The idle musings of a former military man, former computer geek, medically retired pastor and now full-time writer. Contents guaranteed to offend the politically correct and anal-retentive from time to time. My approach to life is that it should be taken with a large helping of laughter, and sufficient firepower to keep it tamed!
The Wall Street Journal reports that a little-known change in California's insurance regulations last year means that the enormous property losses caused by the current Los Angeles fires may end up being paid by all California property owners - not just those directly affected.
The new policy affects the backstop for California’s Fair Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which sells fire-damage policies to homeowners who can’t get coverage elsewhere.
The worry is that the Fair Plan lacks the resources to pay for the quickly escalating cost of the fires, which have destroyed tens of thousands of structures.
The rules change means insurance companies can bill their customers if they are forced to bail out the plan, which has an estimated $200 million in cash and $2.5 billion in reinsurance, according to data it reported last year.
That is likely not enough to cover the Fair Plan’s share of the losses from the fires, forecast at up to $6 billion by analysts at Evercore ISI.
. . .
Analysts at Morningstar DBRS now forecast insured losses of up to $30 billion—the highest for any fire in the world in recent times ... the spiraling cost could financially overwhelm the Fair Plan, the decades-old, government-created insurance safety net.
Like similar insurance safety nets in more than 30 other states, including disaster-prone places such as Florida, the Fair Plan wasn’t set up as a typical insurer. It operates with little cash in the bank, as a way of keeping rates—while higher than private insurers’ premiums—within reach of policyholders. Regulated insurers agree to bail out the plan, if needed, as a price of doing business in the state.
The Fair Plan is required to take all-comers, which means its customers are heavily concentrated in fire-prone areas.
. . .
If the Fair Plan breaches its financial resources, the state can call on commercial home insurers to pay the rest of the claims, by imposing what’s called an assessment on the companies.
The charge on each company would be roughly proportionate to its share of the home-insurance market ... companies can add to their customers’ bills 50% of the first $1 billion of an assessment, and 100% of any amounts over that, subject to [the California insurance commissioner's] agreement.
. . .
Consumer advocates are up in arms about the prospect of a potential charge of hundreds or even thousands of dollars being added to home-insurance bills.
“Homeowners across the state shouldn’t pay because insurance companies dumped homeowners on the Fair Plan,” said Carmen Balber, the Los Angeles-based executive director of Consumer Watchdog.
There's much more at the link. If you own and/or insure property in California, it's a must-read article.
Think about it like this. You own a house in, say, Redding, a city in northern California, about 550 miles from Los Angeles as the crow flies. You're paying your regular homeowner's insurance on your property, presumably a manageable amount, because you're not in a high-risk zone. Suddenly your insurer demands that you pay double that insurance premium for 2025, because that's "your share" of its bailout costs for California's Fair Plan insurance scheme, which has been drained by fire losses in Los Angeles - losses with which you had nothing to do. You object? So what? California's rules, regulations and laws make it legal to rob Peter to pay Paul - and in this case, you're Peter. You say you can't afford the bill, and don't have the money? Then your insurers will sue you, and may end up taking your house and selling it out from under you to get the money the State of California says you owe them. Doesn't that give you a warm, fuzzy feeling?
I am so very, very glad that I don't live in the socialist hellhole known as California . . .
Fire all 8,222 Federal Senior Executive Service (SES) employees. Rehire if needed as Limited Term appointments only as defined under 5 U.S.C. 3132 (a)(5): limited term appointee means an individual appointed under a nonrenewable appointment for a term of 3 years or less to a SES positions the duties of which will expire at the end of such term. In 2024, the basic annual salary for SES members ranges from $180,000 to $246,200.
Fire all 93 federal district attorneys.
Fire all Ambassadors (they have to submit their resignations with each new administration, they serve "at the pleasure of the President",) and all 7,999 Foreign Service officers, called "generalist" diplomats.
Fire all serving active-duty general and flag officers (GFOs) and impose a ten year moratorium on working for industry after retirement. Employ two phases: retire all flag officers with an odd number in their SSN in February 2025 and even numbered SSNs in March 2025. As of March 2024, the number of GFOs in the US Department of Defense (DoD) was 809. This was 48 fewer than the maximum of 857 authorized by law. Reduce the GFO authorization to 100 authorized by law immediately.
Relocate all 168 Foreign Embassies and 727 Consulates placed in the territory of United States to Greenland once it is acquired.
. . .
Close the UN in New York and reflag it as Trump Tower. Relocate the 6500 NY UN personnel to Diego Garcia in Quonset huts or barges in the atoll.
Just think of the kerfuffle if the Trump team were to take such advice literally! It'd have a seismic impact on the USA. Unfortunately, it's not practical as written, but it contains a whole lot of things that I'd like to see implemented on as wide a scale as possible, given the constraints of reality.
I'm seriously thinking of recommending that FEMA staff be retroactively and immediately relocated to any and every disaster that they try to alleviate, 24 hours after it occurs. Let them live and work under the same conditions the survivors have to endure, and see how long their bureaucrats remain disdainfully ignoring the reality they're supposed to administer!
The city’s subways aren’t just on the brink of collapse — the breakdown of the aging system has already begun. The number of train delays caused by faulty infrastructure and equipment last year shot up by 46% since 2021, MTA data shows. Major incidents — defined as problems that delay 50 or more trains, like the one on Dec. 11 — reached their highest levels last year since 2018.
During a three-month investigation, Gothamist reporters toured eight transit facilities that are off limits to the public and got a first-hand look at the MTA’s old, crumbling infrastructure. Reporters interviewed more than 100 riders on nearly every subway line across the city about the daily inconveniences they endure due to the shoddy system.
"The way the world looks at New York, it's like there's so much money here. It's like the capital of capitalism, everything's great and whatever. And the train is terrible," said J train rider Marcela Toro, 34.
Internal MTA records obtained by Gothamist and the agency’s public data reveal that service breakdowns are on pace to become more frequent in 2025 than during New York’s infamous “summer of hell” in 2017, when the subway’s reliability fell to its lowest level in decades. MTA officials blame those problems on “deferred maintenance,” or decades of cost-saving measures that kept equipment in use far past its expiration date. But those same problems persist, and experts warn the same thing is about to happen again, creating cascading issues throughout the system.
