Rationing Energy

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that the cost of energy to end users—us average Americans and our businesses—is higher in Progressive-Democrat-run States than in Republican-run ones.

Always On Energy Research and the Institute for Energy Research…completed an analysis of electricity rates and found that residents of blue states see higher electricity bills than those of red states.

Tom Pyle, Institute for Energy Research President:

While there are many factors that influence electricity rates, the one constant we see is that states that have pursued climate or net-zero policies above all else have some of the highest rates in the country[.]

For example,

California mandates 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045 and operates a cap-and-trade program, while its average electricity price has climbed from 16.6 to 27.6 cents per kilowatt-hour since 2018 [2nd highest in the US]. New York requires a zero-emissions grid by 2040, and its average price has risen from 14.8 to 21.6 cents per kilowatt-hour [8th highest in the US][.]

Other Progressive-Democrat States, from the report:

  • Hawaii’s average electricity price was 35.72 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, highest in the US (excluding DC)
  • Rhode Island’s average electricity price was 25.86 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, 3rd highest
  • Connecticut’s average electricity price was 25.68 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, 4th highest
  • Massachusetts’s average electricity price was 25.56 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, 5th highest

By contrast,

  • North Dakota’s average electricity price was 8.2 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, 51st highest—lowest in the US, even including DC
  • Oklahoma’s average electricity price was 9.5 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, lowest in the US, back to not counting DC
  • Louisiana’s average electricity price was 9.5 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, 2nd lowest
  • Nebraska’s average electricity price was 9.55 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, 3rd lowest
  • Idaho’s average electricity price was 9.74 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, 4th lowest
  • Wyoming’s average electricity price was 9.75 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, 5th lowest

Beyond mere rankings, those are some pretty significant dollar differences in costs.

Mandating “green” sources for producing energy, which results in increasingly unreliable energy production and delivery, which results in increasingly unreliable energy at the end user level—that’s functionally rationing energy, even if that’s not the goal of the green funding industry, although the goal of the climate funding industry affirmatively goes much farther: the bankrupting of hydrocarbon-sourced energy producers. The only distinction here is that the rationing isn’t on the demand and price side, rather it’s on the supply side.

And as any pupil in a high school economics class understands, limiting supply without concomitant reduction in demand—via whatever mechanism—produces increasing prices to those end users.

This is what Progressive-Democrats running those blue States studiously ignore as they blithely enact mandate after mandate to use more “green” energy, use less hydrocarbon energy, limit atmospheric CO2 emissions, participate in cap and trade emissions programs, or some combination of them all.

The Senate Filibuster

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section wants the Senate to convert to a talking filibuster rather than the current format of requiring a 60 vote majority for a bill o proceed to a second floor vote for an up or down decision on the bill in question. His view is that Senators aren’t serious about their opposition to a bill unless they talk to exhaustion on the Senate floor.

That’s a process that’s doomed to cancel altogether the purpose of the filibuster.

Talking filibusters die from opposing Senator fatigue, and then the majority party gets to dictate its will and impose unilaterally the filibustered bill without change or compromise, albeit with some small and inconvenient delay.

The current form of the filibuster requires some measure of bipartisanship in order to pass a bill.

The quaint talking filibuster was an artifact of a time when political parties and their members actually were interested in national good rather than party good and were willing to compromise; it was a time when there was a measure of collegiality in the Senate. Today’s political environment is entirely too divisive, with both parties demanding its way or nothing at all with each strongly willing to accept nothing at all if it means, at the least, blocking the other party.

Republicans’ fear of a unilateral-minded Progressive-Democratic Party majority, which would result from a revival of the talking majority or the elimination altogether of the filibuster should be matched by Progressive-Democrats’ fear of a unilateral-minded Republican majority.

It’s instructive to see that the Progressive-Democratic Party is the one willing to roll the dice on its getting that majority first, from which they can impose one-party rule for generations, while the Republican Party, for the most part (there are some Weak Ones) continue to fight for the current filibuster system and a degree of compromise, however forced.

A Clear Path Forward

Posted on by
Reply

FIFA’s (Fédération Internationale de Football Association—International Federation of Football Association(s)—President Gianni Infantino is under pressure to resign over his shenanigans regarding selling off major parts of the Federation to private entities (which itself is only the latest of a number of his unilateralist escapades). Three of the six major football associations, UEFA, Concacaf, and the Asian Football Confederation, have sent an open letter to the Federation “calling for change at the top.” These three associations comprise the vast bulk of FIFA; only CONMEBOL, the South American football association, has any size in the remaining three.

Of course, Infantino is standing fast. He understands that letters, however sternly worded, are only words and entirely empty of force. If the three associations are serious, though, and not content simply to yap from their respective porches, they’ll do two additional things.

The first is to clarify their letter with a hard deadline for Infantino’s resignation, and not only his, but his staff as well. The deadline should be nearby, say a week from the date of their clarifying letter.

