They didn't use crock pots but pressure cookers to build their bombs, but given the stupidity of our government they would probably ban crock pots as well.
But the courts have ruled on the kinds of arms. there was the US v. Miller case where the us government argued that the second amendment protected an individual's right to own arms used by a militia which ruled in favor of the US government therefore the defendant's sawed off shotgun was not protected as it was not a weapon used my a militia (ignoring their use as a trench combat weapon in WWI). Then there was the District of Columbia v. Heller case which upheld an individuals rights to own firearms and saying that laws that ban entire classes of firearms are unconstitutional. There are some limits that do exist but given these 2 rulings things up to and including rocket launchers, vehicle tow-able field artillery, anti-aircraft guns, all machine guns, all small vehicle mounted weapons, and possibly a Davy Crocket nuclear devices would all be allowable for individual ownership. Larger things like tanks, self propelled artillery, attack helicopters, fighter jets, boats, sub, etc would basically be out. There is an argument to be made challenging various existing firearm laws but then the various supreme court ruling don't have to be coherent or rational.
If you can afford the gun you should be able to afford to secure it.
Depends on the firearm and what constitutes difficult to break into. Legal firearms that shoot real bullets (not the daisy BB guns) can be had for quite cheap. The bottom of the pile price point wise is the Russian Mosin-Nagent M91/30 or M44 which can be found for around $90 and is what I use for deer hunting. The fireproof gun safe it sits in was about $1400 and is bolted to the concrete foundation and wall in my basement (if you want the contents bring a forklift, thermal lance, or jack hammer) and that is a small gun safe. Even my shotgun with a bird barrel and rifled slug barrel was only $225 new and it also sits in that $1400 safe. I don't know what the low end for gun safes are but I chose the best protection I could find. When transporting any of them I have hard sided padded cases that lock (I don't want them to get damaged or have scope knocked out of zero) and also have trigger locks on them as well (they came free from the store with the firearm purchase).
The problem with that is people move and don't bother to update their addresses. There is a real problem with sex offenders doing this and I would be willing to be that number of people who should not own a gun is a much larger list. So let's say the previous owner of my house was someone who should not own a firearm and then I move in. Then lets say that I decide that I want to take up hunting (this is true) and go to acquire a firearm a couple of months after moving in. Now in this case if the previous owner didn't update their address then I would be unable to purchase my firearm and have to go through a bunch of legal hoops to clear the previous owner's name from my address from what ever database needs updating. I am not saying this is an entirely bad idea but that it would be much more complex than what you are suggesting.
I'll bite.
Ok so how would someone being required to have a license to own a firearm have prevented any of those shootings? Also by stating that you need a license to drive a vehicle there for you should need one to own a firearm is somewhat questionable. While I do need a license to drive a vehicle on public roads, I have been driving vehicles much longer than I have had a drivers license or even a learners permit. For example I drove vehicles out on my aunt and uncle's farm for years, and it wasn't just the tractor, starting at about age 8. Also I drove race cars down the track starting at age 12 in actual races. In both cases I never broke any laws as it was all legal because it was on private property. In most states (of those that allow the public to carry a firearm) we already require most people who want to carry a firearm in public to have a special permit to do so. There is usually an exception for hunting but even then the exception is only allowed when actually on public hunting land. I can't just go carrying around my shotgun in downtown Minneapolis during hunting season as there isn't any public hunting land there but I sure as hell can carry it around on any WMA, AMA, WPA, State forest, county forest open to public hunting, etc. So we already basically do for firearms what you are proposing which is require the individual to be licensed to have them in public.
Along the same lines as requiring people to be licensed I have heard people suggesting that gun owners be required to carry insurance and/or have their guns registered again like we do with vehicles. Again when looking beyond the surface of it when applied to vehicles it is only applicable if they are to be driven on public roadways you don't need to have it be registered or carry insurance if it stays on private property (including transporting it). I have a vehicle that isn't registered with the state and does not have insurance on it. Currently this is because it is in pieces in my garage being restored but even when completed depending on what I decide to do with it (street rod or race car) I may not need to have it registered or insured.
This still ignores the fact that in all of the above cases it is the individual state not the federal government that requires me to have a valid drivers license, carry insurance on my daily driver, and pay the annual vehicle license registration fee and stick the new tab on the plate.
This is a bit disingenuous. As you say, F.D.R. nationalized gold, in the sense that the Reserve banks had to turn their gold over to the treasury. However, he did not prohibit private ownership or sale of gold; only gold that was used as money.
Don't lie. See F.D.R.'s executive order 6102. Now granted that didn't pass muster and was initially swatted down but reissued with the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury. The one signed by the Secretary of the Treasury was overridden by the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 a few months later which basically codified into law the executive order as well as setting the dollars to gold exchange rate at $35.00/oz.
Actually private individuals ability to own gold certificates was reinstated in 1964 and in 1975 private citizens were allowed to own and trade gold again. In 1986 citizens were finally allowed to legally own gold bullion again.
By the way, just as an aside: by tossing out Bretton Woods, Nixon also effectively defaulted on U.S. debt.
Not really. Yes by canceling the agreement Nixon ensured that the dollars that were loaned to the US would be paid back with ones worth less but those obligations were denominated in US dollars, not gold so we didn't default. Yes it was unexpected and yes it caused a bunch of problems as would be expected by such a change. Bretton Woods was not treaty only a set of regulations and rules so the US wasn't under any legal obligation to continue using what remained of the gold standard as the gold standard of the time was just a matter of statute and could be change through the normal legislative process any time. Also since the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and the preceding executive orders invalidated gold clauses in contracts (what do you think a debt obligation is if not a contract?) even if they were denominated in gold it would have been converted to nominal dollars. So no we didn't default on our debt but it did send a very strong signal to the markets that they should expect future debt repayments on dollar denominated notes to be paid in dollars worth less than the ones used to acquire the note. I made similar arguments against people who thought platinum coin seigniorage would be a great idea of a way to wipe out our current national debt. In both cases it was a bad idea in that it sent or sends the message that yes we will repay our debt but don't expect the repayment to be worth anything. The Germans after WWI did the same thing when repaying their war reparations with inflated money and that was a fucking disaster as well.
It actually wasn't in the 50s but post WWII (so close). At that time the US dollar was still pegged to gold at $35.00/oz (since 1934 previously it was $20.67/oz) but only other countries could exchange dollars for gold with the US government. The ability for a US citizen to do so ended in 1934 under F.D.R. What you are discussing is the Bretton Woods Agreement that was ended under Nixon because Charles de Gaulle was exchanging France's US dollar holding for Gold. Coupled with the deficits from the Vietnam war it basically forced the Nixon administration to end what remained of the US gold standard.
From memory it also worked well as a home heating fuel source. Especially the Notgelds made from compressed coal or wood slabs. Other good uses were as wall paper or maybe I am getting my inflation currencies mixed up as that may have been the Hungarian pengo.
Restaurants are interesting in that you don't pay before you have received and consumed your food so technically it is a debt that is owed. As such I believe that they must accept cash but I have never tired it and I could be horribly wrong.
See 1971, when Richard Nixon revalued gold from $21 to $35 per ounce, but only for non-American exchangers.
Wrong. It wasn't Nixon who changed the exchange rate from US dollars to gold but the F.D.R. administration which changed the exchange rate from $20.67/oz to $35.00/oz. . Also it wasn't Nixon who stopped US citizens from exchanging gold to US dollars but again was the F.D.R. administration. To add further insult to injury the F.D.R. administration nationalized the gold holdings of the US and only allowed the private ownership of gold for industrial, jewelry, art, coins that had special collector status (not ones that would have them in the future), and foreign legal tender. This began the slow march to the end of the gold standard in the US. A good introductory piece on this period that I have found deals with the curious case of the 1933 gold Double Eagle over on wikipedia. Granted it isn't expansive on the gold standard but provides a good background on what the F.D.R. administration did and is a good jumping off point for other topics on the subject on the US gold standard of the time.
What Nixon did was close the international gold windows that other countries were using to exchange US dollars for gold. This was being used by Charles de Gaulle to exchange France's dollar holdings for gold thus diminishing the US's economic power in the region. Add to it the deficit spending because Vietnam and it was necessary (from the Nixon administration's perspective) to remove the US dollar completely from the gold standard. What the Nixon administration did was put the final nail in the coffin of the US gold standard.
Just because Nixon put the final nail in the coffin for the US gold standard doesn't mean he was bad in this regard. All Nixon did was end the Bretton Woods Agreements, he didn't confiscate anyone's private property. His role was actually quite small and the abuse he committed in regards to this issue were small especially compared to those of F.D.R. There are plenty of things to beat up Nixon on but this really isn't one of them.
By the way, in 1963 banks mostly didn't use computers. You youngsters are too young to remember when a bank "passbook account" meant a physical object that the teller wrote in by hand.
I had one of those when I was little in the 80s. At that time the teller didn't write in it by hand but it had printed entries from the dot matrix printer the teller would put it into. I had forgotten about those accounts until you mentioned it.
This kind of tracks my thoughts but I would go much farther. If these H1B visa holders are so critical to a company then it would only seem to make sense that they should be the highest compensated (total compensation including benefits, company provided transportation, stock options, golden parachutes, etc) individuals in the company. Make that law and then we can see how many are actually needed.
You cannot watch the car repair guy do the work to see if he is goofing off or taking a dump.
What kind of auto repair shop are you going to. The last time I was in one they had the lounge area with some shitty coffee, a TV, some ancient magazines, and some old broken toys for kids to play with as well as a giant window into the work area so you could see what they were doing.
That kind of was my point. The tons of little stops for no purpose other than some town wanted one or it is in a key congressional district (bring home the bacon) is what kills trains in this country. The example of the Chicago to Twin Cities has all these little towns wanting the train to stop in their town if the proposed route is somewhat close. This would kill any aspects of high speed and basically make it a slightly faster version of the Empire Builder that already runs between Chicago and the Twin Cities that no one really rides. Granted there is the riders going between the Chicago and the Twin Cites but I doubt that there a many people getting on at the stops between going to either destination (exception on the eastern side of WI if it goes through a major city there). Something like the high speed trains in Europe would be better the Pairs to Brussels route was nice about 90 minutes on the TGV and no stops. For that weekend day trip I also looked at a slightly longer ride to Zurich but didn't get up early enough to catch the train (impulse travel on a lazy weekend) but that would have also been a non stop ride.
The problem still is the vast distances with almost no one there because every little shit box town wants the train to stop there. I remember taking the Empire builder from St. Paul, Minnesota out to Glacier National Park when I was younger and stopping in all sorts of of little towns along the way where there wasn't anyone at the station but there was a 10 to 30 minute stop anyway. From what I remember the Empire Builder moves along at 90mph but because it stops at every crappy down the tracks go through it takes forever. They probably could have ditched most of those stops but kept the ones in Alexandria, Grand Forks, Minot, and probably one or 2 other ones along the way but most were just a waste of time. The town outside of Glacier was a destination as lost of people got on and off the train there even if the town was tiny. Even now there is talk of putting a high speed rail line between Chicago and the Twin Cities but every crappy little town along any of the proposed routes wants the train to have a stop in their town.