"If you don't invest in the foundation of a house, the house is going to fall down when the wind comes,” said John Samuelsen, international president of the Transport Workers Union.
. . .
The subway system runs on electricity, which makes the system vulnerable to the growing number of flash floods fueled by climate change. On a dry day, 254 pump rooms pump about 14 million gallons of water out of the subways. During Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the system was inundated with more than 60 million gallons.
The equipment that expels water from the system includes technology installed in the 1920s, according to Jamie Torres-Springer, the MTA’s head of construction.
Two of those old pumps are behind a door at the 116th Street station on the 2 and 3 lines. Commuters who pass by likely have no clue they’re standing just feet away from infrastructure that looks like it should be in a museum.
The two oldest pneumatic pumps in the room are so old they can’t be automated and run on air pressure that’s calibrated by the twist of a handle.
. . .
“A pump room like this, the equipment is over 100 years old, so it's often in poor condition,” said Torres-Springer.
“It's being held together with chewing gum and twine in a lot of cases and it doesn't have the capacity to handle the water flow that we see because of heavier rainfall events.”
The MTA wants to spend $65 billion on upgrades and improvements, but there's no guarantee even that enormous sum will be enough - and it'll be yet another immense financial burden on the shoulders of already overtaxed and overextended New York residents.
If I knew that the odds of my suffering a criminal attack, or a breakdown that prevented me getting to my destination on time, or a weather or other natural disaster-related event that might threaten my safety (even my life) . . . why would I even think of spending my hard-earned money on a service that increasingly appears to guarantee all three outcomes?
I've just had the unpleasant (!) news that I'm going to have to pay over $3,500 up front for two medical examinations, one involving nuclear medicine (to compare the function of my kidneys) and the other a CT scan of their current physical state. Of course, it's the new year, and whereas last year I paid my entire deductible in the first half of the year (plus some charges my insurance wouldn't cover), and thus had a "free ride" for the second half of the year, we're back at square one for 2025. Very fortunately, my wife and I have been saving our shekels for this, knowing it was coming. Even so, it's a big hit, and we'll have to pay twice that before I hit my maximum deductible this year. That's bound to happen.
However, I also have to admit that despite medical costs being (seemingly) very high in this country, there are valid reasons for that. DiveMedic addresses some of them.
This woman here had a child that was born prematurely. That child spent a month in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). The bill came to $738,360, and the mother complains that the cost is too high. There are many in the comments that agree, and it’s filled with comments about how other countries have free healthcare, which is of course false.
The bill for that child’s care is completely reasonable. Let me explain why:
Nurses work 3, 12 hour shifts per week, and NICU nurses are frequently on 1:1 care, meaning one nurse to one patient. A 30 day stay in the NICU means that your child had the undivided attention of 5 nurses for a month. An experienced nurse, (for obvious reasons NICU nurses tend to be fairly experienced, qualified, competent, and educated) aren’t cheap. The average pay for a NICU nurse in the US is about $130,000 a year. Night shift makes even more, thanks to shift differentials.
The nurses in charge of your child’s care cost the hospital $70,000 in direct compensation, plus the costs of insurance, training, and other HR expenses. In all, just the nursing care for that month in the hospital cost that hospital about $140,000. Now add in the costs of everyone involved in that from the doctors to the lab technicians, and even the janitors.
Each of those people is highly educated, even the janitor. Yes, the janitor. To comply with Federal law, that janitor has to be instructed on CPR, stroke procedures, HIPAA compliance, Medicare and Medicaid laws, sex trafficking, recognizing child abuse, disposing of medical waste, and a host of other laws. He also needs to be background and possibly drug checked, especially to work in a pediatric wing. All of this raises the cost of hiring that janitor.
Back to the nurses. It takes 3 years of schooling to become a registered nurse. Then it takes years of experience, training, and work to specialize as a NICU nurse. In all, the average NICU nurse has been a nurse for 5 years or more and has attended far more schooling than a beginning nurse. Pediatrics is a specialty. So is neonatology, as is critical care. NICU nurses have to certify as all three. That’s why they make what they make- competence costs money.
Then there is the lab work, the cost of provider that supervises those NICU nurses (usually a nurse practitioner), lab technicians, respiratory therapists, medications, medical equipment, supplies, meals, and even the guy that empties the trash. Then there are the doctors, as well as the regulatory costs of compliance.
In total, labor costs alone for that stay were probably in the neighborhood of $300,000, so I don’t think $700k is out of line once you do the math.
That isn’t even considering what procedures may have been done- if surgery was involved, you can also add anesthesia, scrub nurses, surgical nurses, and a host of other specialties and specialized equipment.
DiveMedic acknowledges that in many countries with so-called "free" or "public" health care, these costs are never seen by the patient: but that's because they're paid by taxpayers in general. Whether the patient pays them directly or pays a wodge of extra taxes to subsidize them, she's going to pay, one way or the other. "Free" healthcare isn't.
That's why I can't complain too hard about having to pay close to five figures last year in insurance deductibles, plus pretty much the same again in costs not covered by insurance. At least I live in a country where the medical system is good enough to treat me, and advanced enough to offer the latest technology, and I don't have to wait forever to see a doctor who may or may not be competent! I can certainly understand the frustration of those who need treatment but can't afford it, but even there, many hospitals offer arrangements whereby they take the financial hit and offset it against their taxes as a charitable donation. Other generous individuals donate to help cover the cost of expensive procedures (as one reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, did for me last year - for which my eternal gratitude!). There are ways.
These two examinations, later this month, will determine whether I need further kidney procedures (up to and including losing a kidney if things don't look good). I'm hoping and praying for the best. Thereafter, as soon as the kidney situation is dealt with, I have to look at further spinal fusions near the site of my existing one. After 21 years, that area of the spine is showing the strain, and needs reinforcement. That's going to be very painful and very expensive, I suspect . . . but we'll see. Again, thanks be to God that I live in a country where such advanced care is available! I shudder to think what the fusion procedure might be if I still lived in Africa. It would probably involve baling wire and strips of rubber tire!
Blue-collar workers (on manufacturing assembly lines, transport drivers, maintenance, etc.) have seen some impact from robotics so far. That's generally been in the form of big machines permanently planted in given locations on an assembly line, performing one or more functions under supervision, then sending the article onward to the next assembly station. In terms of transport, artificial intelligence-boosted computerized copilots have already flown, some of them capable of taking an aircraft from takeoff to landing without human intervention. Driverless vehicles are already riding America's roads, and becoming more common. However, the basic structure of the workplace - a "traditional" factory, or transport, or whatever - has not (yet) been fundamentally challenged.
