What ChatCPT says about the ICC

 The United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC). While the U.S. signed the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, in 2000 under President Bill Clinton, it never ratified it. In 2002, President George W. Bush formally "unsigned" the treaty, and the U.S. has consistently maintained a policy of opposition to the court.

The primary reasons for the U.S. not joining the ICC are concerns over sovereignty and the potential for politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. citizens, particularly military personnel or government officials, for actions related to armed conflicts. The U.S. government has also expressed concerns about the court's lack of accountability and the possibility of unfair trials.

However, while the U.S. is not bound by the ICC, it has sometimes cooperated with the court in specific cases, such as providing evidence or assistance in investigations. Moreover, the U.S. has supported other international tribunals, like those set up to prosecute war crimes in the Balkans and Rwanda.

In short, the U.S. does not abide by the ICC in terms of legal obligations, but it maintains a complex and cautious relationship with the court.

Security and Safety During the Holiday Season

 I have been seeing a HUGE rise in scam / spam / phishing emails in the last couple weeks.  As in I used to not get ANY spam / scam emails, then last week I got over a dozen in a day.

These people are trying to get you to click a link in an email, go to a site, and then enter all your information.  Names, addresses, credit card numbers, security codes.

Your email service should offer options to report, then delete, any scam emails.

Please, never give this info out to anyone online unless you are certain the people you are dealing with are actually who they say they are.  Never click on links unless you are expecting the link from someone.  Correct, I would double check links even in my own emails.  For example, if someone asked for help, I might send a link back with steps of instructions. 

Some ways to see if an email is "real:"  check the sending email address.  Home Depot, Wells Fargo, or whoever is not going to send an email from "iamascammer @ gmail.com."

A proper email will be from a domain (the @<domainnamehere>.com/.org/.net) like homedepot.com, kusc.org, spectrum.net.

Look for unusual grammar or spelling, not just what is said, but also how it's said, as if English isn't the first language, or it was written by a computer / AI program. Nonsense words or sentences are a good clue.

If you are not sure of the email, you are welcome to forward it to me and I'll take a look at it.  I'm not a security expert, but I do know people that are experts.  

As I go ahead and break my own "rule,"  Coast Hills Credit Union has an excellent article on fraud and scams.  I strongly encourage anyone to check with they finance institution for more information.

Here's just some of what Coast Hills recommends;

1. Don’t provide your user ID and password to anyone who calls, texts or emails you saying your account is restricted or compromised, no matter who they claim to be. 
2. Don’t send gift cards or send Peer-to-Peer (P2P) payments to anyone you met online saying that they desperately need money or to someone who called or texted saying you owe money for bills, taxes, fines, etc. Legitimate businesses do not accept those payments.
3. If someone urges you not to tell anyone about what they’re asking you to do, you are being scammed.
4. Scammers will threaten your physical safety or warn of dire legal consequences if you don’t comply with what they’re asking you to do.
5. Courts, law enforcement personnel or tax collectors will never ask to be paid using gift cards or P2P payments. Local, state and federal agencies do not collect over the phone.

Here's hoping we all have a nice, quiet, relaxing Thanksgiving holiday.

In Flanders Fields

In Flanders' fields, the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place: and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders' fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe;

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high,

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders' Fields.

