Scam

[TOC: all blog posts]

On It's Just Politics, Michigan's Republican Party Chairman Jim Runestad referred to renewable energy as a "scam," calling solar power "hugely expensive" and blaming the "horrendous" promotion of renewable energy for Michigan's high energy costs and poor reliability. Maybe he's just ignorant.

Since 2023 renewable energy has been faster to deploy and less expensive than power generation from natural gas, the least expensive of conventional energy sources. And, while gas and oil costs continue to increase, solar energy continues to drop in price.

Record use of solar power, especially with the recent profusion of battery storage, has also improved reliability, according to Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) CEO Pablo Vegas:

Last year, the risk of grid emergencies during the summer peak risk hour ending around 9 p.m. was 16 percent. This year [2025], ERCOT reports, it’s fallen to less than 1 percent. 

The new resources added to the grid since last summer’s end, namely utility-scale solar and battery storage, have bolstered reliability as summer power demand ramps up, Vegas said. 

Mr Runestad's reason for referring to renewable energy policy was to point a finger at a Democratic candidate, Sean McCann, for accepting money from organizations promoting renewable energy. He did not say how much McCann's opponent had received from oil and gas interests or from the utility companies, but I am willing to bet it is more than what the clean energy interests can afford. Any takers?

Of course, Mr Runestad made no mention of the primary reason for promoting renewable energy: caring for our shared home. You can deny climate change all you want, but that doesn't change reality. It only demonstrates that freedom of speech can be abused.

I've had conversations in which people denied climate change based on 3 percent of publications by peer-reviewed experts on the matter. Only 97 percent of research agreed that climate change is real and that it is being caused by human activity. But that was ten years ago. Now 99.9 percent of research confirms the reality of climate change. People like Mr Runestad are betting on those 1 in 1000 odds. But they aren't necessarily interested in knowing what is true when profits for their backers are at stake.

Mr Runestad and the Republican Party might truly believe that a simple insurance plan for our planet is "horrendous." They may believe spending billions of tax-payer dollars to bribe companies into stopping their wind projects is good for us. They may believe that for-profit energy companies failed to calculate their returns before investing in projects that are also good for our environment. They might be that ignorant.

Or they're just pretending. It's part of their scam.

Samaritan

[TOC: all blog posts]

I was at a gathering the other day when someone mentioned how they hoped we wouldn't get a Muslim, like that El-Sayed guy, representing Michigan in the Senate. I mounted a rather weak defense: "I've met him. He seems like a pretty solid guy." Conversation moved away from politics. Phew.

"Who is my neighbor?" someone asked a teacher. The teacher might have said, "The Samaritans, those guys with funny beliefs, those are your neighbors." The lawyer who asked the question, then could have been satisfied. Sure, he'd pity those apostates. Not that he had anything to learn from them, but yeah he could be nice if he happened to run into one.

But the teacher didn't say that. He described someone who got mugged and robbed and left to die. Upstanding folks passed him by; they were busy with God's work. Then one of those apostate Samaritans came by and stopped. He brought the victim to a hotel, paid for his room, called a doctor, tended to his wounds. He told the proprietor that he'd pay for as many nights as needed for the man's recovery.

Then the teacher said, "Who was the neighbor?

"The one who did him a good turn," the lawyer responded. He wasn't about to name a Samaritan as the exemplary citizen, but he admitted that the one who helped was neighborly.

"Yep," the teacher said. "Be like that."

I have some pretty good neighbors. They'll help if you need it. Some of them have signs in their yards supporting the guy running against El-Sayed. I suspect they see voting for a Muslim as "dangerous." They prefer to vote for someone more like them, even if he ignores the needs of the most battered.

 

Witness

[TOC: all blog posts]

I attended a Tigers ballgame and noticed some T-shirts with Bible verses. One said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Another was "I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me."

Evangelicals, one of whom I once did not hesitate to admit being, like to spread good news, and this is an attempt at doing so. I'm not sure how effective it is, since context is lacking, but it might incline someone to ask questions. Questions like Which way? and What truth? and Whose life? Or What things do you want to be empowered to do? and Which things ought you do?

But actions speak louder than T-shirts.

Autocrazi

 

[TOC: all blog posts]

Tesla has been hyping its autonomous taxi for years. It's really great and still "almost ready."

The only problem is what to call it. Cybercab is taken. Robotaxi has been ruled a generic term, which Tesla must not appropriate.

Elon Musk might try something close to his heart: Autocrat. Oops, I mean Autocart. 