That's about to change. It looks as if Elon Musk and Tesla are in the vanguard, developing humanoid robots that can run their own assembly line, moving and functioning in a human fashion rather than being restricted to one place and one job. Because the robots are now (or soon will be) autonomous, the entire nature of the factory as we know it may change drastically.
Tesla is Revolutionizing Manufacturing—And Few Are Talking About It
"The most under-discussed thing in the analyst world about Tesla is not the new vehicles coming, nor the growing discussions about autonomy, but rather Tesla's next product: their new way of manufacturing.
It's a big deal, a huge step in how products are made today, and I don't think many investment firms have the right research people actually looking into what this impact is and what it's going to enable.
It's going to enable the variable cost to build products to shrink further and further, approaching zero. This is the step function needed for cost reduction to achieve further scale, and I don’t think enough people are talking about it.
It’s going to be how the Cybertruck is made, how Optimus will be made. Tesla versions its factories like they version their product.
They spend time perfecting it and have design reviews of their factory designs just as they do with their products. They have specs and performance attributes they are trying to meet. This is very different from what happens at other companies at the executive level."
That's an excerpt on X.com from this hour-long discussion of what Tesla is doing, and how it may impact other manufacturers and interests.
It sounds very similar to what SpaceX has done with its rocket engine design and manufacture. It has three generations (so far) of its Raptor rocket engine (click the image below for a larger view):
Each generation has been "smarter", lighter, more powerful and simpler than the preceding one. Furthermore, production has speeded up immensely. According to Elon Musk, SpaceX is producing one of the third-generation Raptor engines every day at its factory in California - and that'll have to increase significantly if SpaceX hopes to launch two of its mammoth Starship rockets every month this year. Only ultra-modern manufacturing techniques, using robotics and computer-aided manufacture whenever possible, can hope to achieve that rate of production. Traditional manufacturing, with its high number of human employees, literally could not work fast or accurately enough to produce them. Sounds like a poster child for the new manufacturing techniques discussed above . . . and for other industries too.
This is such a profound statement because a lot of the stories that I hear are related to, like, say Tesla capitalizing on making manufacturing the product—really just honing in so much on the factory that it becomes the product, the you know, and where we throw around 2 million cars per year, five million cars per year per factory, tens of millions of bots per year sooner than people think. The usual narrative is crazy, pie-in-the-sky; they can’t do that, look at Ford, look at BYD, they can only do so much.
But what we’re missing here is that we’ve had decades of just sitting on our asses, leveraging cheaper labor versus going out of our way to really push the boundaries of engineering and manufacturing. And now that we have a company that’s willing to do that because the leader is viewing that as a first principles approach to manufacturing, right? Instead of like, okay, cheap labor is good, but why aren’t we pushing manufacturing and engineering as much as we can to make this as efficient and as productive as possible?
Of course they’re extremely talented, they’re doing something very unique, but it’s also on the backs of 30-40 years of, I’m going to call it laziness. Like, you’re just taking the easy way out, and I get it, more profits, you’re taking care of shareholders—I get it—but you’re not really pushing the boundaries of manufacturing. I think what this leads to is, if companies and leaders truly take this to heart, we’re going to see an explosion in manufacturing across the board. It’s not just going to be a Tesla thing; I think we’re going to see it all over the place.
Another aspect is the introduction of robotics into areas like farming, where human labor has until now been indispensable. We've discussed in these pages robots that dispense insecticide and fertilizer, or harvest certain crops; but now robots are set to play a much larger role, simply because some jobs require labor that is no longer available (or willing to work for affordable wages), and/or are too dangerous to risk human lives. One commenter on the video embedded above said:
As a "small" scale rural farmer (no tractors) our biggest expense is labour, about $28,000 per employee (40 hrs/ week @ $20/hr for 8 months/year). And that is IF we can find any willing workers. IF we can they often make many costly mistakes, take time off for vacations, and productions plummets if it is too hot, too cold, too rainy, or when they are too tired.
Humanoid robots are terrifying to me, but at the same time I can't help but be drawn to the possibility that they could be the solution we have been looking for...
The remote-controlled robot was created by a Nebraska family whose farmer friend pleaded with them to build him a robot so he never had to risk going into a dangerous grain bin again.
Noting on their website that there are around 25 grain-bin engulfment deaths a year, Grain Weevil has adopted the motto “No boots in the grain.”
That’s a motto that sits well with Rabou, who grows wheat and other grains near Cheyenne.
“It doesn’t matter what kind of grain you’re raising, it’s all dangerous when it’s in a bin,” Rabou told Cowboy State Daily. “All you have to do is just collapse one empty pocket, and it can just, as soon as it has pressure on it, collapse and pull everything into it.”
Everything, in the case of many family farms, is likely to be either a good friend or family member. That makes grain-bin entrapment a very personal tragedy, both for the farm family and the surrounding farming community.
Rabou said given the choice of sending a robot into a grain bin or a person, it’s going to be the robot every time.
Add to that experimentation in other countries for new ways to use robots, particularly humanoid ones (for example, Japan has a great need for elder care, and nowhere near enough people to fill all those jobs, so it's experimenting with robotic delivery of elder care instead), and it looks as if traditional blue-collar work across many industries and economies is about to be severely shaken up. That's an important consideration for young people looking at their future careers. Can their chosen field be automated, and is it cost-effective to do so? If so, they might want to look somewhere else.
On the other hand, could the advent of such advanced automation save older industries that have become too expensive with human labor, and can't recruit enough skilled workers to produce their output? We spoke a few days ago about the USA's shipbuilding industry crisis, and how we might have to look to other countries to manufacture our ships. Could the extensive automation of US shipyards change that picture?
Finally, we have to ask what we'll do with thousands of blue-collar workers, particularly those who are untrained or without complex, in-demand skills, who will be left without work as a result of this new wave of automation. How are they to support themselves? Will some sort of universal basic income become a necessary, even an essential element of our society? Will our cities become merely residences for unwanted former workers, while factories migrate from them to new industrial zones organized around and built upon automated systems, with minimal human involvement? Who knows?
