I heard a discussion on the radio this morning suggesting that humanity isn’t in all that much trouble because we can always save ourselves by creating a “life raft” to colonize distant planets once we have truly and totally destroyed this one. The idea completely floored me, but it isn’t the first time I have heard it. Being able to do this means that we don’t have to do anything about global warming, or excessive pollution, or over population, over fishing, … etc, etc. Many people seem to believe that while those things might end up making the earth uninhabitable to humans we are clever animals and can always start over again somewhere else.

Ignoring the huge problems associated with finding a suitable planet close enough for people to survive the trip in enough generations to prevent those travelers from transform into some other species through mutations happening along the way – what makes anyone think that we could be more successful in creating a new world, populated by a civilization that is any better than the one we have? Currently, we live on a pretty nice planet that has everything we could ever need already here. We have literally evolved together with the planet and therefore are as close to a perfect match that you could image – but we don’t seem to understand the value of what is here. We just trash it as if it is an old beer can that can just be discarded along the roadside while we reach for another.

If we can’t find the means to maintain what is already here, how could we possibly do better with a new one that DOES NOT meet our needs because we did not evolve together. The new one might be populated with plants and animals (and perhaps other things), but they won’t suit us. We will have to change that planet using our great wisdom and “smarts”. We don’t seem to be able to do it now, and won’t be able to accomplish the MUCH more difficult task of starting from scratch.

I know this is just a silly idea, but unfortunately there are many people that use these types of crazy concepts as an excuse for continuing to foster our “God given right” to destroy whatever it is that we feel like destroying in the name of short term, selfish desires. “Not to worry, we are capable of doing anything” (except manage what we already have). Having dominion over every living thing does not mean destroy it all, it means taking care to keep it healthy. Because of some unfortunate accidents of nature, we are in a place where we can destroy or protect. I think the Bible is referring to our ability to protect.

I have been watching the hearings on the January 6 insurrection with great interest. I find it amazing how so many people in high places just stepped aside and let what appears to be insanity reign. It appears that our government has so many “traditions” about relationships and power that it is practically impossible to step in when things are obviously going off the rails. It is astounding how much a person can get away with just by doing it.

When I heard about the small donations ($250,000,000 and still growing) going to a non-existent organization to stop a non-existent fraud that is not stealing an election I immediately thought about the old grifters (sometimes referred to as swindlers or snake-oil salesmen) that used to ply the wild west in the late 1800’s. Many stories (and movies) talk about these folks (usually men, but not always) that would ride or roll into town, set up a stage or business front and go to work bilking the population of the town our of their money and their land. These swindles usually required four parties to be successful. The first of course is the grifter (swindler)- telling tall tales, spinning all manner of lies, and working up the emotions of the audience. As part of the scam, there were usually shills within the audience that looked and acted like the rest of the audience (line “normal” or “important” people), who were in on the deal. They were important accomplices to the grifter because without their insistence that the lies were “facts” nobody would believe the lies and the shady deal would not go forward.

The shills do this because of shared profits from the scam, and possible future profits once the grifter has moved on. They know the grifter is telling lies, they know what will happen to those that buy into the scam, but they don’t care because they are getting easy money and fame. They share in the spoils but don’t have to look like the bad guy when the scam is over and the town is poorer.

There were also the “marks” – those that believed the story and put their hard earned cash on the barrel head, purchasing the bogus product. The marks buy in because of their greed, or fear. They see a deal that is “too good to be true” that will solve their problems, even though the deep down recognize the high risks involved. They usually know that it really is too good to be true, but what if it is true? They don’t want to miss such an opportunity. They are giddy and excited that they are filling going to get what they want, they are finally going to “get away” with something. Once they bought into the lie, they then picked up the role of informal (unpaid) shill because they can’t admit that they had been duped. At that point their honor (or helping their family, friends and neighbors) becomes more important than truth because don’t want to “lose face”.

And then, of course, there is the rest of the population of the town that saw through the scam, but didn’t take action to stop it. They were innocent bystanders standing by, the wives and mothers and little children, gossiping about how obviously the big lies are, laughing at the stupidity of the marks, but standing by – even when the marks were their spouses and were spending family money.

