Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

Electric Bills Could Be 2026 Election Shocker

If all politics is local, as former House Speaker Tip O’Neill said in tying politicians’ fortunes to constituents’ pocketbooks, then a voter’s electricity bill is about as local as an issue can get, landing on kitchen tables every month.

With electricity costs spiking for many of the nation’s 133 million households, this local issue could determine whether Republicans retain control of Congress or Democrats seize one or both chambers in November’s midterm elections.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, average residential electricity rates increased nationwide nearly 13 percent from April 2020 to April 2025. Since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, they’ve increased 6 percent.

Electricity prices are expected to increase, on average nationwide, by another 6 percent in 2026, the administration projects, and as much as 40 percent by 2030, warns economic development finance firm ICF.

The reason is simple: supply and demand. The North American Electric Reliability Corp. projected in its 2026 long-term reliability assessment report that electricity demand will increase in the coming decade by 70 percent more than what was estimated in 2024. Many analyses find that overall demand will increase 25 percent by 2030.

The surge is driven by the development of power-hungry data centers, artificial intelligence computing, advanced manufacturing, and “the electrification of everything,” with the average home featuring up to 21 digital devices – all eating electricity all the time.

The solution is also simple: The nation’s 2,896 utility companies must increase the electricity their power plants produce with the most abundant, least expensive energy sources. Meanwhile, the nation’s seven major grid operators must add up to 7,500 miles a year to their 240,000-mile network of high-voltage transmission lines while also upgrading up to 100,000 miles of those live wires, through 2035.

But determining what solutions work best and what long-term investments to make is a complex $1 trillion challenge mired in partisan politics and buried in century-old federal, state, and local regulations.

Not only are utilities and regional transmission operators amping up from a standing start after nearly two decades of inertia, but many are scrambling to keep pace with swelling demand while also building out generation and transmission capacities to meet projected need.

The cost of these capital improvements is showing up in customers’ electricity bills, leading to heightened scrutiny of investment decisions and generation choices, as well as spurring debate about how individual communities want to develop, all while meeting a Trump administration mandate to expand rapidly to win the “AI arms race” with China.

The focus and investment is long overdue, said Robert Bryce, a film producer and author of a widely read Substack on the grid and seven books on energy policies, including, “A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations.”

Keep reading

Hakeem Jeffries: We Are Calling for ‘Black Athletes to Abandon SEC Schools’

Thursday on MS NOW’s “All In,” House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) reiterated the Congressional Black Caucus’ call for “black athletes to abandon SEC schools” over redistricting efforts.

Host Chris Hayes said, “You know, there’s been calls for, the CBC, Congressional Black Caucus has called for athletes, to boycott the SEC conference where, you know, schools like Ole Miss and Tennessee and the states that are that are contemplating this, Gamecocks in South Carolina, the SEC, in sort of opposition to this is a kind of interesting point of leverage. And you echoed that today. Tell me about why you think that makes sense.”

Jeffries said, “Well, we are proud to stand with the NAACP that has appropriately called for black athletes to abandon SEC schools when these schools are in states that are targeting in an unprecedented fashion, black political representation. And our view is that if there’s no representation, there should be no athletic or sports participation. And this comes from a long line of, you know, African-American athletes rising to the occasion. You know, this is a Muhammad Ali moment. This is a Bill Russell moment. It’s a Jackie Robinson moment. We understand that it’s going to require a level of courage and character and conviction and these are personal decisions that will have to be made. But it certainly is our view that there will be athletes who are going to make the decision based on this racially, you know, egregious gerrymandering that’s taking place, a return to Jim Crow like tactics in the South, that there will be black athletes who will make a decision to take their talents elsewhere.”

Keep reading

Incoming Chief of UK Speech Regulator Takes Aim at VPNs

Ian Cheshire, the government’s pick to run the UK’s speech regulator, appeared before the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on Wednesday and laid out what amounts to an acceleration plan for online censorship.

He pledged to take on the “big tech bros,” branded VPNs as a “technical problem,” identified YouTube as needing a whole new set of regulatory powers, and hinted that Ofcom will ask the Treasury for more funding.

Before the hearing, Cheshire had “reached out to the Molly Rose Foundation because I wanted to understand its perspective.”

He had “quite deliberately” not met any mainstream tech companies. The Foundation has called Ofcom “slow, defensive and risk-averse” and demanded a new, broader censorship law within the first two years of this Parliament. The companies that might have raised concerns about overreach? Cheshire chose not to hear from them.

On VPNs, he told MPs: “Parliament has chosen to legislate on online safety; therefore, we should be acting on it. That is subject to the joys of VPNs and the other technical problems we have, but there is no reason not to go after the key harms that are there. As soon as they are visible, there is no reason why we cannot to do something about them.”

VPNs are legal privacy tools used by millions of people. Calling them “technical problems” tells you how the incoming chair views individual privacy relative to the state’s power to police speech. To a growing number of bureaucrats, privacy tools aren’t part of rights to be protected. They’re obstacles.

Ofcom already monitors UK VPN usage using an unnamed third-party tool and a group of peers has proposed banning under-18s from using VPNs entirely.

Cheshire told the committee that Ofcom will “need to deal with” the perception that “Ofcom is too timid and not moving fast enough.”

The Online Safety Act already lets Ofcom compel platforms to censor content under vague categories of “harm” that the regulator defines. It can fine companies up to 10 percent of global revenue and hold executives personally liable.

He singled out YouTube as “the biggest single challenge” and suggested Ofcom may need a “different toolkit” to “regulate effectively something like YouTube.”

The OSA’s codes of practice are still being rolled out. Ofcom hasn’t finished writing the existing rules and the incoming chair is already signaling they won’t be enough.

Keep reading

School Shootings NOT the Number One Cause of Child Death – Statistical Nonsense Debunked

A European friend approached me today, asking about guns in the US, saying, “There are so many guns in your country. It will take a long time to collect them all and get rid of them.” She was shocked when I responded, “We don’t want to get rid of them.”

After she got over her immediate horror and confusion, she asked, “But aren’t you afraid of school shootings?” I said that I was not, while also making it clear that I opposed them. “Most Americans are against school shootings,” I added.

Then she said, “I read that school shootings are the number one cause of death of children in the US.”

I responded, “I believe you believe you read that, but you didn’t. No one is actually making that claim. Mainstream media and anti-gun lobbies are playing with statistics to make you think that is what you read.”

This or similar statements about school shooting deaths are now repeated constantly, not only in personal conversations but also on television talk shows and in the talking points of the anti-gun lobby. The claim, of course, is complete nonsense.

On average, school shootings result in fewer than 40 deaths per year, and not all of the victims are children. There was an uptick during the Biden administration and after COVID, but from 2000 through roughly 2020, the average was closer to six deaths per year.

And this is why no serious authority has actually made such an egregious claim. Rather, headlines are designed to make people believe that is what they read. The actual claim, according to CDC data, is that firearm injuries were the leading cause of death among children and teens ages 1 to 19 in 2020 and 2021.

Keep reading

The Trump Administration Is Facing Scrutiny for How It’s Handing Out Billion-Dollar Border Wall Contracts

When Tommy Fisher set out to build a section of border wall in South Texas during the first Trump administration, the project quickly became ensnared in controversy. Experts raised concerns about shoddy construction and signs of erosion.

Beyond that, Fisher’s company had received funding from a group called We Build the Wall, an influential conservative nonprofit that included President Donald Trump’s then-political strategist Steve Bannon as a board member. Some of its leaders eventually went to prison for their involvement in the venture.

Even the president denounced the project.

“I disagreed with doing this very small (tiny) section of wall, in a tricky area, by a private group which raised money by ads,” Trump wrote on X in response to reporting by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune in 2020 detailing problems with the wall project.

“It was only done to make me look bad,” the post continued.

