Laura:

(Let's see if this version of my reply actually posts...)

> Awesome response getting it fixed so quickly!

Not so amazing, really. It's the way the system is designed to work. ;-)

Generally speaking, the power company's "automatic recloser" (think really big central "circuit breaker") will disconnect an entire section of town when a fault occurs anywhere on that circuit.*

To get power restored to *MOST* of the residents, the power company just needs to find the specific neighborhood power line where the fault really occurred, yank the fuse on that line, and then command the remote-controlled "recloser" to try again to power up the rest of that section of town. At that point, 95% or more of the customers get their power back and only the affected neighborhood stays dark while real repairs are accomplished (trees are cleared, poles replaced, wires replaced, whatever is necessary).

-=-=-=-=-=-

* The "automatic" part of the recloser is that it will actually try to "reclose" the circuit breaker two or so times in the hope that the fault has cleared. (For example, the branch fell off the tree or a more-local fuse blew.) That's why the lights typically flash several times before finally going dark for good; those are attempts by the recloser to restore power.

Yea you would rather have free wifi at hampton beach than underground lines?

You would rather pay for a rail study that benefits a few than have underground lines?

When will you wake up and realize we have real things we need and that there is NOT an endless supply of money?

Charlie:

> When will you wake up and realize we have real things we need and that
> there is NOT an endless supply of money?

I would be more-sympathetic to your point except for the fact that we seem to have had enough money to spend several trillions of dollars blowing up Southwest Asia and we still have enough money to spend $689 Billion (for 2011) on national "defense".

Interesting statistic:

> The United States spends 58 percent of the total defense dollars paid
> out by the world's top 10 military powers, which combined for $1.19
> trillion in military funding in 2011. With its unparalleled global reach,
> the US outspends China, the next-biggest military power, by nearly
> 6-to-1.

> The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global
> arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billion
> of the military budget of China, and is more than the next twenty largest
> military spenders combined.

We obviously have plenty of money; you and I just disagree on where to spend it. ;-)

Putting it in more-concrete terms, that free Wi-Fi at Hampton was estimated to cost something like $120,000 in capital (a *ONE-TIME* cost) plus some small amount yearly for operating expenses.

By comparison, our *ANNUAL* military budget is almost *SIX MILLION TIMES LARGER*. Annually.

That's about $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in America. Annually. Do you really think this is the best way to spend our money?

Free Wi-Fi, or "free" healthcare, or undergrounding utilities (a one-time cost that subsequently produces annual cost savings, BTW) starts to look pretty inexpensive compared to those numbers!

So Which is it Atlant the Federal or State level you wish to talk about?

Federally I am all for more isolationism, but burying power lines in rural areas is not a federal issue now is it? Nor is Free Wi-Fi at Hampton; so please stick within the venue if you would like to maintain any semblance of credibility, as opposed to the eclectic response you fumbled out.

Federally: Lets all pray for Sequestration, you have a very short term memory as I have agreed with you on the point of our defense spending and being "the world police". These are not roles in American foriegn policy I wish to see continued. Although Chuck Hagel clearly does given his statements in confirmation hearings today, great nomination but rather expected.

State: Maybe if we gave less at the federal level the state would have more, but that is another topic. We absolutely agree where to spend the money and you always hide behind those items as if they were the only things we spend on; the truth is that we absolutely do spend frivolously and you know it. Things like free wifi actually cost money both up front and annually and have an economic cost to those businesses built on the model of providing that service for a fee or as an enticement to get consumers into their establishment; you would rather just bill the tax payer essentially "so what we spend all over the place". That is the crux of my problem with most of your positions; you, as most politicians on both sides of the isle, have zero regard for the dollars being spent, where they come from, or the impact all of this has; after all "the other guy" should pay is clearly the motto right now politically and is proven to work if you slice it up along the right demographic lines at election time.

I have a novel concept, how about we pay for and fund what we need first then talk about the validity of things that would be nice to have? At a state level we have to do this and at the federal level we can only print money for so long before there are consequences that force all of us to give up what we need because we were to busy grasping for what we want.

Charlie:

> So Which is it Atlant the Federal or State level you wish to talk about?
>
> Federally I am all for more isolationism, but burying power lines in rural
> areas is not a federal issue now is it?

What? You never heard of the REA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Administration

We *USED TO BE ABLE* to accomplish amazing things when we set our minds and wills to it!

I am merely disagreeing with the idea that "we don't have the money" to build a more-reliable power grid.

So if you don't want to read that, don't!