All four of these players are required for the success of the grifter. We seem to have this playing out on a very big stage in America (and much of the world). The swindler of the moment is obviously Donald Trump. He is standing up in front of the crowds, working their emotions, working their fears, working their greed – telling them anything whatsoever to further the goal of bilking the marks out of their livelihoods and more. There seems to be no lie big enough, no story false enough or harmful enough to prevent the telling. The shills are obvious and vocal. They are excited because they are heading for fame and fortune that they didn’t work for, don’t deserve and wouldn’t get without the presence of the grifter. All they have to do is echo the lies for money and power to come their way. The shills are in the form of senators and congressmen, supreme court lawyers, lower court lawyers, newscasters, ministers, policemen and teachers. They wear the trappings of “important” people, but are shills nevertheless. They know recognize the scam, but are in on it for their own greed.

The marks are obvious. They have felt downtrodden, ignored, oppressed by society. The swindler is telling them that it can all change, they can get back to a “Great America” (the point of MAGA) (as if there was ever a time like their fantasies). It isn’t that America will be great again, it is that THEY will be great – not AGAIN (because it and they were never great like in their imaginations), but they think they will FINALLY be great. They will have money, power, no taxes, no giving to anyone, high paying jobs, free gasoline, free roads and services, respect from everyone, their women will think of them as macho-men, they will be strong, and smart and successful – and all the rest will finally be squashed under their shoe. The marks are hoping to get what they never could dream of having, all for little or nothing – as the grifter takes their money and runs.

I was reading some posts on Quora this morning and came upon this question; ” Are people who graduated college with non-professional degrees and can’t get a job really shocked that they can’t get a decent paying job with their degree?” My first thought is that anyone who uses the phrase “graduated college” instead of “graduated from college” is suspect from the get go. Lack of fundamental language skills is going to be a problem. My second thought is wondering what is meant by a “non-professional degree”. As I think through my college catalogue I can’t think of any non-professional degrees – as far as I know they all can lead to a profession, even if that profession is primarily teaching. There are no “non-professional” degrees.

However, while the question doesn’t seem to make much sense, I think it is getting at an interesting question of whether or not a degree is about getting a job in a particular field, or about something else more fundamental (and valuable) than that. My understanding is that “non-professional” jobs are probably trade related jobs. There are trade schools for the purpose of learning a trade with the intention of getting a job in that trade. Many Community Colleges and apprenticeship programs specialize in training for a specific job or specific trade. Of course many universities also focus on future jobs, but that is in addition to gaining a general education. For example, medical schools are in the business of creating doctors, forestry departments are creating foresters etc. However, most departments are doing something a little different – they are in the business of providing knowledge and skills useful for learning more. It is more about learning a way of thinking than it is about a specific body of knowledge.

My degree in physics certainly didn’t provide an education sufficient to get me a job as a physicist – it helped me gain knowledge that is indispensable for a physicist, but while that is necessary – it is not sufficient. There is still a lot of “experience” required to get a professional job as a physicist. With my degree in physics I have a background that when coupled with appropriate experience (scientific and life experiences), enthusiasm and personality helped open many doors – most of which have nothing to do with physics. The same seems to be true of all college degrees. It is just like with high school – it provides a necessary background but only allows opportunities to step onto a path forward, it is not sufficient on its own.

I wonder if perhaps the main value of a college degree is providing a background and approach to problem solving that allows a person to be accepted into a social group (network) of people that act as “gatekeepers” to a profession. If this is the case, then perhaps the “fluff” courses (English, math, basic science, history, music, theater, philosophy, etc) are as important, or often more important, than the core courses in a major field. These courses result in a much more “rounded” knowledge forming the basis of commonality, and community, with those in a chosen field. Not only can we talk about physics, but perhaps we can talk about music, history, world politics, psychology, etc. as well. (Physics might be a bad example considering the rather high percentage of physics geniuses that are pretty far into the “nerd” syndrome).

From the point of view of a society, such as America, a educated populace is the country’s most valuable asset. Almost all aspects of the world have become so complicated, complex and technical that they cannot be managed without a broad and deep understanding of many topics. I was almost going to say that a college education makes it easier, and more likely, to separate truth from fiction – but the last decade of two in America seems to disprove that contention. The willingness to accept and spread “fake news” (false information) seems to be based upon something other than “school learning.” I know several PhD’s and MD’s that seem to have trouble sorting fact from fiction. Maybe a good education doesn’t help with that, but it certainly helps do many technical, and not so technical, jobs.

The bottom line is that while a college degree is necessary for many jobs, it is not sufficient. In addition, while many jobs requiring a college degree don’t actually depend upon that knowledge, it sure makes the world a more interesting place. Obviously there are no jobs that depend upon a college background, self-learners have always been able to learn what is needed on their own. It is harder that way, but possible for those that are bright and dedicated enough to do it.

I do have a concern about the cost of a college education these days. Is it really worth it? If the reason for college from the government’s point of view is to have an educated population in order to function and be competitive, then the government should pick up much (or most) of the tab. If the purpose for a college education is to provide an educated workforce for industry, then industry should pick up the tab. If the purpose of a college education is personal interest, then perhaps the students should pick up the tab and the number of students reduced by a factor of 10,000 or so. As it is, students do all of the work, students pay all of the expenses, and the government/industry complex reaps the benefits. I think students should get paid for their efforts (“work”) in gaining an education. After-all, the main point is to enhance society – not enhance job skills for individuals.

We have recently discovered that since the last election Trump has accepted over $250,000,000 in small donations to fund his false claims of election fraud. He accepted the funds under the name of a non-existent organization, so it basically seems to have gone to him personally. Since there is no organization to accept the funds, he generously accepted the money as tax free gifts to himself. However, since I have no facts on the subject, perhaps that money went to his re-election campaign funds. In any case, what happens to the money?

If he accepted the money as a tax free political contribution, he has a wide range of options to use donated money (except for his “personal” use such as household items, rent of personal homes … things like that). Anything else is fair game. He can donate it to charitable organizations, keep it for possible future political activities, donate it to other politicians – basically use it for anything that is vaguely “political” in nature – including just keeping it. He can donate unlimited funds to other politicians for their almost unlimited use for their “political” needs. In effect, it is money that can be used for leveraging his political goals as well as paying for the services of others, including lawyers fees for any future legal actions against him (civil or criminal).

We are also told that he spent some of the money for highly questionable gifts to others of around $10 million, as if that is very important when compared with the $250 million that he received. What about the other $240+ millions?

I find this to be pretty interesting because it seems to clarify the apparent “insanity” of Trumps actions. They aren’t insane, they are very effective ways to bilk millions of Americans who believe his “big lie” into giving him vast amounts of money that he can use for whatever he wants. It seems clear that he isn’t claiming election fraud because there was any election fraud, he is making that claim because he knows that it will cause millions of people to send him hundreds of millions of dollars. It is pretty simple logic. His thinking appears to be along the lines of; “I can make completely fabricated lies and people will send me truck loads of money.” The more outrageous the lies, the more money he will get. He has created a fantasy story telling business, one that seems to have almost unlimited “value.” Sure he is causing chaos and massive destruction worldwide by his story telling, but it sure is effective in bringing in the bucks.

I am envious. I tell my stories and all I get is a small bill to pay for the web service to host my blogs (true stories by the way). It would be more fun a few hundred million folks would send me a few dollars each just in case I found something interesting to do with it. I promise to not buy my cloths with it. Perhaps my problem is that my stories are attempts at telling the truth.

This week has left me with a kind of deep exhaustion concerning the state of humanity. It appears that no matter which way I look, or what “rock” I look under, I find decisions driven primary upon emotion and personal greed (I was going to say “stupidity” but perhaps that is unjust). A few of the things that we in the news lately include:

(ITEM) Off shore wind turbine developers claim that they have no environmental impact because there are no birds flying over the off-shore locations – thus this form of impact won’t happen, and therefore neither will any of the others. I think the reason that they don’t find much evidence of bird kills caused off-shore turbines is that the birds fall into the ocean and usually aren’t found – it almost certainly isn’t because of a lack of birds. In addition to the issue of bird kills, there are many other problems with wind turbines, not the least of which is that they provide little (or no) additional power to the overall grid. They do create power at the point of connection to the grid, but when viewed from point of view of overall cumulative production they do nothing. There are solutions to this problem, but so far those solutions have not been forthcoming. There is almost nothing good to be said about the turbines except that they are an exceptionally fine means of funneling trillions of tax dollars into the pockets of a few developers.