But none of this stopped Fisher’s company from getting subsequent border wall contracts, including from the state of Texas. And now the federal government has awarded his company over $9 billion to build even more border wall — including a $1.2 billion contract in the Big Bend region of Texas, where residents have continued to press for answers about the government’s plans in and around one of the country’s largest national parks.

And, as during Trump’s first term, Fisher’s work is stirring up controversy again. A New York-based construction company has sued the Trump administration after it awarded the bulk of new Texas border wall contracts to North Dakota-headquartered Fisher Sand & Gravel and another company.

Posillico Civil Inc.’s lawsuit, filed in the Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., on May 13, offers one of the first public glimpses into the procurement process along the border in Texas. The suit claims that out of the 11 prequalified vendors for the wall projects, U.S. Customs and Border Protection awarded nearly $14 billion — about 73% of the value of the contracts — to just two: Fisher’s firm and Barnard Construction, based in Montana. The work also includes wall projects around El Paso, Laredo, Del Rio and the Rio Grande Valley.

The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for awarding no-bid contracts and for the lack of transparency around its accelerated border wall construction plans, moves designed to help the president achieve his key campaign promise of securing the border.

During his first term, Trump’s moves also faced criticism. A 2020 investigation by ProPublica and the Tribune found that the government was awarding contracts before acquiring titles to the land, leading to millions of dollars in costs related to delays. A review of federal spending data by the news organizations also revealed how the first Trump administration had made hundreds of contract modifications, increasing the cost of the border wall project by billions.

The administration has shown no signs of slowing down: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security secured $46.5 billion to build the border wall in 2025, thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Keep reading

Iran’s Controversial Bill Offers $57 Million Bounty for Assassinating Trump Amid Rising Tensions with the U.S.

As Iran’s foreign ministry evaluates a new U.S. proposal amidst escalating regional tensions, a controversial bill offers a reward for the assassination of President Trump and others.

Currently, Iran is assessing the proposal from the United States aimed at addressing ongoing regional tensions. This development coincides with a visit from Pakistan’s interior minister to Tehran, who is working to facilitate a potential agreement. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has issued a warning to the United States regarding the negotiations.

In parallel, President Donald Trump has reiterated that he is “in no rush” to finalize any agreement with Iran.

The Islamic Republic is also set to vote on a bill that would grant a significant monetary reward to anyone who kills President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and/or CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper. The proposal requires the government to allocate the equivalent of $57,922,500 to any individual or organization that successfully assassinates President Donald Trump and others. This measure is framed as a response to the deaths of Iran’s leader and military commanders, for which the country holds the United States and Israel responsible.

Trump has faced multiple assassination plots since he ordered the killing of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC Quds Force in Iraq, in 2020. Most recently, reports indicated that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in a joint operation carried out by the United States and Israel. Airstrikes were executed on February 28, 2026, aimed at destroying his compound in Tehran.

In response to the current ongoing conflict, Ebrahim Azizi, the head of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, announced on state television that lawmakers have drafted multiple bills, including one titled “Reciprocal Action by Military and Security Forces of the Islamic Republic.”

He boldly declared that “the vile president of the United States, the ominous and disgraceful Zionist prime minister, and the CENTCOM commander must be targeted and subjected to reciprocal action.” U.S. Central Command is led by Admiral Brad Cooper, who took on the position in August 2025.

Keep reading

Trudeau facing backlash after story referencing high school girls’ skirts

On Wednesday’s live stream, Sheila Gunn Reid and Lise Merle reacted to former prime minister Justin Trudeau facing backlash after sharing a bizarre story about his time teaching high school girls decades ago.

Trudeau told the controversial story while speaking at the 2026 Women Deliver Conference in Melbourne, Australia, earlier this week.

Speaking on a panel, he recalled his time as a teacher when a male student complained about being disciplined for dress code violations, while pointing out that female students regularly wore their skirts “too short.”

Trudeau continued by reflecting on how male teachers were “uncomfortable” pointing out the issue, which visibly squirmed his former Chief of Staff, Katie Telford, who was sitting next to him on stage.

Trudeau noted that he found the student’s perspective “really interesting” and allowed it to be published, which subsequently got the newspaper temporarily thrown out.

