There are times when I am very dissatisfied with my country. Today is one of those days. I had another lesson learning that big, big government is stupid and expensive. My wife Lovely has reached out to an employment agency to seek a job. Lovely is a caretaker who has practiced the art for over twenty years. She is also a degreed nurse, having trained in a USSR bloc country. All she wants is a chance to take care of someone and get paid for it. The deep blue State of Illinois has decreed that to take care of someone for pay that person must have their background checked. They are not interested in checsking her nursing credentials or her experience as a caretaker, only that she is not a felon. One step in the process is to be fingerprinted. The prints are then sent to the Illinois State Police for a clearance.
Fingerprinting today differs from when they pressed your fingers onto an ink pad and then pressed it into a square on a piece of paper. Today they press your fingers onto an electronic pad and hope the machine captures the swirls of your fingertips. It is a little like when I programmed my phone with fingerprint I.D. It took me several swipes before the program would recognize me reliably. Lovely went through this process and submitted her prints to the agency, who then forwarded them to the State Police. The State Police replied a week later that the prints were rejected. Nothing more. The job agency called her and told her that her fingerprints were rejected and would have to be retaken. Today we went back to the same approved service provider to retake them. We were bonged on the spot. “In order to retake your fingerprints I need a copy of the rejection letter and a new order.”
“Where do I get that?”
“You get it from the employment agency that originated it.”
A picture of a German Shepherd chasing its tail filled my mind. WTF? How are these fingerprints ensuring that the woman is capable of caring for someone? Evidently, the lawmakers of the Illinois Senate who wrote this law think fingerprints are important.
A strange question came to mind while listening to a recent newscast. When people speak of diversity and inclusion just what do they mean? What is included in diversity? Are they speaking of race, gender, ethnicity, wealth, religion, medical condition, or political ideology? When we say we must expand diversity what do we mean?
For fun I researched a few ideas. Like how many races worldwide, now many countries, how many religions, how many political ideologies? The mathematical combinations becomes astronomical.
Specific Division
Number
Countries in World
39—–195
Race
10
Religions
12—–4000
Sexual Orientations
9 ??????
Ethnicity
8—–650
Language Spoken
12—-7100
In order to estimate the totality of what is included in diversity I would multiply these six numerical divisions by them selves or to put into a mathematical form
Diversity = (195 x 10 x 4000 x 9 x 650 x 7100) = 31,941 x 10 to the tenth power
or, if i multiply the most common diversities factors
Diversity = ( 39 x 10 x 12 x 9 x 8 x 12) = 4,043,520 diverse combinations
This number of combinations is so huge that diversity becomes unimaginable.
So what do we really mean by diversity, and why is it important? I’d say that Disney Studios should define it as bankruptcy, and as far as importance to Disney I’d say it isn’t important at all. If a company goes bankrupt because they try to write stories or remake movies based on diversity that diversity is absolutely not important.
In my estimation the leaders of Disney who have embraced trying to maximize diversity into their casts are nothing more than numbskulls. When I look at the number of possibilities to make something diverse I would select the first number of actors who fit the characters in the scenario and go with it. There would be a ninety percent chance that the cast would be as diverse as the population of the world. Forcing diversity into a story line that takes place in a specific region of the world could make no sense at all. For instance, casting blacks into a story that occurs in Ancient China would make no sense at all. Casting lily white people as black slaves, or American Indians in a story about the French revolution would be equally stupid. Entertainment companies that use diversity as a mainline premise for casting characters is nothing short of lunacy.
Why is there so much pressure on us to make everything diverse? This movement is being led by the same people who are leading us into communism. They have been trying their damndest to convert us into a stupid failed ideology by using any kind of idea they think can divide and conquer.
When we finally convince them that diversity is a bad idea they will reach into their cauldron of evil ideas to sell us something new, but I assure you it won’t be anything new. It will be another failed idea with a new coat of paint. A simpler way to say it is ‘lipstick on a pig.’