- John McCrae

Nuclear, Solar, and Wind

Chris Martz

@ChrisMartzWX

𝐍𝐔𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐑 𝐅𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 A standard nuclear reactor has a 1,000-megawatt (MW) rating, which means that it is installed with 1,000 MW of power capacity. On average, a 1,000 MW nuclear facility occupies just over 640 acres of land. To figure out how many homes a single 1,000 MW plant would power, we can start by using the following equation, 𝑬 = 𝑷 × 𝒕, where, • 𝑬 = energy (megawatt hours, MWh) • 𝑷 = power (MW) • 𝒕 = time (hours, hr) If we assume that a standard reactor operates at FULL power throughout the course of a calendar year, then it will produce 8.76 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year. 𝑬 = 1,000 MW × 24 hr (1-day) × 365 [days] (1 year) = 8.76 million MWh / year (8.76 TWh / year) However, nuclear reactors do 𝒏𝒐𝒕 operate at full power 100% of the time. They have to come offline to refuel or undergo maintenance. Therefore, we must consider capacity factor in our calculation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), nuclear has the highest capacity factor out of any electricity generation source, with a capacity factor of 0.93 in 2023. https://eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html… What this value means is that nuclear power plants operated at full power 93.0% of the time last year. So, to figure out how much electricity that the average nuclear power plant generates in a year, we must multiply the previously calculated value of 8.76 TWh / year by 0.93. 𝑬 = (8.76 TWh / year) × 0.93 ≈ 8.15 TWh / year To determine how many homes this powers, we have to divide 𝑬 by the average amount of electricity purchased by homeowners in a year, which according to the EIA, is 10,500 kilowatt-hours (kWh), which is equivalent to 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh. https://eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/electricity-use-in-homes.php… So, dividing 8.15 TWh / year by 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh / year equals 776,190.4762 homes. Therefore, the average nuclear reactor occupying one square mile of land, operating with a capacity factor of 0.93, can generate enough electricity to power more than 776,190 homes throughout the course of a year. Let's now compare these results to those for solar PV and utility-scale wind. 𝐒𝐎𝐋𝐀𝐑 𝐏𝐇𝐎𝐓𝐎𝐕𝐎𝐋𝐓𝐀𝐈𝐂 (𝐏𝐕) A utility-scale solar PV array which is used to generate electricity for homes requires 1 MW of installed power. https://cleanpower.org/facts/solar-power/… A 1 MW solar PV array requires about 5-7 acres of land according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). So, let's just go with the median of six acres for sake of ease for calculation purposes. https://seia.org/initiatives/land-use-solar-development/… And, according to the U.S. EIA, solar PV had a capacity factor of 0.232 last year. What this means is that solar farms operated at full capacity only 23.2% of the year. Using these numbers, let's now figure out roughly how many homes a 1,000 MW solar PV farm could power. Recall that, 𝑬 = 𝑷 × 𝒕 × 𝒄𝒂𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓 Therefore, 𝑬 = 1,000 MW × 24 hr × 365 (days) [1 year] × 0.232 = 2,032,320 MWh / year (2.032 TWh / year) Dividing 𝑬 by 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh / year gives us roughly 193,523 homes. How much land would be needed? Well, recall that for 1 MW of generating capacity, solar requires about six acres of land. Therefore, a 1,000 MW solar PV array would occupy approximately 6,000 acres of land area, some 9.4 × as much land area than is required by a 1,000 MW nuclear facility, but power 582,667 fewer homes. That's not exactly practical, is it? 𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐒𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐃 A typical utility-scale wind turbine occupies about 80 acres of land, with each turbine given a 2.5 MW rating. https://landgate.com/news/does-my-land-qualify-for-a-wind-farm-lease… A 1,000 MW onshore wind farm would require about 400 turbines occupying 32,000 acres of land. Also, according to the EIA, wind had a capacity factor of 0.332 in 2023, which means that wind turbines had operated at full power capacity 33.2% of the year last year in the U.S. So, how many homes would this power? Well, let's run the numbers through our handy dandy equation again, 𝑬 = 𝑷 × 𝒕 × 𝒄𝒂𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓 Therefore, 𝑬 = 1,000 MW × 24 hr × 365 (days) [1 year] × 0.332 =2,908,320 MWh / year (~2.91 TWh / year) Dividing 𝑬 by 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh / year gives us roughly 277,143 homes. Therefore, a 1,000 MW onshore wind farm would occupy approximately 32,000 acres of land, some 50 × as much land area than is required by a 1,000 MW nuclear facility, but power 499,047 fewer homes. That's not exactly efficient either, now, is it? 𝐒𝐔𝐌𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐙𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐓 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐔𝐏 In order to power the same number of homes as a typical 1,000 MW nuclear power generation station, you would require either, • For 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐏𝐕: Approximately 4,000 MW of installed power (equivalent to four nuclear facilities) and 24,000 acres of land (some 37.5 × as much land area than a nuclear plant). • For 𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐝: Approximately 2,800 MW of installed power (equivalent to 2.8 nuclear facilities) and 89,600 acres of land (some 140 × as much land area than a nuclear power generation station). These estimates are conservative, however, because they do 𝒏𝒐𝒕 include the land area required for battery storage because sunlight doesn't always reach the ground (e.g., on densely overcast days or at night) and the wind isn't always blowing. Based on the land requirements alone for “green” energy technologies, you should question the motives of anyone, especially climate activists, who are vehemently opposed to deploying nuclear power. They are often unserious about environmental protection and have an ulterior, more sinister political outcome that he or she is trying to achieve, using environmental concern as smoke and mirrors to meet those ends.

Peanut and Fred

 524 views

Amy Curtis 🇮🇱

@RantyAmyCurtis

20h • 21 tweets • 4 min read •  Read on X

1/X Buckle up, guys and gals, it’s thread time.

Here’s why Peanut and Fred have become such a rallying point for people:

We aren’t suddenly in love with a squirrel and a raccoon.

They represent the problems of a very broken, petty government.

2/X

For years, we’ve watched as our betters in the Democratic Party have engaged in the selective application of our laws.

They call it “restorative justice” or “criminal justice reform” or some other nifty euphemism, but what it is is lawfare. 

3/X

It’s why violent repeat offenders can assault, rape, and steal and get a slap on the wrist.

Jordan Neely was arrested something like 40 times prior to his encounter with Daniel Penny.

The Left decided their crimes — which are still crimes — are somehow acceptable. 

4/X

So they turn a blind eye to the minority of citizens who are actually criminals and let them continue to harass and injure others.

Maybe — maybe — if they kill somebody they’ll get jail time. Simply because of the public outcry if they don’t. 

5/X

But it shouldn’t come to someone losing their life before the state protects us.

And eventually they’ll expect us to tolerate them setting murderers loose, too.

People see this. 

6/X

We see criminal illegal immigrants — who are criminals the second they illegally cross our border, btw — get a pass.

Including tens of thousands who are ACTUAL criminals: gang members, murderers, rapists.

And our government shrugs and says “Oh well, nothing we can do.” 

7/X

Martha Raddatz says it’s “a handful” of gang members taking over apartments.

As if the acceptable number of violent gangs running America apartment complexes should be anything other than ZERO. 

8/X

During COVID, we watched as government shut down our schools and businesses and arrested people who had the nerve to fish alone on an empty beach.

That was “unsafe”, you grandma killer.

The UK toyed with killing ALL PET CATS. 

9/X

Then George Floyd happened and suddenly riots and protests and being outside in large groups was okay.

My dad’s funeral? Nah.

Your kid’s graduation? Nope?

But assholes burning down cities? OKAY! 

10/X

Few of them were arrested as they did billions of dollars in damage to cities across the country.

But the rest of us? Government might not let us leave our homes if we don’t get a vaccine passport.

For our own good. 

11/X

I see a lot of people saying “Well, the squirrel was illegal!”

So?

Theft is illegal. Assault is illegal. Arson and rioting are illegal.

Crossing the border is illegal.

Our government decided not to enforce THOSE laws. 

12/X

But instead they come down on a family with a pet squirrel and raccoon like a ton of bricks.

The full weight of whatever fascist government agency that decided THIS was the law they’re gonna ruthlessly enforce. 

13/X

And this is how it always plays out: the Left’s preferred groups can get away with literal murder, and the Left will say they either don’t have the resources to enforce laws (“we can’t possibly deport tens of millions!”) 

14/X

Or they say not enforcing the laws with XZY groups is itself a form of “restorative justice.” 

15/X

This is an untenable and unsustainable position.

Peanut and Fred are simply the tipping point.

We are fed up with a government that picks winners and losers when the law should be applied equally and fairly. 

16/X

And we’re sick of government ignoring crimes that actually harm people and communities, but being absolutely brutal when enforcing a law over a squirrel and raccoon that were LITERALLY HURTING NO ONE. 

17/X

The problem is the hypocrisy.

Government will let guys like Jordan Neely wander free to harass and terrorize women and toddlers on subways.

They’ll ruin the life of anyone who defends the innocents against those criminals. 

18/X

Then they’ll find some law about pet squirrels and raccoons and decide THAT is the one they’re going to follow to the letter.

People are fed up with it. 

19/X

THAT is what Peanut and Fred represent.

A country fed up with a government that refuses to enforce its most fundamental laws but one that will give tyrants carte blanche to invade your home over the kinds of pets you have. 

20/X

As always, the Left don’t get this. Because they’re okay with this form of lawfare.

They LIKE lawfare, because right now it benefits them.

And a not insignificant portion of the Left get off on making others suffer like they did Peanut/Fred’s owners. 

21/21

They don’t care that a reckoning will come.

And they forget the other side gets to move and shoot, too.

If it takes a squirrel and a raccoon to remind them, so be it.