Lise condemned Trudeau’s remarks, noting the severely inappropriate nature of his messaging. She criticized him for letting a student publish the op-ed suggesting “[male] teachers are awkward around the [female students]. The sub context of that is that they liked it, and they were allowing it.”

By defending a student’s perspective that male teachers felt “awkward” around short skirts and allowing it to be published, Trudeau has once again placed himself at the centre of a firestorm over what many view as deeply insensitive and outdated attitudes.

Keep reading

Minnesota ‘Feeding Our Future’ Somali Fraud Mastermind Aimee Bock Sentenced to Over 41 Years in Prison

Aimee Bock, the convicted mastermind behind the $250 million Feeding Our Future scandal, has been sentenced to 41.5 years in federal prison.

The sentencing, handed down Thursday, was over her role in a massive scheme that fraudulently billed taxpayers for tens of millions of meals that were never provided to low-income children during the pandemic.

The fraud was centered in Minnesota’s large Somali community and involved dozens of defendants.

Bock, who founded Feeding Our Future, was convicted in March 2025 on multiple counts, including conspiracy, bribery, and wire fraud. She had been the central figure coordinating the operation that exploited relaxed federal rules during the COVID-19 emergency.

Keep reading

Canadian citizen charged after allegedly voting in multiple U.S. elections

A Canadian citizen living in the United States has been charged after allegedly voting illegally in multiple American federal and state elections over a span of nearly two decades.

According to U.S. federal prosecutors, 40-year-old Sunny Manhertz, a Canadian permanent resident living in Massachusetts, is accused of falsely claiming U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote and cast ballots in several elections dating back to 2008, reported Fox News.

Court documents allege Manhertz filled out a Massachusetts voter registration form in 2016 and checked “yes” when asked whether he was a U.S. citizen, despite allegedly never obtaining citizenship status.

Prosecutors say he subsequently voted in multiple local, state and federal elections, including the 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections.

Federal investigators also allege Manhertz continued presenting himself as a qualified voter by signing nomination papers for political candidates as recently as 2026. Prosecutors say cellphone location records placed him near his assigned polling station during the 2024 election. 

He now faces charges related to unlawful voting by a non-citizen and allegedly casting fraudulent ballots. If convicted, he could face up to six years in prison and fines ranging from $100,000 to $250,000.

Earlier this year, another Canadian national, Denis Bouchard, pleaded guilty in North Carolina after prosecutors said he falsely claimed U.S. citizenship in order to vote in the 2022 and 2024 elections.

Keep reading

Why Libertarians Fall for the AI Trap

The artificial intelligence boom has become one of the biggest engines of the American economy. It has also triggered a growing backlash against the data centers that make the boom possible. Tech moguls have rushed to build giant warehouses packed with the computing power needed to run AI systems, but they have done almost nothing to explain to ordinary Americans why those facilities deserve so much land, water, electricity, and political favoritism.

That failure should have created an obvious opening for libertarians. Governments shower data-center projects with subsidies, wield eminent domain to seize land, and help politically connected corporations reshape local communities in the name of technological progress. A coherent libertarian response would attack the merger of state power and corporate power.

Instead, many libertarians have chosen to cheer the expansion without asking what the technology will be used for or whom it will serve. Their quasi-religious loyalty to capital has pushed them into another foolish position and exposed the danger of turning an economic theory into a full worldview.

The tech elite insist that AI will revolutionize the world, but they have done almost nothing to tell average people how their own lives will improve. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs spin wild stories about superhuman intelligence and the automation of tens of millions of jobs. That does not sound like a sales pitch. It sounds like the setup for a science-fiction dystopia. The one concrete justification they offer is strategic: AI will supposedly define the future of warfare, and America must stay ahead of China.

That argument would carry more weight if the same people pushing AI were not also so committed to building the kind of technology most likely to be used against Americans. They are not preparing some noble shield for the republic. They are building tools that can make the United States look a lot more like the techno-authoritarian China they claim to fear.

Keep reading