(ITEM) The global telecommunications industry is in the process of launching 150,000 new communication satellites into low earth orbit. There are currently no regulations or restrictions on these satellites so it has become a gold-rush by three companies to take control of global communications before regulations or laws put restrictions upon their rush for riches. What could possibly go wrong with Elon Musk having total control over global communications? What could be wrong with Musk (and a few others) inserting so many satellites into orbit to effectively force out other satellites, such as weather satellites and others? What would be the problem with these guys effectively blinding the world’s large astronomical telescopes, totally hundreds of billions of dollars in science investments? People have a very long history of what happens when a few highly motivated, clever, greedy individuals gain control of the commons (those resources that are shared by all). The results are never pretty.

(ITEM) The rate, and overall numbers of mass shootings in the USA is rapidly escalating. It has become very clear that it is no longer a problem with a few crazy people getting access to high powered, rapid fire weapons. These events have clearly become a terrorist activity energized, motivated and supplied by a large group of extremists intent on creating total havoc leading to the collapse of Society for the benefit of nobody. The Republican leaders continue to promote the solution of hardening the targets rather than control those intent on fostering and implementing these terrorist actions. The Buddhists talk about covering the entire world with shoe leather to protect people’s feet, versus covering the soles of their shoes. Hardening all schools, churches, shopping centers, public buildings, private buildings and shared open spaces is hardly a feasible approach – but it is the one that is favored by at least half of those in power in this country. The idea of preventing the hazard seems to be impossible to even contemplate or discuss.

(ITEM) Hundreds of trillions of dollars are used to subsidize new energy sources, but almost none is spent to reduce the amount of power required to meet our needs/desires. There are enough almost free approaches that could immediately cut the use of energy to less than 1/4 of our current use – and achieve better, more comfortable, more effective solutions to what we currently do. It is pretty clear that an additional 50% reduction is well withing reach if funding becomes available for research and development. The overall impact could easily be a 10 fold reduction in the need for energy, which then can be supplied by local renewable sources (including “roof top” solar and others). The only reason we use as much energy as we do is because it is extremely profitable for the suppliers to do so. There is no big profits if they don’t sell lots of power – therefore we stay stuck in a world of increasing energy use and increasing horrible results from that energy use.

(ITEM) I keep hearing people complaining that the government is causing the steep increase in the price of gasoline and they are therefore failing to do their job. How in the heck is the government pushing up the price of gasoline? This is happening because of the decision to NOT control the prices of commodities such as gasoline, it is the effect of an unregulated (or at least under-regulated) critical commodity. The same people that complain that the government is not controlling the price of gasoline are the same exact people that demand that the government stay out of private industry’s business. In addition, these same people are screaming that gas taxes need to be eliminated to lower the price of gas at the pumps. How in the world do they expect the transportation infrastructure to be maintained without charging for it? If not gas taxes, then what kind of taxes would be better? Taxes are going to have to pay for it, unless the roads are all given to private enterprise, in which case the roads will be paid for through tolls.

I could go on for many pages with all of the crazy ideas that are being implemented without any consideration for consequences, costs, benefits or truth. Rather than worrying about how best to help each other and work together we are rapidly becoming a global society, perhaps most evident in the USA, that is focused upon creating strife, chaos, destruction, and the collapse of civil government. These folks promoting this chaos apparently aren’t interested in truth, fairness, what works, value, the future, the future of their children or anything else – they just want to destroy.

This is becoming very disheartening. For a time I thought the problem was a fringe group bent on causing the destruction of the world. However, as I look at the numbers I realize those that are trying to avoid chaos and destruction are in the minority, they are the “fringe” group. It sometimes feels like a very big, very destructive tsunami has been detected and is heading our way, arriving before the likely end of my life (and I am 75 years old). People look out over the ocean looking for signs of the tsunami and seeing nothing. They shrug their shoulders and go about their normal lives as if nothing is out there. However, tsunami’s are hard to detect in the open ocean – they are deep waves often reaching to the ocean floor, rather than tall waves reaching toward the sky. There destructive power only becomes evident when it reaches the shore. For decades dedicated scientists have been telling us that the environmental tsunami that is rushing toward us is will hit land fall very soon, perhaps it has already come so far ashore that we can no longer run fast enough to outpace it. We all know it is there and bearing down upon us, we all have a pretty good idea of what will happen when it gets here, but we seem to be whistling in the graveyard – assuming that all the bad things will go away if we deny knowing about them. We have had notification of this destructive future for many years, in enough time to take effective actions to forestall or prevent the bulk of the outcomes, but we just keep whistling in the dark.

