I want to wish any and all that may see this the Merriest of Christmas Days, but especially to my family and friends.
Sitting here in my warm and cozy home, listening to the wind blow and the snow fall outside, getting ready to finish the preparations for the Big Morning with all three of my beautiful children home happy and safe... I'm still missing all of you that aren't here. My parents, my baby sister, my brother, all their kids, my in-laws and all their kids, my cousins and all their kids, my very best friends and all their kids... as much fun as we are looking forward to tonight and tomorrow, it's just a little bit less fun without you all here with us.
I pray that God blesses you all with as much love and joy as He has given us, and that you think of us while you enjoy your family and friends on this happy day, because we will be thinking of all of you!
Merry Christmas!
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Want evidence of inflation? How's this...
I live in a pretty small town. Three gas stations, two small markets and a Walmart, two bars and two doughnut shops.
My son was having such a good week this week, and since the morning was going exceptionally well, I decided to treat him to Dunkin' Donuts for breakfast. That doesn't happen very often. So I go in and order a dozen frosting-covered baked delights, and the bill comes to $7.79. I'm shocked! I'm thinking to myself that it would have been less than six bucks, but here it is almost eight instead. However, I pay the girl behind the counter and load up my treats into the car.
As I'm unloading the goodies, I notice a receipt on the floor of the car that has the logo of the same doughnut shop on it, and stoop to pick it up. It is dated 2-21-13, and is for one dozen doughnuts... total price?
$5.74!
In only ten months, the local price for a dozen raised frosted doughnuts has increased by 34%, or $1.95... with no appreciable improvement in size, quantity or quality of product.
This tells me that the dollars I'm earning at work are rapidly becoming less and less valuable by the week. That, my friends, is inflation.
It also tells me that I need to clean the car far more often than I do.
My son was having such a good week this week, and since the morning was going exceptionally well, I decided to treat him to Dunkin' Donuts for breakfast. That doesn't happen very often. So I go in and order a dozen frosting-covered baked delights, and the bill comes to $7.79. I'm shocked! I'm thinking to myself that it would have been less than six bucks, but here it is almost eight instead. However, I pay the girl behind the counter and load up my treats into the car.
As I'm unloading the goodies, I notice a receipt on the floor of the car that has the logo of the same doughnut shop on it, and stoop to pick it up. It is dated 2-21-13, and is for one dozen doughnuts... total price?
$5.74!
In only ten months, the local price for a dozen raised frosted doughnuts has increased by 34%, or $1.95... with no appreciable improvement in size, quantity or quality of product.
This tells me that the dollars I'm earning at work are rapidly becoming less and less valuable by the week. That, my friends, is inflation.
It also tells me that I need to clean the car far more often than I do.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
This may be the most disturbing article I've read in years...
I'm almost beyond words... to think that a commissioned officer in the United States military would post THIS is repulsive to me.
I've said in the past, and I'll say it again: the tragedies that bring about these sorts of sentiments are indeed tragedies. Every bit as tragic as the thousands of people that die every year in automobile accidents, or due to on-the-job injuries, or from food-related illness that is easily prevented by moderation in living habits... yet no one is calling for the elimination of cars, power tools, or fast food.
I'm in a bit of a time crunch right now... but this is worth the discussion. I don't car who reads the blog, it is worth putting out there that this Lt. Col. is 100% WRONG... and not deserving of the rank he holds.
I've said in the past, and I'll say it again: the tragedies that bring about these sorts of sentiments are indeed tragedies. Every bit as tragic as the thousands of people that die every year in automobile accidents, or due to on-the-job injuries, or from food-related illness that is easily prevented by moderation in living habits... yet no one is calling for the elimination of cars, power tools, or fast food.
I'm in a bit of a time crunch right now... but this is worth the discussion. I don't car who reads the blog, it is worth putting out there that this Lt. Col. is 100% WRONG... and not deserving of the rank he holds.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
"We have to pass it to see what's in it."
Just in case future generations, our grand kids and great grand kids, log on to our humble site to see what we had to say about the absolute debacle of "Obamacare" (actually titled The Affordable Healthcare Act - if ever a law was misnamed.), I want to assure them of something. The only reason we haven't engaged in a full nuts and bolts strip down of this law post implementation is it is so massive, so utterly coming apart at the seams, so grand in its' failure, that we would have to quit jobs, abandon children, and use bed pans to fully gauge our reaction. Let me boil down what has FINALLY awoken the American people - and typically friendly press - to the realization that this thing is a disaster.
1) The website utterly failed.
All of us - from our little site to conservative talk - have been screaming about the unconstitutionality of mandating health insurance, a government take over of 1/6th of the economy, and another trillion dollars in spending. However, none of that dissuaded the president's admirers, and thus he was reelected. But when they can't "log on", when the site fails, when they are stranded with a little pinwheel icon that never loads, THEN they come unhinged. Limbaugh once said that it wouldn't be a major policy failure that does the president in or costs him popularity, but rather "dissing Beyonce's new album." I think this proves that theory right. 6 people were able to sign up on day one - SIX. A nation accustomed to the speed and versatility of Itunes cannot tolerate such tech incompetence.
2) "If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep your plan."
This will go down as bigger than "Read my lips", "I did not have sex with that woman", and "Mission accomplished." He repeated this phrase, with great emphasis - such as "this we promise", and "period" - at every major stump speech for the last 4 years. Over, and over, and over. In an article found HERE by the daily caller, economists and experts - at the university level - are now saying that at least, AT LEAST 68% of Americans will lose their current private health plans. And for a simple reason: the new "minimum standard", also known as the Essential Benefits floor disqualifies most private insurance as inadequate for not doing things like covering single males for maternity care. Not "leave", actual OBGYN care. This makes these plans illegal to sell now. The president's people will retort that "you're grandfathered in." The problem is that according to the law, if that plan changes in any substantial way, it becomes a "new" plan and loses grandfather status. So what do they declare as "substantial." If your copay goes up $5. Five bucks gets your plan invalidated. But the even bigger problem is the simple economics of healthcare plans - if I can no longer sell it, no longer bring new, healthy young people into that plan's pool, then I can't sustain that pool. I have a fixed group that will age within that plan. Thus I am forced to disband the plan all together before it bankrupts me. This is why people across America are getting notices that they're being kicked off... excuse me, "transitioned" into a new plan.
3.) The heavily subsidized plans offered under the exchange are too often more expensive. I put this under my ATM fee theory. The government can raise taxes to infinity, regulate entire businesses into extinction, and waste billions of tax payer dollars; but if ATM fees are increased from $2 to $3, all hell breaks loose and the people demand action. The same could be said here. The trillions upon trillions this debacle will cost us doesn't seem to register with the average voter (at least not as of 11/6/12). But if their premium goes from $155/mo to $368, they go nuts.
So there you have it. We finally have an uproar. Not over Constitutionality of mandates or universally declaring parts of that mandate void for special groups, or on nation-ending levels of spending, but rather over pages that won't load and Obama's "read my lips" moments(s) . That's fine though... hell, Al Capone was jailed over tax fraud, so I'll take what I can get.
1) The website utterly failed.
All of us - from our little site to conservative talk - have been screaming about the unconstitutionality of mandating health insurance, a government take over of 1/6th of the economy, and another trillion dollars in spending. However, none of that dissuaded the president's admirers, and thus he was reelected. But when they can't "log on", when the site fails, when they are stranded with a little pinwheel icon that never loads, THEN they come unhinged. Limbaugh once said that it wouldn't be a major policy failure that does the president in or costs him popularity, but rather "dissing Beyonce's new album." I think this proves that theory right. 6 people were able to sign up on day one - SIX. A nation accustomed to the speed and versatility of Itunes cannot tolerate such tech incompetence.
2) "If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep your plan."
This will go down as bigger than "Read my lips", "I did not have sex with that woman", and "Mission accomplished." He repeated this phrase, with great emphasis - such as "this we promise", and "period" - at every major stump speech for the last 4 years. Over, and over, and over. In an article found HERE by the daily caller, economists and experts - at the university level - are now saying that at least, AT LEAST 68% of Americans will lose their current private health plans. And for a simple reason: the new "minimum standard", also known as the Essential Benefits floor disqualifies most private insurance as inadequate for not doing things like covering single males for maternity care. Not "leave", actual OBGYN care. This makes these plans illegal to sell now. The president's people will retort that "you're grandfathered in." The problem is that according to the law, if that plan changes in any substantial way, it becomes a "new" plan and loses grandfather status. So what do they declare as "substantial." If your copay goes up $5. Five bucks gets your plan invalidated. But the even bigger problem is the simple economics of healthcare plans - if I can no longer sell it, no longer bring new, healthy young people into that plan's pool, then I can't sustain that pool. I have a fixed group that will age within that plan. Thus I am forced to disband the plan all together before it bankrupts me. This is why people across America are getting notices that they're being kicked off... excuse me, "transitioned" into a new plan.
3.) The heavily subsidized plans offered under the exchange are too often more expensive. I put this under my ATM fee theory. The government can raise taxes to infinity, regulate entire businesses into extinction, and waste billions of tax payer dollars; but if ATM fees are increased from $2 to $3, all hell breaks loose and the people demand action. The same could be said here. The trillions upon trillions this debacle will cost us doesn't seem to register with the average voter (at least not as of 11/6/12). But if their premium goes from $155/mo to $368, they go nuts.
So there you have it. We finally have an uproar. Not over Constitutionality of mandates or universally declaring parts of that mandate void for special groups, or on nation-ending levels of spending, but rather over pages that won't load and Obama's "read my lips" moments(s) . That's fine though... hell, Al Capone was jailed over tax fraud, so I'll take what I can get.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
On prepping and preparedness...
I am not a fan of the National Geographic Channel's "Doomsday Preppers". The show picks the most ridiculous examples of people and the circumstances that they are preparing for, all for the greatest shock value. Absolute swill.
Haven't seen the bunker show, but I suspect that is more of the same. Anyone with the money and resources to spend half a million dollars on an underground shelter that will survive the end of civilization could probably be using the money in better ways.
However, anyone that has endured what we have endured after Katrina and isn't "prepared" for the possibility that such circumstances could repeat is an complete idiot.
As for myself, I watched what paltry preparations I had ready for Katrina wash away with the storm surge. 30 gallons of water, bags of charcoal and cylinders of propane... all floated away when my garage doors failed to stop the 3-foot waves that were beating on them. Garbage cans washed away. No means to use a toilet while the sewer system was flooded. 90% of all stored food contaminated by flood water. Weeks without power. Months without drinking water from the taps. No vehicles. No generator.
Never again.
I now have the means to store, clean and use almost unlimited amounts of water. I have 8,000 gallons in my pool alone. The surrounding hills are covered in natural springs, and an artesian well is located only a few hundred yards from my house. I can cook food with either electricity, propane, charcoal or wood, indoors or out. I can heat water to boiling temps 8 gallons at a time, in less than 15 minutes. I have the means to keep my fridge and freezer cold for as long as I have gas in my vehicles (full tanks, roughly 10 days), and in winter to run my pellet stove for 5 days. My small garden produced enough to provide us with an entire pantry of home-canned pickles, squash, carrots, tomatoes, peppers, beans and peas (although the beans and peas were less a success than the peppers). We have the means and knowledge to can meat, fruit, veggies, and soups. We could live on our pantry and freezers for at least 3 months (probably far longer) with no further groceries (but fresh eggs and milk would be very nice... and my neighbor has both chickens and cows). All three of my children have learned the basics of firearm use, and all three have shown a real ability in shooting targets. The oldest has become quite the baker, too... and enjoys the canning process very much.
I'd be a fool not to have a fire extinguisher or two in my house, and anyone with children that doesn't have a smoke detector should be prosecuted... so why would I chose to protect my family only from fire? House fires are all too common, yes... but isn't a power outage even more common, and more likely? Blizzards, ice storms, spring flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, man-made disasters... all far more likely (statistically speaking) than a house fire... yet I should ignore them or (worse yet, in my opinion) leave the ability to respond and recover from such events to someone else?
Nope. I remember how much help I got from FEMA after Katrina... I'll be handling the "recovery" from such events here all by myself, thank you very much.
Haven't seen the bunker show, but I suspect that is more of the same. Anyone with the money and resources to spend half a million dollars on an underground shelter that will survive the end of civilization could probably be using the money in better ways.
However, anyone that has endured what we have endured after Katrina and isn't "prepared" for the possibility that such circumstances could repeat is an complete idiot.
As for myself, I watched what paltry preparations I had ready for Katrina wash away with the storm surge. 30 gallons of water, bags of charcoal and cylinders of propane... all floated away when my garage doors failed to stop the 3-foot waves that were beating on them. Garbage cans washed away. No means to use a toilet while the sewer system was flooded. 90% of all stored food contaminated by flood water. Weeks without power. Months without drinking water from the taps. No vehicles. No generator.
Never again.