The test came to me when I questioned how I would get to work if I didn’t have a car? I researched all forms of public transportation available to me from my home in Alsip, IL to my place of work in Tinley Park, IL. I found a way to do it by researching the bus schedules of two different companies: the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), and PACE a suburban transportation system. Uber was still fifty years away from reality, and cab companies existed mainly in large population centers like Chicago, and the Metropolitan Train Authority (MTA) trains were inconveniently too far away from me. The distance between my village and that of my work place was 9.2 miles, and by personal car it took twenty minutes to commute on a bad day. I devised a plan and set a goal to ride the buses to work. I left the house at 5:00 a.m. and finally arrived at work at 10:00 a.m. I bummed a ride home at the end of the day. Another five hour commute was not in my schedule. I am only one out of millions of people who commute to work by car because it is the most convenient way to do it.
The infrastructure necessary to link suburban areas to central cities like Chicago and to link the hundreds of smaller towns surrounding the city will be exorbitant in cost, take hundreds of years to accomplish, and the result would be impractical. So, when the Greens write articles like the one referenced above they are either completely clueless to what happens in the real world or they envision that everyone has molecular-transporter capability to move themselves from place to place. If you are not familiar with molecular-transport search your archives for Star Trek an ancient TV show. I would be the first to buy a transporter if it ever comes available. Unfortunately, it may not be available until the year 3023.
The Greens have shown me that they are totally unable to think in terms of practicality. Not only will we not be able to get rid of cars within the next hundred years, but they will continue to be powered by fossil fuels. The scenario they envision is looking into the past not into the future.
I solved my personal green commuting dilemma by riding a bicycle to work. Riding the bike safely to and from work was possible only between the months of March through September. In those months there was enough daylight to been seen by drivers, the temperatures were still civilized, and the probability of snow and ice on the road was still minimal. Risking my life to live Green was not a priority. I commuted by bicycle only because it enabled me to double up on time by giving me exercise as well as locomotion to the job. I often imagined everyone in the Chicago area riding bicycles to work. The visions streaming through my mind saw thousands of riders using the interstate highway system within the city. In other words it looked a lot like images I saw coming from China of people riding bicycles. Again, this vision was not forward thinking, but rather retrograding. The pictures coming out of China today are more typical of photos of morning traffic in Los Angeles, i.e. six lanes of traffic all going in the same direction bumper-to-bumper, and most likely moving at seventy miles an hour.
The greens have convinced me over and over again that their vision can only be achieved by returning to the age of dinosaurs where people relied on their feet to move about, ate greens for energy, lived only in warm climates during daylight.
Today, my buddy Jim sent me an eloquently written scientific piece about the stupidity of electric cars. A while back I wrote a piece on what I thought about electric cars, and it is in total agreement with this more science oriented piece written by engineers. Great minds think alike.
THE ELECTRIC CAR ISSUES ARE GROWING IN CONTRAVERSY. HERE IS AN ANALYSIS WHICH MIGHT GIVE YOU A BIT MORE EDUCATED VIEW OF THIS TREND AND THE FUTUTE.
The utility companies have thus far had little to say about the alarming cost projections to operate electric vvehicles (EVs) or the increased rates that they will be required to charge their customers. It is not just the total amount of electricity required, but the transmission lines and fast charging capacity that must be built at existing filling stations. Neither wind nor solar can support any of it. Electric vehicles will never become the mainstream of transportation!
In part1 of our exposé on the problems with electric vehicles (EVs), we showed that they were too expensive, too unreliable, rely on materials mined in China and other unfriendly countries, and require more electricity than the nation can afford. In this second part, we address other factors that will make any sensible reader avoid EVs like the plague.
EV Charging Insanity
In order to match the 2,000 cars that a typical filling station can service in a busy 12 hours, an EV charging station would require 600, 50-watt chargers at an estimated cost of $24 million and a supply of 30 megawatts of power from the grid. That is enough to power 20,000 homes. No one likely thinks about the fact that it can take 30 minutes to 8 hours to recharge a vehicle between empty or just topping off. What are the drivers doing during that time?