The second thing is what would give teeth to the words of their two letters. One minute after their deadline has passed without satisfaction, they would all resign from FIFA and form their own, separate International Federation.

Without those two follow-ups, the three associations will be known as unserious tissue tigers.

Operating in a Hostile Drone Environment

Posted on by
Reply

The US Army tried that in an exercise in Germany in which Ukrainian drone operators were the OPFOR. The OPFOR won that engagement very easily, and in a real world shooting fight, it would have been a disaster for the US forces.

Because of that—all of us learn more from our failures than our successes—the exercise, Combined Resolve, was a treasure trove of learning opportunities regarding ground forces operating in a hostile drone environment.

Exercises like Combined Resolve are run precisely so that forces can experience realistic combat conditions. Army leaders in Europe over recent years have taken advantage of having Ukrainian forces on hand to participate and impart their hard-won skills to US and allied troops in practice, on simulated battlefields. The expectation is that failures are educational. British and Swedish exercises have also resulted in easy Ukrainian triumphs.

The problem with this, though, is identified by Air Force General Alexus Grynkewich, Commander, United States European Command, and Supreme Allied Commander Europe:

You can’t get training like this in the United States.

Grynkewich added that after NATO forces exercise against Ukrainian forces, “The change is remarkable.”

Why can’t we get that sort of training stateside? The USAF has stateside exercises where the OPFOR fly the actual aircraft of enemy nations where we have examples of them, and uses USAF aircraft flown by pilots steeped in enemy tactics and doctrine where enemy aircraft aren’t available. The Navy’s air forces do the same.

America pioneered using long-range drones in war. The Pentagon has recently spent billions acquiring new drone and counterdrone technology and formed special units to operate it.
Still, in the Middle East this year, the US has struggled to defend against Iran’s long-range drones, which have killed and injured soldiers and destroyed aircraft.

Why don’t we have drone exercises—especially with the short-range drones optimized for attacking close-in OPFOR or OPFOR in contact with our formations—to train for dealing with, operating in, and defeating enemy forces operating under or behind their drones?

One answer to my question, I freely speculate, is that there are too many bureaucrats, both uniformed and civilian, in the Pentagon. These folks are clogging up mission development, weapons design and development, and weapons acquisition, and therewith are badly slowing down field training for this environment by denying our field personnel the requisite equipment.

Another answer, which dovetails with that Pentagon bloat (again, I freely speculate), is that there is too many politics involved in the development and acquisition of these systems. Congressmen and Senators fight for the associated spending to be done in their districts and States, too often balkanizing the whole process, slowing it down, making it less efficient, and driving up costs entirely artificially.

Clear those two, and the situation, both in the training and on the battlefield, will greatly improve.

Why Weren’t Reporters Told?

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that President Donald Trump (R), on the way back from a NATO meeting in Ankara, boarded a “legacy Air Force One,” moved to a catering truck’s container that was ostensibly transferring provisions to the aircraft, via that catering container transferred to a different aircraft, and flew that one to the UK. On arrival there, he transferred to the legacy Air Force One, which had arrived at the same time, and deplaned in view of the press and onlookers, with none of them the wiser.

The press corps and a number of government officials who had accompanied Trump to the meeting had remained on that Air Force One, uninformed about the President’s having shifted to a different aircraft.

The whole business was a Secret Service response to a threat that Iranians would attempt to shoot down the Air Force One aircraft on its takeoff from Ankara, murdering the President.

The Press Precious Ones have their collective panties in hard wedgies over not having been informed of the switch and having seemingly been used as decoys, as CNN‘s Jake Tapper bleated.

An angry press is demanding answers on why reporters weren’t told of Trump’s plane transfer or whether their presence aboard the supposed Air Force One—alongside senior officials Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—put them at serious risk.

There’s this, too:

The White House didn’t plan to disclose the feint, officials said, until the Washington Post revealed it….

And this from John Kirby, who spent his Navy career in the Navy’s press-facing career track and was ex-Presidents Barack Obama’s (D) and Joe Biden’s (D) Pentagon and White House Press Secretary, had this:

They also deserved—as did the unwitting staffers on the plane—the opportunity to make alternative travel plans….

Sure. Because the sudden mass transfer of passengers from Air Force One to alternate aircraft, coming as close as it necessarily would have to the Air Force One’s scheduled departure given the timing of the decision to set up the President’s transfer, would not have exposed the Secret Service’s and the US and of Israeli intelligence communities’ knowledge of the threat. Right.

WaPo‘s exposure and Kirby’s studied disingenuousness are why the press wasn’t told of the transfer. The press cannot be trusted with information like that. Even revealing the transfer after the fact is dangerous, revealing capabilities and potentially sources as it does.

Pressmen are well aware, as much smarter and so much better informed than us average Americans as they hold themselves out to be, of that danger.

Decoys? That’s the highest value of today’s news writers.