I now have the means to store, clean and use almost unlimited amounts of water. I have 8,000 gallons in my pool alone. The surrounding hills are covered in natural springs, and an artesian well is located only a few hundred yards from my house. I can cook food with either electricity, propane, charcoal or wood, indoors or out. I can heat water to boiling temps 8 gallons at a time, in less than 15 minutes. I have the means to keep my fridge and freezer cold for as long as I have gas in my vehicles (full tanks, roughly 10 days), and in winter to run my pellet stove for 5 days. My small garden produced enough to provide us with an entire pantry of home-canned pickles, squash, carrots, tomatoes, peppers, beans and peas (although the beans and peas were less a success than the peppers). We have the means and knowledge to can meat, fruit, veggies, and soups. We could live on our pantry and freezers for at least 3 months (probably far longer) with no further groceries (but fresh eggs and milk would be very nice... and my neighbor has both chickens and cows). All three of my children have learned the basics of firearm use, and all three have shown a real ability in shooting targets. The oldest has become quite the baker, too... and enjoys the canning process very much.
I'd be a fool not to have a fire extinguisher or two in my house, and anyone with children that doesn't have a smoke detector should be prosecuted... so why would I chose to protect my family only from fire? House fires are all too common, yes... but isn't a power outage even more common, and more likely? Blizzards, ice storms, spring flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, man-made disasters... all far more likely (statistically speaking) than a house fire... yet I should ignore them or (worse yet, in my opinion) leave the ability to respond and recover from such events to someone else?
Nope. I remember how much help I got from FEMA after Katrina... I'll be handling the "recovery" from such events here all by myself, thank you very much.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Welcome to Thunderdome!
Has Tina Turner even spoken a word since then? I don't know.
Have you stopped to notice how popular "end of days" programs are in the past several years? The Walking Dead (my household's must see TV) is as much a survivalist program as it is scifi. In fact the "zombies" stopped being the primary enemy long ago and now simply provide the needed background stress. Your fellow survivors are the real monsters. But its not just them (and their record 16 million cable viewers for the season 4 premier). Revolution (as you mentioned Titus) is extremely popular. The program Jericho (a small mid Western town post EMP/big city nuke attack) was cancelled after the first season, and there was such a ruckus that it didn't "end" (no final episode wrapping things up) that the network actually reconstituted the show for 6 episodes to do just that. And there are a slew of "prepper" reality TV style programs. The only one of those I've seen was on Netflix titled "Doomsday Bunkers." There's only 3 episodes so far (at least on the Flix), but I find the engineering aspect of this business fascinating. This guy was knocking out a decent living building storm shelters and he parlayed that into high end bunkers, the cheapest of which is 70k. The first episode he builds one that is 1600 square feet, complete with a dining area... that's the exact size of my apartment! The price tage on that puppy? A svelte $450k. The doors can take C4 hits, the generators and air systems are triple reinforced, it's a fortress. Now, as to the mentality of people willing to spend such money....
The number one rule on that show and in the "prepper community" (and I didn't know this prior) was you never disclose your bunker or farm location, or what your supplies are. The reason is self evident. In some apocalyptic event your neighbor will kill you for a bag of Doritos, and not even cool ranch, we're talking regular Doritos. And prior to really listening to various preppers explain themselves I would have lined up to make fun. But after having heard them out, I felt like an idiot, ESPECIALLY given my address in late August of 05.' I'll explain...
These people, to the man (and it was all fathers of families with children buying the pricey bunkers), named rationale and reasonable reasons as to why they want these bunkers - #1) natural disaster. While an underground facility may not be realistic where Jambo and I live, I don't think any of us here have to be convinced of the calamity wrought by mother nature. #2) societal breakdown. They very calmly explained it as another Great Depression, collapse of the US dollar, etc, driving people to stealing or looting. Before anyone laughs, remember that unlike in the Great Depression, we live in a "Grand Theft Auto did $800,000,000 in its opening weeked" world now. Last week in Louisiana two Wal Marts got ransacked. Why? There was a snafu with the food stamp debit card which removed their limit. People with these cards called their friends and the shelves of two different Wal Marts were wiped out. It was a disaster. As soon as the snafu was corrected, full buggies and hundreds of "customers" simply abandoned the store, leaving it trashed. Wal Mart has to eat the expense (no pun intended), according to the government, because they knew better than to allow illegitimate sales. They knew these debit cards had a limit. So why did Wal Mart managers allow the deluge of faulty purchases? Simple - they very wisely assumed that if they didn't, there'd be a riot. My point? These preppers may not be right about "when" or "if" society breaks down, but they are right about what it will look like if it does... Doritos will get you killed.
So do any of us doubt the value of a prepped retreat in the face of a natural disaster? Do any of us not think that a serious financial correction is coming, at some point? These "preppers" aren't crazy (by and large). They live in major cities and they don't have a family member with a farm (like me), or have a friend with a family member with a farm (like Jambo - who has practically already plotted his residence in my phone's mapquest incase we beed to "bugout.") These guys aren't nuts, they're prepared. Since when is that a bad thing? Just think about the percentage of American farmers in the 1930's versus now. Yet people call them "hoarders" for having 6 months worth of food stockpiled. How else are they to be prepared? What if they lose their job and need to feed their family? Is losing your job such a fantastical scenario? Sure there are some loons out there, they're part of any segment of society. But above all, they're prepared. That's not crazy, that's the Boy Scout motto.
At any rate, I understand that humans have been fascinated with "end of days" long before Revelations was penned, I just find this recent upsurge fascinating. What's great about these shows - as Jambo well knows - is the post show discussion with the kids. "What would we do Dad?" What about this? If they were coming through that door, who covers it? How would we eat? Would we save the dog? To be honest (and I'm sure Jambo feels the same way), that's my favorite part of the evening, talking about what we would do. For me, all of those conversations end one way - how long would it take, on foot, to get to that farm I mentioned. To put it simply, they have guns and gardens.... I'm in.
Before I click "publish" I wanted to more directly answer your question - what do I think a "breakdown" or collapse would look like? First, Mel Gibson is probably just mean enough to survive, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him at the post apocalyptic meeting around the burning oil drum. Secondly, I don't think under any circumstance the United States will cease to exist, but we could over time be reduced to at least a Western European status of power and wealth, if not an Eastern European status. And how rapid that decline is will dictate how volatile - or violent - society becomes in the interim. Far too often Libertarian-Conservatives fail to qualify the statement "the end of America" by noting they mean as a superpower, not as a nation. So a fiscal calamity, depending on how rapid it is, could make doomsday bunkers worth while. Short of that the only major breakdown I can see is an EMP attack. The technology exists, EMP's are real. Estimates are that in a large scale attack on the US it would leave 150 million dead in the first 6 months. You think about the percentage of farmers - as I mentioned before - today as compared with any other point in our history and you realize how helpless the citizens of every major (and medium) city would be. The kicker is - and this is not conspiracy the Senate held hearings on this in 2012 - to protect our national electric grids with some sort of suped up Faraday Cage, it would cost a paltry (for our government's spending habits) $500 million. The Department of Energy testified that to date, these funds have not been allotted and there is no protection set up to defend against an EMP disabling our national grids.
Thinking about it I guess one could add a natural disaster, but unless you subscribe to Al Gore's snake oil pitch it would only be regional. One storm won't wipe out America. Or perhaps disease. They may not reanimate into "walkers" but a large scale pandemic could make us look like a bad scifi movie for 6-12 months. But I'll stick to my two scenarios that I think are at least plausible sources of a societal breakdown on the level of our favorite TV shows... a rapid financial collapse in the Grand Theft Auto era, or an EMP. In either case I hope Jambo has comfortable hiking boots for the wooded multi day march up Hwy 49... hehe.
Have you stopped to notice how popular "end of days" programs are in the past several years? The Walking Dead (my household's must see TV) is as much a survivalist program as it is scifi. In fact the "zombies" stopped being the primary enemy long ago and now simply provide the needed background stress. Your fellow survivors are the real monsters. But its not just them (and their record 16 million cable viewers for the season 4 premier). Revolution (as you mentioned Titus) is extremely popular. The program Jericho (a small mid Western town post EMP/big city nuke attack) was cancelled after the first season, and there was such a ruckus that it didn't "end" (no final episode wrapping things up) that the network actually reconstituted the show for 6 episodes to do just that. And there are a slew of "prepper" reality TV style programs. The only one of those I've seen was on Netflix titled "Doomsday Bunkers." There's only 3 episodes so far (at least on the Flix), but I find the engineering aspect of this business fascinating. This guy was knocking out a decent living building storm shelters and he parlayed that into high end bunkers, the cheapest of which is 70k. The first episode he builds one that is 1600 square feet, complete with a dining area... that's the exact size of my apartment! The price tage on that puppy? A svelte $450k. The doors can take C4 hits, the generators and air systems are triple reinforced, it's a fortress. Now, as to the mentality of people willing to spend such money....
The number one rule on that show and in the "prepper community" (and I didn't know this prior) was you never disclose your bunker or farm location, or what your supplies are. The reason is self evident. In some apocalyptic event your neighbor will kill you for a bag of Doritos, and not even cool ranch, we're talking regular Doritos. And prior to really listening to various preppers explain themselves I would have lined up to make fun. But after having heard them out, I felt like an idiot, ESPECIALLY given my address in late August of 05.' I'll explain...
These people, to the man (and it was all fathers of families with children buying the pricey bunkers), named rationale and reasonable reasons as to why they want these bunkers - #1) natural disaster. While an underground facility may not be realistic where Jambo and I live, I don't think any of us here have to be convinced of the calamity wrought by mother nature. #2) societal breakdown. They very calmly explained it as another Great Depression, collapse of the US dollar, etc, driving people to stealing or looting. Before anyone laughs, remember that unlike in the Great Depression, we live in a "Grand Theft Auto did $800,000,000 in its opening weeked" world now. Last week in Louisiana two Wal Marts got ransacked. Why? There was a snafu with the food stamp debit card which removed their limit. People with these cards called their friends and the shelves of two different Wal Marts were wiped out. It was a disaster. As soon as the snafu was corrected, full buggies and hundreds of "customers" simply abandoned the store, leaving it trashed. Wal Mart has to eat the expense (no pun intended), according to the government, because they knew better than to allow illegitimate sales. They knew these debit cards had a limit. So why did Wal Mart managers allow the deluge of faulty purchases? Simple - they very wisely assumed that if they didn't, there'd be a riot. My point? These preppers may not be right about "when" or "if" society breaks down, but they are right about what it will look like if it does... Doritos will get you killed.
So do any of us doubt the value of a prepped retreat in the face of a natural disaster? Do any of us not think that a serious financial correction is coming, at some point? These "preppers" aren't crazy (by and large). They live in major cities and they don't have a family member with a farm (like me), or have a friend with a family member with a farm (like Jambo - who has practically already plotted his residence in my phone's mapquest incase we beed to "bugout.") These guys aren't nuts, they're prepared. Since when is that a bad thing? Just think about the percentage of American farmers in the 1930's versus now. Yet people call them "hoarders" for having 6 months worth of food stockpiled. How else are they to be prepared? What if they lose their job and need to feed their family? Is losing your job such a fantastical scenario? Sure there are some loons out there, they're part of any segment of society. But above all, they're prepared. That's not crazy, that's the Boy Scout motto.
At any rate, I understand that humans have been fascinated with "end of days" long before Revelations was penned, I just find this recent upsurge fascinating. What's great about these shows - as Jambo well knows - is the post show discussion with the kids. "What would we do Dad?" What about this? If they were coming through that door, who covers it? How would we eat? Would we save the dog? To be honest (and I'm sure Jambo feels the same way), that's my favorite part of the evening, talking about what we would do. For me, all of those conversations end one way - how long would it take, on foot, to get to that farm I mentioned. To put it simply, they have guns and gardens.... I'm in.
Before I click "publish" I wanted to more directly answer your question - what do I think a "breakdown" or collapse would look like? First, Mel Gibson is probably just mean enough to survive, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him at the post apocalyptic meeting around the burning oil drum. Secondly, I don't think under any circumstance the United States will cease to exist, but we could over time be reduced to at least a Western European status of power and wealth, if not an Eastern European status. And how rapid that decline is will dictate how volatile - or violent - society becomes in the interim. Far too often Libertarian-Conservatives fail to qualify the statement "the end of America" by noting they mean as a superpower, not as a nation. So a fiscal calamity, depending on how rapid it is, could make doomsday bunkers worth while. Short of that the only major breakdown I can see is an EMP attack. The technology exists, EMP's are real. Estimates are that in a large scale attack on the US it would leave 150 million dead in the first 6 months. You think about the percentage of farmers - as I mentioned before - today as compared with any other point in our history and you realize how helpless the citizens of every major (and medium) city would be. The kicker is - and this is not conspiracy the Senate held hearings on this in 2012 - to protect our national electric grids with some sort of suped up Faraday Cage, it would cost a paltry (for our government's spending habits) $500 million. The Department of Energy testified that to date, these funds have not been allotted and there is no protection set up to defend against an EMP disabling our national grids.