Victor Davis Hanson calls the current and ongoing California wildfires "a DEI, Green New Deal Disaster, something out of Dante's Inferno". In the blurb accompanying the short video below, he "discusses the mismanagement of resources, lack of effective forest management, and prioritization of diversity and inclusion over merit in firefighting efforts. He labels the situation as a 'systems breakdown' and warns of the larger implications for California's future."
It's a very succinct look at why and how the wildfires got so big, so quickly, and so far out of control. It's less than eight minutes long, and well worth your time to watch it.
He concludes:
I don't want to be too pessimistic or bleak tonight, but this is one of the most alarming symptoms of a society gone mad, and if this continues and if this were to spread to other states, we would become a Third World country if we're not in parts already.
Here's an intriguing tune I came across on social media the other day. I enjoyed the foot-tapping rhythm without knowing what the song was about (it's in Romanian): but then I found a lyrics site that offered a translation, and became doubly intrigued. Go read the English lyrics to discover why, and then enjoy the music.
I don't know if it's an older, traditional tune, or a more modern composition. Can anyone shed more light on it? If so, please let us know in Comments.
I'm sure there will be many longer-term lessons coming out of the Los Angeles fires; the importance of locating oneself as far from predictable hazards as possible, fireproofing one's home, and so on. However, some lessons jump right out at us, and confirm a great deal of what we've discussed in these pages. Others shed new light on some issues that we may not have considered.
First, getting away from the danger. Countless reports from Los Angeles speak of gridlock on the roads. One woman said it took her two hours to travel two city blocks! Others speak of abandoned cars, blocking roads so completely that they had to be moved by bulldozer (with inevitable damage to the vehicles concerned). If we live in an area where such gridlock is likely (including most modern cities, sad to say), we need to take that into account. Will we be able to "get out of Dodge" if we need to? If not, we need to place greater emphasis on staying in place, and making our homes more secure against likely hazards.
Second, consider whether our local and regional governments are worthy of trust. Those in Los Angeles appear to be anything but! Their handling of this emergency has been nothing short of catastrophic. In part, I accept that the sheer scale of the disaster is partly responsible for that; but the lack of leadership, poor implementation of basic emergency measures such as adequate reserves of water for firefighting, emphasis on political correctness rather than practical training in the Fire Department, and other factors are equally to blame. Can we trust our lives to our local authorities? If not, what are we going to do about it? If we can't change the situation, shouldn't we be considering a move to a safer area, where we are more likely to be able to make it on our own or with the help of neighbors?
(Speaking of help from neighbors, it's worth looking at video of the areas that have burned, taken before the fires started. In a semi-desert environment, where fires are a known hazard and occur routinely, it astonishes me how many homes had trees and other vegetation right up against their walls. They effectively made themselves into firetraps. If everyone in the area had planned their gardens defensively, agreeing (or being coerced through regulations) to minimize flammable vegetation and implement basic anti-fire methods of construction and decoration, how many more houses would have survived? I'm willing to bet that at the very least, the fires would have spread more slowly, allowing firefighters more time and space to contain them, and possibly making evacuation easier as well.)
A really big problem has just been laid bare for all to see. If we've laid in emergency supplies, are they protected against this sort of disaster? If we have them in our homes, along with everything else we hold dear, they're anything but protected. They'll burn along with our houses. If we have some at home, and others stored nearby (e.g. at a friend's house, or in a storage unit at a local facility, a few blocks or miles away), will the latter be secure? In a fire as widespread as those in Los Angeles, that location may burn too. Furthermore, what about getting there? If the roads are gridlocked, choked with abandoned vehicles, there may be no way for us to get to our remotely stored supplies with a vehicle big enough to carry some or all of them to where they're needed. Another thing: we may be able to get there only on foot or by bicycle, thanks to blocked roads. How many supplies can we carry on our backs or bikes, and for how far? Are they packaged in small enough containers, by both weight and volume, to make that feasible? Do we have backpacks, wheeled folding carts, etc. available at our storage location to make moving them easier? Who's going to protect them from looters while we're taking some to another location?
I know two people who are pretty well prepared for such emergencies, as far as their respective budgets allow. One is fairly well off. He's bought a two-ton cargo trailer that he can hitch behind his family's primary vehicle (a big SUV). It's parked behind his house, and kept in good condition. In it he keeps, permanently stored, 30 days' food for his family and pets, and five or six days' water. There's a suitcase of clothing per person, seasonally adjusted for cold or hot weather. There are also camping supplies (tent, sleeping-bags, pads, camp cooking gear, etc.) and a few containers of propane, gasoline, etc., so that they can get a safe distance away from danger and stay mobile. The remaining space in the trailer is left open for whatever they need on departure, including pet travel cages, etc. They'll grab essential documents, money, etc. on their way out of the door, if necessary.
The other family I know isn't nearly so well off, and can't afford that level of preparation, but they've done what they can. They bought a fold-up trailer from Harbor Freight, which can nominally carry up to 1,720 pounds weight (although they figure a practical load will be about half that in a cheap Chinesium product). They've built a removable wood framework around it to secure boxes and totes, and added a spare wheel. It's normally stored folded and upright in their garage. In time of need, they'll take it out and assemble it, then add a series of plastic weatherproof totes containing a week or two's food and water, short-term clothing needs, and other emergency supplies. A couple of the totes are kept ready packed; others are on standby, empty, to be filled when needed. A tarpaulin or two are ready to cover the load, giving at least some protection against wind, weather and prying eyes and fingers. They reckon they can be ready to go in twenty to thirty minutes after receiving the evacuation warning.
Both those families are probably as well prepared as they can be for an emergency like the Los Angeles fires. They may (probably will) lose everything in their homes, if worse comes to worst: but they're ready to take enough with them to ensure they'll survive, and have a foundation on which to build as they recover. My wife and I aren't in either of their leagues right now, largely due to financial issues: but believe me, after Los Angeles, I'm looking very hard at buying a small folding trailer to store in our garage for emergency use, and thinking about what to pack on it. That suddenly seems like a very useful idea indeed! I'll start putting money aside towards that need.