I find that I am beginning to dread my daily trips to the trash can. For decades I have just thrown things into the garbage can next to my desk, or under my kitchen sink, whenever I needed something. But now I find I have become plagued with guilt, or maybe just disgust. My life, like those of almost all “modern” lives depends upon using things that come from somewhere else, and made by someone (or something) else. While I have a very large back yard, almost nothing that I use or eat comes from here. It is all shipped to me, or I go get it from a store that collects a lot of stuff from all over the world for me to select and purchase.

The fact that not only am I no even in the slightest way “self-sufficient” but everything that comes my way uses fossil fuels to get here is pretty disturbing. However, not only does it come to me using highly damaging fossil fuel vehicles, but it comes in packages that I immediately throw in the garbage. Much of the things that come in the mail get tossed before they are even glanced at. Many, perhaps most, of the products that I get come in packaging that not only gets tossed as soon as I finish wresting the product out of its package, but that package immediately gets tossed. When I take the garbage out I notice that the “waste” from the actual things that I want is almost zero. All the food gets eaten, the batteries get recycled (I hope), the tools usually stick around for years, almost nothing actually gets thrown out – except for the mountains and mountains of useless packaging.

I have started to feel like a cog in the jaws of some giant machine whose only purpose is to take valuable, and inherently benign, raw materials and transform them into highly polluting and dangerous industrial level garbage. It is a steady flow of good stuff to bad stuff, with me as a part of the bucket brigade taking the junk and passing it along to the next step. Perhaps a tiny bit gets recycled a few times before it finally falls off the end of the chain as waste. The waste comes in many forms that we keep hearing about. The end of the cycle seems to be things like carbon dioxide, tiny particles of plastic filling every space in the water systems (oceans, lakes, rivers), mountains of stuff in landfills slowly (or not so slowly) oozing poisons into the ground and our water, mountains of stuff just sitting in the hopes that someday it will vanish (which is not the case during many lifetimes).

We all know, and lament, the story. We are destroying the world as we knew it 200 years ago (or in my case, seventy years ago). None of us are directly to blame, and none of us has much control over the process. However, lately I have become much more aware of my hands moving good stuff one step closer to useless stuff, bit-by-bit with almost no thought or action in the process. I open a package of batteries and immediately reach down to throw the waste into the trash. I buy a pound of beans at the store and immediately throw the flimsy little plastic bag I put it in while shopping into the garbage. I buy my new shirt, and immediately cut off and throw away tags, labels and packaging. I throw away more packaging from the sausages that I cook for dinner than the contents of the sausage.

Everything is sterile, clean, safe and packaged for easy shipping and display – and then discarded into the waiting mountain of trash. I have come to realize that unless, or until, this conveyor belt of good stuff to trash without a use in the middle comes to an end we are never going to find a solution. I don’t suppose that “the solution” is to stop that process – stopping it will occur because we found a better solution to the entire system of moving things from hither to yon. Perhaps it will entail smaller, closer sources of things so that we can get there under our own power (walking, roller skating, bicycling, etc) and can just bring home what we want, not all of the other stuff that comes with it. I don’t see a clear view of that future, but I can see a clear view of what happens if we don’t find solutions to the every growing stream of valuable resources being turned from good stuff to junk with no value or use along the way.

This morning I found myself contemplating the difference between being lonely and being aware that I am alone. “Loneliness” has a yearning aspect to it. When I am lonely that usually means that I am by myself (either physically or emotionally), and don’t like that situation. I want to have someone in my life. This might be a person, a pet, or just a bunch of people as in a party. It “feels” bad, feels like something I would like to “fix”. Sometimes it is a desire to be distracted, sometimes it is a desire to be heard and perhaps understood. Sometimes it is just boredom, not really loneliness at all. In any case, it is usually has very negative experience because it has a large amount of wanting there to be another now. This desire can escalate until it takes on the experience of “panic” – or sometimes claustrophobia. Luckily for me, I am very rarely “lonely” regardless of how many people are around. It turns out that being lonely can happen just as easily, perhaps more easily, when there are people around but I am not “connecting” with them. It has nothing to do with “them” – it is all about me and how I experience the situation.