Thinking about it I guess one could add a natural disaster, but unless you subscribe to Al Gore's snake oil pitch it would only be regional. One storm won't wipe out America. Or perhaps disease. They may not reanimate into "walkers" but a large scale pandemic could make us look like a bad scifi movie for 6-12 months. But I'll stick to my two scenarios that I think are at least plausible sources of a societal breakdown on the level of our favorite TV shows... a rapid financial collapse in the Grand Theft Auto era, or an EMP. In either case I hope Jambo has comfortable hiking boots for the wooded multi day march up Hwy 49... hehe.
So, I'm curious...
What is the end result of this? Where do we think this will lead?
I'm not one of the "Mad Max" advocates. I do not think that society will fall to ruins around us, or that scenes from movies like "The Day After" or (more recently) "Revolution" will become the norm. I'm not building a bunker and stocking it with MREs, bullets and old silver coins. I don't see this as the end of the United States as we know it.
If I had to guess, I'd venture to suggest that we will see another depression. Just looking at some of the graphs I cited in my last post, you can see why China has passed the US as the single largest consumer of oil on Earth... I say it is because Americans aren't "spending" money like some in government could wish. We aren't buying gasoline like we used to. We aren't travelling like we used to. We aren't "consuming" like we used to.
The generation that produced my gandparents (the Greatest Generation) was the last that seemed to truly understand that individual effort and personal sacrifice were worth far more than government regulations and assistance. They won a world war by doing more and doing without. If people doubt that, just remember what happened when Carter gave his "malaise speech"... only 30 years after the end of WWII, the country freaked out when the President of the US asked America to tighten its belt and suck it up. Ironically, it was coming from such a big-government advocate Carter... but that is beside the point.
I'm busy this morning, but I'd love to hear what you guys think.
I'm not one of the "Mad Max" advocates. I do not think that society will fall to ruins around us, or that scenes from movies like "The Day After" or (more recently) "Revolution" will become the norm. I'm not building a bunker and stocking it with MREs, bullets and old silver coins. I don't see this as the end of the United States as we know it.
If I had to guess, I'd venture to suggest that we will see another depression. Just looking at some of the graphs I cited in my last post, you can see why China has passed the US as the single largest consumer of oil on Earth... I say it is because Americans aren't "spending" money like some in government could wish. We aren't buying gasoline like we used to. We aren't travelling like we used to. We aren't "consuming" like we used to.
The generation that produced my gandparents (the Greatest Generation) was the last that seemed to truly understand that individual effort and personal sacrifice were worth far more than government regulations and assistance. They won a world war by doing more and doing without. If people doubt that, just remember what happened when Carter gave his "malaise speech"... only 30 years after the end of WWII, the country freaked out when the President of the US asked America to tighten its belt and suck it up. Ironically, it was coming from such a big-government advocate Carter... but that is beside the point.
I'm busy this morning, but I'd love to hear what you guys think.
Point? We don't need no stinking points!
I was simply unloading my stream of consciousness as to why there is no going back. One side is proactively engaged in fundamental realignment while the other side chips away on the margins at miniscule cuts in the rate of growth, and declares victory, all as our neighbors stumble around clueless. Who do you think wins that fight?
As to your post, I think it could be sooner - a US dollar collapse I mean. The greenback is the world's "petro dollar" of reserve. OPEC will only sell to you in dollars. It's why Germany, the UK, even Russia stockpile billions of our currency, to purchase oil. If OPEC moves to accepting the Yen or Ruble, it's lights out. Is there any wonder we don't "crack down" on them as so many clamor for?
I thought about it and I do want to add this: if every action has an equal and opposite reaction then there is a chance, a slim chance, that we will at some point revolt (a peaceful revolt). In other words, a critical mass may be reached whereas a new party is formed to deal with the great issue of the day (fiscal policy) much in the way the Republican Party was founded out of an inability of the Whigs to take on the great issue of their day - the cause of abolition.
Can the tea party do this? Maybe. But I don't think enough of our neighbors are "wide awake" (a slogan that hung in abolitionist offices).
As to your post, I think it could be sooner - a US dollar collapse I mean. The greenback is the world's "petro dollar" of reserve. OPEC will only sell to you in dollars. It's why Germany, the UK, even Russia stockpile billions of our currency, to purchase oil. If OPEC moves to accepting the Yen or Ruble, it's lights out. Is there any wonder we don't "crack down" on them as so many clamor for?
I thought about it and I do want to add this: if every action has an equal and opposite reaction then there is a chance, a slim chance, that we will at some point revolt (a peaceful revolt). In other words, a critical mass may be reached whereas a new party is formed to deal with the great issue of the day (fiscal policy) much in the way the Republican Party was founded out of an inability of the Whigs to take on the great issue of their day - the cause of abolition.
Can the tea party do this? Maybe. But I don't think enough of our neighbors are "wide awake" (a slogan that hung in abolitionist offices).
Friday, October 25, 2013
Did I miss it?
The point, I mean...
Look, it's a fascinating view of what I think we both (and many others) have been referring to as the "slippery slope". Start on the path, and it becomes harder and harder to deviate, until you are finally forced to admit that there is NO going back to where you started. You have reached (and possibly passed) the point of no return.
If you are asking me if I think we have reached that point here in the USA... well, let's discuss that for a bit.
For years here on the Bund I have been bitching prolifically at the cost of gasoline. Prior to Katrina (call it 9/'05 for argument's sake), the average national price for a gallon of gasoline was $2.31 (source HERE). Last year the average was $3.68. In 2003 (just ten years ago!) it was $1.60.
Fact: The US produces a greater percentage of its own crude oil needs NOW than it has at any time since 1981... yet the cost of gasoline (the single greatest product stemming from crude oil) hasn't come down even 1% off peak. (source HERE) The price for a barrel of crude oil TODAY is $97. It's highest peak was July 4th, 2008 at $145.31, and the corresponding high in gasoline was $4.05 (nationally). By Dec of 2008, the cost of a barrel of crude was back down to $30... but gas prices remained above $3.68!!! (source HERE)
Ryan defended this with the cry that profits are good. I can't argue this point, I guess. I don't like it, but I can't deny it, either. It still smacks of gouging, if you ask me... but I digress.
Now, if you look at the price of a gallon of gas in relation to the price of a gallon of oil, there seems to be a great disparity over the last 30 years... but only if you look at it in dollars. Compared to the price of an ounce of gold, gasoline is cheaper now than it was in 1994 ($1.06/gal).
That tells me that the value of MY DOLLARS has fallen so far that the price of a gallon of gas can't keep up with the rate of inflation! Why? Because the US is printing money at will... based not on value, but on debt. Utterly and completely unsustainable fiscal policy that has been the status quo since the mid-term elections of 1994. George Bush Sr. was the last President to insist on value-based Federal Reserve expansion... and we haven't seen it since.
So, can this be fixed? Yes. Revalue the dollar by restructuring the debt. Each dollar you have today will be worth about $0.55 less tomorrow, but the dollar will represent actual purchasing value again (as any good fiat currency should). Of course, the economy would tank like it hasn't tanked since Oct of 1929... but it would fix the problem.
Will this happen?
Not in a million years of Sundays.
Look, it's a fascinating view of what I think we both (and many others) have been referring to as the "slippery slope". Start on the path, and it becomes harder and harder to deviate, until you are finally forced to admit that there is NO going back to where you started. You have reached (and possibly passed) the point of no return.
If you are asking me if I think we have reached that point here in the USA... well, let's discuss that for a bit.
For years here on the Bund I have been bitching prolifically at the cost of gasoline. Prior to Katrina (call it 9/'05 for argument's sake), the average national price for a gallon of gasoline was $2.31 (source HERE). Last year the average was $3.68. In 2003 (just ten years ago!) it was $1.60.
Fact: The US produces a greater percentage of its own crude oil needs NOW than it has at any time since 1981... yet the cost of gasoline (the single greatest product stemming from crude oil) hasn't come down even 1% off peak. (source HERE) The price for a barrel of crude oil TODAY is $97. It's highest peak was July 4th, 2008 at $145.31, and the corresponding high in gasoline was $4.05 (nationally). By Dec of 2008, the cost of a barrel of crude was back down to $30... but gas prices remained above $3.68!!! (source HERE)
Ryan defended this with the cry that profits are good. I can't argue this point, I guess. I don't like it, but I can't deny it, either. It still smacks of gouging, if you ask me... but I digress.
Now, if you look at the price of a gallon of gas in relation to the price of a gallon of oil, there seems to be a great disparity over the last 30 years... but only if you look at it in dollars. Compared to the price of an ounce of gold, gasoline is cheaper now than it was in 1994 ($1.06/gal).
That tells me that the value of MY DOLLARS has fallen so far that the price of a gallon of gas can't keep up with the rate of inflation! Why? Because the US is printing money at will... based not on value, but on debt. Utterly and completely unsustainable fiscal policy that has been the status quo since the mid-term elections of 1994. George Bush Sr. was the last President to insist on value-based Federal Reserve expansion... and we haven't seen it since.
So, can this be fixed? Yes. Revalue the dollar by restructuring the debt. Each dollar you have today will be worth about $0.55 less tomorrow, but the dollar will represent actual purchasing value again (as any good fiat currency should). Of course, the economy would tank like it hasn't tanked since Oct of 1929... but it would fix the problem.
Will this happen?
Not in a million years of Sundays.
nudge, shove, shoot
Your post got me thinking Titus. Thinking about the very nature of Western governments, ours in particular... grow, grow, grow. Now understand something - I am going to put forth an idea that in passing seems like "conspiracy" talk. But these are real books, real positions in the White House, and real people with real power. Not to mention, we now live in a world - ala the NSA & DEA - where today's conspiracy theory is tomorrow's headline.
We all agree that we are heading towards greater and greater government paternalism. And it shocks us. The people in command and control of the federal government define freedom differently. They encourage freedom from worry, from want, from mistakes. That thinking isn't new, it has reared its' ugly head before. One notable example is New Deal. "Safety Nets", baseline here and no further catch-alls for people whom just can't make it. They are sold as temporary, or emergency, if all else fails stop gaps (like Social Security) that we must enact out of "compassion."
Ok. We're compassionate. We care. Fine. Good. The problem is "temporary" and emergency fail safes become the new norm. They never go away. And what's worse, they grow exponentially. So then the next administration or congress, or three later, or five, looks around and says "hey! What the hell are all these poor doing among us? We have to do something!" So we enact the Great Society. SSI is sold as insurance incase you can't retire "in dignity" in old age, and now Great Society is incase you can't live "in dignity" during middle age, via public housing and medical care (as a side bar, I am in no way indicting those rank and file whom legitimately participated in or utilized these programs, no more than I fault the average computer programmer at the NSA for this nation's spy policy). And why do we do this? Because our "new normal" seemed insufficient, there were still poor among us after all.
So for decades we had Medicaid for the poor, and Medicare for the elderly, and after passing it we felt good as a nation because, we care. Awesome. Go us.
A couple three decades later and what's this? Why do we have all these poor among us whom can't afford health insurance? The new "normal" isn't sufficient, there are still all these damned poor! We have to do something. Obamacare. Now we not only have government subsidized insurance available, it is mandatory - under punishment of law - that you sign up. Medicare's original fiscal projection - in the 1960's - accounting for population growth and inflation was set never to exceed an expense of $80 billion annually. In 2011 just the two prescription drug plans (part C and D) cost $84.7 billion. In addition, it is by law - if he wants it - available to Bill Gates (whom ironically is worth about $80 billion). Obamacare's estimate is $1 Trillion annually... for now.
And you can take this graph line and apply it to any sector of the public domain, not just fiscal policy. Surveillance for instance. What is described as the "new temporary emergency measure" for us, is the "norm" for our children. And since there will always be poor among us, and one Hannibal or another at the gates, our children will build upon us because as a people we are inclined to improve on what our predecessors built. Here's the problem - we never say, "well that didn't work" and repeal it then start over, build something new. No, we add to whatever exists, as a "fix." And the architects justify the authority to implement that fix by pointing to what we have all accepted as "normal." Well of course they can force your 401k to buy government bonds, you already acquiesced government mandated savings authority via Social Security. Of course we must provide prescription drugs in Medicare, we already provide the procedures. Well of course we must provide a public "option" insurance provider, too many slip through the cracks of Medicaid and Medicare, the government has to fix that. Well of course we can mandate your enrollment in health insurance, your non compliance raises the medical costs of your neighbor - whom the government is subsidizing - and you can't burden the collective... and on and on and on.
One "compassionate" policy begats another. And another. And another. Until you wake up one day to find that through inaction - INaction - you are noncompliant. And at that point, resistance is futile.