ICSC-Canada board member New Zealand-based consulting engineer Bryan Leyland describes why installing electric car charging stations in a city is impractical:
“If you’ve got cars coming into a petrol station, they would stay for an average of five minutes. If you’ve got cars coming into an electric charging station, they would be at least 30 minutes, possibly an hour, but let’s say its 30 minutes. So that’s six times the surface area to park the cars while they’re being charged. So, multiply every petrol station in a city by six. Where are you going to find the place to put them?”
In particular, the latest UK chargers will be pre-set to not function during 9-hours of peak loads, from 8 am to 11 am (3-hours), and 4 pm to 10 pm (6-hours). Unbelievably, the UK technology decides when and if an EV can be charged, and even allows EV batteries to be drained into the UK grid if required. Imagine charging your car all night only to discover in the morning that your battery is flat since the state took the power back. Better keep your gas-powered car as a reliable and immediately available backup! While EV charging will be an attractive source of revenue generation for the government, American citizens will be up in arms.
Used Car Market
The average used EV will need a new battery before an owner can sell it, pricing them well above used internal combustion cars. The average age of an American car on the road is 12 years. A 12-year-old EV will be on its third battery. A Tesla battery typically costs $10,000 so there will not be many 12-year-old EVs on the road. Good luck trying to sell your used green fairy tale electric car!
Tuomas Katainen, an enterprising Finish Tesla owner, had an imaginative solution to the battery replacement problem—he blew up his car! New York City-based Insider magazine reported (December 27, 2021):
“The shop told him the faulty battery needed to be replaced, at a cost of about $22,000. In addition to the hefty fee, the work would need to be authorized by Tesla…Rather than shell out half the cost of a new Tesla to fix an old one, Katainen decided to do something different… The demolition experts from the YouTube channel Pommijätkät (Bomb Dudes) strapped 66 pounds of high explosives to the car and surrounded the area with slow-motion cameras…the 14 hotdog-shaped charges erupt into a blinding ball of fire, sending a massive shockwave rippling out from the car…The videos of the explosion have a combined 5 million views.”
We understand that the standard Tesla warranty does not cover “damage resulting from intentional actions,” like blowing the car up for a YouTube video.
EVs Per Block In Your Neighborhood
A home charging system for a Tesla requires a 75-amp service. The average house is equipped with 100-amp service. On most suburban streets the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla. For half the homes on your block to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly overloaded.
Batteries
Although the modern lithium-ion battery is four times better than the old lead-acid battery, gasoline holds 80 times the energy density. The great lithium battery in your cell phone weighs less than an ounce while the Tesla battery weighs 1,000 pounds. And what do we get for this huge cost and weight? We get a car that is far less convenient and less useful than cars powered by internal combustion engines. Bryan Leyland explained why:
“When the Model T came out, it was a dramatic improvement on the horse and cart. The electric car is a step backward into the equivalence of an ordinary car with a tiny petrol tank that takes half an hour to fill. It offers nothing in the way of convenience or extra facilities.”
Our Conclusion
The electric automobile will always be around in a niche market likely never exceeding 10% of the cars on the road. All automobile manufacturers are investing in their output and all will be disappointed in their sales. Perhaps they know this and will manufacture just what they know they can sell. This is certainly not what President Biden or California Governor Newsom are planning for. However, for as long as the present government is in power, they will be pushing the electric car as another means to run our lives. We have a chance to tell them exactly what we think of their expensive and dangerous plans when we go to the polls in November of 2022.
Dr. Jay Lehr is a Senior Policy Analyst with the International Climate Science Coalition and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author, and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government and many foreign countries. After graduating from Princeton University at the age of 20 with a degree in Geological Engineering, he received the nation’s first Ph.D. in Groundwater Hydrology from the University of Arizona. He later became executive director of the National Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers.
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition, and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute. He has 40 years of experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer, and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament.