Actually you could. Using numbers from NASA on the amount of energy received by earth each day from the sun is about 10,000 times as much as we consume. So to put that number in perspective we could cover 1% of the earth's surface in 1% efficient panels and be able to meet our current energy needs. Now given that even the really cheap thin film ones are like 4% efficient (going from memory here so I may be off but it is reasonable number) we would only need to cover 0.25% of earth's surface to meet our needs or we could still cover 1% of it and have a surplus of energy. Now the question becomes does it currently make economic sense to build out that much generation capacity and the needed storage capacity?
You first. It is possible to live without electricity or any modern comforts but honestly it gets old pretty quick. I do it every year when out deer hunting for 2 weeks in November. I am out in a tent and it does get below 0 F, cooking is done over a camp fire and after that 2 weeks I realize how nice modern life it. As we are up well before dawn and in bed shortly after dinner the need for creature comforts like lights isn't needed. Granted we are all very tired and cold after the season is done but you could live like that if you wanted to.
Yes I have and they are impressive operations. Granted it wasn't a coal mine I was at but they still had mostly the same equipment but I don't think a bucket wheel excavator would work all that well for iron ore extraction. I have been up to the iron mines up in northern Minnesota and highly recommend people check out a large mining operation. Unlike power there aren't any substitutes for iron that aren't substantially different in extraction but it does show what is needed to maintain our modern world. Besides how many other places can a 4 year old go and sit in the cab of an old 240 ton truck, stand next to an old 2400 cubic inch 2200 hp quad turbo 2 stroke diesel engine, or climb on a 32 cubic yard dragline bucket. IIRC the mine up in Hibbing currently is something like 3 miles x 2 miles x ~500 feet deep and they are digging out about 1,000,000 tons of material a week.
As much as I think CopWatch would be a good thing the extreme you take it to would probably wind up with cops getting killed. I much prefer one that only tracks these public servants while on duty.
BribeWatch on the other hand would be a welcomed addition but how many people would actually pay attention to it given the atrocities elected officials commit now and still get elected.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't use crock pots but pressure cookers to build their bombs, but given the stupidity of our government they would probably ban crock pots as well.
Except the 2nd doesn't say what kind of arms.
But the courts have ruled on the kinds of arms. there was the US v. Miller case where the us government argued that the second amendment protected an individual's right to own arms used by a militia which ruled in favor of the US government therefore the defendant's sawed off shotgun was not protected as it was not a weapon used my a militia (ignoring their use as a trench combat weapon in WWI). Then there was the District of Columbia v. Heller case which upheld an individuals rights to own firearms and saying that laws that ban entire classes of firearms are unconstitutional. There are some limits that do exist but given these 2 rulings things up to and including rocket launchers, vehicle tow-able field artillery, anti-aircraft guns, all machine guns, all small vehicle mounted weapons, and possibly a Davy Crocket nuclear devices would all be allowable for individual ownership. Larger things like tanks, self propelled artillery, attack helicopters, fighter jets, boats, sub, etc would basically be out. There is an argument to be made challenging various existing firearm laws but then the various supreme court ruling don't have to be coherent or rational.
If you can afford the gun you should be able to afford to secure it.
Depends on the firearm and what constitutes difficult to break into. Legal firearms that shoot real bullets (not the daisy BB guns) can be had for quite cheap. The bottom of the pile price point wise is the Russian Mosin-Nagent M91/30 or M44 which can be found for around $90 and is what I use for deer hunting. The fireproof gun safe it sits in was about $1400 and is bolted to the concrete foundation and wall in my basement (if you want the contents bring a forklift, thermal lance, or jack hammer) and that is a small gun safe. Even my shotgun with a bird barrel and rifled slug barrel was only $225 new and it also sits in that $1400 safe. I don't know what the low end for gun safes are but I chose the best protection I could find. When transporting any of them I have hard sided padded cases that lock (I don't want them to get damaged or have scope knocked out of zero) and also have trigger locks on them as well (they came free from the store with the firearm purchase).