The title... It's not my theory, but I've co-opted it for my own purposes. Each of the wealthy Western nations I have in mind start out, and rises to preeminence, due to an emphasis on the individual. Each fall from that preeminence based on a shift in emphasis to the collective. That "shift"occurs, I believe, through the progression of nudge, shove, shoot. And by the way, "shoot" doesn't have to literally mean at the end of a barrel. I'll explain...
There's a book titled "Nudge." It was written by two professors whom broke down effective psycho-analytic ways of influencing the population into "good" choices. From healthcare to savings, you name it. It's based on an "opt-out" model, rather than opt-in. For example, from the book: "One change is creating better default [retirement] plans for employees. Employees would be able to adopt any plan they like, but, if no action is taken, they would automatically be enrolled in an expertly designed program." They go on... "On some dimensions Bush was on the right track with the plan [prescription drugs], but that, as a piece of choice architecture, suffered from a cumbersome design that impeded good decision making...Specifically, default choices for programs should not have been random... Seniors who did not sign up for a program should have one assigned to them."
"Choice Architects." There's a nice Orwellian phrase, don't ya' think? It's subtle. And note they said "Seniors", not "Seniors already enrolled in the program." They know starting with a mandate on Americans is like a direct assault on a Roman garrison - suicide.So they start, for instance, with simply insisting healthy food be offered along side pizza in school cafeterias (and this example is right from the book). That's the nudge. Then the healthy food is placed at the line of sight for the average height student, where the pizza is now relocated behind the healthy food and just above the line of sight. That's the shove (according to me, not the book, they would contend this is all "nudge"). Then finally - as some kids still don't make the healthy choice - the pizza is removed entirely, because we still have unhealthy eaters among us. They've shot the pizza. Get it?
Healthcare, retirement, schooling... they have "Nudge Policy" for all of this, yet they are not demanding flat out that you must do this one thing or that without first laying the groundwork. They just keep eliminating choices until there is a new normal. Then they don't care what you choose, so long as the choice is compulsory. And you may say, ok, one Ivy League professor puts out a psycho-political policy book, it doesn't make it so. However, this author was Cass Sunstein. And the entire book laid out various effective tools for manipulation of the masses not by direct order, but by slowly, and permanently, removing the "bad" options from your life. And so long as choosing is compulsory, they have forced you into a "good" situation (if you don't want to choose, see the Borg declaration, page 1, section 1, paragraph 1).
So what does a Harvard professor's book have to do with any real world affect on government, or the current administration? Well not only was the good author, Professor Cass Sunstein, consulted in the crafting of Obamacare, but he served as President Obama's Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from 2009-2012. He described this as his "dream job." By the way, his wife is Samantha Powers, the current US ambassador to the UN. Sunstein literally coined the phrase "choice architect." The man wields real power and influence. Two of his other books, "Republic 2.0", and "Radicals in Robes." Get where this is going? This is the "fundamental transformation" Yoda. And less you think I'm just bashing some "liberal" Obama acolyte, this same man adamantly defended Bush's right to conduct military commissions in the war on terror. Is there any doubt on how he feels about five presidencies' authority to use the NSA, on everyone? In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to "reformulate First Amendment law." Reformulate? Wanna get even scarier? The purpose of this reformulation would be to "reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.” He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,” and thinks that“in light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.” He proposes a “New Deal for speech that would draw on Justice Bradeis' insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.” Well, that's not creepy. I'm thinking of being Cass Sunstein for Halloween! And not only do serious people take his advice, not only did he direct that Orwellian sounding office, but he currently is instructing at America's most elite university. Now I'm sure this guy is considered by normal standards and political affiliations a "leftist", but I don't see it that way (how many leftists were defending W on the war on terror?). This guy has a single allegiance - POWER. To authority. To ensuring compliance. This man's ideology and formulations permeates both parties, one's just on a bullet train to mandating earthly nirvana and the other is riding the Union Pacific (first class no doubt). And they have BOTH made it their mission to crush this Tea Party rebellion.
Now back to the big picture point of my post. What makes this man's ideology (and that creepy sounding position in the administration) possible? A government's very nature is to expand. No one gets elected by promising to keep the status quo, or why else elect someone new, right? And even that would be fine if not for one crucial element - the nature of law makers is to do, not to undo. It is by far easier to pass a fix than repeal a problem. And each succeeding generation of law makers builds on the precedent of the last. Social Security sets the precedent for mandatory bond purchases. Medicaid sets the precedent for Obamacare. DEA mass surveillance sets the precedent for complete NSA authority. We have "always" voted YES to raise the debt ceiling, so we can't stop now. Mandated seat belts later allows cell phones while driving laws. Registering your firearm leads to city-wide bans. Just a little here, just a little there, for your safety of course. It's why fighting these smaller measures is so crucial, once you allow a new normal to develop, its too late.
So is it too late now? I see that Titus is qualifying his "back nine" admission with "my own personal back nine." Uh huh. I'm curious. Did you ever ask yourself "why?" Why do people from Wilson, to FDR, to Johnson to Sunstein and Obama - and all the less notable but equally dedicated "choice architects" in between - push these means? What is their end? What do they think will happen? After all, this top-down central planning of every aspect of life has never succeeded before, so what do they hope to achieve? I'll give you my answer. I truly think they believe utopia can be achieved in this life. In this world. If just the right people were in charge, with the right motivations, with the right authority we can actually eliminate all poverty, all suffering and set you "free" from worry, free from risk, and if individuals have to give up an archaic Right or two, so be it, we're trying to fundamentally transform here... after all, Vader only wanted the power to save his wife, but these pesky rebels kept upping the ante.
So here we sit... 50% show up to vote, and most of them are too distracted to notice what's going on. They simply don't realize that you cannot eliminate risk without first eliminating the freedom to choose that risk. And once you start eliminating freedoms, you've entered the back nine. So its' nice to see you here Titus... the club house is nice, the beer is wicked expensive, no mulligans, and the hangman will clean your ball on the 18th... he has the time, he's already set up.
We all agree that we are heading towards greater and greater government paternalism. And it shocks us. The people in command and control of the federal government define freedom differently. They encourage freedom from worry, from want, from mistakes. That thinking isn't new, it has reared its' ugly head before. One notable example is New Deal. "Safety Nets", baseline here and no further catch-alls for people whom just can't make it. They are sold as temporary, or emergency, if all else fails stop gaps (like Social Security) that we must enact out of "compassion."
Ok. We're compassionate. We care. Fine. Good. The problem is "temporary" and emergency fail safes become the new norm. They never go away. And what's worse, they grow exponentially. So then the next administration or congress, or three later, or five, looks around and says "hey! What the hell are all these poor doing among us? We have to do something!" So we enact the Great Society. SSI is sold as insurance incase you can't retire "in dignity" in old age, and now Great Society is incase you can't live "in dignity" during middle age, via public housing and medical care (as a side bar, I am in no way indicting those rank and file whom legitimately participated in or utilized these programs, no more than I fault the average computer programmer at the NSA for this nation's spy policy). And why do we do this? Because our "new normal" seemed insufficient, there were still poor among us after all.
So for decades we had Medicaid for the poor, and Medicare for the elderly, and after passing it we felt good as a nation because, we care. Awesome. Go us.
A couple three decades later and what's this? Why do we have all these poor among us whom can't afford health insurance? The new "normal" isn't sufficient, there are still all these damned poor! We have to do something. Obamacare. Now we not only have government subsidized insurance available, it is mandatory - under punishment of law - that you sign up. Medicare's original fiscal projection - in the 1960's - accounting for population growth and inflation was set never to exceed an expense of $80 billion annually. In 2011 just the two prescription drug plans (part C and D) cost $84.7 billion. In addition, it is by law - if he wants it - available to Bill Gates (whom ironically is worth about $80 billion). Obamacare's estimate is $1 Trillion annually... for now.
And you can take this graph line and apply it to any sector of the public domain, not just fiscal policy. Surveillance for instance. What is described as the "new temporary emergency measure" for us, is the "norm" for our children. And since there will always be poor among us, and one Hannibal or another at the gates, our children will build upon us because as a people we are inclined to improve on what our predecessors built. Here's the problem - we never say, "well that didn't work" and repeal it then start over, build something new. No, we add to whatever exists, as a "fix." And the architects justify the authority to implement that fix by pointing to what we have all accepted as "normal." Well of course they can force your 401k to buy government bonds, you already acquiesced government mandated savings authority via Social Security. Of course we must provide prescription drugs in Medicare, we already provide the procedures. Well of course we must provide a public "option" insurance provider, too many slip through the cracks of Medicaid and Medicare, the government has to fix that. Well of course we can mandate your enrollment in health insurance, your non compliance raises the medical costs of your neighbor - whom the government is subsidizing - and you can't burden the collective... and on and on and on.
One "compassionate" policy begats another. And another. And another. Until you wake up one day to find that through inaction - INaction - you are noncompliant. And at that point, resistance is futile.
The title... It's not my theory, but I've co-opted it for my own purposes. Each of the wealthy Western nations I have in mind start out, and rises to preeminence, due to an emphasis on the individual. Each fall from that preeminence based on a shift in emphasis to the collective. That "shift"occurs, I believe, through the progression of nudge, shove, shoot. And by the way, "shoot" doesn't have to literally mean at the end of a barrel. I'll explain...
There's a book titled "Nudge." It was written by two professors whom broke down effective psycho-analytic ways of influencing the population into "good" choices. From healthcare to savings, you name it. It's based on an "opt-out" model, rather than opt-in. For example, from the book: "One change is creating better default [retirement] plans for employees. Employees would be able to adopt any plan they like, but, if no action is taken, they would automatically be enrolled in an expertly designed program." They go on... "On some dimensions Bush was on the right track with the plan [prescription drugs], but that, as a piece of choice architecture, suffered from a cumbersome design that impeded good decision making...Specifically, default choices for programs should not have been random... Seniors who did not sign up for a program should have one assigned to them."
"Choice Architects." There's a nice Orwellian phrase, don't ya' think? It's subtle. And note they said "Seniors", not "Seniors already enrolled in the program." They know starting with a mandate on Americans is like a direct assault on a Roman garrison - suicide.So they start, for instance, with simply insisting healthy food be offered along side pizza in school cafeterias (and this example is right from the book). That's the nudge. Then the healthy food is placed at the line of sight for the average height student, where the pizza is now relocated behind the healthy food and just above the line of sight. That's the shove (according to me, not the book, they would contend this is all "nudge"). Then finally - as some kids still don't make the healthy choice - the pizza is removed entirely, because we still have unhealthy eaters among us. They've shot the pizza. Get it?
Healthcare, retirement, schooling... they have "Nudge Policy" for all of this, yet they are not demanding flat out that you must do this one thing or that without first laying the groundwork. They just keep eliminating choices until there is a new normal. Then they don't care what you choose, so long as the choice is compulsory. And you may say, ok, one Ivy League professor puts out a psycho-political policy book, it doesn't make it so. However, this author was Cass Sunstein. And the entire book laid out various effective tools for manipulation of the masses not by direct order, but by slowly, and permanently, removing the "bad" options from your life. And so long as choosing is compulsory, they have forced you into a "good" situation (if you don't want to choose, see the Borg declaration, page 1, section 1, paragraph 1).
So what does a Harvard professor's book have to do with any real world affect on government, or the current administration? Well not only was the good author, Professor Cass Sunstein, consulted in the crafting of Obamacare, but he served as President Obama's Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from 2009-2012. He described this as his "dream job." By the way, his wife is Samantha Powers, the current US ambassador to the UN. Sunstein literally coined the phrase "choice architect." The man wields real power and influence. Two of his other books, "Republic 2.0", and "Radicals in Robes." Get where this is going? This is the "fundamental transformation" Yoda. And less you think I'm just bashing some "liberal" Obama acolyte, this same man adamantly defended Bush's right to conduct military commissions in the war on terror. Is there any doubt on how he feels about five presidencies' authority to use the NSA, on everyone? In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to "reformulate First Amendment law." Reformulate? Wanna get even scarier? The purpose of this reformulation would be to "reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.” He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,” and thinks that“in light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.” He proposes a “New Deal for speech that would draw on Justice Bradeis' insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.” Well, that's not creepy. I'm thinking of being Cass Sunstein for Halloween! And not only do serious people take his advice, not only did he direct that Orwellian sounding office, but he currently is instructing at America's most elite university. Now I'm sure this guy is considered by normal standards and political affiliations a "leftist", but I don't see it that way (how many leftists were defending W on the war on terror?). This guy has a single allegiance - POWER. To authority. To ensuring compliance. This man's ideology and formulations permeates both parties, one's just on a bullet train to mandating earthly nirvana and the other is riding the Union Pacific (first class no doubt). And they have BOTH made it their mission to crush this Tea Party rebellion.