Death to America?

[TOC: all blog posts]

This week, Iranians were in the streets demonstrating again. These crowds weren’t protesting the current regime but celebrating the 47th year of the Iranian revolution, when the Shah was deposed and a religious Supreme Leader ascended to political dominance. The loyalists chanted the old phrase “Death to America!”

This chant may not be a wish for the physical death of us Americans, but I suspect it is for some Iranians—if they are like us. Americans, after all, have tended to vilify countries and their citizens to the extent that we are willing to blow them out of the water on unsubstantiated suspicions that they are involved in supplying our demand for illegal substances.

Our slogan might be more like “Death to the foreigners!” We claim that they are ruining us. We root them out of our midst. We put them in holding tanks, sometimes failing to provide critical health care, until we can dispose of them. Sometimes they die in our “care.”

Some of our foreigners have been good neighbors. And their neighbors appreciate them enough to contest their seizure. Some of these neighbors have been killed for protesting. Our regime says loudly, “They were internal terrorists!” The Iranian regime says much the same (in Farsi) about anti-regime protesters in Tehran.

It turns out that our undocumented immigrants are not a threat and not a financial drain. Anyone who knows some of them could have told you this, and the statistics bear it out. They have lower crime rates than the rest of our populace. They pay far more in taxes and by boosting our economy than they cost us in accommodating them.

Many immigrants serve in health care, helping to keep us alive and well. So keeping them out is detrimental to our health. We senior citizens make up 19% of the U.S. population, but account for 40% of health care costs. Old age has its effect, and I am now at higher risk than I was as a young buck. I’d kinda like to have someone to take care of me if I need it.

One economist calculates, based on a study of immigration and health care, that deporting a million immigrants a year (Stephen Miller’s goal) will result in an additional 15,000 deaths per year. So, while Iranians chant “Death to America,” our own administration is actually delivering death to Americans.

TDS and Other Derangements

[TOC: all blog posts]

Garrison Keillor is one of many accused of Trump Derangement Syndrome. He does not deny it. He even leans into it a bit and suggests a remedy. (He also flips the script and refers to Mr Deranger in a later post.)

I too have been trying to deal with my TDS. It is easy to get bent out of shape by the ravings of an old man in a position of inflicting cruelty on millions, and I have been bent too often. Has anyone changed a madman by telling him to stop acting crazy?

Better by far to tell others around him not to encourage the nonsense. But they seem caught up in it, taking pleasure in the permission they have been granted to despise and abuse those they swore to serve. Still, they are a bigger audience than one and they can be held accountable for their own faults as well as for cheering those of their archetype.

Repetition can be used for good as well as for ill. We can stop trying to address each episode of madness and just repeat the essentials, without letting ourselves sound too deranged.

Alexei Navalny characterized the United Russia party as the "Party of Crooks and Thieves." The phrase was repeated so often that "if you started typing the words 'United Russia' into a search engine the first suggestion would be 'party of crooks and thieves' " (Patriot, p. 215-216). Part of the phrase's popularity was its succinct accuracy.

Putin was (and is) the heart and soul of the United Russia party, but effective criticism was of the party itself. We would do well to follow this approach. Without the backing of the Republican party, its reckless leader would falter. And defending an entire party of crooks and thieves is more difficult than defending its figurehead. Let's put the whole party on the defensive for defending deranged mayhem.

What words sum up the Republican party? It's tempting to use the strongest of terms, such as fascist. But this word and others like it have been overused to the point of losing meaning. Can we pinpoint the essential characteristics of (current) Republicans? I recommend liars, cowards, and cheats. You may have better options; list them in the comments.

I wonder if I could get into some good trouble for sponsoring a billboard along the freeway:

Republicans

The party of

• Liars
• Cowards
• Cheats

The opposition could pretty much classify any action of Republicans backing the current administration with one of these three words. And addressing the party shifts the blame to where it belongs. No tyrant ever achieved dominance without help.

There is some validity to accusations of TDS. The irony is that we are deranged by the words and actions of a deranged man. Derangement begets derangement.

The setting of Ian McEwan's novel, What We Can Know, is 100 years from now. Our era is referred to as the Derangement. Historians of 2125 marvel at how this Derangement occurred. Many of us marvel already. We hope we come to our senses on time to salvage decency.

Books (2026)

 [TOC: all my posts]

This is a continuation of last year's list, which continued an even earlier list of books.