Being alone, however, can have a very different feel about it. As I have aged, I have come to more clearly understand that we are always alone. At the bottom of it all, we are alone with ourselves in this world. There might be other people (or animals), but they are always “over there” – they are always just fleeting images and experiences. For example, we might be totally engaged with a dear friend, or a lover, for a period of time – but then things change and that person is only a memory. Perhaps they die, perhaps you have a falling out, perhaps they just move away and we never seem to have time to re-connect. In any case, we are still there – as always, by ourselves.

If I am careful to avoid confusing “being alone” with “being lonely” – then I realize that it isn’t a bad thing, or a good thing, it is just life. I actually have no choice. I was born alone, will travel through my life alone, and will die alone. Sure, there will be helpers, lovers, enemies, friends, and others – but I am fundamentally alone all of the time. There is a kind of melancholy that comes with this realization.

I notice the melancholy particularly on those rare occasions when I meet someone that I “resonate” with. Sometimes I meet a person that just “clicks” with me. We like each other, can talk about any topic with glee, and just feels right. At those times I also notice a vague melancholy because I know that it isn’t going to last. There will be a time when that person, or that feeling of connection, will be gone. The moments that I am so thoroughly enjoying will be fleeting memories – that is just how it is.

I am finding that this understanding of being alone is just fine. It is not something to run away from (there is no escape even if I tried). The joyful, and “fun” part of this is the realization that I am in charge, I can chose. There is actually nobody else and I can chose to live however I want. Personally, I like to live in wonder and curiosity – while having fun most of the time. It is my choice – that is how I chose to do it. I want to be silly, but serious, unpredictable but dedicated, I like to work on things that I don’t think I can do – and often don’t ever accomplish. I like living with a lot of contradictions. I like to enjoy life. I see some people who seem to chose to live in misery, and I wonder why. Why would a person chose a path like that?

The California PUC is once again discussing the proposed new billing approach for residential solar that includes many modifications to the current Net Energy Metering rate structure. They had been scheduled to make a decision in January of 2022 (actually, the original schedule was in 2021 but that got changed). There was so many objections to their proposal that the Governor postponed the decision until May. Their stated reason for the delay wasn’t that there were objections, it was because there was a change to the board of commissioners. The delay was to allow the new commissioners to study the situation.

Now it is back on the table for a decision, without any substantive changes – it is still as bad as it was six months ago.

Supposedly the reason for the modification to the rate structure is that under the current system those with solar don’t pay their fair share for the power infrastructure. The reason is that the cost of the infrastructure is bundled with the cost of the power and billed as a single bill. If a residence achieves the goal of “Net Zero” (meaning they make as much power as they use), then they would have a zero energy bill – and therefore a zero contribution to the cost of the grid infrastructure.

This would be the case if the residential solar “power plant” cost nothing, and if the cost of the grid power plants cost nothing. However, that is not the case. A condition of their government sanctioned monopoly is that the utilities must produce enough power to meet the demand. That means that if residential solar power reduces the demand on the grid, and that reduction reduces the cost of the necessary infrastructure, then the investment in the residential solar has value to the grid, and to the non-solar customers on the grid. The PUC’s opinion about this is that it is difficult to determine how much the cost of the utility infrastructure is supplanted by the homeowner’s investment in their system. Since it is a difficult problem, they are not including it into the determination of how much, if any, residential solar adds to the cost of the supporting grid infrastructure. Basically they are taking the position that the homeowner’s investment has zero value, and does nothing to reduce the amount of equipment necessary to meet the utility company’s mandate to meet the need.

It is my belief that just because it is a difficult problem to determine how much grid infrastructure costs are reduced by residential solar, and that it has not been studied because studies have not been funded, is no reason to assume there is no value. What it tells me is that the entire approach to billing for power is faulty and needs to be modified in substantial ways.