Now back to the big picture point of my post. What makes this man's ideology (and that creepy sounding position in the administration) possible? A government's very nature is to expand. No one gets elected by promising to keep the status quo, or why else elect someone new, right? And even that would be fine if not for one crucial element - the nature of law makers is to do, not to undo. It is by far easier to pass a fix than repeal a problem. And each succeeding generation of law makers builds on the precedent of the last. Social Security sets the precedent for mandatory bond purchases. Medicaid sets the precedent for Obamacare. DEA mass surveillance sets the precedent for complete NSA authority. We have "always" voted YES to raise the debt ceiling, so we can't stop now. Mandated seat belts later allows cell phones while driving laws. Registering your firearm leads to city-wide bans. Just a little here, just a little there, for your safety of course. It's why fighting these smaller measures is so crucial, once you allow a new normal to develop, its too late.
So is it too late now? I see that Titus is qualifying his "back nine" admission with "my own personal back nine." Uh huh. I'm curious. Did you ever ask yourself "why?" Why do people from Wilson, to FDR, to Johnson to Sunstein and Obama - and all the less notable but equally dedicated "choice architects" in between - push these means? What is their end? What do they think will happen? After all, this top-down central planning of every aspect of life has never succeeded before, so what do they hope to achieve? I'll give you my answer. I truly think they believe utopia can be achieved in this life. In this world. If just the right people were in charge, with the right motivations, with the right authority we can actually eliminate all poverty, all suffering and set you "free" from worry, free from risk, and if individuals have to give up an archaic Right or two, so be it, we're trying to fundamentally transform here... after all, Vader only wanted the power to save his wife, but these pesky rebels kept upping the ante.
So here we sit... 50% show up to vote, and most of them are too distracted to notice what's going on. They simply don't realize that you cannot eliminate risk without first eliminating the freedom to choose that risk. And once you start eliminating freedoms, you've entered the back nine. So its' nice to see you here Titus... the club house is nice, the beer is wicked expensive, no mulligans, and the hangman will clean your ball on the 18th... he has the time, he's already set up.
"The back nine"...
Yes, Ryan, I am on my own, personal "back nine" when it comes to the state of this nation.
I don't think there is a single, solitary man or woman in the entire United States Congress that will actually do ANYTHING to change the current paradigm or spend, spend, spend. The only question on any of their minds is how to spend the most tax-payer money they possibly can on the special "interests" that best represent their lobbyists and supporters.
No man or woman that is in any way a "contender" to the White House will do ANYTHING to change the fact that the President of the United States is a spokesman for those same special interests. Once the word was out that every President since Reagan... and I am curious to hear someone (ahem) defend Ronnie now that it is common knowledge that he was fully aware and condoned the warrant-less collection of phone records by the DEA, and that every single President since has done the same or expanded the program... has completely ignored the limitations and protections promised by the Constitution, I really can't imagine what it is going to take to get me to trust someone in that office ever again.
There was a time when I was upset over the fact that I had to dip into my 401k retirement account to finish repairing and then selling my home in MS after Katrina. Time was, I was worried that I didn't have a 401k plan in place since that time, either. Now, I'm actually thankful that I don't have any of my money in an account where the Fed can simply force my provider to invest in government bonds rather than cash funds, practically forcing Americans to invest trillions more into already overblown government debt. I have since used my earnings to pay down my own debt and live a much more sustainable lifestyle. With any luck, my family will be able to support ourselves with only a fraction of the money that I was spending on daily living costs only 6 years ago.
Our government seems hell-bent on perpetuating what I consider to be a lie of horrific magnitude... that the United States is the "leader" and "peacekeeper" of the world. We have (and still do) lead the world in many areas... the average standard of living being the most obvious... but the cost is unsustainable in the extreme. The greatest generation that Ryan described in his last post was exactly that, not because they won WWII or survived the greatest global economic crisis in the last century, but because they learned (through necessity) that what was going to get them through the "crisis" (whatever it might have been) was individual effort and sacrifice, not government intervention and support.
What gave us all that universal "warm and fuzzy" feeling after we all witnessed the tragedies of 9-11, or Katrina, or Sandy, or any other disaster in the last 20 years? It wasn't "government"... it was individual efforts and sacrifice. That gives us faith in our country and our fellow man... not images of the Boston police breaking into private homes after the marathon bombing in search of a suspect. Not news that every single email-text-cell call-blog post-URL visit is being recorded and saved by the NSA in an effort to win the War on Terror.
War on Poverty. War on Drugs. War on Terror. In this regard, Ron Paul is 100% correct: there is no winning this sort of war, and watching our freedoms and liberties slowly but surely disappear in the effort to win these un-winnable "conflicts" is the exact same was watching the slow and agonizing death of the United States itself.
As Ryan put it so well, I'll repeat what he said:
I will not comply!
I don't think there is a single, solitary man or woman in the entire United States Congress that will actually do ANYTHING to change the current paradigm or spend, spend, spend. The only question on any of their minds is how to spend the most tax-payer money they possibly can on the special "interests" that best represent their lobbyists and supporters.
No man or woman that is in any way a "contender" to the White House will do ANYTHING to change the fact that the President of the United States is a spokesman for those same special interests. Once the word was out that every President since Reagan... and I am curious to hear someone (ahem) defend Ronnie now that it is common knowledge that he was fully aware and condoned the warrant-less collection of phone records by the DEA, and that every single President since has done the same or expanded the program... has completely ignored the limitations and protections promised by the Constitution, I really can't imagine what it is going to take to get me to trust someone in that office ever again.
There was a time when I was upset over the fact that I had to dip into my 401k retirement account to finish repairing and then selling my home in MS after Katrina. Time was, I was worried that I didn't have a 401k plan in place since that time, either. Now, I'm actually thankful that I don't have any of my money in an account where the Fed can simply force my provider to invest in government bonds rather than cash funds, practically forcing Americans to invest trillions more into already overblown government debt. I have since used my earnings to pay down my own debt and live a much more sustainable lifestyle. With any luck, my family will be able to support ourselves with only a fraction of the money that I was spending on daily living costs only 6 years ago.
Our government seems hell-bent on perpetuating what I consider to be a lie of horrific magnitude... that the United States is the "leader" and "peacekeeper" of the world. We have (and still do) lead the world in many areas... the average standard of living being the most obvious... but the cost is unsustainable in the extreme. The greatest generation that Ryan described in his last post was exactly that, not because they won WWII or survived the greatest global economic crisis in the last century, but because they learned (through necessity) that what was going to get them through the "crisis" (whatever it might have been) was individual effort and sacrifice, not government intervention and support.
What gave us all that universal "warm and fuzzy" feeling after we all witnessed the tragedies of 9-11, or Katrina, or Sandy, or any other disaster in the last 20 years? It wasn't "government"... it was individual efforts and sacrifice. That gives us faith in our country and our fellow man... not images of the Boston police breaking into private homes after the marathon bombing in search of a suspect. Not news that every single email-text-cell call-blog post-URL visit is being recorded and saved by the NSA in an effort to win the War on Terror.
War on Poverty. War on Drugs. War on Terror. In this regard, Ron Paul is 100% correct: there is no winning this sort of war, and watching our freedoms and liberties slowly but surely disappear in the effort to win these un-winnable "conflicts" is the exact same was watching the slow and agonizing death of the United States itself.
As Ryan put it so well, I'll repeat what he said:
I will not comply!
Thursday, October 24, 2013
I will not comply.
You don't recover from this. And I don't just mean $17,000,000,000,000,000 in debt or perverse government corruption by what is in every sense of the phrase, a permanent "ruling class" (30-40 years in DC and you're supposed to maintain your connection to reality? Right). It's all that, true, but it is more. We now live in a country where the average person can name more members of the Kardashian family than liberties in the Bill of Rights. We are a nation of distraction. From devices to sports to movies, we want or bread and circus, not civil responsibility. Elections are now - unquestionably - identity politics. We elect whomever seems "cooler." We have successfully American idolized politics, and that's for the 50% who bother to vote.
Now my dear friend will argue (and has on many occasions) that we've gotten through worse as a nation. The Civil War with 600,000 dead, half the nation in ruin; the Great Depression; WWII, these are the familiar refrains offered to combat my pessimism. As of today I officially reject those examples, and I do so based on a simple question... are we still those people? The Civil War generation, who buried their dead and turned right around and laid track and built great metal beasts into the mountains and hostile territories of the West. Are we them? How about the Greatest Generation, who literally saved the world and ruled the NIRA unconstitutional 9-0, are we as solid, as grounded, as those people?
Give me a break. We freak out if a cable dispute removes the Cartoon Network.
I'm not giving up on America. I'm simply noting our course direction - suicide. Need further proof? There were a hand full of congressman & senators, most notably represented in Ted Cruz, who filibustered while offering fiscal compromises. Men who want to balance the budget, who want to not spend more than we take in, and THEY are widely considered the extremists, even by the elders in their own party. Think about that - we are 17.4 Trillion dollars in debt and the ones considered MODERATES are insisting we raise our debt ceiling. THAT is the "sensible" position while those insisting we stop spending are called economic terrorists (literally, on msnbc). Allan Greyson (D) FL sent out a mailer after the (17% of) government shutdown ended. It read "tea party" across the front with a large burning cross serving as the lower case "t." Did his party excoriate him? No. Of course not. In 08' Obama himself repeatedly attacked Hillary's insistence that there be an individual mandate in any future healthcare law, saying quote "If that was the solution we could solve homelessness by mandating that everyone by a house." He even went on to say that if you install a fine for non compliance people whom can't afford healthcare will be worse off because they'd be stuck with a fine and still no insurance. But does the press call him on the fact that he refuses to negotiate on a one year delay of a mandate he once opposed? No. Of course not. The PoTUS actually stood before the American people yesterday and said the healthcare exchanges were still a good product, despite the foul ups with the website, and insisted there were still lots of way to enroll - mail in an application, in person, and over the phone. But did even ONE member of the press ask the most obvious question of all - "Doesn't the information still have to be entered into that same website, by someone?" No. Of course not. Yet Ted Cruz is a "wacko bird" according to John McCain, because he wants to delay it for a year. We are officially down the rabbit hole Alice.
Make no mistake, as men aligned with Tea Party ideology - formerly known as balancing your check book - we will not survive with our reputation intact. Not within this lifetime. Whether its standing in your church, in your town hall meeting, or standing for office, understand that WE are now the crazy ones once we speak up. You now have two national political organizations hell bent on destroying us and unless we can figure out how to get those indians to come over the hill one at a time, we damned sure better unite. And as one who detests platitudes, let me be specific - support Cruz and all those offering primary challenges within the GOP. That party either has to be fumigated or dismissed.
Can we do it? Lets put it this way - Luke had a much better shot at landing that one laser torpedo to destroy the Death Star, and we don't even have the Force. But WWII you'll cry, the Civil War you'll say, the colonial Revolution! We did all that! No. WE didn't. THEY did. Here's the problem - as a nation we simply have not cultivated and prized what made the generations before us "great." As for me, I'll still try, because what America was is worth restoring, and I'd like future historians to be able to say "well, at least they weren't ALL insane" before they turn the page. But as former and current casino men lets not kid ourselves, we're betting on a long shot. And "you WILL comply", is the house.
Now my dear friend will argue (and has on many occasions) that we've gotten through worse as a nation. The Civil War with 600,000 dead, half the nation in ruin; the Great Depression; WWII, these are the familiar refrains offered to combat my pessimism. As of today I officially reject those examples, and I do so based on a simple question... are we still those people? The Civil War generation, who buried their dead and turned right around and laid track and built great metal beasts into the mountains and hostile territories of the West. Are we them? How about the Greatest Generation, who literally saved the world and ruled the NIRA unconstitutional 9-0, are we as solid, as grounded, as those people?
Give me a break. We freak out if a cable dispute removes the Cartoon Network.
I'm not giving up on America. I'm simply noting our course direction - suicide. Need further proof? There were a hand full of congressman & senators, most notably represented in Ted Cruz, who filibustered while offering fiscal compromises. Men who want to balance the budget, who want to not spend more than we take in, and THEY are widely considered the extremists, even by the elders in their own party. Think about that - we are 17.4 Trillion dollars in debt and the ones considered MODERATES are insisting we raise our debt ceiling. THAT is the "sensible" position while those insisting we stop spending are called economic terrorists (literally, on msnbc). Allan Greyson (D) FL sent out a mailer after the (17% of) government shutdown ended. It read "tea party" across the front with a large burning cross serving as the lower case "t." Did his party excoriate him? No. Of course not. In 08' Obama himself repeatedly attacked Hillary's insistence that there be an individual mandate in any future healthcare law, saying quote "If that was the solution we could solve homelessness by mandating that everyone by a house." He even went on to say that if you install a fine for non compliance people whom can't afford healthcare will be worse off because they'd be stuck with a fine and still no insurance. But does the press call him on the fact that he refuses to negotiate on a one year delay of a mandate he once opposed? No. Of course not. The PoTUS actually stood before the American people yesterday and said the healthcare exchanges were still a good product, despite the foul ups with the website, and insisted there were still lots of way to enroll - mail in an application, in person, and over the phone. But did even ONE member of the press ask the most obvious question of all - "Doesn't the information still have to be entered into that same website, by someone?" No. Of course not. Yet Ted Cruz is a "wacko bird" according to John McCain, because he wants to delay it for a year. We are officially down the rabbit hole Alice.
