Shocking Turn Of Events

It seems like years, but it was only months ago, that thru regulation and diktat federal bureaucrats were driving consumers to electric vehicles. It smacked a bit of the forced pandemic programs and perhaps successful implementation of those diktats suggested that agendas could be imposed centrally, forcefully. 

The political winds changed and all the Washington Wind Socks pointed a different direction. Suddenly the EV market had to stand on its own merits. It is collapsing. Despite several years of state and federal subsidies, EVs are simply not market ready, perhaps because all these subsidies encouraged individuals to purchase, at the same time discouraging manufacturers from reducing cost/price, anticipating subsidy increases to match price increases. It has happened before, and may well again. In the near future. 

What is interesting is that the Blue Bellies who felt the bureaucratic state's role is to constrain consumer choice, herding them towards implementing the Blue Belly Agenda gave no concern to obvious consequences, particularly the impact on electric generation and grid capacity. Higher residential bills to pay for new generating capacity? No worries...EVs are worth it. Really? Fragile grid? Straw...meet camel. Deal with it. 

And then came...server farms. These are not EVs. Some would say these data centers draw electricity 7x24. Indeed. They do. But we have about 300 million registered vehicles in the US. If these were all EVs, as the Blue Bellies want, each would draw around 75Kwh over a 4 hour period, and if they were all scheduled to even out the draw, it would represent 3.75 terraWatts, on average, 7x24. Enough to power 3.1 billion housing units in the US, where there are currently 148 million units. Perspective. While new data centers will use more electricity, they are a base load, while EVs will provide very uneven loads, thus straining the system. Either one, or both, will drive expansion of generating capacity. And we're talking dramatic expansion. 

What is interesting is that the Blue Bellies are avid, outspoken supporters of the one, and equally outspoken in opposition to the other. Will we ever find out the real reason for this?

SSD

Remember those? Dunwoody spent a bucket-load of money on server hardware, including adoption of Solid State Drives, notably more expensive than their spinning platter competitors. 

So what happened?

Well, now we hear that the city migrated most systems to the cloud, cited as part of the reasons they won an award. An award of suspicious value coming from what by all appearances is a lobbying organization, but that doesn't mean the cloud comment is untrue. But it raises a few questions. Did they decommission these [expensive] servers? If not, what are they being used for? If so, is this just another example of our spend-thrift government run amok?

So while they pat themselves on the back we're left to wonder if we will ever see fiscal responsibility return to city hall.

Laugh Or Cry

When administrative governments want to do something, it doesn't matter what, that they know their subjects will not approve, they do two things. First they hire consultants to tell their subjects, from an outside "expert" perspective that what the government wants is better than what these subjects might prefer. Then, as if by magic, some organization will pop up that hands out "awards" to governments who follow the herd, as if any award means they are doing the right thing, even when they are not. 

Dunwoody recently garnered kudos from  the Center for Digital Government calling out Flock drones and the "Real-Time Crime Center." It is the Flock technology that is of particular interest. Throughout the country. 

Flock cameras caught on because it allowed Blue Belly governments, who got spanked on their "defund the police" have found they can use this technology to diminish the police. Are Dunwoody police enforcing traffic laws in your neighborhood? If it cannot be done by technology, particularly cameras, it isn't going to happen. Blue Bellies like it that way. Some complain about a surveillance state invoking images from Orwell's 1984. This is dismissed with the wave of a hand. 

Then it got interesting. It was just fine when the targets of surveillance technology was regular Americans for the purpose of keeping them in line. And generating revenue with next-to-no effort. Cha-ching. Come to find out, Flock shares data with the feds, which was fine with local Blue Bellies when the feds were adequately blue too. That changed. CBP (who already had covert cameras of their own) and ICE tapped into the Flock system to do their job which includes controlling the border and giving free foreign vacations to interlopers. Blue Bellies are livid and are pulling Flock cameras. 

Ponder that for a moment. 

So, the Blue Bellies are all in with surveillance of their subjects for imposing their will on their subjects, but should the feds step in to impose their legal mandate on folks are here without any legal authorization whatsoever. What are they saying? That their priority is to oppress the regular American while protecting folks who should be somewhere other than here. How dystopian is that?

George Orwell, a complex man of contradictions, was an atheist who attended Anglican Church and is buried in an Anglican churchyard. So one has to wonder, is he laughing in hell or crying in heaven?

Where's The Logic?

Our Navy has been shooting little fish in a big barrel, which some take issue with, but what has inflamed the antithisadministrationalists is a recent double-tap incident, where the target was not sunk with the first blast, so a follow up was used to send the vessel to Davy Jone's Locker. What seems to have some folks upset is that the first blast capsized the vessel, with a couple of crew members clinging to the hull when the second blow was delivered. 