The first modification that is necessary is to de-couple the cost of the infrastructure from the cost of power. Each user should be billed for the cost of the infrastructure required to support their demand (these are called demand changes by almost all rate structures with the exception of residential users). All other service are charged in part by the size of service required to support their maximum load. As the load changes, so does the size and cost of utility transformers, power lines, switching equipment, etc. It makes sense to base the change for this portion of the bill on the size and cost of maintaining the physical distribution infrastructure. It doesn’t matter whether you use a lot of energy over time, or a tiny amount, it costs the same to ensure that the maximum loads can be met (the is measured as power rather than energy). The second part of the utility bill should be for the energy used during a period of time. This represents how much coal is burned, how many gallons of water go through a turbine, etc. If you use a lot of energy during a period of time, you should pay a lot. If you use little, or no energy you should pay very little (or none).

This approach to splitting the bill into what is actually being paid for will solve the NEM conundrum. Solar users, and everyone else, will pay their fair share of the cost of the infrastructure required to support their needs, and solar users and everyone else will pay for the amount of energy that they use. If solar arrays make more electricity than they can use, and the grid has a way to use it for other customers, then the solar based system only used the difference between what they used and what they made (Net Energy).

There is absolutely no valid reason to change solar power plants extra for the connection services, everyone should pay for that part of the bill. The only “reason” for this situation is that the utilities like to own all of the infrastructure so that they can bill for it, including their profit. They are not very interested in allowing customers to invest in their own power plants because they don’t make profit on that investment.

Until a change similar to this is worked out, it is not difficult to find a “fair” solution, it is impossible. It is impossible because they are bundling two very difference services, with very different cost structures in to a single rate. This was a simple solution that sort of worked to achieve a fair rate distribution when everyone purchased power and nobody made their own, or sold their homemade power back to the grid. That situation no longer exists, therefore the entire rate structure needs updating to reflect the new reality.

The leaked opinion of the Supreme Court suggesting that it will eliminate Roe v Wade has caused me to wonder about the institution’s performance in maintaining the “balance of power” between the three elements of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers. My understanding of the philosophy was that the three branches of the Federal Government (Congress, President, and the Supreme Court) have inherently different missions and points of views that create a dynamic that prevents any one point of view from taking over and getting too far out of control.  They specifically set up a system that balanced the three elements in an effort to avoid the ills of previous governments whereby one group gained too much power, control and wealth. It is the push and pull between these three entities that help maintain a fair and balanced government.

The interesting, and innovative, vision behind this three legged power structure was that all of them were created in support of the citizens rather than a special group.  The preamble to the Constitution starts with the words, “We the people in order to … promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity establish this Constitution…”   “The people” refers to all of the people, not just an elite group of powerful wealthy people.  This is the key element behind our idea, and belief, of democracy.  It is OUR government, and it is bound to change from time to time as society changes (hence the inclusion of means for amending modifying the Constitution when needed).

The idea of democracy based upon majority rule is inherent in the Constitution, albeit with varying definitions of how large the majority needs to be.  In some cases a simple majority, in others a larger percentage (for example, 2/3 vote) is required to achieve a “democratic” decision.  However, in all cases it is understood that the majority represents the majority of the citizens of the country – not just the majority opinion of those that happen to be in attendance.  This understanding is the basis of our “representative” form of democracy.  Those in attendance have a responsibility to represent the people in their district while following the Constitution in order to protect the rights of under-represented individuals.  Of course this is an impossible line to tread by the representatives, the best that they can do is attempt to do so, and at least prevent the most egregious violations of the rights of minorities. One of the great problems with our form of government is that it cannot be assumed that even half of the people in a given district agree with their representative. 

There is a great pushing and shoving of opinions within Congress, with enough parties involved that perhaps the dynamics result in something like a “middle way.”  The President’s veto power (and bully pulpit) tend to counterbalance some of the excesses created by the Congress’ attempts to garner favors for their voters (in exchange for votes during the next election).  The President is likewise constrained by their desire to continue to get the support (and votes).  However, the Supreme Court is a very different entity.  Once appointed to the Court, that individual is effectively removed from the vicissitudes of politics.  They aren’t elected, and their term does not expire. 