Finally, consider communications. Cellphones are all very well, provided that there are cellphone towers available and unburned! Small, low-cost FRS or GMRS radios can be bought at many camping stores and supermarkets, and offer another useful option. CB radios are a little more powerful, and after the decline of the CB "craze" some years ago, aren't as heavily used as some other channels. I think every member of your family (except perhaps small children) would benefit from having their own communications device, along with clearly understood instructions on when and where and how to use it. If you're dependent on the availability of the Internet for business purposes, consider Starlink's Roam option, which uses a small portable satellite dish that fits into a backpack. There are many other options available - although in a big fire situation like Los Angeles, I suggest avoiding smoke signals!
Anyway, those are just some thoughts that have come to mind over the past few days. Do you have any others to contribute? If so, please let us know in Comments.
Given the current parlous state of US shipyards and shipbuilding, is it time to seriously consider building our warships overseas? The Telegraph thinks so.
As an aside, the Constellation class is a live case study in what happens if you select a foreign design and then meddle with it. It is now estimated that 85 per cent of the Constellation design is different to the FREMM, undoing any savings in cost and time and throwing away most of the guarantees of capability and reliability. President-elect Trump commented on it this week, saying, “people playing around and tinkering and changing the design… they’re not smart and they take something and they make it worse for a lot more money”. Given how the Franken-FREMM is taking shape, this is actually quite polite.
Much of Trump’s interview was in response to the Congressional Budget Office’s “analysis of the Navy’s 2025 shipbuilding plan” which outlined the following key points:
First, the 2025 plan increases shipbuilding costs by 46 per cent annually in real terms compared to recent averages. The CBO estimates $40 billion yearly over 30 years, 17 per cent above Navy projections, with the total budget rising from $255 billion to $340 billion by 2054.
Second, the fleet would decrease to 283 ships by 2027 before growing to 390 by 2054 from the current 295. The Navy will buy 364 new ships, focusing on current generation and smaller vessels. Firepower will dip initially but increase as the fleet expands.
Third, a significant increase in the size of the industrial base, especially for nuclear submarines, is required.
So: can’t afford the plan, will reduce in size and lethality in the short term, major industrial expansion is required to reverse this decline. This makes for difficult reading for two reasons. First, it is clear the US cannot scale up its shipyards as it needs to on any reasonable time scale: it cannot even fully staff its existing yards, let alone open new ones. Second, you could change dollars and pounds and reduce the numbers (a lot) and a report on the Royal Navy would say almost the same.
Trump carries on in the same interview saying, “We’re going to be announcing some things that are going to be very good having to do with the Navy. We need ships. We have to get ships… We may have to go to others, bid them out, and it’s okay to do that. We’ll bid them out until we get ourselves ready”.
Looking for signs as to what he meant by ‘others’ and ‘bid them out’, many have looked to South Korea based on something he said last November shortly after being elected. “The US shipbuilding industry needs South Korea’s help and cooperation. We are aware of Korea’s construction capabilities and should cooperate with Korea in repair and maintenance. I want to talk more specifically in this area.”
As if to show the Trump effect, just the hint was enough to see Korean ship builders Hanwha Ocean and HJ Shipbuilding & Construction stock prices showing strong gains on the day (10 and 15 percent) while the shares of Hyundai’s shipbuilding subsidiaries and Samsung Heavy Industries increased a little (three percent).
It’s also not clear if he was referring to warships or support vessels but either way, South Korea has pedigree. He could certainly use them to build ships for the Military Sealift Command ... Fleet auxiliaries aren’t as complicated to build as warships, though more so than most kinds of commercial shipping. But Korean yards have also produced some very complex warships, including ones carrying the powerful US-made Aegis combat system – the gold standard of warship technology.
. . .
Consider this: Hyundai Heavy Industries’ shipbuilding division in South Korea is the biggest shipbuilder in the world. It produces most classes of warship, including submarines, as well as huge tonnages of commercial vessels. It has around 14,000 employees. This is actually fewer people than work in the shipbuilding divisions of BAE Systems plc, which are only capable of producing sharply limited numbers of warships and auxiliaries, very slowly and expensively.
I know "America First!" purists will scream blue murder at the thought of offshoring the Navy's new ships, but our own shipyards are simply too backlogged on current maintenance and construction to even consider working faster or harder. In many cases, they're hampered by a severe shortage of skilled labor, which can virtually name its own price to work in other industries as well.
We could start by contracting for support ships - unarmed vessels. These are basically merchant ships built to military specifications, perhaps with tougher hulls and plating to withstand prolonged sea time, plus specialized equipment for refueling and replenishment at sea. There's no reason why actual warships could not be built as well. South Korea already produces its own designs, armed with American weapons and electronics and technology. To add a production line for Constellation-class frigates or Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers wouldn't appear to offer any significant problem on the face of it. It's certainly no more of a security risk than already exists, because almost all our current weapons systems have already been sold to South Korea and installed by its builders in their own warships. If anyone planned to steal information about them, they've already had the opportunity.
I think this idea has tremendous possibilities. Why not try it and see?
Two of my favorite and most knowledgeable bloggers have weighed in on the fires currently ravaging parts of Los Angeles. What they have to say is anything but comfortable . . . but it's true, and until that truth is addressed, the problem will simply recur. Let's take them in alphabetical order.
At the end of the day life is about balancing risks, rewards and costs.
. . .
The same is true out in Southern California. Fires aren't new there and the Santa Ana winds are an annual phenomena that have occurred long before the California Gold Rush brought a large influx of humans. No, humans are not making it worse but we are putting more and more "stuff" of ever-increasing value in the way that can be destroyed. Couple high wind with dry conditions, given that part of the country is borderline desert, and you've got a high-risk environment with vegetation which reflects that and in some cases actually requires fire to propagate! Add to that state government policies that do not clear brush (on purpose!) and in other areas do not conduct control burns during the part of the year when high winds do not occur and you've got the natural environment and its oscillations -- including much larger fires simply because there's more fuel available and you refused to reduce said fuel load despite having the opportunity to do so in advance. Now add deliberate refusal to build out fire-suppression infrastructure (in this case California residents approved a bond issue many years ago to do exactly that but it wasn't done!) and you have all the ingredients for what is now occurring. If you want to know why insurance companies left they asked for rates that reflected this deliberate neglect and foolish set of decisions by said government agencies and, when you get down to it, the people who live there and kept voting those government agents into office. The firms had already taken large fire losses as a result and thus they had no evidence any of that would change. The rate adjustments were refused and thus their only sane option was to withdraw offering coverage and leave.