The problem with that is people move and don't bother to update their addresses. There is a real problem with sex offenders doing this and I would be willing to be that number of people who should not own a gun is a much larger list. So let's say the previous owner of my house was someone who should not own a firearm and then I move in. Then lets say that I decide that I want to take up hunting (this is true) and go to acquire a firearm a couple of months after moving in. Now in this case if the previous owner didn't update their address then I would be unable to purchase my firearm and have to go through a bunch of legal hoops to clear the previous owner's name from my address from what ever database needs updating. I am not saying this is an entirely bad idea but that it would be much more complex than what you are suggesting.
I'll bite.
Ok so how would someone being required to have a license to own a firearm have prevented any of those shootings? Also by stating that you need a license to drive a vehicle there for you should need one to own a firearm is somewhat questionable. While I do need a license to drive a vehicle on public roads, I have been driving vehicles much longer than I have had a drivers license or even a learners permit. For example I drove vehicles out on my aunt and uncle's farm for years, and it wasn't just the tractor, starting at about age 8. Also I drove race cars down the track starting at age 12 in actual races. In both cases I never broke any laws as it was all legal because it was on private property. In most states (of those that allow the public to carry a firearm) we already require most people who want to carry a firearm in public to have a special permit to do so. There is usually an exception for hunting but even then the exception is only allowed when actually on public hunting land. I can't just go carrying around my shotgun in downtown Minneapolis during hunting season as there isn't any public hunting land there but I sure as hell can carry it around on any WMA, AMA, WPA, State forest, county forest open to public hunting, etc. So we already basically do for firearms what you are proposing which is require the individual to be licensed to have them in public.
Along the same lines as requiring people to be licensed I have heard people suggesting that gun owners be required to carry insurance and/or have their guns registered again like we do with vehicles. Again when looking beyond the surface of it when applied to vehicles it is only applicable if they are to be driven on public roadways you don't need to have it be registered or carry insurance if it stays on private property (including transporting it). I have a vehicle that isn't registered with the state and does not have insurance on it. Currently this is because it is in pieces in my garage being restored but even when completed depending on what I decide to do with it (street rod or race car) I may not need to have it registered or insured.
This still ignores the fact that in all of the above cases it is the individual state not the federal government that requires me to have a valid drivers license, carry insurance on my daily driver, and pay the annual vehicle license registration fee and stick the new tab on the plate.
This is a bit disingenuous. As you say, F.D.R. nationalized gold, in the sense that the Reserve banks had to turn their gold over to the treasury. However, he did not prohibit private ownership or sale of gold; only gold that was used as money.
Don't lie. See F.D.R.'s executive order 6102. Now granted that didn't pass muster and was initially swatted down but reissued with the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury. The one signed by the Secretary of the Treasury was overridden by the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 a few months later which basically codified into law the executive order as well as setting the dollars to gold exchange rate at $35.00/oz.
Actually private individuals ability to own gold certificates was reinstated in 1964 and in 1975 private citizens were allowed to own and trade gold again. In 1986 citizens were finally allowed to legally own gold bullion again.
By the way, just as an aside: by tossing out Bretton Woods, Nixon also effectively defaulted on U.S. debt.
Not really. Yes by canceling the agreement Nixon ensured that the dollars that were loaned to the US would be paid back with ones worth less but those obligations were denominated in US dollars, not gold so we didn't default. Yes it was unexpected and yes it caused a bunch of problems as would be expected by such a change. Bretton Woods was not treaty only a set of regulations and rules so the US wasn't under any legal obligation to continue using what remained of the gold standard as the gold standard of the time was just a matter of statute and could be change through the normal legislative process any time. Also since the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and the preceding executive orders invalidated gold clauses in contracts (what do you think a debt obligation is if not a contract?) even if they were denominated in gold it would have been converted to nominal dollars. So no we didn't default on our debt but it did send a very strong signal to the markets that they should expect future debt repayments on dollar denominated notes to be paid in dollars worth less than the ones used to acquire the note. I made similar arguments against people who thought platinum coin seigniorage would be a great idea of a way to wipe out our current national debt. In both cases it was a bad idea in that it sent or sends the message that yes we will repay our debt but don't expect the repayment to be worth anything. The Germans after WWI did the same thing when repaying their war reparations with inflated money and that was a fucking disaster as well.