My understanding of the job of the Supreme Court is to ensure that laws passed by wide variety of law makers are “legal” in the sense of not violating the precepts of the Constitution.  They aren’t there to judge on the truth of any particular situation, they just focus on the legality of the laws involved in the sense of do they violate the terms of the Constitution.  Obviously, the Supreme Court does not limit itself to judging the Constitutionality of a law; rather it is in the business of creating new laws.  The example that first brought this to my attention was when they appointed George Bush President, even though he didn’t win the popular vote or the electoral vote.  They (the Supreme Court) decided that Bush should win, and Gore should lose, regardless of the inconvenient truth that he lost (or at least hadn’t yet been shown to have won).   The whole issue of how Presidents are elected is very archaic and out of agreement with what is generally understood to be “fair” by the public, but in no situation does the Supreme Court have authority to do so – they just “took” the authority and since there is no body higher than them, there is nobody with the authority to call “foul”. 

The Court used a giant hole in the Constitution, and took advantage of it.  The hole that they used is that nobody can stop them from doing anything they would like – THEY are the law of the land, beholden to no one. That opened up a process whereby the party in power at the time of the appointment of SC Judges can load up the court in ways that take the role of government away from the people and give it to a small group of politicians. 

It appears to me that this change in the role of the Court  from being one of determining the legality of laws in a general way to sculpting laws to suit their personal political agendas is taking a very dangerous step toward fascism.   

According to Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York, who is widely considered the father of fascism studies, fascism is “a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques.” That much of the story is clearly as true today in the 21^st century as it was in the 20^th century.  We are enduring a time of important political decisions being supported by popular enthusiasm generated by sophisticated propaganda techniques.  However, that doesn’t address my concern that we might be marching toward a fascist state.  What is fascism and why is it so dangerous? 

Paxton goes on to posit that fascism includes four characteristics:

•  anti-liberalism, rejecting individual rights, civil liberties, free enterprise and democracy
• anti-socialism, rejecting economic principles based on socialist frameworks
• exclusion of certain groups, often through violence
• nationalism that seeks to expand the nation’s influence and power

He goes on to note that: Fascism is always populist – there is a perceived enemy or oppressor – and elitist. The will of the people is embodied in a select group or supreme leader, from whom total authority proceeds downward.”

The first characteristic is the one that appears to be most at risk at this time.  Currently there is a lot of discussion by the “far right” (I don’t like this designation, but don’t know what else to call them) concerning what is an “individual right” or a “civil liberty”.  I think the 14^th amendment describes the general topic.  Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Note: Unborn fetuses are not “citizens” and therefore are no subject to this amendment.

Preventing the fair election of a President by interference by the Supreme Court is an example of abridging the privileges (rights) of a vast number of citizens to choose a President by voting.  Hampering (abridging) the ability of some citizens to vote by making the election process too difficult for them to comply with the election process is another issue.  Abridging the privilege of a woman to make decisions about her health and well being by outlawing abortions is another.  There is an ever growing list of SC decisions that instead of unbiasedly determining the legality (Constitutionality) of a law are making judgements based upon their personal religious and/or political values.  Roe v Wade made it very clear that the ability to make personal decisions about abortions is a right that cannot be abridged by any State.  However, now it appears to be something else other than a privilege or a right.  What might that something else be?  Perhaps it is a taboo by a certain segment of the population – that’s fine; nobody is forcing those individuals who consider it taboo to have an abortion.

This change in the Court’s actions from judging the Constitutionality of laws based upon evidence to making rulings based upon political philosophies is a slippery slope where any law can be judged to be Constitutional, or unconstitutional, based upon the whims of five individuals having no oversight or boundaries.  Whatever they say IS the law of the land and nobody can do anything about it.

Apparently the office of the President is very close to this, with the exception that at least they are currently only allowed to stay in office for two terms.  They eventually go away, justices stick around until they decide to quite, or they die.    

I am going to leave the other three characteristics of fascism unexplored for the time being.  However, I don’t think it takes very much consideration to see the growing instances of these other characteristics in the voting behavior, and actions, of law makers at the State and Federal level across America.  Are certain groups being excluded from political and economic opportunities?  Are certain groups treated differently by government agencies (including law enforcement)?  Are we working to ensure economic fairness, or are we mainly supporting certain groups and individuals?  I leave it to you to consider whether or not we are treading the path of something other than the “democracy” in the pursuit of “liberty and justice for all” that we hold so dear to our hearts.