Woman of Light, by Kali Fajardo-Anstine. Beautifully written account of several generations of citizens of New Mexico and Colorado.

The Winged Watchman, by Hilda van Stockum. An adventure story of kids growing up in occupied Netherlands during the last year or so of WW2.

Straw Dogs, by John Gray. Thoughts on humans and other animals. John Gray is incisive. He often comes off as snidely cynical. He helps me think.

The Ministry of Time, by Kaliane Bradley. Romance and thrills across time and culture.

A Murder of Crows, by Sarah Yarwood-Lovett. Listened to this and the next two in the Nell Ward series on a long car trip. Fun read, with a reasonable attempt to include wildlife in solving the crime(s).

Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson. Meh (although I enjoyed the chapter Names more than I expected, and Wordplay is worth a read in itself.

Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card. Read it to see if it's appropriate to read to a 10-year-old. I don't think so, but it's a pretty good YA sci-fi story.

Chronicles of Narnia, by C. S. Lewis. (Read to a grandson.) A few things in this series have not aged well, but almost as good as I remember them.

The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoevsky (translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky). Thanks, Joe. Only my second time. I'll never catch up with you.

All the Colors of the Dark, by Chris Whitaker. 261 short chapters, every one a prose poem, and all woven into a helluva story. Loved it, start to finish.

Theo of Golden, by Allen Levi. A feel-good story, worth the read. Levi tries hard not to be preachy, doesn't quite succeed.

Iron Lake, by William Kent Krueger. Good fun. Mystery + thriller + northern Minnesota in winter. Will look for more in this series.

Go Set a Watchman, by Harper Lee. Or maybe only partially by Harper Lee. 
Surprise: Atticus Finch (loving father) turns out to be a bigot and segregationist. Scout, now grown up, feels betrayed. But she indicates that she, too, didn't like the Brown vs Board of Education SCOTUS decision. What's with that?

Apology of Socrates and Crito, by Plato. Dialog at Socrates' trial for corrupting young men of Athens (by challenging them to think).

Skink - No Surrender, by Carl Hiaasen. Audio book on a trip to Mackinac Island with 10- and 11-year-old grandsons. Perfect for the trip and for the audience, including me.

Currently reading:

• The Price of Democracy: The Revolutionary Power of Taxation in American History, by Vanessa Williamson.
• Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius

On my reading list: 

• The Gate of Angels, by Penelope Fitzgerald (recommended by D. B. Hart)
• Corruption and the Decline of Rome, Ramsay MacMullen (see here)
• Long Walk to Freedom, by Nelson Mandela

Brutal Peace

[TOC: all blog posts]

Crabbe and Goyle, in the Harry Potter book series, seem to like a bully. They are always willing to aid and abet, if not implement, the schemes of Draco Malfoy. They are not alone; consider American foreign policy.

Imagine a schoolyard bully beating up a scrappy little kid for his lunch money. The bully is huge and has a reputation for brutality, so most kids stand back, hoping the little kid somehow gets out of this mess. Some of them encourage him to keep fighting back. He's holding his own.

Finally, an upperclassman, who's even bigger than the bully comes by. He shouts at the two boys to stop fighting. The bully ignores him, so his victim keeps defending himself. The older boy decides he needs to do something to restore peace.

He walks up to the fighters, and tells the smaller boy to hand over his lunch money. "What do I get in return?!" the boy asks. 

"He'll stop beating on you," the older boy says.

"Is that it? I'll keep fighting!"

The upperclassman then grabs the smaller boy, pins his arms, and tells the bully to keep punching. The victim can no longer fight back, so he gives up his lunch money.

The upperclassman and the bully walk away, congratulating themselves on their masterful restoration of the peace. The bully offers the upperclassman half of the lunch money. He quickly accepts. And winks.

The U.S.-brokered "peace plan" for the war in Ukraine is not so different from this, except that the stakes are far more serious. And the self-appointed peacemaker spent time conspiring with the bully to make sure all the bully's demands would be met. Who knew that the American ideal is to side with Goliath.

But the kid hasn't given up his lunch money yet. Some of us are still rooting for him. And maybe, if enough of us stick up for him, the bully and his even bigger ally will back down. Of course being bullies, with their fragile egos, they'll require the rest of us to pretend that they won anyhow. I suppose we will, if it means the kid can keep his lunch money and get back to his schoolwork.

Oh, and just a random thought: although Draco Malfoy survives the final battle between good and evil, Crabbe is killed and Goyle likely imprisoned.