Make no mistake, as men aligned with Tea Party ideology - formerly known as balancing your check book - we will not survive with our reputation intact. Not within this lifetime. Whether its standing in your church, in your town hall meeting, or standing for office, understand that WE are now the crazy ones once we speak up. You now have two national political organizations hell bent on destroying us and unless we can figure out how to get those indians to come over the hill one at a time, we damned sure better unite. And as one who detests platitudes, let me be specific - support Cruz and all those offering primary challenges within the GOP. That party either has to be fumigated or dismissed.
Can we do it? Lets put it this way - Luke had a much better shot at landing that one laser torpedo to destroy the Death Star, and we don't even have the Force. But WWII you'll cry, the Civil War you'll say, the colonial Revolution! We did all that! No. WE didn't. THEY did. Here's the problem - as a nation we simply have not cultivated and prized what made the generations before us "great." As for me, I'll still try, because what America was is worth restoring, and I'd like future historians to be able to say "well, at least they weren't ALL insane" before they turn the page. But as former and current casino men lets not kid ourselves, we're betting on a long shot. And "you WILL comply", is the house.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
My thoughts....
I haven't posted in ages... I know.
I've been watching the national news quite closely, and I have to admit that at no point in my adult past have I been SO disgusted with the government. Republican and Democrat alike are as useless as tits on a boar pig, each and every one of them.
As the shutdown, the Ed Snowden scandal, the IRS debacle, the latest DEA disaster all unfold before us, I am rapidly... and possibly irrevocably... losing all hope for finding a functional solution to this nation's woes.
I mean, honestly. The government of this country has been gathering phone and communication records on any (and possibly ALL) of us (probably illegally, certainly unethically) since 1987... and all we are worried about as a nation is national park access and EBT balance availability? A sitting President gets flack for demanding that Federal employees working in the public sector do ALL THEY CAN to make the "shutdown" as painful and visible as possible... but every President since Reagan has known about warrant-less record grabbing by the DEA (that's five Presidents over twenty six years, people) and that is dismissed as "paranoia from the alternative media"???
I don't know what to say... I'm so utterly disgusted I can't even keep typing.
I've been watching the national news quite closely, and I have to admit that at no point in my adult past have I been SO disgusted with the government. Republican and Democrat alike are as useless as tits on a boar pig, each and every one of them.
As the shutdown, the Ed Snowden scandal, the IRS debacle, the latest DEA disaster all unfold before us, I am rapidly... and possibly irrevocably... losing all hope for finding a functional solution to this nation's woes.
I mean, honestly. The government of this country has been gathering phone and communication records on any (and possibly ALL) of us (probably illegally, certainly unethically) since 1987... and all we are worried about as a nation is national park access and EBT balance availability? A sitting President gets flack for demanding that Federal employees working in the public sector do ALL THEY CAN to make the "shutdown" as painful and visible as possible... but every President since Reagan has known about warrant-less record grabbing by the DEA (that's five Presidents over twenty six years, people) and that is dismissed as "paranoia from the alternative media"???
I don't know what to say... I'm so utterly disgusted I can't even keep typing.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
On Dan Carlin...
Under our "favorites" section, you will find a link to a podcaster named Dan Carlin. This is MUST HAVE ear candy for anyone associated with the Driveway Bund... period.
This is the most in-depth, well-researched look at current affairs (the Common Sense podcasts) and historical reviews (Hardcore History) available to anyone willing to listen to podcasts at all. I have done more deep-thinking while listening to his shows then I have since the last face-to-face meeting of the Bund in 2008.
I am particularly driven to think of the Bund when I hear his comments on the impossibility of divorcing any single facet of history in favor of all other facets. In other words, you cannot allow the "good" side of an historical situation to counter or off-set the "bad" side of an historical situation.
We have done this countless times, and (according to Carlin) this is nothing short of pure, revisionist history... something we have all voiced our collective and individual abhorrence to.
Example: One cannot separate the tactics, strategies and actions of the Wehrmacht in WWII from those of the Nazis and their goals regarding the "Final Solution". Were there no Wehrmacht, there would have been no opportunity to attempt the "Final Solution" by the Nazi elite.
Example: How many times have I taken a pro-Confederate position in discussions about the American Civil War? I routinely put aside the "question" of slavery in favor of the CSA's policies and positions regarding States rights vs Federal authority. According to Carlin, I cannot do this without taking a revisionist position, because I cannot rationally divorce slavery from the Confederate side of the debate simply because I don't want to try and make that objectionable part of history fit into my view.
Example: How many times have I argued with Ryan about some obscure facet of Reagan's foreign policy agenda that didn't mesh with the "constitutionalist-ideal" that Ryan and others so want Reagan to fit? By arguing that any wrongs done or questionable policies applied were easily over-looked in the long term view is "revisionist" and not only rhetorically in error, but morally objectionable to boot.
Please, give the guy a listen at the earliest opportunity, and let me know what you think.
This is the most in-depth, well-researched look at current affairs (the Common Sense podcasts) and historical reviews (Hardcore History) available to anyone willing to listen to podcasts at all. I have done more deep-thinking while listening to his shows then I have since the last face-to-face meeting of the Bund in 2008.
I am particularly driven to think of the Bund when I hear his comments on the impossibility of divorcing any single facet of history in favor of all other facets. In other words, you cannot allow the "good" side of an historical situation to counter or off-set the "bad" side of an historical situation.
We have done this countless times, and (according to Carlin) this is nothing short of pure, revisionist history... something we have all voiced our collective and individual abhorrence to.
Example: One cannot separate the tactics, strategies and actions of the Wehrmacht in WWII from those of the Nazis and their goals regarding the "Final Solution". Were there no Wehrmacht, there would have been no opportunity to attempt the "Final Solution" by the Nazi elite.
Example: How many times have I taken a pro-Confederate position in discussions about the American Civil War? I routinely put aside the "question" of slavery in favor of the CSA's policies and positions regarding States rights vs Federal authority. According to Carlin, I cannot do this without taking a revisionist position, because I cannot rationally divorce slavery from the Confederate side of the debate simply because I don't want to try and make that objectionable part of history fit into my view.
Example: How many times have I argued with Ryan about some obscure facet of Reagan's foreign policy agenda that didn't mesh with the "constitutionalist-ideal" that Ryan and others so want Reagan to fit? By arguing that any wrongs done or questionable policies applied were easily over-looked in the long term view is "revisionist" and not only rhetorically in error, but morally objectionable to boot.
Please, give the guy a listen at the earliest opportunity, and let me know what you think.
Friday, September 13, 2013
On Ryan's last...
I had actually stopped checking the Bund for new posts... its been THAT long. Had you not sent me the text, I'd still not have read it.
I think I see your point... but let me make mine and you can tell me if I do or don't.
The US has its "bread and butter" in FREEDOM, and we advocate representative democracy as the means by which all nations and states can gain what we have. Tyranny and despotism are BAD, democracy and republicanism are GOOD.
However, this "bread and butter" foundation to our foreign policy framework has some HUGE drawbacks...
If the despotic tyrants are "over-thrown" and a new, democratically elected government is set up and operating, what happens when that elected representative system goes against American interests? Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon... all now function as "legitimate" political bodies within their respective governments (or maintain outright elected control, as in Palestine). Suddenly, we are faced with the prospect of preferring the former despot to the elected government. As despotic and tyrannical as the Shah of Iran was in 1978... surely, we preferred him to the Revolutionary Council that kept Americans hostage for 444 days, right? Arafat was bad as a terrorist leader... but wasn't he worse for American foreign policy as an elected official in the Palestinian government?
The failing in American foreign policy right now is that it is still entrenched in the dogmatic paradigm of the Cold War... we support those that are "with us" and oppose those that are "against us", regardless of the means or manner in which that government takes and maintains power over its people.
Our formative years as a nation were spent almost entirely in an "isolationist" mentality. Unless attacked by outside forces (War of 1812), fighting in the US of A was a strictly internal, "domestic" sort of fighting and expansion. We crushed the Native Americans, fought a small war with Mexico, and nearly tore ourselves apart during the Civil War. On a "global scale" though, we did nothing until the imperialistic nationalism of a very select few took us to war with Spain over a few island territories.
In the last 25 years of American foreign policy, we seem to have forgotten that "all men are created equal" and that all people have the right to determine their own means of government. Tragic as the Syrian war is... it is up to the Syrians to determine their future. We should be supporting relief efforts to refugees in other nations, rather than picking sides and giving material support that WILL lead to more death and destruction.
I am rapidly losing faith in our government's ability to safely determine what is in the best "interests" of this nation... and that loss of faith has NOTHING to do with the party affiliation of the majority in Washington. Democrat or Republican... I think they are ALL idiots.
I think I see your point... but let me make mine and you can tell me if I do or don't.
The US has its "bread and butter" in FREEDOM, and we advocate representative democracy as the means by which all nations and states can gain what we have. Tyranny and despotism are BAD, democracy and republicanism are GOOD.
However, this "bread and butter" foundation to our foreign policy framework has some HUGE drawbacks...
If the despotic tyrants are "over-thrown" and a new, democratically elected government is set up and operating, what happens when that elected representative system goes against American interests? Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon... all now function as "legitimate" political bodies within their respective governments (or maintain outright elected control, as in Palestine). Suddenly, we are faced with the prospect of preferring the former despot to the elected government. As despotic and tyrannical as the Shah of Iran was in 1978... surely, we preferred him to the Revolutionary Council that kept Americans hostage for 444 days, right? Arafat was bad as a terrorist leader... but wasn't he worse for American foreign policy as an elected official in the Palestinian government?
The failing in American foreign policy right now is that it is still entrenched in the dogmatic paradigm of the Cold War... we support those that are "with us" and oppose those that are "against us", regardless of the means or manner in which that government takes and maintains power over its people.
Our formative years as a nation were spent almost entirely in an "isolationist" mentality. Unless attacked by outside forces (War of 1812), fighting in the US of A was a strictly internal, "domestic" sort of fighting and expansion. We crushed the Native Americans, fought a small war with Mexico, and nearly tore ourselves apart during the Civil War. On a "global scale" though, we did nothing until the imperialistic nationalism of a very select few took us to war with Spain over a few island territories.
In the last 25 years of American foreign policy, we seem to have forgotten that "all men are created equal" and that all people have the right to determine their own means of government. Tragic as the Syrian war is... it is up to the Syrians to determine their future. We should be supporting relief efforts to refugees in other nations, rather than picking sides and giving material support that WILL lead to more death and destruction.
I am rapidly losing faith in our government's ability to safely determine what is in the best "interests" of this nation... and that loss of faith has NOTHING to do with the party affiliation of the majority in Washington. Democrat or Republican... I think they are ALL idiots.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Six of one may not be a half dozen of the other...
Bolsheviks. French Jacobins. Nazis. What do they all have in common with Syria?
I'm going to give you my take on US intervention within Syria, Egypt, Libya, and the rest of the Near East, but this entire debacle known as "The Arab Spring" must be seen within a certain context. During a time of revolution, upheaval, turmoil -insert your favorite platitude here- nation state after nation state all fall victim to one overriding truism. Organized minorities can corral unorganized majorities. The question for the US, regarding the Near East, is which organized minority group is preferable? The militaristic dictatorships of the Mubarak and Assad variety, or the Jihadists? Because what is clear, what is undeniable, is that at this point in world history stable democracies In the Middle East (and I use both terms loosely) must be enforced at the end of a US Marine rifle to have any chance of survival. And given 12 years of doing just that in two nations has soured the American electorate on attempting this enforcement on yet a third country, we are left with a very difficult, and tasteless choice. Difficult because "freedom" is our bread and butter, so backing despots - despite their secular/friendly nature to us - doesn't sit right. And tasteless because in either choice, innocent "live and let live" Muslims will have rights trampled and lives lost. However, it is imperative that we look at Syria through the lense of this very dark choice.
Assad. I saw a instant gram message picture online that sent me down a trail of thought. The message included a photo of his wife in Nike workout gear, expensive running shoes, the works. And it occurred to me that this is one despot that has secular skin in the game. He has palaces to lose, expense accounts to consider, gold necklaces and silver plated pistols to keep dust free (or is it silver necklaces and gold plated pistols?). Plus, he has a military stranglehold. A military that is winning, more than not, this bloody little civil conflict in which 100,000+ have lost their lives. So if you are Assad you're in your late 40's. You have a sweet life. Ya, Tehran treats you like their lap dog, but you like the palaces and women, so it's all good. And this bothersome rebel group, consisting more often then not of those damned no fun having Jihadists, have given you a good scare but you have tanks, Russian ones, and in the end you know that "tanks" beat "no tanks." So you look around and you're fairly confident that you're going to come out of this much better than Mubarak, or that dog Qaddafi. So you say to yourself, what is the one thing I could do to give the Americans an excuse to lunch two million dollar missiles at my ten dollar barracks? I know! I'll gas 1,400 people. That way I can get some tomahawks slammed right into my tanks, and screw this whole thing up.
