comes to the use of handguns in self-defense, the current fashion is to go for high-capacity 9mm pistols.  They're ubiquitous, and for good reason:  the recoil is manageable for most shooters, there are plenty of rounds on tap (up to 17 or 18 in many examples), and if a quality hollowpoint round is used, they offer adequate terminal performance.  Even compact examples, holding only 6-8 rounds, offer slightly greater power than the traditional .38 Special snub-nose revolver, and greater speed and ease of reloading.  All in all, very useful weapons.

However, there's another aspect to it, and that is the age-old topic of "stopping power".  We've pointed out before that there's no such thing, at least in theory, because one can't measure in any meaningful way how many rounds are required to stop an attacker.  If he's merely out for a quick score, and meets spirited opposition, even one round that misses him might be enough to make him turn around and run for his life.  On the other hand, if he's hopped-up on drugs, he might not feel half a dozen or more torso shots, and carry on attacking until his body finally shuts down.  I've personally witnessed an assailant who'd been shot multiple times in the chest (including one round that went right through his heart), but he still lived long enough to reach the defender and open his skull with a machete.  Both died on the scene.  Can one call that a "successful" defense, in that it stopped the criminal attacker, but did not save the life of the defender?  I can't.

On the other hand, there's a time-honored and generally accepted rule in defensive shooting that tells us the bigger and heavier a round is, the more likely it is to stop an attacker.  It dates back to the days of the Civil War and the Wild West, where "manly" revolvers were in .44 or .45 caliber, while "lesser" pistols were in .36 caliber or even below.  In general terms, one or two solid lead slugs to the chest from a .44 or .45 did the job, whereas it often took more of the smaller .36 rounds to achieve the same result.

Modern bullet technology has improved the performance of smaller cartridges like the .38 Special or 9mm, but it has also improved the performance of larger-caliber rounds.  In general terms, based on actual street performance, the bigger stuff still stops attackers faster and more effectively than the smaller stuff.  Of course, any round that shuts down the attacker's central nervous system is likely to achieve a very quick stop indeed, but that takes a shooter who's fast enough and accurate enough to do that on demand.  Most of us aren't that good, so a more powerful impact is a distinct advantage when dealing with a hopped-up or fanatical attacker who has no intention of stopping, no matter what.

(As one measure of that:  ask hospital emergency room nurses and surgeons how many shooting victims survive hits - even multiple hits - by 9mm or .38 Special handguns, versus how many live through hits from .40, .44 or .45 weapons.  When I was a prison chaplain, the medical staff there told me there were any number of convicts with scars from the smaller cartridges, but very few showing scars from bigger ones.  That's because those struck by bigger, harder-hitting bullets survived less often.)

That's been borne out over the past few years by videos of police and defensive shootings all over the world.  We see how, time and again, those with smaller-caliber firearms (like 9mm pistols) fire half a dozen to a dozen rounds in order to stop an attacker.  One or two rounds just won't do the job, because they're not hitting a vital target.  In civil war situations, where attackers roam in mobs and attack in large numbers, the higher magazine capacity of a 9mm is valuable - but only if each round stops one attacker.  If you put ten rounds into the first attacker, you may stop him, but then you've used more than half your pistol's magazine and other attackers are still coming towards you.  You're in trouble.

Therefore, choose your defensive handguns in the light of what enemy(ies) you may face.  If you suspect you may have to drive anywhere near, say, an Antifa or BLM demonstration, you might want to carry large quantities of ammunition with you, but you might also (and, to my mind, should) carry a more powerful weapon than a mere handgun.  An AR15 or similar defensive rifle can provide far greater stopping power, and far greater practical accuracy, than a 9mm pistol.

If you have no choice but to rely on a handgun, it's worth relying on one powerful enough to get the job done.  Most days I carry a 9mm or .38 Special handgun in a pocket, because it's the most easily concealed weapon, and because I'm in a relatively low-crime environment.  If I were in a more progressive-left city with legions of aggrieved activists, something with higher capacity might be needed.  However, given the realities of so-called "stopping power", and my experience with it in a civil war and unrest environment over many years in Africa, I'd probably choose something with greater power, like a 10mm, .44 or .45 handgun.

Some smaller "heavy" cartridges offer the advantage that a handgun chambered for them can hold almost as many rounds as a 9mm pistol.  Looking at my gun safe, a 9mm Glock 17's magazine holds 17 rounds, whereas a .40 S&W Glock 22 holds 15, and a 10mm S&W M&P also holds 15 (the latter round being considerably more powerful than a .45 ACP, while we're at it).  A heavier, harder-hitting cartridge does not have to imply lack of magazine capacity.  Even that may not be an issue, depending on one's choice of firearm.  A .45 ACP Glock 21 will hold 13 rounds, still a useful number.  All of the rounds mentioned in this paragraph will deliver a harder punch than a smaller cartridge, and are likely to cause greater pain and disruption to the person hit by them.  There's a lot to be said for that.

So, by all means, if you can only manage the recoil of a 9mm pistol, go with that option.  It's not a bad choice, and will serve you well if you put the bullets where they're supposed to go.  That takes training and practice.  However, if you can handle the recoil of a more powerful round and shoot it accurately, there are good reasons to consider a handgun using them.  If I'm visiting a city where crime and other hazards to my health are more likely to be encountered, I'm very likely to pick a large-caliber firearm.  (To take just one example, a .38 Special snub-nose revolver can be dropped into the average trouser pocket very easily, but a .44 Special Charter Arms Bulldog is almost as light and not much bigger.  Given a pocket big enough to conceal it - and there's nothing stopping us from adding cloth to an internal pocket to enlarge it - it makes a handy choice, and using a round like Buffalo Bore's .44 Special full wadcutter, I have every confidence in its stopping power at close range.)