. . .
The remaining question is whether those impacted will force those who had responsibility for said mitigations, in many cases explicitly funded with tax dollars yet they did not act in accordance with their responsibilities and either did nothing or spent the funds elsewhere, to be held personally responsible for any and all of their malfeasance.
Larry Lambert, writing at Virtual Mirage, has this to say.
In the 1950s, the average timber harvest in California was around 6.0 billion board feet per year. That number has dropped to ~1.5 billion board feet per year. California’s forests cover a third of the state and are now choked with nearly 163 million dead trees. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other regulatory policies limit the ability of local government and fire management services to clear dead trees and vegetation. (This is a big deal and prevents much of the controlled burns desperately needed.)
Multiple bills, including AB 2330, AB 1951, and AB 2639, were rejected by the Democrat-controlled legislature or vetoed by the Governor that would have exempted wildfire prevention projects from CEQA and other permitting issues. Other legislation, including SB 1003, would have provided CEQA exemptions for utility undergrounding projects, as power lines that are not adequately cleared of debris present creating wildfire risks. These bills also failed to reach the Governor’s desk. California has prioritized “suppression-only” strategies and failed to remove accumulated vegetation, leading to denser forests with increased fuel loads – our forests have become tinderboxes, leading to devastating outcomes when a fire starts.
The bottom line is that many of the wildfires CA experienced could have been prevented or significantly mitigated with better management, policies, and funding.
And yet, despite the undeniable truth of both bloggers' comments, we see and hear plaintive cries from those who've lost their homes to the fire, "Why didn't the government do something to stop it? Why isn't the government doing something now to help us?"
My dear people, you voted that government into office, and you kept it there, with all its daft, ineffectual, touchy-feely, environmentally sensitive policies that doomed your neighborhoods to the death by fireball that they're currently enduring! When push comes to shove, it's your fault that your government isn't doing anything, because you elected politicians, and they appointed bureaucrats, who don't know how to do anything and are incompetent to act!
Do you think that truth will seep through into the California-dreamin' consciousness? Or is it too far gone to be able to distinguish reality from pie-in-the-sky happy dreams any more?
“Effective immediately, Daimler Trucks North America is pausing all orders for new internal combustion vehicles intended for registration in Oregon,” wrote Daimler’s general manager of product strategy and market development, Mary C. Aufdemberg, in a message to Oregon truck dealers.
. . .
Daimler, through its Freightliner and Western Star brands, is the leading producer of large trucks in the U.S., accounting for 40% of all new Class 8 trucks (tractor-trailers) sold in 2023, according to the American Truck Dealers association. (PACCAR Inc., the second-largest heavy truck maker, declined to comment on its sales plans.)
More pointedly, Daimler Trucks’ North American headquarters is in North Portland. The company is one of the state’s largest manufacturers and employs 3,000 people here.
But for now, the company that builds diesel trucks in Oregon has stopped selling them in the state.
The reason for that halt, the Oregon Journalism Project has learned: a new rule issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality that took effect Jan. 1.
Here’s how DEQ’s “Advanced Clean Trucks rule” works: Out of every 100 new Class 8 heavy trucks a manufacturer sells in Oregon in 2025, seven must be electric. That percentage of electric trucks will increase every year, reaching 40% of all heavy trucks sold in 2032. (In 2023, according to DEQ, Oregon dealers sold 1,708 new heavy trucks. Nine were electric.)
. . .
The company says that’s because there is “ambiguity” in how Oregon accounts for electric truck sales. Daimler fears it might fail to meet Oregon’s quota, triggering penalties. The company says that’s an unacceptable risk.
So, the leading US truck manufacturer can no longer sell its products in its home state. That means reduced production, which means lower wages paid to local staff, who have less to spend on products they need for their homes, which means the state loses all the taxes and duties it would have charged on those monies.
I hope the Oregon state politicians and bureaucrats are feeling particularly self-righteous and pure over its "woke" policies, as they fracture its economy and drive the state ever downward.
Oh - and Daimler, if you're interested: Texas' economy is booming, we have lots of room to expand, and we don't have daft "Advanced Clean Trucks" rules! Come on down!
Found on MeWe from Marc Adkins (sorry, MeWe won't provide a direct URL to his post):
Of course, that's absolutely true. That really is why darker skin hues are concentrated in hotter regions of the globe, and lighter ones to the north and south of that, in cooler climes. We've evolved the shades of skin as a defensive measure against some of what mother Nature can do to us.
Nevertheless, to hear racists (of any color) rail and bitch and complain against (any and all other colors), it's obvious they've never heard of that reality. Sure, there are cultural and educational and societal differences too, but they always point to race as the problem, and they always identify skin color as the identifier for race. No, dummy, that's not the issue - that's a mere defensive mechanism against nature.
HMS Defiant has a long, somewhat depressing, yet pretty accurate article that he titles "The Coming War". Here's a short excerpt.
I have always believed that war is a come as you are affair and that there is no substitute for what we used to call the Fleet-in-Being. If we didn't have all the line of battle ships and craft we needed to fight off the likeliest adversary then we would likely not have the time to build them or train crews to operate them and the same pretty much goes for all the weapon systems and ammo stockpiles. You better start your next war with a massive surplus of all that before you let your mouth and State Department imbeciles talk you into a war that you cannot win.
Well I don't think it will surprise anybody to learn that we simply don't have any of that any more and despite the shrieking you hear from over by the Pentagon it has been like this since roughly 2005 when the War ended and the spatter of all those idiot Victory-thru-Powerpoint slides started to fade into the rear view mirror.
. . .
People started writing books about 5th generation warfare a long while ago. Nobody in power reads them and let's be honest, none of them ever will and you know why? There is no money in 5th generation warfare for the giant defense contractors and their supporters and for all the congresscritters that float their boats and stock portfolios on their continued acquisition of pathetic scrappy hardware with procurement dollars unmatched by any Operations and Maintenance dollars so all that shiny new stuff turns into rust covered bayfill clogging the waterfronts at the few remaining naval bases we have.
. . .
How EXACTLY are they going to win a war with China? Let's be honest, the last time we won a war we bombed the enemy's cities into ruins, laid a blockade on them that strangled all imports and most essentially strangled all food imports so the people starved and were in such bad shape they kept starving for years after we relaxed the blockades and we carried out massive regime changes right down to the policeman in the street.