It actually wasn't in the 50s but post WWII (so close). At that time the US dollar was still pegged to gold at $35.00/oz (since 1934 previously it was $20.67/oz) but only other countries could exchange dollars for gold with the US government. The ability for a US citizen to do so ended in 1934 under F.D.R. What you are discussing is the Bretton Woods Agreement that was ended under Nixon because Charles de Gaulle was exchanging France's US dollar holding for Gold. Coupled with the deficits from the Vietnam war it basically forced the Nixon administration to end what remained of the US gold standard.
From memory it also worked well as a home heating fuel source. Especially the Notgelds made from compressed coal or wood slabs. Other good uses were as wall paper or maybe I am getting my inflation currencies mixed up as that may have been the Hungarian pengo.
Restaurants are interesting in that you don't pay before you have received and consumed your food so technically it is a debt that is owed. As such I believe that they must accept cash but I have never tired it and I could be horribly wrong.
See 1971, when Richard Nixon revalued gold from $21 to $35 per ounce, but only for non-American exchangers.
Wrong. It wasn't Nixon who changed the exchange rate from US dollars to gold but the F.D.R. administration which changed the exchange rate from $20.67/oz to $35.00/oz. . Also it wasn't Nixon who stopped US citizens from exchanging gold to US dollars but again was the F.D.R. administration. To add further insult to injury the F.D.R. administration nationalized the gold holdings of the US and only allowed the private ownership of gold for industrial, jewelry, art, coins that had special collector status (not ones that would have them in the future), and foreign legal tender. This began the slow march to the end of the gold standard in the US. A good introductory piece on this period that I have found deals with the curious case of the 1933 gold Double Eagle over on wikipedia. Granted it isn't expansive on the gold standard but provides a good background on what the F.D.R. administration did and is a good jumping off point for other topics on the subject on the US gold standard of the time.
What Nixon did was close the international gold windows that other countries were using to exchange US dollars for gold. This was being used by Charles de Gaulle to exchange France's dollar holdings for gold thus diminishing the US's economic power in the region. Add to it the deficit spending because Vietnam and it was necessary (from the Nixon administration's perspective) to remove the US dollar completely from the gold standard. What the Nixon administration did was put the final nail in the coffin of the US gold standard.
Just because Nixon put the final nail in the coffin for the US gold standard doesn't mean he was bad in this regard. All Nixon did was end the Bretton Woods Agreements, he didn't confiscate anyone's private property. His role was actually quite small and the abuse he committed in regards to this issue were small especially compared to those of F.D.R. There are plenty of things to beat up Nixon on but this really isn't one of them.
No I thought the same thing.
Sounds like you need better shoes.
+1 insightful
-1 sad because it is true
By the way, in 1963 banks mostly didn't use computers. You youngsters are too young to remember when a bank "passbook account" meant a physical object that the teller wrote in by hand.
I had one of those when I was little in the 80s. At that time the teller didn't write in it by hand but it had printed entries from the dot matrix printer the teller would put it into. I had forgotten about those accounts until you mentioned it.
If I only had mod points today. Mod parent up.
This kind of tracks my thoughts but I would go much farther. If these H1B visa holders are so critical to a company then it would only seem to make sense that they should be the highest compensated (total compensation including benefits, company provided transportation, stock options, golden parachutes, etc) individuals in the company. Make that law and then we can see how many are actually needed.
You cannot watch the car repair guy do the work to see if he is goofing off or taking a dump.
What kind of auto repair shop are you going to. The last time I was in one they had the lounge area with some shitty coffee, a TV, some ancient magazines, and some old broken toys for kids to play with as well as a giant window into the work area so you could see what they were doing.