Thoughts to consider in this violent, criminal day and age . . .

Peter


Driving electric vehicles through floodwaters

 

In recent days, watching TV news footage of motorists driving through very high floodwaters (sometimes halfway up the vehicle's doors), I was struck by the number of electric vehicles (EV's) - both pure electric and hybrid - among those picking their way through the water and debris.  As a former sector officer for civil defense in another city and country, I was trained to look for hazards that might not be immediately obvious, and this seems to me to be precisely that:  a hazard waiting to turn into a very serious situation.

In general, it's deemed safe to drive an EV through floodwater, because the battery packs are sealed and the motor and drivetrain are well insulated.  Sources confirming that include (but are not limited to):


Can EVs Drive Through Floods?

Can I drive an EV through floods?

EVs in flood water


However, that's in theory.  In practice, floodwaters contain hazards that often can't be seen or avoided:  thick tree branches, potholes, stones and chunks of tarmac that have been washed away from where they were before and deposited in the traffic lane, and so on.  If a vehicle hits them beneath the water, they can inflict severe damage, particularly on formerly sealed and/or insulated electrical components.

If an EV's battery casing is cracked, or the insulation of its motor and/or drivetrain is torn away, it can deliver a really severe electric shock to all those nearby - most particularly its occupants, who in a flood situation may be wearing wet clothing, sitting on wet seats, and have their feet in water over the floorboards.  Talk about an electric chair waiting to go off!

There's also the unfortunate reality that damaged EV battery packs can erupt in flames with little or no warning, and burn at a very high intensity.  If one is stuck inside a car when the battery starts to burn beneath one's seat, one may not be able to get out before being burned - perhaps very badly.  Look at how fast the battery fire erupts in these video clips:






There have been videos on social media allegedly showing vehicles striking loose paving stones or other obstructions, puncturing their battery packs, and bursting into flames.  However, I could only find this YouTube short illustrating that, which I can't embed.  Click over there to watch it for yourself.

Bottom line:  if you drive an EV of any sort, please be very careful about driving through floodwater.  Under normal circumstances your battery and drivetrain should be fine, but a flood is, by definition, not a normal circumstance!  You can't see obstacles that might damage your vehicle severely.  I'd hate to have electrically shocked and lightly toasted blog readers . . .

Peter


Monday, April 7, 2025

The wider implications of tariffs

 

Following on from my article about tariffs last week, Francis Turner provides this screen capture from 4chan that looks at tariffs from a different angle.



Mr. Turner adds:


That, coincidentally (ya think?), means that the interest rate the federal government has to pay on it’s enormous debt decreases which, in turn, reduces the deficit and extends the time needed for Trump and the Republicans in congress to get their ducks in a row and pass an actual budget.

. . .

The combination of second order effects - lower interest rates, lower taxes, lower oil prices - are likely to, partially if not completely, counteract the price rises that will be seen by tariffs on imports.


There's more at the link.  I'm inclined to agree with him.

Another aspect of the tariff problem is that Europe is going to be faced with a tidal wave of Chinese manufactured goods seeking new markets, now that they may be priced out of the US market.


The U.S. holds a special place in the world economy because it buys much more from the world than it sells to it. Americans are the world’s consumers of last resort, helping to balance out vast trade surpluses in places like China and Europe that do the reverse: sell more to other countries than they buy.

Chinese manufacturers, wrestling with overcapacity in some sectors, have recently flooded global markets with cheap goods and started competing aggressively with American and European businesses around the world. China’s surplus with the world overall was just shy of $1 trillion last year, three times its size in 2018. The EU last month unveiled plans to protect its steel and aluminum producers from global overcapacity, pointing to rising exports from China and increasing trade barriers in key markets like the U.S.

China’s exports to the EU exceeded imports from the bloc by over 300 billion euros, equivalent to almost $332 billion, in 2024, according to EU data, a gap that is roughly twice as large as when Trump first started imposing tariffs in 2018. The EU has highlighted that burgeoning trade deficit as problematic even as it has defended its large goods surpluses with the U.S.

For European businesses, even with a new trade deal that lowers barriers to entry, it isn’t clear that they could significantly increase exports to China.

“China exports, it doesn’t import,” said Brad Setser, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “If Europe wants to do a deal with China, it has to be prepared to kiss its auto industry goodbye.”

As the trade confrontation between the U.S. and China escalates, Chinese companies will come under increased pressure to dump their excess production in Europe, further increasing the competitive pressure on the continent.


Again, more at the link.

President Trump is doing exactly what he promised he would do.  He's protecting American interests, after years - decades! - during which our politicians (of both major parties, let it be said) supported Wall Street, stocks, financialization and de-industrialization, at the expense of this country's manufacturing economy and the jobs it supported.  In doing so, he's thrown a long-overdue monkey wrench into the systems and structures of international trade.  The fallout is as yet unpredictable, but is unlikely to be as bad for the United States as was the old system.

Interesting times indeed!

Peter


Memes that made me laugh 256

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.