Dissidents

[TOC: all blog posts]

Two Russian dissidents, armed only with words and the force of public opinion, faced authoritarian regimes. Both were imprisoned for speaking out. One was exiled, the other killed.

I recently read their memoirs:

• Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Oak and the Calf
• Alexei Navalny: Patriot: A Memoir

Navalny makes the point that the Soviet regime, which persecuted Solzhenitsyn, was worse than Putin's oligarchy. Yet Navalny was the one to die in prison.

One could argue that it was his own fault. After an unsuccessful assassination attempt through poisoning, he returned to his homeland. He didn't have to. But he was in no way at fault. His death was the fault of the regime that poisoned him, imprisoned him, killed him.

I reread The Oak and the Calf because I remembered a reference to "conservatives" in the government who did not want to allow publication of Solzhenitsyn's books. This struck me at the time as strange, because I thought of Communists as left-wing, which is another word for liberal, which has commonly been thought of as the opposite to conservative. In his memoir, I think, Solzhenitsyn uses the "conservative" label for stick-in-the-mud fuddy-duddies who wouldn't change their ways rather than as an indication of their political ideology. But Navalny too accuses Russian Communists (after the Soviet Union) of being "more conservative than even the American right" (p. 186).

Solzhenitsyn's title is from a Russian proverb about a young calf head-butting an oak tree, presumably with some delusions of winning the battle.

In America, we like to think President Reagan brought on the fall of the Soviet empire. I'm pretty sure Solzhenitsyn was even more responsible: the oak fell. And he was rewarded with the opportunity to return home. His assessment, too, was that Putin's regime was better than the Soviet era. I suspect that even now, after the imprisonment and murder of a man whose efforts were so like his own, Solzhenitsyn would still prefer Putin to the USSR. But I expect he would be outraged and would speak up. Or would he be more "conservative"?

Navalny's memoir is more relevant than that of his predecessor. The iron fist now wears a glove, but it is still ruthless and it has more propaganda tools than ever. "In the twenty-first century you are confronted not just by the machinery of a repressive state but by the PR machinery of that state." (p 138) "Propagandists," he says, "create a public opinion that no longer simply enables Putin to commit war crimes but demands them." (p. 430)

The courage of one man to speak up against a corrupt government and against its stupid, unjust war against Ukraine is an inspiration. We should all aspire to his persistence, determination, fearlessness, patience, faith, and humor.

Buy Navalny's book. Support his widow and his children made fatherless by Putin. A simple purchase can be another piece of the puzzle of describing and protesting autocracy.

Our country is not as far gone as Putin's vast fiefdom, but not for lack of trying by the current administration. There are too many similarities. Shutting down and shutting up the opposition is reaching new heights in the land of the free. Let's learn from dissidents and at least remain the home of the brave.

Insurance

[TOC: all blog posts]

When I buy an appliance or tool or electronic gizmo, the cashier often asks if I want insurance. I say no. If I've done my homework, I assume that my purchase is reasonably reliable. I may end up with a lemon, and then I'll need to repurchase, provided I still want the thing. But I assume the company offering insurance has done their homework, and so, odds are, I won't need it. I self insure.

With a car, the risk is higher. If I own a car, I'm required to have liability insurance. This makes sense. It would not be feasible for the state to assess each purchaser to determine whether they have (or will have) enough assets to cover the considerable cost for ruining someone else's life with a car, which is rare but happens. Collision and comprehensive insurance are optional. I may accept the same odds as an insurance company and cover repairs or replacement of my car if the need arises. The more valuable the car, the more likely I'll insure it. 

Most of us have home insurance. Mortgage companies require it, for one thing. If the house is fully paid for, we typically still don't want to risk having to replace or renovate a home. Fire, bad weather, or plumbing failures can do more damage than we can afford pay for. Or, maybe we can afford it, but we put our life savings at risk and would rather not. Only the very wealthy can afford not to insure their homes. (Maybe they got rich selling insurance to those of us who can't.)

When it comes to shared properties, insurance decisions are more complex. One owner may have higher, or lower, need for insurance than others. Not all may agree on what needs to be insured or to what level. One investor may be willing to gamble on the odds of never needing insurance. Another investor might be more conservative.

A lot of us, being conservative I suppose, want to insure our greatest shared asset. Others do not.

Climate change threatens catastrophic consequences to this planet we share. Some say the risk is overstated. Some say we should do something about it, even if the risk is low. Others insist we must do nothing; insurance is just too costly.

Especially to them. They have oil to sell.