Do you think we have the WILL to do that to China? I guarantee we don't have the means to do it so it isn't really an issue. Thanks to the nitwits running this country and the greater darkness that is the West none of the countries in NATO or the EU are capable of taking on the equivalent of Baden Powell's boy scouts with any chance of success. On top of not having the gear or the men to fight with the countries all lack the WILL. The foolish british snobs and elites that declared that they would not fight for king or country are now thick on the ground at every level in every city in the West and remember, it's a come as you are war and they don't have any war materials at all. Seriously they're in worse condition then Canada or the Netherlands. Unready, unable and unwilling, is no way to fight a war.
There's more at the link. It may be depressing, but it's an honest look at our current situation. Go read the whole thing. It's worth your time.
I hope and pray there won't be another war . . . but we all know how slim the chances are for that. The old Roman saying was "Si visi pacem, para bellum" ("If you want peace, prepare for war") - and throughout history that's been proven to be true, time after time, the hard way. Civilizations and nations that allowed themselves to grow soft, to disarm, have always faced invasion from others who were better armed and more determined. Most of them were duly conquered and subdued. Very few, comparatively speaking, were able to buy enough time to rearm, reacquire a national will and sense of purpose, and fight back successfully.
Right now, after twelve years of monumentally incompetent leadership from left-wing progressive administrations and fund-slashing by Congress, the US armed forces are in a parlous condition. There needs to be a wholesale re-evaluation of what we need them to do, and what they need to do it. Those who've fiddled with inadequate weapons systems and doctrines and tactics need to be removed wholesale, and the Department of Defense needs to regain its sense of mission and purpose from the top down. (For a start, let's fire at least 50% of all the General and Flag Officers, if not two-thirds of them. There are far too many of them for an armed force our size. For example, the US Navy has 470 vessels in its active and reserve fleets, and 223 admirals of all grades. That's just over two ships for every admiral! The USAF and US Army are no better by comparison.)
I hope President Trump and his nominee for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, will crack the whip right away, as soon as they take office. It'll be a mammoth job to turn this mess around - certainly more than they can accomplish in a single Administration. Here's hoping they can handle the load.
From "Pearls Before Swine". Click the image to be taken to a larger version at the comic's Web page.
My wife and I try to fold the darn things, but they always end up looking "smooshed". It's even more fun when we put them on the bed with the "assistance" of our large black cat, who never saw a sheet he didn't want to play with. Hilarity mostly ensues!
Mr. B, writing at "In The Middle Of The Right", makes an entirely valid and very important point that seems to have been forgotten by most of the mainstream media, our establishment, and the progressive left. Here's an excerpt.
Reality is what it is. If your viewpoint, your version of reality, is different than everyone else’s, you need to look at what you think…..Ferinstance: if you think that saying that the world is flat is correct in the face of evidence otherwise, then you are wrong. Period. Full stop. Believing the world is flat is, frankly, stupid and delusional. Getting angry because your “viewpoint” is rejected, and lashing out is childish and spiteful and just plain foolish. We, as a society, are just as foolish by allowing people like the dude above to think their (obviously invalid and foolish ) view is valid and acceptable and putting up with their stupidity just gets us more stupidity. White is white, and black is black, saying that they are another color is lying…to yourself.
Just because a woman wants to think “Big is Beautiful” doesn’t mean that fat girls are as pretty or attractive as women who take care of themselves. Shy’s lying to herself or to her fat friend. Trans people (I.E. Men that pretend to be women or women who pretend to be men) are not the opposite sex just because they put on a skirt or pants. To believe otherwise is stupid. Trans men can’t have babies or nurse, and trans women are not strong men, even with supplements of Testosterone. Saying otherwise is stupid.
. . .
People who deny reality because it makes them uncomfortable or they just don’t like what is….are fools ... Sticking to that belief in the face of evidence that shows otherwise is stupid. Otherwise intelligent people are often stupid. Of course, telling or showing them that they are stupid (and being stubborn about it) often angers them even more, making them even more stubborn….and more stupid.
I can believe I can fly all I want, right up ’til I step off that cliff. Being upset when reality (and the ground) smacks me in the face is stupid….Stepping off the cliff is stupid. Don’t like the truth? Reality and the world just don’t care. Being upset that you can’t fly is also stupid.
Man or woman (and those are the only choices), to deny reality is stupid and it really is stupid to think otherwise. Reality is what it is. Deal with it. Stop being foolish.
We, as a society, need to stop pandering to people, be they straight or trans or gay, men or women, old or young, that feel that their alternate view of reality is just as valid.
There's more at the link. Go read the whole thing. It's important.
This blatant falsehood manifests itself particularly in the "You can't criticize me! You can't judge me! You can't say I'm wrong!" crowd. Look, if what you're believing, or preaching, or doing, flies in the face of objective fact and natural reality, I can judge you (your actions, at any rate - not your soul, that's God's business) and I can say you're wrong. I will. Loudly and frequently. To indulge your false fantasy would make me as guilty of ignoring reality as you are!
I saw this particularly as a prison chaplain. We had psychologists on staff whose job was to help inmates figure out where they'd gone wrong, and help them to change. The problem is that far too many of those psychologists tried to lead the inmate to come to the right conclusions on his or her own, without actually telling them they were wrong. In many cases, those inmates had never been taught how to think, and had none of the normal frame of reference (morality, civics, etc.) used in our society. To expect them to come to the "right" conclusions when they were filled with the "wrong" personal history, information (or the lack thereof), relationships, etc. was nonsensical - yet those psychologists persisted in that approach. They had to. That's what the "system" demanded - and that's why we have a 70%+ recidivism rate among US prison inmates over the first five years after they're released.
I was considered an unsympathetic and "hard" chaplain by many inmates because I would not indulge their self-centered fantasies. I also wouldn't allow them to blame others for the bad choices they made. Sure, their backgrounds, families, experience, etc. all helped condition them; but the ultimate decision to do wrong was theirs, and theirs alone. Do-gooders were always on at me to accept that they were criminals because of their deprived background: but those same do-gooders refused to face the reality that others growing up with precisely the same background (in many cases, brothers and sisters of the criminals) did not make the same choices, and did not become criminals. In the end, it all boiled down to an individual's personal choices and personal judgment. He/she could not blame others for what he/she had voluntarily chosen to do, and to become.
