Electricity Costs

Something is severely wrong with our system when a 15kW diesel generator is cheaper to operate than purchasing electricity from SDGE.

To illustrate, a 15kW generator running at full load consumes about 1 gal/hour, and if you get diesel for a generator you don't pay highway taxes on the fuel, so you're at say $3.50/gallon (that number should be a little high, even in California). $3.50/15kW is $0.23 per kWH. If you've looked at your SDGE bill lately, tiers 3 and 4 are well above that price (and who isn't into those tiers when the baselines are so ridiculously small?).

Granted, a house doesn't run at 15kW continuously, so the exercise is not realistic (at less than 1/4 load, the generator is still likely consuming at least 1/4 gal/hr), but in terms of order-of-magnitude comparisons, it serves as context for SDGE's prices. It's also not convenient to continuously fill a diesel generator every few days (depending on the size of the tank and consumption).

But isn't the main selling point of a utility that they can generate and distribute power more efficiently? That obviously isn't happening here.

Adding insult to injury, 18.8% of the electric portion of my most recent bill has nothing to do with the electricity we've used; it's for "public purpose programs" which are defined as "the costs of certain state-mandated programs (such as low-income and energy efficiency programs)." That's right: 18.8% of my bill is to pay for someone else's electricity.

Another ridiculous factoid: the "distribution" and "transmission" portions of the bill are more than the "electricity generation" cost.

The net result is the same question: how did we get to the point where it's even in the same order of magnitude to generate electricity on your own as purchasing it from a utility like SDGE?

Open Letter to the California State Legislature

Good evening. I am writing you to ask that you OPPOSE SB 249. Please remind your fellow legislators of the following key points:

• The scope of the bill affects every citizen, whether or not they are in their immediate voting district.
• Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.
• The use of weapons to commit crimes is already covered by dozens of existing laws.
• The state’s economy is in shambles. Several cities are insolvent with many more on the way. The legislative body has no excuse for focusing on a non-issue like this.
• The proposed bill has no provision for mens rea or criminal intent; it merely criminalizes the actions of ordinary, law-abiding citizens that they were elected to represent, regardless of the fact that they would never commit a “real” crime.
• The proposed bill turns a paperwork violation into a felony.
• Inventing new crimes by criminalizing the existing, legal behavior of good, tax-paying citizens will cost the state untold millions of dollars in defending this unconstitutional bill, millions more will be spent in prosecuting innocent civilians, with yet more millions being spent on housing them in prisons.
• If you want to help, create jobs, not crimes. Get the government out of the way and off the backs of the people so that the economy can grow.
• The more you try to exercise absolute control over everything and everyone, the more you strangle the people, and by extension, the economy.

The War on Drugs

I read recently an article by Conrad Black wherein he argues that the war on drugs is a failure. This argument is not new, but I was surprised to read it in a conservative media source. It brought to mind the words of Austin Farrer, "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned." (Light on C. S. Lewis, Harcourt and Brace: New York, 1965, p. 26.), which lead me to ponder on the argument against the legalization of drugs such as marijuana.

In Mr. Black's article, he stops short of arguing that cannabis should be legalized, but gives a number of statistics that suggest that prohibiting it has been an expensive failure. The only downsides he points out fall into half a paragraph where he also dismisses the argument (using statistics) that cannabis use is a gateway drug. Even the negative effects he attributes to cannabis he characterizes as, "less damaging and dangerous to society than alcohol or tobacco."

Among the cannabis characteristics Mr. Black considers "less damaging" is "psychological problems." I find "less damaging" as strange a euphemism as referring to drug use as "recreational". Various medical reports link cannabis use to depression, impotence and other problems. In a time of worldwide financial trouble, not only are we left with the medical bills for these problems, but our society loses out on these individuals' capabilities to create, to better, and to participate.

To argue that cannabis is less damaging than alcohol or tobacco is to effectively make alcohol and tobacco the gateway drugs to cannabis. The former are allowed, goes the reasoning, therefore they should all be allowed; we're already there, and this isn't any worse. And down we go on the slippery slope.

Life and Death

There are some in the world who claim that it is inconsistent to be "pro-life" while also being in favor of the death penalty for crimes such as premeditated murder. The reality is that this argument is specious. It erroneously attempts to find a contradiction where none exists.

It's really this simple: it's the difference between punishing you for your own bad choices and punishing you for someone else's.

The ironic reality is that the only contradiction is in opposing accountability for one's own actions while legalizing and supporting the death of the truly innocent. It is an argument as old as time: In ancient times, slaves were considered "property" and could be treated as inhumanely as their owners saw fit. So too the modern equivalent that innocent embryos are somehow not "life" but only little more than property. The results are awful and terrifying. Such behavior reminds me that whenever people can be persuaded to do evil and to call good evil that "the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice".