Bayou Renaissance Man

Here's an interesting and impressive video showing how giant ship anchor chains are forged.

A lot of people assume that the flukes, or "hooks", at the end of an anchor chain is what holds a ship in place.  Actually, that's seldom the case.  They're there to allow the anchor to "dig in" to the seabed, which in turn enables the chain to pay out in approximately a straight line from that point back to the vessel deploying it.  Usually, what keeps a major vessel anchored is the sheer weight of anchor chain paid out by the ship.  If, say, the water depth is 50 feet, you might find ten, twenty or even more times as much anchor chain paid out, laid out along the sea bed to act as a living "brake" against the forces of wind and tide.  The part of the chain that curves up from the sea bed to the vessel acts as a shock absorber, lessening the direct strain of the ship on the chain lying along the sea bed.  That chain weighs so much that to overcome its inertia and move whatever is attached to it takes a great deal of effort.  Even so, a big enough force (say, a major storm) can certainly accomplish that - which is why so many ships put to sea if a big storm approaches, to ride it out at a safe distance from the land.

See for yourself how big those chains can be.  The video title mentions "warships", but chains this big would apply only to the largest of them (say, an aircraft carrier or amphibious assault vessel).  Even bigger ones will be used aboard supertankers, ultra-large container ships, etc.

Here's how the process works.

Impressive!

Peter

That's the unspoken question posed by a cartel takeover of a Mexican port.

A sharp increase in drug seizures has been reported at Mexico’s west coast ports with caches discovered inside containers and vessels’ sea chests, said protection and indemnity club NorthStandard.

The alert follows the seizure earlier this month of 88 tonnes of chemicals needed for the manufacture of synthetic drugs at the country’s largest container port, Manzanillo.

Ports are a “critical part” of the criminal infrastructure of one of the most powerful cartels, the Sinaloa, which uses them to receive precursor chemicals and South American cocaine for trafficking into the US, according to a May report by the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

. . .

The DEA report said that the Pacific coast port of Mazatlan was wholly controlled by the Sinaloa cartel and they charged other drug trafficking organisations to use the port.

A long history of alliances with drug trafficking groups also gave the Sinaloa access to the port of Manzanillo, said the report.

The port is “strategically significant because of its location on the central Pacific Coast and its high volume of shipping traffic due to widespread use of the port by foreign countries to exchange legitimate trade goods with Mexico and to refuel”, said the agency in its 2024 national drug threat assessment.

There's more at the link.

It's all very well to go after criminals . . . but what if the administrators and bureaucrats controlling government functions (such as a port) are themselves criminals?  Remove them, and you'll have to appoint replacements - who will doubtless be threatened immediately with death or dismemberment, for themselves and/or their families, if they don't do precisely the same as their predecessors did.  "Plata o plomo", remember?

Also, how can any honest law enforcement agent or agency work with a port administration that's so clearly criminal?  Everything the latter learns about the "good guys" will undoubtedly be passed to the "bad guys", who will use the information to target law enforcement and operate with impunity.

Most worrying of all to me, we've just "imported" what are likely to be hundreds of thousands of cartel operatives and other criminals from South America, thanks to President Biden's border policies.  They're now inside our borders, and I'm sure some are already working in our harbors, airports, etc.  How long until they take over one of our transport hubs, and operate it for the benefit of their cartel buddies back home?

Peter

I've said nothing yet in these pages about yesterday's attempted assassination of former President Trump.  I won't have anything substantial to say until more information is available - and that may be some time in being made available.  I certainly don't trust the FBI to conduct a reliable, impartial, non-partisan investigation.  As Rep. Thomas Massie tweeted this morning:

Quite so.  I said some years ago that "The FBI can no longer be trusted in any way, shape or form".  I've seen nothing since then to make me change that opinion - rather the opposite, in fact.

And what about the abysmally poor security coverage of President Trump?  How, precisely, could a man with a clearly visible and identifiable rifle climb onto a rooftop only a few hundred feet from him, take aim, and fire several shots before being neutralized?  How did he penetrate the secure perimeter that should have been in place for several hundred yards around the venue?  Failure of security, much?

In years past, before being elected President, Trump hired a very efficient and effective Israeli security company to handle that sort of thing.  Perhaps he should do so again, to remind the Secret Service how it's done.  They appear to have forgotten.

Then there's this allegation.  It may be a complete fabrication - we don't know yet, and I've seen nothing to confirm it - but I'd love to know whether the shooter was observed by President Trump's security detail before he pulled the trigger, and if so, why none of them stopped him before he could do so.  Was permission to shoot denied?  If so, by whom?  And why?  And who told the leader(s) of his security team what to do under such circumstances?

As for all the calls for restraint from so-called "moderates" and the progressive/liberal/left-wing half of US politics . . . no.  Simply "No."  When the only candidate who offers anything to "constitutional Americans" - those who support our traditional values, who reject the political, social, economic and cultural "norms" of the Obama and Biden administrations - is targeted, so are all of us who want the same things.  I personally don't like the thought of a sometimes vulgar, sometimes obsessive, loudly outspoken President Trump in charge of the country again:  but if (as it currently appears) he's the only candidate who's prepared to dismantle the administrative "deep state" and restore our country to something at least approximating "government of the people, by the people and for the people", he'll have my vote every day and twice on Sundays.  I have nothing left about which to be moderate, because every time our side tries moderation, the other side grabs more power and refuses to relinquish it.  If it takes a morning star to beat some sense into their heads, I'll buy one, gift-wrap it and personally hand it to President Trump, along with a bouquet of roses and a smile.  The time for moderation just went out the window.

Several bloggers have been expecting an attempt on President Trump's life, and I've foreseen the possibility in several previous posts in these pages.  Yesterday, all of us were proven correct.  The only question now remaining is whether this was merely one facet of a much wider, deeper and more sinister plot.  Was it a "lone wolf" acting on his own?  Or was it the harbinger of many more such attempts, each fostered and encouraged by a progressive left wing of US politics (and its "deep state" allies) that will do literally anything to stop President Trump from being elected to a second term in office?  And will the FBI and Secret Service, both very much a part of the "deep state" and therefore tainted by association, offer more effective (and trustworthy) protection to him?  I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of that . . .

Finally, the assassination attempt has "rattled the cages" of vast numbers of Americans who thought it couldn't happen here.  Clearly, it could - and it has.  The result?  As SGAmmo, my favorite ammunition supplier, pointed out in its latest advertising flyer, published today:

It is safe to say the next rush to buy ammo is here. As I have talked about in past emails, the lion's share of the volume in the ammunition business is based on hoarding and panic buying, not consumption, and demand is such cases is a fear-driven. Yesterday, due to the tragic events, we saw order volume increase by about 2000%, 20 times recent normal from around 6pm CST to 11pm when I stopped monitoring the flow for the night. Order volume then sustain massive elevation through the night and into this morning ... Yesterday, we saw several  of our so-called 'competitors' raise prices almost instantly, especially on 5.56/223, and as of so far we have not increased any prices, however please consider this notice that there may be upward movement in the days ahead unless demand settles quickly.

Clearly, many US citizens understand that in uncertain times, you'd better have ammunition with which to respond to any threat requiring it.  As the old saying goes, "it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it".

I've got mine.  I hope you've got yours.  Keep it handy.

Peter

The phrase "the fog of war" has become a cliché, but it remains as true as it's always been.  It appears to have dominated Israel's initial response to the October 7, 2023 terrorist attacks.  Ynet News has published an extended interview with the pilots of some of the attack helicopters who tried to respond effectively on that day.  Here's an excerpt.

Do you even have a battle plan for an attack like this from the south?

Lt. Col. E.: “Yes. Since the 2014 Gaza War, we’ve been training for infiltration incidents in our territory, but we never imagined a reference scenario of this magnitude of a number of communities being infiltrated simultaneously.”

To be clear: There was an infiltration scenario and firing at terrorists in our territory does exist. It exists in our understanding, but it’s very extreme in our understanding. To get there, you must know that this is your only option, because in a battle plan where a soldier encounters a terrorist, it’s better to shoot him than firing mortars with a 100 square meter fall out range. 

What do your pilots see at the Re’im gate?

“They see the battle going on there – people running back and forth between the gate and the trees. They construct a picture and realize that these are definitely neither civilians nor our forces. They shoot and hit a group of terrorists inside the trees next to the parking lot. They kill six or seven. Before finishing the battle, they’re sent to another incident taking priority, and they move south.”

The division doesn’t ask them to say and carry on firing at the terrorists?

“The division tell them to move, that there’s another incident taking higher priority. They transfer them to work with the Southern Brigade.” 

But if the division command falls, response capabilities are damaged

“Everyone’s goal is protecting the communities. I don’t know of a commander in the army who would put the division, brigade or outpost above the community. I just don’t."

This modus operandi, transferring helicopters every few minutes from one place to another, carries on all morning. “Every five or six minutes, we were receiving call-outs to another incident,” says Lt. Col. E. “You can’t construct a picture as to where the more urgent thing is, so you go where they tell you.”

In hindsight, is this system of going from one spot to the next an effective method?

“If we’d have stayed in the same place the whole time with other forces - and there were cases like that - we might have prevented something from happening. But it affects the overall aggregate of what was going on at each separate battle at the same time. You can’t foresee what you’ll prevent at a given point.”

His colleague from the 190th Squadron, Lt. Col. A. says this question is hard to answer before investigations are completed. “There were places that helicopters finished off the incident in an hour, while in other places, helicopters operated for hours without bringing the incident to an end. Why? Perhaps there were fewer terrorists there, or maybe it was harder to get our forces in.”

There's much more at the link.

Those who've been "up the sharp end" will recognize much of what the pilots have to say.  Another way of putting it is the old saying, "Order, counter-order, disorder".  An individual command post has a problem, so it orders forces to deal with it, not realizing that there's a bigger problem a few miles away and the forces it needs have just been ordered (by a different command post) to deal with that one.  The forces concerned can only do their best to deal with a hard-to-understand, fractured situation - and risk being court-martialed if they do it wrong, because most command posts (and individuals) are never going to blame themselves.  They'll use the fighting forces as scapegoats.

It's a problem that's been with any and all armed forces since the first organized command structure was developed.  It'll probably end with the heat death of the universe, but even that can't be guaranteed.

Peter

I note that a proposal to limit the speed of large trucks has been put off until next year.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will delay a potential rule on speed limiters for heavy-duty vehicles once again — this time postponing rulemaking to May 2025, according to a regulatory agenda.

. . .

The proposal seeks to cover interstate commercial vehicles weighing 26,001 pounds or more equipped with an electronic engine control unit capable of governing the truck, whereby the device would restrict the equipment to “a speed to be determined by the rulemaking,” per the updated agenda.

The issue has drawn critics and supporters. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has said such limits would disrupt traffic flow and lead to more crashes. The Truckload Carriers Association noted room for flexibility with the devices, suggesting 65 mph or 70 mph restrictions and a need to reexamine policy every five years.

There's more at the link.

On the face of it, it sounds like a useful idea.  I've been passed by, and have had to avoid, fast-moving 18-wheelers, and I'm sure many of us have been scared by them on the roads too often for comfort.  However, this is yet another "thin end of the wedge" issue.  If, after a year or two of limited truck speeds, some unelected bureaucrat or progressive-left pressure group claims that lower limits have been a success from a safety perspective, and that therefore lighter vehicles should also be limited in their maximum speed . . . how will that be countered?

I can think of a few good arguments against it:

• In an emergency - for example, if you want to get someone to the hospital in a hurry - a speed-limited vehicle may prevent you arriving there in time to save the victim.
• Sometimes you need speed to get out of the way of a fast-moving hazard (for example, a vehicle barreling along a roadway out of control).  If you can't go faster than your vehicle's speed limiter allows, you may not be able to avoid the resulting accident.

Also, what happens when speed limits are arbitrarily lowered due to external pressures?  As an example, consider the National Maximum Speed Law passed in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis, leading to  Sammy Hagar's famous protest that "I can't drive 55!"  The lowered speed limit was extremely unpopular among almost all motorists, and was abandoned as soon as feasible;  but we don't know whether that outcome would be permitted this time around.  The Karens in our administrative state would doubtless do all they could to grab, and hold onto, yet another way to control us.

Vehicle speed limiters are now mandatory in all European Union nations.  How soon until we face the same official mandate?

Peter

Welcome to the urban world of the 2020's, in at least some American cities.  An NBC affiliate reports:

Delivery drivers in the South Bay say they're increasingly worried about becoming robbery targets.

It's happening enough that at least one company, Core Mart, is now hiring armed guards to escort its drivers.

Darrell Cortez, a retired San Jose police officer who now works in corporate and retail security, said, "Unfortunately, this is what society has become now with armed guards guarding merchandise from the retailer because there seems to be a sense of lawlessness in our society."

There's more at the link.

And we're supposed to go into those stores in those cities and spend our hard-earned money there, despite the risks posed by thieves outside and inside, aggressive panhandlers, drug addicts looking for a quick score, homeless folks with unpredictable and frequently unsafe behavior living on the streets, and who knows what else?

It makes the old Budweiser tail gunner joke sound rather more real than funny!

Sorry.  Count me out.  I prefer to live and shop in safer climes.

Peter

I've been in contact with friends and acquaintances in the Houston area since major storms hit that city a couple of weeks ago.  Most of the "lessons learned" in coping with a disaster are ones we've already discussed in these pages.  However, a number of folks had bought or installed power stations, whether stand-alone or "whole home" solutions, and they had interesting things to report.

First of all, these things are expensive.  A minimal setup to run a small home would be something like Bluetti's AC500, coupled with two B300S battery packs (that's just an example - there are equivalent systems from many other manufacturers and vendors).  That can produce up to 5,000 watts of power (double that for a startup load), and supply up to 6,144 watt-hours of power - enough to run most common electrical appliances for a couple of days, if one is judicious about not running too many of them at once.  Such a system typically costs $4,000 to $5,000, or a bit less if one looks for the frequent sales offered by such vendors.  That's far more expensive than a generator.

However, despite their cost, power stations offer advantages.

• The system can plug into a main electrical switchboard, using a connector that shuts off mains power when the backup is in use and vice versa.  That means one doesn't need extension cords running all over the place to be plugged in at a central location.  One can simply use the house's existing wiring and plugs.
• One doesn't have the constant noise, fuel consumption and inconvenience of a generator that requires relatively constant attention.  A small- to medium-size generator can be run once a day to charge the power station, and/or one can plug in solar panels (if necessary, together with the generator) to do the same thing.  I'm informed that 3-6 hours of generator use per day was enough to keep such power stations running.
• The relative lack of generator use meant that the house was not so noisy (and therefore noticeable to thieves and looters).  There was the usual rash of low-lifes trying to steal generators from homes that announced (by the noise) that they were running one.  Without that noise, there was less to alert them.  In a longer-term disaster, one could make sure that one's windows were "blacked out" so as not to reveal light at night, making it even safer.  (If one used solar panels exclusively, not running a generator at all, that would be even quieter.)
• Some of my contacts didn't have large power stations, but had one or two smaller ones, 500W to 2,000W (the sort one can take on a day trip, or camping, or to run a travel trailer's electrics).  They reported that while their smaller units could not run the whole house, they were nevertheless very useful.  One took a 550W unit into his garage, where he had two freezers, and ran them for an hour or two twice a day, which was enough to keep the food inside them safely frozen.  He recharged the small power station with a portable solar panel.  Others used them at night to power CPAP machines and the like.
• On the other hand, some people with large, immovable power stations (such as the Tesla Powerwall) reported that as the waters rose, they came up to the big battery packs mounted on the wall.  For fear of electrocution and other problems, they switched off their installations and did without power for as long as it took for the water to recede.  I know Tesla claims its installation is proof against up to two feet of water, but if I were in those owners' shoes, I'd also be wary of trusting that completely.  Those with more portable power stations simply wheeled them out of harm's way (losing power in the process, of course, but preserving them against future need).

Peter

It turns out that re-scheduling marijuana to a lower drug classification has left the trucking industry with a big problem and few options to solve it.

The trucking industry is raising concerns about President Joe Biden downgrading marijuana to a lower level of drug classification — especially how the move could threaten highway safety.

The American Trucking Associations’ and Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association’s questions about reclassifying cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug include how it would affect carriers’ ability to test drivers for the substance.

“Absent an explicit allowance for continued employer marijuana testing of safety-sensitive workers, this change may have considerable negative consequences for highway safety and safety-sensitive industries,” the ATA said in a letter to three federal department heads.

There's more at the link.

It really is a big problem.  Marijuana can affect one's reflexes, concentration, etc. just as badly as alcohol, particularly when it comes to synthetic marijuana or a high-strength varietal.  Cops I speak to tell me it's already a very large problem in big cities, where the majority of drug users are to be found, and even in smaller towns it's making its presence felt.

I don't know how they're going to handle testing and disciplinary requirements.  If marijuana is officially no longer considered as dangerous, can drivers be fired for using it?  They (or their lawyers) could argue that if using it is not against the law, the drivers cannot be punished for using it.  And how does one measure the actual level of intoxication?  The alcohol content of blood can be measured, providing an objective result that can be used in court if necessary, but I'm not aware of any similar measurement that can quantify the "level of marijuana" one's smoked or eaten.

It's all very well to "liberalize" marijuana legislation to cater to society's changing views on its use, but if it adds (or makes worse) more danger on the roads, that's anything but OK.  It's yet another worry when one's behind the wheel . . .

Peter

Remember the collapse of the Surfside condo complex in Miami, Florida, almost three years ago?

On June 24, 2021, at approximately 1:22 a.m. EDT, Champlain Towers South, a 12-story beachfront condominium in the Miami suburb of Surfside, Florida, United States, partially collapsed, causing the deaths of 98 people. Four people were rescued from the rubble, but one died of injuries shortly after arriving at the hospital. Eleven others were injured. Approximately thirty-five were rescued the same day from the un-collapsed portion of the building, which was demolished ten days later.

A contributing factor under investigation is long-term degradation of reinforced concrete structural support in the basement-level parking garage under the pool deck, due to water penetration and corrosion of the reinforcing steel. The problems had been reported in 2018 and noted as "much worse" in April 2021. A $15 million program of remedial works had been approved before the collapse, but the main structural work had not started.

There's more at the link.

The full impact of that tragedy is only now becoming evident in condo complexes up and down the Florida coast.  The same neglect that led to the Surfside collapse has been found in literally hundreds of other buildings, and the repair bills are colossal - so much so that owners can't afford them.

Have a Florida condo? Can you afford a $100,000 or higher special assessment for new safety standards?

After the collapse of a Surfside Building on June 24, 2021that killed 98 people, the state passed a structural safety law that is now biting owners.

Not only are insurance rates soaring, but owners are hit with huge special assessments topping $100,000.

. . .

Those who cannot sell and don’t have the special assessment, will be evicted and their units seized for whatever the Associations can get for them.

South Florida listings have doubled in the past year to over 18,000. Few of those units will sell, and those that do sell will be at a huge haircut.

Again, more at the link.

The structural safety law is entirely necessary from any rational perspective.  Unfortunately, many of those who bought condos in Florida - some of them decades ago, when prices were far lower - are now on the hook to pay for those repairs.  Some can afford it, but others have had no choice but to try to sell their now almost valueless condos to buyers who aren't prepared to pay for the sins or omissions of the past.  Many of them are now facing bankruptcy and possible homelessness.

What I find most infuriating is that the condo associations should have carried out normal preventive maintenance over the years;  should have had their buildings inspected regularly to detect problems before they got out of control;  and should have set aside adequate financial reserves to pay to repair them.  That's nothing more than basic common sense:  but it seems few did so.  The condo owners didn't want the trouble or expense involved.  To make matters worse, many of them now affected by the problem are trying to weasel their way out of it any way they can - despite the consequences of doing so being so starkly visible to everyone concerned.

State law previously allowed condos to waive reserve funding year after year, leading many buildings ... to keep next to nothing in their coffers.

. . .

Residents still meet ... to celebrate birthdays. But now, those gatherings are often charged with owners pooling documentation in hope of finding evidence that the assessments should be lower.

Some are worried developers may already be purchasing condos in the building for a potential takeover, where a developer tries to gain control of a building to knock it down and build a newer, more luxurious one. These condo terminations are happening up and down the state’s coastline. While the rules can vary by building, if enough people vote to sell their units, the others have to follow along.

More at the link.

One can't blame the developers.  If a unit's value has plummeted thanks to the cost of repairs, of course those with money - and an eye to make more money - are going to take advantage of the situation by buying it at a fire sale price, and buying as many as they can, in order to outvote longer-term residents and make more money out of redeveloping the site and/or building.  I'm afraid that's yet another consequence of owners refusing to invest in their condos during the "golden years", and now having to pay huge sums due to their previous neglect.  What goes around, comes around.

I suppose this is yet another example of why it's foolish to trust one's home and finances to a group of owners who may not have the right priorities.  The few responsible owners who would have been willing to pay for upkeep were undoubtedly outvoted by those who preferred to minimize maintenance in order to maximize their budgets, individual and corporate.  Now that they're all in the same (sinking) boat, they don't want to acknowledge that it's ultimately their own fault.  Human nature is still as self-centered as always . . .

*Sigh*

Peter

They are indeed.  I've seen them used as fighting weapons far too many times in the Third World, and the damage that results.

Click over to Gun Free Zone's post about that, and watch the video.  WARNING:  It's not for the squeamish or faint at heart.  You'll see a hand chopped right off, among other injuries.

Keep that in mind when you're next threatened by a machete, or a sharpened garden spade, or any improvised edged weapon (not to mention conventional knives).  If you get up close and personal in a knife fight, you almost certainly will get cut, if not much more severely injured.  It goes with the territory.

That's also why I tend towards larger, heavier calibers of handgun when in environments where that sort of danger may be a threat.  I want to stop anyone heading my way with such a weapon in their hands.  Smaller calibers and cartridges may work . . . but then again, they may not.

Peter

An article in the New York Post set me to thinking.

New Yorkers are fortifying their homes with panic rooms and bullet-proof doors like never before over fears about crime, migrants and national turmoil — and it’s not just the city’s elite partaking in the trend.

“Not every [customer] is an ultra-rich stockbroker — a lot of them are just people, middle-class kind of people,” said Steve Humble, founder of the home-defense contractor Creative Home Engineering.

“I’d say the pandemic really kicked off an uptick. Business was really good throughout the pandemic time, and it really hasn’t slowed down,” said Humble, who specializes in top-of-the-line secret doors disguised as bookshelves, fireplaces, mirrors, blank walls and whatever else a client can think of to conceal a safety room behind them.

He is one of numerous home-defense contractors who told The Post that the past four years have been a boon for business, with New Yorkers from all walks of life shelling out thousands of dollars to outfit their homes with hidden rooms, bulletproof doors and a swath of other covert security systems to keep the baddies at bay should they come knocking.

The driving force is a decline in New Yorkers’ sense of safety — assaults in the Big Apple reached 28,000 for the first time on record last year  — and the perceptible shift toward volatile instability that many people feel is ramping up across all of American society, Humble and others say.

There's more at the link.

I suppose a panic room might be a defense against a psycopathic nitwit who can't add two and two together to get four.  Such an assailant might not be able to distinguish between his shoe size and his IQ.  However, for almost all other attackers, a panic room simply gives them an excuse to rob the homeowner blind while he/she/they cower in their illusory "safe place", unable to stop them.  What's more, check the police response times in your neighborhood.  It often takes cops ten to fifteen minutes or more to respond to most 911 calls.  During that time, while you're cowering in your safe room, what are the home invaders doing to you and/or your possessions?

It gets worse.  Panic rooms offer an attacker an opportunity to murder everyone in the building, because they make it almost impossible to escape.  If the attacker simply strikes a match or two and sets fire to the place, how are those in the panic room to get away from the flames?  Panic rooms pin down their occupants, fix them in place.  It's no good saying that they can have hidden exits to escape such a fate;  those exits have to come out somewhere, and if (as it almost always is) those exits are on the same property (much less in the same building), who's to say they won't have caught fire by the time those in the panic room want to use them?  And what if they use them, only to emerge surrounded by frustrated attackers who've been looking for them?

Tying yourself down to a supposedly secure location, but one where you're unable to defend yourself against attackers, is a disaster waiting to happen.  I'd much rather harden the exterior of my home, making it as difficult as possible for someone to break in, and then defend my family and property from inside.  Even more tactically suitable would be to prevent the attackers from approaching in the first place.  This is why one should select a home in as safe a neighborhood as possible (although in today's climate of highly mobile criminals, street riots and other crimes, that safety may be illusory).

One last point.  If you're in an apartment building or condo complex, you've made yourself hostage to the security-mindedness and safety-consciousness (or lack thereof) of everyone else living there.  Trapping yourself above ground level is always a security risk.  You don't need an attacker to strike a match:  a domestic accident can start a fire just as easily as a criminal.  How are you going to get out of your apartment and down to ground level?  Are there multiple exits, and paths to reach those exits?  Is the building constructed of relatively fireproof materials?  What businesses or attractive targets are in the building that might attract criminals to it?  Unless and until those questions are satisfactorily answered (and, if necessary, their answers have persuaded you to move to a safer location), a panic or safe room is a lot lower on the priority list.

I won't worry about a panic room.  After eighteen years living (and frequently fighting) in a war zone, I'd rather arm myself and inflict panic on my attackers!

Peter

I can get behind President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador whole-heartedly.  We recently discussed his crackdown on narco and gang violence in his country, leading to his re-election with an overwhelming majority of the vote.

His next step?

The 'unapologetic dictator' and 43rd President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele launched an anti-corruption investigation into the entire executive branch of his government. Just like Anil Kapoor-starrer Bollywood movie 'Nayak', the businessman turned politician ordered every single official to gather in an assembly, where he announced the decision to inquire them for bribery. The move is seen as a strike against graft back home in the Central American nation.

The video of Bukele asking the Attorney General to investigate the entire executive branch including the cabinet members for corruption has gone viral online. The faces of the officials sitting and gathered at the assembly could tell that they were shocked and taken aback by the move.

There's more at the link.  You'll find a video recording of President Bukele making his announcement here.

I love it!  It would be marvelous if we could do the same thing in Washington D.C., not to mention every one of our fifty State capitals.  The only problem would be to find enough uncorrupted investigators to do the work!

Peter

The BBC reports that Colombia's armed forces are missing a whole bunch of ammunition and weapons.

Colombia's military has lost millions of bullets, thousands of grenades and several missiles, the nation's president has said.

Gustavo Petro ... said the missing items came to light during surprise visits to two military bases - Tolemaida and La Guajira - on 12 February and 1 April, respectively.

At Tolemaida, there was a shortfall of more than 808,000 bullets and nearly 10,000 fewer grenades than the inventory listed on official records.

Meanwhile at La Guajira, the discrepancies included nearly 4.2 million bullets and more than 9,300 grenades. Mr Petro also said the base had lost two Spike missiles, 37 Nimrod missiles and 550 rocket-propelled grenades.

He told reporters that the military supplies would have been passed on to armed groups within Colombia, but could have been smuggled to Haiti or the international black market.

There's more at the link.

I'm sure the personnel at those military bases were delighted (NOT!) to have snap inspections of their facilities, giving them no warning and leaving them no time to cover up the missing items.  I'm sure many of them made a lot of money by diverting them to weapons smugglers.  I hope it'll be enough to compensate them for the years in prison that will likely be coming their way.

That sort of chicanery is a real problem in the drug wars.  Mexico's cartels are armed with full-auto military weapons that they've largely obtained from the Mexican armed forces and those in countries to the south.  When they have so much money at their disposal, it's not difficult to bribe those in charge of the weapons to turn a blind eye to wholesale theft.  Trouble is, those cartels then turn their weapons against their own authorities, and against the US as well in the form of ambushes directed against the Border Patrol, Customs officers and other law enforcement personnel.  Many such weapons have been found smuggled into this country, and in the possession of local cartel distributors.  The latest one I heard of amounted to more than 20 full-auto assault rifles, more than 100 magazines and over 5,000 rounds of ammunition, plus several hand-grenades and a rocket launcher.  That's enough to give any local police force conniption fits.  They're severely outgunned.

Of course, the gun-grabbers' answer is to blame private firearms owners for "allowing" their guns to be stolen, or selling them to the cartels.  That's largely not the case.  Private owners seldom own full-auto weapons, and almost never explosive devices.  Those are sourced from corrupt militaries more than anywhere else.  It's not a comfortable thought that law-abiding citizens like you and I might have to face up to criminals armed in that fashion.  I feel outgunned already.

Peter

A proposed city separation in Louisiana has all the usual suspects screaming "Racist!" (as usual).

Wealthy white Baton Rouge residents have won a decade-long court battle to split from poorer neighborhoods and form their own city with plans for better schools and less crime. 

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the new City of St George could move forward with incorporation, splitting off from the rest of Baton Rouge. 

St George will have 86,000 residents across a 60-square-mile area in the southeast of East Baton Rouge Parish and will have its own Mayor and city council.

Supporters of the new city say that the existing city-parish government is poorly run, with high crime rates and bad schools. 

Opponents say the movement is 'racist' and will create a 'white enclave' as it separates a wealthy area of the city from the majority Black city and school district.

There's more at the link.

I lived in Louisiana for more than a decade.  I know Baton Rouge reasonably well.  I'm pretty sure you'll find those living in the proposed City of St. George are not primarily whites objecting to sharing the city with blacks.  I'm confident you'll find they're simply sick and tired of paying the highest rates in the city, only to receive exceptionally poor treatment at the hands of the municipality, which has for years (decades!) taken that money and used it to employ, service and subsidize poorer people in the city while neglecting "the goose that laid the golden eggs".  Now that the goose has decided it will no longer put up with that, and instead wishes to improve its lot in life, they're screaming that the problems are the goose's fault - racism, rich vs. poor, haves versus have-nots, and all the rest of the usual slogans.

The same scenario has played itself out in other American cities, notably Buckhead in Atlanta, GA.  In every case of which I'm aware, the same allegations of racism, elitism, etc. have been leveled against those who want to escape the poorer morass that's absorbing their high rates and leaving them with almost no return on their money.  That applies particularly to security.  Criminals from the poorer areas target those living in the rich areas, because that's where the money is - but the city police do nothing extra to protect those targeted areas, often under instruction from the City Council to do so.  It's understandable that the victims of crime feel more than a little aggravated by it, and want something done about it.  They've finally decided to do it themselves, since they can't rely on the city's leaders to do their job.

When will the progressive left learn that if you steal the goose's golden eggs for long enough, it'll take itself off to where it can lay its eggs in safety, free from your rapacious clutches?  Why should the richer suburbs subsidize the poorer without any return for themselves?  If they were treated fairly and equitably, they probably wouldn't mind so much:  but when they're basically robbed blind to pay off poorer areas, they get a mite tetchy about it.  In their shoes, so would I.

I hope the City of St. George will serve as a wake-up call to other Baton Rouges around the country.  Don't push your greed too far, or it may come back to bite you right on your fundamental jujube.

Peter

Andrew Fox is a former Major in Britain's armed forces, who served three combat tours in Afghanistan.  He posted this tweet a few days ago.  I've taken the liberty of reproducing it in full.

I gave a presentation this morning, partly about Afghanistan. On the drive home it set me thinking.

My hunch is that part of the reason for Western protests about Gaza is a total failure to understand what urban war is, and what it looks like, and people are horrified to see it. Totally understandable. Now couple that to a powerful disinformation campaign that exploits those feelings of horror and tells them what they’re seeing and can’t comprehend (urban war) is something else (genocide).

As a commander in Afghanistan on my first two tours, which were before the “counterinsurgency” era, I saw my job as being to apply maximum violence to kill the enemy legally within rules of engagement. If I had a Harrier or an A-10 or an Apache to call on, I’d use that as a first option. If not, I’d use mortars or Javelin or machine guns if I had them. Only as a last resort would I commit my rifle sections.

That’s war. And that’s what Israel is fighting, on a far more brutal scale. Hamas and the surrounding Iranian proxies are an existential threat to Israel’s existence as a country. It’s that which people in the West fail to understand. We’re used to expeditionary wars of choice on the other side of the world. Israel has kibbutzim 5km from where their troops are fighting. The IDF in Gaza can look over their shoulders and see their home. It’s a totally different perspective on war from the one we in the West are used to. 

Hamas have to be deleted as a fighting force for Israel to survive as a country with safe borders. To achieve that is the single most basic function of government. This isn’t a war Israel wants but it’s one they’ve been forced to fight. They’ve already taken double the fatalities the British did in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. 

If they wanted to, they could stand off with jets, and hit Gaza City and Khan Younis and Rafah simultaneously and level the place - and legally. If it’s a military target and you can justify the collateral damage, the law of armed conflict says that’s legal. That Israel hasn’t done that tells you all you need to know about whether this is a genocide or not.

I don’t blame people for being sucked in by disinformation about Gaza. It’s been sophisticated and effective information warfare. I have no limits to my contempt for those who throw around “genocide” when they know perfectly well it isn’t. The most serious of crimes shouldn’t be debased like that, and shame on South Africa and their allies who have abused international law in this way.

War is horrifying, brutal, and extremely violent. Gaza isn’t a conventional counter-terror campaign. We saw on 7 October how well armed, organised and tactically aware Hamas are. They use human and humanitarian shields. They’ve forced Israel into the only appropriate response, and it’s the innocents in Gaza who suffer. That the numbers of innocents injured and killed is so low is a testament to the IDF using tactics that have incurred far higher IDF casualties than other options on the table.

“War is hell” is a cliche for a reason. But it’s nothing more than a war that we see in Gaza.

That's the military reality of the situation in Gaza at resent.  It's a war.  It's not a "peace mission" or a "genocide" or an "occupation" at all.  Israel was attacked, and now it's defending itself in the only way possible - by removing the attackers and the threat they represent.  That's a very harsh reality . . . but it is reality.  To pretend otherwise is stupid.

Peter

First, Haiti:

Haiti’s capital has been thrown into further chaos after its top warlord ordered his soldiers to “burn every house you find” – as the nation struggles to usher in a new government.

Notorious gang leader Jimmy “Barbeque” Cherizier, 47, was heard on social media messages on Sunday inciting his men to clash against police and burn down homes indiscriminately across Port-au-Prince, including Lower Delmas where he grew up. 

“Continue burning the houses. Make everybody leave,” says a man in the audio recordings who is believed to be Cherizier.   

“No need to know which house. Burn every house you find. Set the fire,” he adds, claiming to have sent jugs of gasoline to the gangsters. 

Local residents have verified that houses have been set a blaze in the capital, with Radio Tele Galaxie reporting loud blasts and gunfire echoing across city hall as Lower Delmas has turned into “a battlefield between police and armed gangs.”

Along with the gunfights along city hall and the National Palace, gangsters also looted the State University of Haiti’s medical facility overnight, local Radio RFM reports. 

With officials and human rights groups estimating that as much as 90% of the capital is now controlled by violent gangs, fears have grown that Cherizier has united them in an effort to seize control of the nation during a period of transition.

Sunday’s order to attack came ahead of the installation of a transitional council preparing to establish a new government after Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry fled the nation. 

There's more at the link.

As we've mentioned before in these pages, successive Haitian governments (if that's a valid description of them) have allied with various gangs in order to achieve political power, then plunder the national treasury under the guise of governing.  The inevitable result is that the gangs have grown tired of ruling through middlemen, and want to govern directly, without giving up a cut of the loot to politicians.  Tragically, the people of Haiti have never risen up and demanded proper government.  If they had, this could have been nipped in the bud years ago.  They didn't;  so now they're paying the price.

Contrast this with El Salvador, where the people got fed up with the gangs, the corruption and the criminality of their society, and did something about it.

The man who transformed El Salvador from one of the most dangerous countries in the world to one of the safest, President Nayib Bukele, is despised by liberals.

. . .

In 2022, after a gang war resulted in the deaths of 87 people over a period of just three days, Bukele took action against crime. He constructed the country’s largest prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo or CECOT), with a capacity for 40,000 gang members. And he began filling it.

Out of gratitude for restoring peace in the country, voters reelected him with 85% of the vote. Human rights groups, who live in safe, wealthy Western nations, have criticized Bukele for violations of the rights of suspects.

But the logic is flawless. Only gang members have gang tattoos. If anyone else gets a gang tattoo, they will be killed by the gang. The same is true for tattoo artists.

They would be killed for giving gang tattoos to non-gang members. Additionally, part of the initiation to joining a gang is to commit a serious crime, often murder. Once they become a member, their full-time job is to commit crimes. So, logically, anyone with a gang tattoo is a gang member and has committed crimes.

. . .

The state of emergency he declared in 2022, and has renewed several times since, suspends the constitutional rights of the gang members and bypasses the corrupt courts and justice system, which had allowed the criminals to reign for decades. Since then, 75,000 gang members have been arrested, and 7,000 have been released.

Again, more at the link.

Notice how President Bukele's measures completely bypass and render impotent the corrupt liberal institutions of "justice".  You won't find progressive prosecutors letting off offenders with a token slap on the wrist, or setting them free the same day they're arrested after making them promise to attend court when summoned.  Those offenders, under El Salvador's system, are checked for gang tattoos, and video of them outside and inside jail is scrutinized.  One gang tattoo, one flashed gang sign, and they're automatically classified as gang members and imprisoned.  They have the right to argue their detention, and about 10% have been released;  but most can't demonstrate their innocence, and they're still locked up.  The people of El Salvador, delighted to be able to venture outside their homes in safety for the first time in years (if not decades), have just shown whose side they're on by re-electing President Bukele and his party with overwhelming support - to the distress and hand-wringing of said liberals and progressives, who see all their favorite soft-on-crime approaches being ground into the mud.

Now look at the USA.  States and cities where liberal, progressive attitudes are applied are drowning in crime.  Don't believe the "official" crime statistics, either - they're deliberately flawed, biased and under-reported.  Ask the people who live there.  They'll tell you the reality.  Contrast those states and cities with those where law and order takes a higher priority, and see the difference.  People from the first group are migrating to the second group as fast as they can afford to.

Tragically, the Biden administration is admitting millions upon millions of migrants from high-crime, low-trust societies (including Haiti) into the USA, without so much as a background check.  That's going to make our crime situation much, much worse.  It already is in some places.  What will we, the people of the USA, do about it?  Will we demand our own Bukele to rein in the criminals?  Or will we roll over, supine, and let the gangs dominate?

The liberals and progressives do have one accurate point in all this.  Throughout history, whenever a "strong man" appears offering a solution to crime and other ills, he's ended up becoming more or less a dictator, and often has had to be removed violently in his turn.  That's a real danger here in the USA right now.  Tragically, those same liberals and progressives don't seem to realize that their insistence on unfettered immigration from high-crime, low-trust societies is paving the way for such a dictator to arise here too.

President Bukele didn't come out of nowhere.  He rose to power through offering a relatively simple, yet Draconian, solution to El Salvador's crime problem.  How will this nation react if someone offers that recipe here?  Can our constitutional republic survive such an authoritarian figure any better than it can survive chaos and criminal anarchy?  Your guess is as good as mine . . .

Peter

Some months ago, speaking about "Ground combat in an age of drone warfare", I said:

I predict we'll see new drones designed to do nothing but hunt down the other side's drones.  Think World War I.  Initially, aircraft were used only for reconnaissance, finding out what the enemy was up to.  In due course, the first bombs were dropped, to disrupt what the enemy was doing.  To stop both activities, fighter aircraft were designed to stop enemy aircraft from doing their thing.  I think we'll see "fighter drones" coming down the pike, to do precisely the same thing in modern terms.  I'll be very surprised indeed if they're not already being developed, along with weapons to equip them for that task.

Just one week later, I wrote about two Western interceptor drone systems that are being tested.

It seems that Russia has now developed its own interceptor drone technology, according to this video clip on Bitchute.  I'm sorry about the noisy advertisement embedded before the actual video:  I can't prevent that, but after only a few seconds you can select an option to skip the rest of the advert.  I recommend doing that.

I've no idea what drone system that is, but it certainly seems to be effective against relatively slow-moving quadcopter-type drone systems (those most often encountered over the Ukrainian battlefield).  If any reader knows more, please let us know in Comments.

We're seeing a much faster, rapid development environment in drone warfare than we have in most past "conventional" wars.  That's partly because the computer technology involved has become over-the-counter.  One no longer has to specially develop a chip or control system:  something already developed for other purposes can be re-programmed to do what one wants.  It's no longer necessary to spend months and millions of dollars designing a solution tailored for a single purpose.  Also, commercial components for light drones are freely available at very low prices.  Those developing them can buy what they want almost anywhere, and for not much money.  (For example, Ukraine has developed many different models, including this innovative - and very low-cost - "kamikaze" drone, costing between $5,000 and $10,000 apiece.  If one of those hits a battlefield vehicle like a tank or armored personnel carrier or artillery piece, any of which will cost many times as much, it's an economic victory every time as well as a tactical win.)

Sheer economics made interceptor drones inevitable.  If it takes a multi-hundred-thousand-dollar shoulder-fired missile to take out a ten-thousand-dollar drone coming towards one, it soon becomes impossible to afford such exchanges.  On the other hand, a ten-thousand-dollar drone intercepted by another ten-thousand-dollar drone is a much more affordable solution - and the much more expensive installations and vehicles protected by those interceptor drones will still be intact and able to operate.  It's a no-brainer.  I'm sure we'll see many more interceptor and fighter drones in the very near future.

Peter

... if ever there was a self-inflicted injury, this was it.

The Long Island doctor who was fatally thrown out of her family’s Airstream should never have been in the RV while it was in motion, the manufacturer says.

Dr. Monika Woroniecka, 58, was not following Airstream’s guidance when she was hurled out of the door of the moving trailer and onto State Route 12E in upstate New York around 3 p.m. Saturday, the company said.

“Airstream travel trailers are not designed to carry passengers while in motion,” the company said in a statement.

“The safety protocol detailed in Airstream’s operating manuals and shared on Airstream’s website advises owners that they cannot tow an Airstream with people inside,” the statement continued.

“Many states prohibit carrying passengers in a travel trailer or fifth wheel, and we advise owners to consult their state’s Department of Motor Vehicles for up-to-date regulations.”

It also is illegal in New York to tow passengers in a “house coach trailer” while it is hitched to a vehicle and on the road.

. . .

Woroniecka struck her head on the road median, police explained.

She was pronounced dead at Samaritan Medical Center.

There's more at the link.

I'd have thought this was absolutely basic, foundational knowledge:  don't travel in any towed vehicle, ever!  It's illegal almost everywhere I know, and almost all manufacturers of such vehicles warn against the practice as well.  Yet now the deceased's daughter is apparently trying to put at least some of the blame for the tragedy on Airstream.

“This was an accident. Pure accident, and there’s nobody to blame. This is nobody’s fault,” Helena said. 

“Sure, maybe Airstream doesn’t advise traveling inside the trailer. But we thought maybe that the last 20 minutes of an eight-hour drive on very quiet and slow country roads would be fine,” Helena said.

“And it’s perfectly legal to do so in some states.

“It was just a crazy accident,” she said.

Still, “The doors on the Airstream open the opposite way that you would expect. It doesn’t take an engineering degree to know that on any moving vehicle, whether a bus or a car or a trailer, doors should open against the wind, not towards it,” Helena told The Post.

“That seems like a significant safety oversight to me and seems like the only reason they do open that way is to protect the awning of the trailer.”

Again, more at the link.

No, young lady, this was no safety oversight, and there's no flaw in the design, because the door was never intended to be opened - from within or outside - while the trailer was in motion!  When the trailer is parked, it's an entirely safe design.

As a pastor and chaplain, I've long since lost count of the number of surviving relatives of a victim of tragedy who've tried to blame anyone and anything they can think of for their loved one's death.  It might be another driver, or a police officer or EMS vehicle that didn't respond quickly or effectively enough (in their opinion), or even the attending chaplain for not praying hard enough (yes, I've actually been accused of that!).  People appear to find it impossible to accept that "pure" accidents happen, where someone is killed solely because they happened to be at the scene at the wrong time, or nature did her sometimes terminal thing (e.g. a lightning strike, or a tree falling due to internal rot) just when someone happened to be standing there.

Life happens.  So does death.  Sometimes there's no explanation possible.  Sometimes somebody or something else is to blame.  However, there are times - such as this incident - where the explanation is simply that the victim did something foolish, and paid the price.

May God rest Dr. Woroniecka's soul, and bring what comfort there may be to those who survive her.  That's all one can say.

Peter

It seems that visitors to Jeffery Epstein's island may not have been as anonymous as they might wish.

NEARLY 200 MOBILE devices of people who visited Jeffrey Epstein’s notorious “pedophile island” in the years prior to his death left an invisible trail of data pointing back to their own homes and offices. Maps of these visitations generated by a troubled international data broker with defense industry ties, discovered last week by WIRED, document the numerous trips of wealthy and influential individuals seemingly undeterred by Epstein’s status as a convicted sex offender.

The data amassed by Near Intelligence, a location data broker roiled by allegations of mismanagement and fraud, reveals with high precision the residences of many guests of Little Saint James, a United States Virgin Islands property where Epstein is accused of having groomed, assaulted, and trafficked countless women and girls.

Some girls, prosecutors say, were as young as 14. The former attorney general of the US Virgin Islands alleged that girls as young as 12 were trafficked to Epstein by those within his elite social circle.

The coordinates that Near Intelligence collected and left exposed online pinpoint locations to within a few centimeters of space. Visitors were tracked as they moved from the Ritz-Carlton on neighboring St. Thomas Island, for instance, to a specific dock at the American Yacht Harbor—a marina once co-owned by Epstein that hosts an “impressive array” of pleasure boats and mega-yachts. The data pinpointed their movements as they were transported to Epstein’s dock on Little St. James, revealing the exact routes taken to the island.

The tracking continued after they arrived. From inside Epstein's enigmatic waterfront temple to the pristine beaches, pools, and cabanas scattered across his 71-acres of prime archipelagic real estate, the data compiled by Near captures the movements of scores of people who sojourned at Little St. James as early as July 2016. The recorded surveillance concludes on July 6, 2019—the day of Epstein’s final arrest.

There's more at the link.

Unfortunately, the article does not identify any of the devices by its owner.  I don't know why not - I mean, it's not as if they're alleging that the owners of those devices actually did anything illegal, immoral or fattening, is it?  All they could say with any certainty is that on a given date, that device - presumably in the possession of its owner - was on Epstein's island, and took a known, traceable route to and from the island.  That's not actionable in any way . . . at least, not yet.

One suspects that the owners of those devices have already taken steps to destroy them and "fudge" the records, to suggest that a subordinate or an employee was actually using them at the time.  I'd love to have been a fly on the wall to listen to the panicked conversations when the Wired article was first published.

It's a complete and utter disgrace that not a single name from Epstein's "little black book" has been published so far.  The authorities have been in possession of the names of visitors to his island for years - in some cases, decades.  Their refusal to release them strongly suggests as much of a cover-up as claims that Epstein committed suicide in prison.  (If you believe the latter, I have this bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, NYC.  It's a real bargain!  Cash only, please, and in small used bills.)

Despite this official intransigence, I hope that the names will one day become known.  One hopes against hope that it will be soon enough to make it possible to bring any guilty parties to justice.

Peter

Following my recent articles about emergency food and water, and answering some reader questions about them, I had other queries to which I responded.  I thought some of you might be interested in reading some of them.

Q:  My red dot sights for my rifle and shotgun use coin-style batteries.  I guess, in an emergency, those won't be all that readily available.  Can I safely store them for long-term use?

A:  I honestly don't know.  A lot of batteries advertise that they have a certain shelf life, but experience with them shows that those claims are frequently wildly optimistic (if not fraudulent).  They leak all over the place within a year or two.  (I'm looking at you, Duracell!)  My suggestion would be three-fold:

• By all means keep a stash of coin-style batteries to fit your existing sights.
• If your budget allows, get a couple of red dot sights that work on standard AA batteries.  (Sightmark's Wolverine series aren't too expensive:  they're a bit larger and heavier than today's teeny-weeny red dots, but have worked well in my experience.)  You can use your lighter, smaller, more sophisticated sights while coin-type batteries are readily available, and switch to one of the AA-battery units when they're not.  Lay in some rechargeable AA-size batteries while you're at it (don't buy cheap crap:  ENELOOP is a trustworthy brand, at least so far), plus a solar charger for them, to ensure you'll always have power for your sights and other tools.
• The time may come when any battery is hard to find, not to mention there will be many appliances and items of gear needing them.  A couple of simple telescopic sights are worth having under such circumstances, because they need no batteries at all.  Don't buy cheap junk, but there are some adequate-quality sights out there at reasonable prices.  (For example, see my recent review of a Primary Arms offering.)  Lower-powered scopes are most suited to "tactical" use;  higher-powered scopes are for hunting or precision marksmanship.

Q:  When you spoke about emergency water supplies, you didn't say how much is needed for washing your cooking and eating utensils.

A:  That's because I've already recommended in several previous articles that you keep a stash of paper plates and bowls, and plastic knives, forks and spoons, for use in an emergency.  I suggest enough for at least 30 days, possibly for a longer period if you have storage space available.  This saves a great deal of water, and also a lot of time, in that you don't have to wash and dry crockery and cutlery several times a day.  Used paper bowls and plates can be scraped clean (or licked clean by your pets), then dried, torn into strips, and used as fire-lighters.  In the same way, paper cups can be used for cool drinks.  That leaves only pots and pans to be washed.

Q:  How many buckets should I buy for water storage?

A:  When it comes to 5-gallon buckets, I don't think one can have too many (provided you have storage for them all).  Food-safe buckets can be used to store dry food as well as water (line them with mylar bags and heat-seal the latter if necessary), and their lids will do for both purposes.  Non-food-safe buckets are useful to water plants, hand out washing water to individuals, launder clothes, and a host of other tasks.  They also make very good trading material in an emergency, because a lot of people don't have enough (perhaps none at all), and they'll need them for all those tasks.  I currently have 40-50 5-, 3½- and 2-gallon buckets and lids of all types, and if I get the chance to lay in a few more at low cost I'll take it.  (Look for free buckets from bakeries that buy icing in them.  All they need is a good wash, and they're good to go.  Buy different color buckets if you want the color to indicate what's stored inside.)

Q:  I don't have enough storage space in my small house to store emergency supplies.  What do I do?

A:  Use every scrap of available space.  For example:

• In your garage, fasten shelves on brackets to the wall above the roofline of your vehicle(s), and store totes and other supplies on them.  If there's enough vertical space, stack two or three of them on top of each other, using a stepladder to reach the top one if necessary.  You may have to move your vehicle(s) out to get at those supplies, but they'll be there when you need them.  (If you live in earthquake country, don't forget to adequately secure what's on those shelves!)
• See how much you can put under your bed(s).  If necessary, replace solid box springs with metal bed frames.  You can get them from 12" to 18" in height, and in varying widths.  You can fit a lot of containers underneath them, from shallow underbed units to full-height storage totes.  (Shop for totes at your local Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot or equivalent store;  they're usually cheaper there than buying them online and paying for shipping.)
• A lot of drawer units use drawers that don't take up the full depth of the unit.  See whether you can store water bottles (upright, of course, so they don't spill) or shallow upright storage containers behind them.
• Use the back of pantry cupboards, shelving units, etc. to do the same thing.  I once stored three or four dozen #10 cans of freeze-dried food, stacked 2 high, at the back of shelves containing kitchen plastic bags and wraps, salad bowls and similar items.
• Consider your attic.  It may not be configured to store anything, but if you can get a few planks and nail them across rafters, you can make space to fit several totes or plastic bags.
• Consider renting a small storage unit, sharing the cost with friends, so that each of you can store a few cubic feet of emergency supplies there.  This isn't an optimal choice, because in an emergency you may not be able to get to the unit quickly or easily (and storage units will be prime targets for looters), but it may be the only solution you can find for larger items.

Q:  I barely make ends meet on my salary.  I can't afford emergency preparations!

A:  I feel your pain.  Many of us are in the same boat:  for a long time, they included my wife and I.  However, as the saying goes, "The longest journey begins with a single step".

• Buy one or two extra cans of goods every time you shop for groceries, and put it/them away.  Vary that by buying an extra packet of pasta or an extra bag of rice now and then.  In two to three months, you'll have a full box of food.  That's the start of your emergency pantry.
• Ask your friends to save you half-liter, or one-liter, or two-liter soda bottles (with their caps) when they finish their contents.  Wash them out carefully, rinse thoroughly, and fill them with water.  In two to three months, you'll have two to three days' worth of emergency water supplies.
• If friends of yours buy their household needs from stores such as Costco or Sams Club, save up your pennies and ask them to buy you one of those stores' bulk packs of toilet rolls or paper towels.  (If that's too much, ask your friends if you can contribute a few dollars to the cost of those bulk packs and get a pro rata share of their contents.)  The cost per roll is so much lower than buying just a couple at a time that you'll be able to put aside a roll or two each month towards an emergency.
• If you can't afford plastic storage totes, use cardboard boxes.  They're not ideal, and they do perish over time, but they're a lot better than nothing.
• Look for stores that want to get rid of things you can use.  I mentioned earlier bakeries that get five-gallon buckets full of icing sugar, pre-mixed.  I know some just throw away those buckets.  Why not ask the bakery(ies) for a few?  If they say "No", you've lost nothing;  but if they say "Yes", you've got some very useful containers.
• Give up a few small luxuries (e.g. one or two cans of soda per week, or one take-out coffee per week, or take a paper-bag home-made lunch to work instead of buying it from a vendor) and use that money to expand your emergency supplies.

Peter