Their outrage drips with insincerity.

Were the crew clinging to the capsized vessel any less a threat than they were when the boat was upright and they were on deck? Of course not, and if you think otherwise you are either an idiot, or suffering from TDS, or both. 

Think. Just think. 

Were the crew's surface-to-air missiles lost in the first blast? Of course not. Why? Because they didn't have any. How about their 50 caliber machine guns? Same here. Can't lose what you don't have. Torpedoes...yeah that's the story. No it isn't. This was not a torpedo boat. 

The fact is this crew presented every bit as much a military threat to the US after the boat was capsized as they did before: nada. 

So if you're on the side of "we shouldn't do that" logic dictates that the second strike is no more contemptible than the first, as the crew never presented an imminent military threat. 

If you're on the other side of the equation you might argue that any drugs they might transport, and there has been no evidence presented, these drugs represent weapons of mass destruction and transporting them is a terrorist act. After all we do have a war on terror. You might even reflect back on the English giving Native Americans smallpox infected blankets as you conveniently ignore that these drugs would be for paying customers. As in "market demand." The English were very open about their intent to kill the Natives, but killing addicts is just bad business. 

Not matter which side you favor, the second strike is no more an issue than the first. If you support the military action, then sinking the boats and killing the crew is justified regardless of the number of missile strikes required. Anything less is illogical. If you fall on the other side of the issue, then the second strike is no worse than the first, or perhaps it is better to say that the first strike is no better than the second, and you should be just as incensed at a one-shot kill. Anything less is illogical. 

How about we spend less time with hyperbolic partisan rhetoric and exercise a few brain cells.

What Is It Good For?

War, that is.

America's current relationship with war started after WWII, the last time the constitution was respected and war was declared. Since then, "war" has been redefined and very war-like activities and control of military actions have been delegated, by congress, to the executive branch. Over several recent administrations we've seen the executive branch taking military action without prior congressional approval and increasingly without notification. Arguably, America's use of military force has been more brazen of late, but this is a difference in degree rather than kind. 

Ever since the advent of the all-volunteer military, society's relationship with "war" has been transformed. After a few generations without a credible threat of a draft, many segments of our society, particularly the "elites" have little or no personal experience with the military, or even near adjacency. There are lots of folks, not just Gronk, who cannot get USAA insurance. Men no longer burn draft cards nor women their bras (wasn't America great back then?) and our use of the very word, war, has been transformed. Diluted. Eviscerated. 

We apply "war" to damn near anything, without having body counts recited every evening on the evening news...Goodnight Chet. We've had a war on terror, which did involve "kinetic actions" but more dangerous is applying the term "war" to non-military situations. We've had a "war on poverty." A "war on hunger." And when "just say no" fell flat and "your brain on drugs" reminded folks of a post-party WaHo breakfast, we now have a "war on drugs." 

Is anyone really surprised that the combination of concentrating power in the executive branch and the hyperbolic rhetoric around this "war" resulted in military action? Really?

Now we're confronted with deja vu, An Operational Necessity, the book, not the mission concept in OpNavInst 3710.7Q. The recent engagement in the Caribbean faintly resembles the situation in the book, with some key differences. There is no declared war. Only one participant is bringing military power to bear, though the French freighter was unarmed. In the war, the real war, the attackers were brought to justice, such as it was when the defeated faced the victorious, with the Germans fairing poorly. 

Today there will be no Nuremberg. No trials. But going forward maybe we should be a bit more careful when conflating the merely important with the truly life-threatening. 

Speed Trap

Georgia has an off and on again relationship with "speed traps," with South Georgia implementing a "Yankee Tax" on folks headed to Florida, and most notably with Pine Lake, a DeKalb County city (a real one) of under 800 residents. 

Laws were passed. 

Now there are very limited situations where a speeding ticket can be issued at less than 10 over: by Ga State Patrol; or when the speed limit sign includes "strictly enforced." The latter seems to have all but disappeared in Georgia, but it is of little matter. At least in Dunwoody.

These inconveniences did not deter some dunderhead from pondering the impact, presumably beneficial, of lowering speed limits within Dunwoody (clearly not to include I-285). This was either trolling or serious lack of observation skills. 

Are the flashing "yield" signs at the entrance to Nandina effective? No.

Is the re-jiggered 'T' intersection at the exit from Nandina lowering the number of rolling stops? No.

Why might that be?

Could it possibly be that without enforcement drivers are not going to pay attention to these signs? Do you think they would pay any more attention to lowered speed limit signs than they do to the ones in place now? Do you think this city is ever going to use real, live patrol officers to enforce traffic laws inside Dunwoody? 

Cops around here don't even run cruise lights, do you really think they're suddenly going to care about any traffic violations?

So, can we make Dunwoody a speed trap? Hardly.