The same applies to those who want to live in a fantasy world without reference to reality. It's on them - and we do them, and ourselves, a disservice if we allow that to continue.
Two recent posts on X have boggled my mind. The first is a thread from History Hive, describing a book, "Brilliant Black British History", that claims most of British history was really centered around black people. Whites were apparently an afterthought.
Here are some samples from the thread.
Black people have inhabited Britain for longer than whites.
Naturally, therefore, they built Stonehenge.
. . .
Cheddar Man, an Ancient Briton whose skeleton was discovered in a cave, was recently reconstructed.
His skin was described as 'as dark as dark can be,' as confirmed [not!] by scientists.
. . .
Populating Britain were 'Black Romans'.
York, for example, was apparently 11% black.
One such 'Black Roman' was Septimius Severus.
Of Italic & Arabic ancestry, Septimius developed quite the tan in sunny Scotland!
. . .
It is claimed, citing 'stories', that a black Roman introduced Christianity to Britain...
. . .
Traversing the West African coast, the primative Englanders basked at the rich and powerful empires that covered 'every inch of Africa', with:
Cities grander than London
Running water and toilets
There's much more at the link - all of it as fake as the above. Believe it or not, this dreck won a British Children's Non-Fiction Book Of The Year award! Political correctness gone mad . . .
The truly ridiculous thing is, such claims are often "sanctified" by unthinking, knee-jerk approval from the progressive Left, despite their being nothing but a tissue of lies. Go look at the editorial reviews of that book on its Amazon page. Mind-boggling! Fortunately, many readers are not taken in, as their reviews (further down that page) demonstrate.
What other examples of such moonbattery can you suggest, readers? Do you have links to their source? If so, please let us know in Comments. We could use a good laugh to start off the new year!
I've been reading "The Mighty Moo", a book about the fast light carrier USS Cowpens during World War II.
It's a very interesting in-depth look at the experiences of one ship and the men who crewed her during what is (so far) the most prolonged, deadly and costly war in human history.
Despite the dangers, however, there were lighter moments. Two of them involved the false teeth of one of the senior pilots on board, who rose to become Commanding Officer of the ship's Air Group. Since I have an upper denture myself, I had to both laugh and sympathize as I read them.
The Cowpens’ pilots were no stranger to the bar while the ship was operating in the Chesapeake, but one particular incident while she was in dry dock became a squadron legend and set the stage for a related incident in combat more than two months later. Shortly before Cowpens’ departure for Trinidad, a hungover Mark Grant reported to the airfield for an early morning flight after a hard night of drinking at the O club. Grant was scheduled to fly a racetrack pattern over the Moo so her crew could calibrate the ship’s radar. The natural swaying and bobbing of the aircraft quickly made Grant nauseous, and not having a bag to vomit into, he opened his canopy and let fly into the slipstream. While this resolved Grant’s immediate crisis, it created another, as he lost his upper and lower dentures in the process. A full set of teeth (real or artificial) were a requirement for sea duty, and so Grant had to rush to get replacements made before Cowpens departed for the Caribbean. Their commander’s embarrassing mishap was the talk of the air group.
. . .
[During air strikes on Wake Island in 1943] Air Group 25 Cmdr. Mark Grant was another victim of the Japanese ground fire. With Anderson Bowers as his wingman, the pair made four separate low-level strafing runs against enemy positions. Bowers flew CAP the previous day and was eager to get in on the action for the first time. The “AA was terrific, it was still dark, and it was tough,” Bowers later wrote in a letter home. Grant and Bowers screamed in, machine guns blazing, skimming just above the ground the whole length of the island from north to south. They turned around to repeat the trick and, in Bowers’s words, “flat-hatted the length of the island very low.”
On their third pass, the duo flew in over the lagoon; Bowers described how he was filling a water tower with .50-caliber holes when his plane was jarred with the impact of what he described as “a big hit in the right wing. I looked over, and could see them shooting at me on the lagoon side. So on the next run, I cleaned them out.” It was on this run that Bowers lost Grant, whose engine quit after multiple hits, forcing him to ditch just offshore.
. . .
The 311-foot-long US submarine Skate was waiting just offshore of Wake Island to pick up downed airmen ... one of the sub’s lookouts spotted something bobbing on the waves three miles distant on the port bow. She drew in close to investigate and discovered a life raft with its cover flap closed to shield its occupant from the sun. With a yell of “Ahoy, the raft there!” Skate’s officer of the deck awakened Cowpens’ air group commander, Mark Grant, who by then had been adrift for three days. Suddenly startled awake, he flung back the cover, clearly surprised by the sub’s appearance. Skate’s captain described how Grant flung himself out of the raft with a whoop and “flew through the water to the vessel’s side and up its steel ladder like a squirrel.”
Despite his long wait in the raft, Grant never lost confidence he would be rescued—as his luck at Wake had been so lousy that he thought it could only improve. Japanese gunners peppered his aircraft with hits on his last low-level strafing run with Anderson Bowers, and the skipper claimed to have seen the Japanese rifleman whose bullet finished off his already-damaged engine. While Grant was upbeat about his chances of rescue, after firing at seagulls and gooney birds in hopes of obtaining lunch, he had saved the final round in his pistol for himself just in case. To pass the time, Grant amused himself planning his conversation with his rescuers, concluding that the correct opening remark was “Dr. Livingstone, I presume?” Moreover, remembering the loss of his dentures off Norfolk, he removed his shoes and placed the teeth in one of them, thinking they would be safest there. But the Skate’s sudden appearance caught Grant off guard; not only did he forget his prepared speech, he left his dentures in his shoes in his raft. He only realized his mistake when the sub’s commanding officer ordered one of his deckhands to sink the raft with machine-gun fire, and Grant dove back into the water to retrieve them. In subsequent retellings of the story at the Honolulu O club, Grant claimed he was fully aboard and the sub submerged when he convinced Skate’s captain to resurface and allow him [to] retrieve his teeth.
Wouldn't it have been fun (not!) if the proximity of Japanese aircraft or submarines had forced the Skate to crash-dive, leaving CDR Grant's teeth floating in the raft as a belated war trophy?
Both books are very informative and entertaining. The second, in particular, provides details of wartime air operations from a support perspective that's not often encountered. Recommended reading.