That kind of was my point. The tons of little stops for no purpose other than some town wanted one or it is in a key congressional district (bring home the bacon) is what kills trains in this country. The example of the Chicago to Twin Cities has all these little towns wanting the train to stop in their town if the proposed route is somewhat close. This would kill any aspects of high speed and basically make it a slightly faster version of the Empire Builder that already runs between Chicago and the Twin Cities that no one really rides. Granted there is the riders going between the Chicago and the Twin Cites but I doubt that there a many people getting on at the stops between going to either destination (exception on the eastern side of WI if it goes through a major city there). Something like the high speed trains in Europe would be better the Pairs to Brussels route was nice about 90 minutes on the TGV and no stops. For that weekend day trip I also looked at a slightly longer ride to Zurich but didn't get up early enough to catch the train (impulse travel on a lazy weekend) but that would have also been a non stop ride.
And now for the corollary that someone else was going to ask if I didn't.
Now you would have an excuse to buy some bolt cutters.
The problem still is the vast distances with almost no one there because every little shit box town wants the train to stop there. I remember taking the Empire builder from St. Paul, Minnesota out to Glacier National Park when I was younger and stopping in all sorts of of little towns along the way where there wasn't anyone at the station but there was a 10 to 30 minute stop anyway. From what I remember the Empire Builder moves along at 90mph but because it stops at every crappy down the tracks go through it takes forever. They probably could have ditched most of those stops but kept the ones in Alexandria, Grand Forks, Minot, and probably one or 2 other ones along the way but most were just a waste of time. The town outside of Glacier was a destination as lost of people got on and off the train there even if the town was tiny. Even now there is talk of putting a high speed rail line between Chicago and the Twin Cities but every crappy little town along any of the proposed routes wants the train to have a stop in their town.
Actually you could. Using numbers from NASA on the amount of energy received by earth each day from the sun is about 10,000 times as much as we consume. So to put that number in perspective we could cover 1% of the earth's surface in 1% efficient panels and be able to meet our current energy needs. Now given that even the really cheap thin film ones are like 4% efficient (going from memory here so I may be off but it is reasonable number) we would only need to cover 0.25% of earth's surface to meet our needs or we could still cover 1% of it and have a surplus of energy. Now the question becomes does it currently make economic sense to build out that much generation capacity and the needed storage capacity?
You first. It is possible to live without electricity or any modern comforts but honestly it gets old pretty quick. I do it every year when out deer hunting for 2 weeks in November. I am out in a tent and it does get below 0 F, cooking is done over a camp fire and after that 2 weeks I realize how nice modern life it. As we are up well before dawn and in bed shortly after dinner the need for creature comforts like lights isn't needed. Granted we are all very tired and cold after the season is done but you could live like that if you wanted to.
Yes I have and they are impressive operations. Granted it wasn't a coal mine I was at but they still had mostly the same equipment but I don't think a bucket wheel excavator would work all that well for iron ore extraction. I have been up to the iron mines up in northern Minnesota and highly recommend people check out a large mining operation. Unlike power there aren't any substitutes for iron that aren't substantially different in extraction but it does show what is needed to maintain our modern world. Besides how many other places can a 4 year old go and sit in the cab of an old 240 ton truck, stand next to an old 2400 cubic inch 2200 hp quad turbo 2 stroke diesel engine, or climb on a 32 cubic yard dragline bucket. IIRC the mine up in Hibbing currently is something like 3 miles x 2 miles x ~500 feet deep and they are digging out about 1,000,000 tons of material a week.
As much as I think CopWatch would be a good thing the extreme you take it to would probably wind up with cops getting killed. I much prefer one that only tracks these public servants while on duty.
BribeWatch on the other hand would be a welcomed addition but how many people would actually pay attention to it given the atrocities elected officials commit now and still get elected.