Is this what happened?
Let's set aside our odd obsession with what I call our "moral math." I mean, 1,400 dead by chemicals is enough to wage war, based on our WWI treaties (yes, World War ONE), but 100,000 dead by Ak's and machetes, that's no violation of "international norms." Something seems off there to me. And instead lets focus on whether the above scenario is the most plausible. Not "possible", which of course it is because when gaming the Middle East one must always leave room for crazy, but is it plausible? In case my sarcasm left room for ambiguity, I have my doubts. Then there's the Russian bear. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust ol' Vlad Putin with an unloaded gun, but he now flatly claims that our SoS is lying and says he has proof that it was in fact the rebels who gassed their own people in order to play the only strategic card available to them - get us to destroy Assad's tanks (read: heavy weapon advantage).
This introduces the other angle... if you are a hardened Jihadist, and you see the various despotic regimes within the 22 Arab states as apostates, then you have to figure out how to depose them. You're organized and devoted, but despite the Imam's fiery rhetoric ginning up the 19 year old Saudis trying to "find themselves" at the underground Mosque, you have seen real battle and you also know that in the end tanks beat no tanks. So what would be even better than destroying those tanks yourself? Why getting the great satan to do it for you! In fact, manipulate them into thinking it is their duty. And there was that "red line" statement of the president, that could be useful. So you murder...err...martyr 1,400 souls to further the greater goal of a united PanArab caliphate, and just like that the American president lines up to slice your opponent's throat with those damned Tomahawk missiles... maybe cruise.
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. I'm not quite there yet, despite my commentary above, but I'm damn close.
Of course it is possible some rogue Syrian general ordered a chemical strike. Again though, we must weigh possible against probable. What is clear to me is that unless we are willing to put boots on the ground, we really have only those two original choices - militaristic despots, or Jihadist theocracies. Left to their own devices the Middle East seems - at this point in history - capable of producing only those two forms of government (and for you sticklers out there, the Saudi and Jordanian monarchs exercise control because they can afford to pay the military apparatus). It may be awful to contemplate, but if you are an official charged with the responsibility to safeguard American lives, clearly a Mubarak is safer than a Muslim Brotherhood, and a Sha is safer than an Ayatollah. Which brings me back to Assad. If you are Bashir (his first name), the best "strike" you can make right now is to release a YouTube video addressing the West, and America in specific (and I mean the average Joe American, not the National Security Council), and say, "Look, I am the stop gap between you guys and these Jihadists. I will deal with the radicals whom want to bring down two more of your towers. I will lend stability to your oil markets, and I will do my best to avoid civilian casualties, but understand you are about to arm and aide Al Qeda in Syria. The same men killing your troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We may not always agree, but right now we have the same enemy." Then make sure those photos of your wife in work out gear get out there. Along with you in a suit and tie eating dinner with Kerry in a nice restaurant (from some years back), juxtaposed against the picture of that rebel eating a man's heart on the battlefield. By the way, that's not hyperbole. That is an authenticated video on the web.
Just to be clear - far be it from me to "advise" a despot and butcher like Assad. I'm simply trying to wargame this thing out. The administration keeps talking about what will happen if we don't strike, and few are talking about what will happen if we do. Russia has a warm water port in Syria, and Assad is their man. Will Putin sit on his hands? What if Iran set up that chemical strike and as soon as we launch our missles the Iranians arrange to kill 10,000 this time with chem weapons, baiting us into boots on the ground in a third nation? Not to mention going into Syria hot may reignite the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. Libya is still a mess and Egypt is one battle away from full out civil war. The Egyptian military is considering making the Muslim Brotherhood illegal as an institution after winning an election eight months ago. Think about that rallying cry - "We tried democracy, it's a joke, Allah Uh Akbar!" Does anyone think the brotherhood will simply disband and open up a fried date stand?
What is clear to me is the Arab Spring has become a debacle for both the entire region and the West. And the one place where it could have proven useful to the West, Iran, we refused to back the revolutionaries. So again I say if the American electorate feels the end of a Marine rifle is no longer an acceptable mechanism for enforcement of a democratic regime (an oxymoronic phrase if I've ever written one), than we must make our dark choice. Which organized minority will we back? The theocracy or the despot? Despite who we invite, they are the only two guests showing up at this party.
To be honest, what scares me more than anything at this moment is our president is just vain enough to delude himself into thinking he, through the power of his will, can forge some third option. Men like that have started world wars.
I'm going to give you my take on US intervention within Syria, Egypt, Libya, and the rest of the Near East, but this entire debacle known as "The Arab Spring" must be seen within a certain context. During a time of revolution, upheaval, turmoil -insert your favorite platitude here- nation state after nation state all fall victim to one overriding truism. Organized minorities can corral unorganized majorities. The question for the US, regarding the Near East, is which organized minority group is preferable? The militaristic dictatorships of the Mubarak and Assad variety, or the Jihadists? Because what is clear, what is undeniable, is that at this point in world history stable democracies In the Middle East (and I use both terms loosely) must be enforced at the end of a US Marine rifle to have any chance of survival. And given 12 years of doing just that in two nations has soured the American electorate on attempting this enforcement on yet a third country, we are left with a very difficult, and tasteless choice. Difficult because "freedom" is our bread and butter, so backing despots - despite their secular/friendly nature to us - doesn't sit right. And tasteless because in either choice, innocent "live and let live" Muslims will have rights trampled and lives lost. However, it is imperative that we look at Syria through the lense of this very dark choice.
Assad. I saw a instant gram message picture online that sent me down a trail of thought. The message included a photo of his wife in Nike workout gear, expensive running shoes, the works. And it occurred to me that this is one despot that has secular skin in the game. He has palaces to lose, expense accounts to consider, gold necklaces and silver plated pistols to keep dust free (or is it silver necklaces and gold plated pistols?). Plus, he has a military stranglehold. A military that is winning, more than not, this bloody little civil conflict in which 100,000+ have lost their lives. So if you are Assad you're in your late 40's. You have a sweet life. Ya, Tehran treats you like their lap dog, but you like the palaces and women, so it's all good. And this bothersome rebel group, consisting more often then not of those damned no fun having Jihadists, have given you a good scare but you have tanks, Russian ones, and in the end you know that "tanks" beat "no tanks." So you look around and you're fairly confident that you're going to come out of this much better than Mubarak, or that dog Qaddafi. So you say to yourself, what is the one thing I could do to give the Americans an excuse to lunch two million dollar missiles at my ten dollar barracks? I know! I'll gas 1,400 people. That way I can get some tomahawks slammed right into my tanks, and screw this whole thing up.
Is this what happened?
Let's set aside our odd obsession with what I call our "moral math." I mean, 1,400 dead by chemicals is enough to wage war, based on our WWI treaties (yes, World War ONE), but 100,000 dead by Ak's and machetes, that's no violation of "international norms." Something seems off there to me. And instead lets focus on whether the above scenario is the most plausible. Not "possible", which of course it is because when gaming the Middle East one must always leave room for crazy, but is it plausible? In case my sarcasm left room for ambiguity, I have my doubts. Then there's the Russian bear. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust ol' Vlad Putin with an unloaded gun, but he now flatly claims that our SoS is lying and says he has proof that it was in fact the rebels who gassed their own people in order to play the only strategic card available to them - get us to destroy Assad's tanks (read: heavy weapon advantage).
This introduces the other angle... if you are a hardened Jihadist, and you see the various despotic regimes within the 22 Arab states as apostates, then you have to figure out how to depose them. You're organized and devoted, but despite the Imam's fiery rhetoric ginning up the 19 year old Saudis trying to "find themselves" at the underground Mosque, you have seen real battle and you also know that in the end tanks beat no tanks. So what would be even better than destroying those tanks yourself? Why getting the great satan to do it for you! In fact, manipulate them into thinking it is their duty. And there was that "red line" statement of the president, that could be useful. So you murder...err...martyr 1,400 souls to further the greater goal of a united PanArab caliphate, and just like that the American president lines up to slice your opponent's throat with those damned Tomahawk missiles... maybe cruise.
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. I'm not quite there yet, despite my commentary above, but I'm damn close.
Of course it is possible some rogue Syrian general ordered a chemical strike. Again though, we must weigh possible against probable. What is clear to me is that unless we are willing to put boots on the ground, we really have only those two original choices - militaristic despots, or Jihadist theocracies. Left to their own devices the Middle East seems - at this point in history - capable of producing only those two forms of government (and for you sticklers out there, the Saudi and Jordanian monarchs exercise control because they can afford to pay the military apparatus). It may be awful to contemplate, but if you are an official charged with the responsibility to safeguard American lives, clearly a Mubarak is safer than a Muslim Brotherhood, and a Sha is safer than an Ayatollah. Which brings me back to Assad. If you are Bashir (his first name), the best "strike" you can make right now is to release a YouTube video addressing the West, and America in specific (and I mean the average Joe American, not the National Security Council), and say, "Look, I am the stop gap between you guys and these Jihadists. I will deal with the radicals whom want to bring down two more of your towers. I will lend stability to your oil markets, and I will do my best to avoid civilian casualties, but understand you are about to arm and aide Al Qeda in Syria. The same men killing your troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We may not always agree, but right now we have the same enemy." Then make sure those photos of your wife in work out gear get out there. Along with you in a suit and tie eating dinner with Kerry in a nice restaurant (from some years back), juxtaposed against the picture of that rebel eating a man's heart on the battlefield. By the way, that's not hyperbole. That is an authenticated video on the web.
Just to be clear - far be it from me to "advise" a despot and butcher like Assad. I'm simply trying to wargame this thing out. The administration keeps talking about what will happen if we don't strike, and few are talking about what will happen if we do. Russia has a warm water port in Syria, and Assad is their man. Will Putin sit on his hands? What if Iran set up that chemical strike and as soon as we launch our missles the Iranians arrange to kill 10,000 this time with chem weapons, baiting us into boots on the ground in a third nation? Not to mention going into Syria hot may reignite the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. Libya is still a mess and Egypt is one battle away from full out civil war. The Egyptian military is considering making the Muslim Brotherhood illegal as an institution after winning an election eight months ago. Think about that rallying cry - "We tried democracy, it's a joke, Allah Uh Akbar!" Does anyone think the brotherhood will simply disband and open up a fried date stand?
What is clear to me is the Arab Spring has become a debacle for both the entire region and the West. And the one place where it could have proven useful to the West, Iran, we refused to back the revolutionaries. So again I say if the American electorate feels the end of a Marine rifle is no longer an acceptable mechanism for enforcement of a democratic regime (an oxymoronic phrase if I've ever written one), than we must make our dark choice. Which organized minority will we back? The theocracy or the despot? Despite who we invite, they are the only two guests showing up at this party.
To be honest, what scares me more than anything at this moment is our president is just vain enough to delude himself into thinking he, through the power of his will, can forge some third option. Men like that have started world wars.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
99.7%
Two posts in almost as many days, look out!
While we're on the topic I wanted to make mention of a story that had me craning my neck towards the radio as I arched a brow the other day. Apparently the visitors center to the Capitol Rotunda caused a stir some years back when it rang in at a svelte 600 million dollars. The consensus was, it's nice, but not a half billion nice if you get my drift. It was chalked up to yet more evidence of government's inability to be efficient with our money, reminiscent of the old $500 Pentagon toilet seats (or was it a hammer?). Well, not so.
Apparently their is a heretofore secret underground lair (insert Dr. Evil laugh here) beneath the visitor center. A state of the art, protected (sound proofed and the works) facility where top secret meetings, or more accurately, "cases" are held. This is where the FISA Court warrants are issued. It's also where precedent is being set on what the feds can and can not "gather" domestically. The word is that SCOTUS level 4th Amendment decisions are being meted out there, which in turn is what the NSA, FBI, and even the CIA use as legal backing. In other words, this may be the source from which the NSA draws when Director Hayden claims, "We're working completely within the law."
My source on this? That rabid right wing dog... The Washington Post. You can read the full article here. And I quote, "The public is getting a peek into the little-known workings of a powerful and mostly invisible government entity... Critics, including some with knowledge of the court’s internal operations, say the court has undergone a disturbing shift. It was created in 1978 to handle routine surveillance warrants, but these critics say it is now issuing complex, classified, Supreme Court-style rulings that are quietly expanding the government’s reach into the private lives of unwitting Americans... The government can get virtually anything."
Apparently eleven members, federal judges each, serve on this court for an average of seven years. They are hand selected by one man, the Chief Justice, and the current eleven were all picked by Roberts... but we know we can trust him, right? Cough...ahem...Obamacare.
