I lost all power for twelve hours on Monday, during the height of the heatwave here, and now it's been out since 8PM last night (it's now 2:30PM the next day and still out), after "browning out" all day yesterday before finally fully going out.
PSE&G blamed it on various things over the past several days, last night saying it was an electrical fire caused by a downed wire in the area after a thunderstorm came through with seventy mile an hour winds [have heard since that they were "tornado force winds" and the town has been declared a disaster area" with many wires down and many houses and cars severely damaged and power still not on for many households though mine came back on tonight when I'm adding this addendum around 10PM] that caused major damage, many trees falling on cars and houses etc. (almost impossible to get around this town today).
The news said the town I live in was the hardest hit by the storm and its winds. They also predict the power may be out until Friday! Let's hope not. Just a taste of only one of the inconveniences that has oppressed Iraqis since we invaded (having power for only a few hours a day if that).
What's most mystifying is that the heat wave was predicted for quite a while, as have the generally worse weather conditions worlwide. So why shouldn't a US power company be prepared for that? Head in the sand shortsighted policies, same as the current administration. Which seques into this exceprt from a Washington Post article on how not even the Iraqis want us there anymore, and certainly not the way we have been there:
"Iraqis Condemn American Demands
Sides Negotiating U.S. Military Role
By Amit R. Paley and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 11, 2008; A01
BAGHDAD, June 10 -- High-level negotiations over the future role of the U.S. military in Iraq have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate, with Iraqi politicians denouncing what they say are U.S. demands to maintain nearly 60 bases in their country indefinitely.
Top Iraqi officials are calling for a radical reduction of the U.S. military's role here after the U.N. mandate authorizing its presence expires at the end of this year. Encouraged by recent Iraqi military successes, government officials have said that the United States should agree to confine American troops to military bases unless the Iraqis ask for their assistance, with some saying Iraq might be better off without them.
"The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq," said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "
Congress has grown increasingly restive over the negotiations, which would produce a status of forces agreement setting out the legal rights and responsibilities of U.S. troops in Iraq and a broader "security framework" defining the political and military relationship between the two countries. Senior lawmakers of both parties have demanded more information and questioned the Bush administration's insistence that no legislative approval is required.
In Iraq, the willingness to consider calling for the departure of American troops represents a major shift for members of the U.S.-backed government. Maliki this week visited Iran, where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, urged him to reject any long-term security arrangements with the United States.
Failing to reach agreements this year authorizing the future presence of American forces in Iraq would be a strategic setback for the Bush administration, which says that such a presence is essential to promoting stability. Absent the agreements or the extension of the U.N. mandate, U.S. troops would have no legal basis to remain in Iraq."