It's an interesting read, and may be the source of our current concerns over civil liberty violations, whereas the NSA is merely the end result. By the way, my post title... it's the rate at which this court approves government requests.
While we're on the topic I wanted to make mention of a story that had me craning my neck towards the radio as I arched a brow the other day. Apparently the visitors center to the Capitol Rotunda caused a stir some years back when it rang in at a svelte 600 million dollars. The consensus was, it's nice, but not a half billion nice if you get my drift. It was chalked up to yet more evidence of government's inability to be efficient with our money, reminiscent of the old $500 Pentagon toilet seats (or was it a hammer?). Well, not so.
Apparently their is a heretofore secret underground lair (insert Dr. Evil laugh here) beneath the visitor center. A state of the art, protected (sound proofed and the works) facility where top secret meetings, or more accurately, "cases" are held. This is where the FISA Court warrants are issued. It's also where precedent is being set on what the feds can and can not "gather" domestically. The word is that SCOTUS level 4th Amendment decisions are being meted out there, which in turn is what the NSA, FBI, and even the CIA use as legal backing. In other words, this may be the source from which the NSA draws when Director Hayden claims, "We're working completely within the law."
My source on this? That rabid right wing dog... The Washington Post. You can read the full article here. And I quote, "The public is getting a peek into the little-known workings of a powerful and mostly invisible government entity... Critics, including some with knowledge of the court’s internal operations, say the court has undergone a disturbing shift. It was created in 1978 to handle routine surveillance warrants, but these critics say it is now issuing complex, classified, Supreme Court-style rulings that are quietly expanding the government’s reach into the private lives of unwitting Americans... The government can get virtually anything."
Apparently eleven members, federal judges each, serve on this court for an average of seven years. They are hand selected by one man, the Chief Justice, and the current eleven were all picked by Roberts... but we know we can trust him, right? Cough...ahem...Obamacare.
It's an interesting read, and may be the source of our current concerns over civil liberty violations, whereas the NSA is merely the end result. By the way, my post title... it's the rate at which this court approves government requests.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Terrorism and Safety, Specifically...
You're right of course, I didn't really address that specifically and rather used the opportunity to vent my ever darkening mood towards the future of the country I love.
About that "mood", let me just add this... although brewing for some time it has no doubt redoubled after two events. In back to back fashion I took a class exclusively on "The Old Testament" (taught as a history class), and then plunged myself into The History of Rome Podcast (of which I'm on episode 77, of 179). And what I was forced into realizing was that the country I love so much and who's founding I believe was divine providence (how else one explains the accumulation of genius in what we collectively refer to as the founding fathers is beyond me), may be - and I stress may be - nothing more than a blip on history's radar. What I gleam from these two historical story lines is a people that again and again had the opportunity to right their ship, and just didn't. And what's even more evident is that their enemies were never able to conquer them externally until they first disabled themselves internally. With that model in mind I look at our historic arc and I fret. So, prior to this, did I expect that the United States of America would last the proverbial "forever." Short answer? Ya. I kinda did. Naive, sure. But that was in fact my world view - we're big, we're bad, we're here to stay. That admittedly juvenile world view has been shattered. And what's worse, the internal disabling that seems to afflict all of history's great nations (pick one, Britain, Rome, et al) is so slow (as Titus eluded), so plodding and pedantic that if you stand up and shout about its' existence you're dubbed a crazy man. Will America be relegated to a few vague acknowledgements among the dominant culture 500 years from now? The name Washington most recognized as a casino resort? Will the more informed citizens do little more than reference a podcast or own a copy of Gibbons' equivalent? We certainly seem to be destined for such a fate in that no other great power has found themselves capable of avoiding it. It may be long after we are set to rest in the hills of this land, but a moment when our descendants see the Visigoths come crashing across those hills, is inevitable.
Everybody feeling cheered up yet? Hehehe... ok, to another cheery subject: Islamic terrorism.
I thought about your question Titus (now asked twice), and two points came to mind. 1.) Between 9/11 and the moment we complete our troop "wind down", or whatever autocratic label they've given it now, yes, we have been safer. Let me explain. The admirable aspects of the Patriot Act (allowing the CIA to communicate info to the FBI comes to mind), and the billions pored into hiring translators, and technology has indeed made us safer. Bare in mind, I'm not judging their impact on Civil Liberties here, only their impact on physical safety from Islamic Fascists. That we went over a decade without another major attack (I'm counting Boston as the bookend to 9/11) is evidence of this safety. In addition, whatever else you can criticize Bush for he did accomplish one bit of logistical genius. As of September 11th, 2001 the enemy had brought the theater of war to our backyard. Bush firmly reaffixed that theater to their backyard. This had a real advantage for our homeland. Every wannabe Jihadi and terrorist with half a brain and a whole prayer rug wanted to fight the American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing it as their "duty" to drive the wicked West off Muslim land. I have no doubt that thousands of the (oft foreign) insurgents our boys smoked in those two theaters would have lined up as Jihadist cell members destined for our shores had Bush not reestablished the front lines "over there." So post 9/11 have we literally been physically safer? Yes. Unquestionably.
However, and here's point number 2.)... We did not secure a decisive WWII style victory against a very radical, very determined enemy over there. Our boys could whip them any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, but that's not the issue. Political correctness and the general softness (I don't know what else to call it) of our culture and modern leadership unequivocally preclude such a thing. Our new "victory model" over seas looks closer to a Korean style win (and in time, perhaps closer to Vietnam). What does this mean? When our troops really do leave, thousands of battle hardened, experienced, explosives trained Jihadists could follow us home. In essence only delaying the homeland as a theater of war. Or, equally as bad, the battle hardened Islamists could systematically attempt to topple the secular regimes of the Near East (monarchs, dictators or democrats, it makes no difference to them - if they're not Wahhabi, they're dead); and thus produce a half dozen or more little Irans (or big ones). By the way, the latter looks to be the Islamist strategy de'jour for the moment, and the current US leadership seems to be spinning the Big 6 Wheel to decide whom they're going to support from day to day.
So to be as succinct as possible - From 9/11 to our total disengagement of Iraq/Afghanistan (currently underway), yes I believe we were indeed physically safer here in the US. However, post troop withdrawal going into the future? The civil liberties we relinquished in the previous decade combined with the battle hardened enemy we leave behind may, in the long term, leave us less safe indeed. The bottom line, bringing the battle to them was logistically sound. But our tactic - namely the unwillingness to unconditionally defeat and disable our foe's ability to wage war - was not. The lesson? Don't go to war unless you intend to decimate the enemy's capabilities. Otherwise you could end up less safe than when you started. And at this moment, I would argue that's the most likely outcome for us... so be a dear and cue up the next podcast of "The Rise and Fall of America", it's really starting to get interesting.
About that "mood", let me just add this... although brewing for some time it has no doubt redoubled after two events. In back to back fashion I took a class exclusively on "The Old Testament" (taught as a history class), and then plunged myself into The History of Rome Podcast (of which I'm on episode 77, of 179). And what I was forced into realizing was that the country I love so much and who's founding I believe was divine providence (how else one explains the accumulation of genius in what we collectively refer to as the founding fathers is beyond me), may be - and I stress may be - nothing more than a blip on history's radar. What I gleam from these two historical story lines is a people that again and again had the opportunity to right their ship, and just didn't. And what's even more evident is that their enemies were never able to conquer them externally until they first disabled themselves internally. With that model in mind I look at our historic arc and I fret. So, prior to this, did I expect that the United States of America would last the proverbial "forever." Short answer? Ya. I kinda did. Naive, sure. But that was in fact my world view - we're big, we're bad, we're here to stay. That admittedly juvenile world view has been shattered. And what's worse, the internal disabling that seems to afflict all of history's great nations (pick one, Britain, Rome, et al) is so slow (as Titus eluded), so plodding and pedantic that if you stand up and shout about its' existence you're dubbed a crazy man. Will America be relegated to a few vague acknowledgements among the dominant culture 500 years from now? The name Washington most recognized as a casino resort? Will the more informed citizens do little more than reference a podcast or own a copy of Gibbons' equivalent? We certainly seem to be destined for such a fate in that no other great power has found themselves capable of avoiding it. It may be long after we are set to rest in the hills of this land, but a moment when our descendants see the Visigoths come crashing across those hills, is inevitable.
Everybody feeling cheered up yet? Hehehe... ok, to another cheery subject: Islamic terrorism.
I thought about your question Titus (now asked twice), and two points came to mind. 1.) Between 9/11 and the moment we complete our troop "wind down", or whatever autocratic label they've given it now, yes, we have been safer. Let me explain. The admirable aspects of the Patriot Act (allowing the CIA to communicate info to the FBI comes to mind), and the billions pored into hiring translators, and technology has indeed made us safer. Bare in mind, I'm not judging their impact on Civil Liberties here, only their impact on physical safety from Islamic Fascists. That we went over a decade without another major attack (I'm counting Boston as the bookend to 9/11) is evidence of this safety. In addition, whatever else you can criticize Bush for he did accomplish one bit of logistical genius. As of September 11th, 2001 the enemy had brought the theater of war to our backyard. Bush firmly reaffixed that theater to their backyard. This had a real advantage for our homeland. Every wannabe Jihadi and terrorist with half a brain and a whole prayer rug wanted to fight the American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing it as their "duty" to drive the wicked West off Muslim land. I have no doubt that thousands of the (oft foreign) insurgents our boys smoked in those two theaters would have lined up as Jihadist cell members destined for our shores had Bush not reestablished the front lines "over there." So post 9/11 have we literally been physically safer? Yes. Unquestionably.
However, and here's point number 2.)... We did not secure a decisive WWII style victory against a very radical, very determined enemy over there. Our boys could whip them any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, but that's not the issue. Political correctness and the general softness (I don't know what else to call it) of our culture and modern leadership unequivocally preclude such a thing. Our new "victory model" over seas looks closer to a Korean style win (and in time, perhaps closer to Vietnam). What does this mean? When our troops really do leave, thousands of battle hardened, experienced, explosives trained Jihadists could follow us home. In essence only delaying the homeland as a theater of war. Or, equally as bad, the battle hardened Islamists could systematically attempt to topple the secular regimes of the Near East (monarchs, dictators or democrats, it makes no difference to them - if they're not Wahhabi, they're dead); and thus produce a half dozen or more little Irans (or big ones). By the way, the latter looks to be the Islamist strategy de'jour for the moment, and the current US leadership seems to be spinning the Big 6 Wheel to decide whom they're going to support from day to day.
So to be as succinct as possible - From 9/11 to our total disengagement of Iraq/Afghanistan (currently underway), yes I believe we were indeed physically safer here in the US. However, post troop withdrawal going into the future? The civil liberties we relinquished in the previous decade combined with the battle hardened enemy we leave behind may, in the long term, leave us less safe indeed. The bottom line, bringing the battle to them was logistically sound. But our tactic - namely the unwillingness to unconditionally defeat and disable our foe's ability to wage war - was not. The lesson? Don't go to war unless you intend to decimate the enemy's capabilities. Otherwise you could end up less safe than when you started. And at this moment, I would argue that's the most likely outcome for us... so be a dear and cue up the next podcast of "The Rise and Fall of America", it's really starting to get interesting.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Analogy... {sigh}
I'm really not a fan of analogy, but F. Ryan's is appropriate, if nothing else.
Boiling the frog does seem to fit the description of the state of our nation. Were we plunged into "hot" water (i.e. dropped into a political situation where communism ruled all aspects of our lives), we'd all no doubt "jump out" of the pot. This isn't that sort of revolution, though... it is a slow, methodical shift in the national paradigm away from self-reliance and toward a complete dependency on the government.
Two points:
1) Ryan really didn't answer my question. I'm mainly concerned that the War on Terror is not only NOT being won, it is actually costing the US far more in damages over the long run than it is gaining us in short term safety. There is an attrition factor here that isn't being taken into account, and I'm not talking about pure manpower numbers... I'm talking about the "numbness" that comes from a prolonged national effort. We live the "normal life"... the modern "dolce vita" that is sapping our ability to adapt as a society in the face of change, hardship or disaster... while more and more of our individual rights, freedoms and liberties are removed to provide more dolce vita. In the meanwhile, our efforts to "win" the War on Terror are actually contributing to its protraction... perhaps even giving our enemies exactly what they wanted in the first place: a divided America unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to win the effort long-term.
2) I'm not as pessimistic as Ryan seems to be about the future options that America has in this regard. Sure, things look grim now, and probably will get worse in the near future before they ever get better... but that, too, is normal.
I really do think that, unless some outside factor intervenes in the national scene (i.e. another massive terrorist attack as big or bigger than 9-11) the US (and by extension, the world) will see an socio-economic "reset" point. Another great depression seems the most likely scenario. So much wealth is tied to utterly insubstantial matters that it really won't take a huge leap of imagination to see another crash of the sort we saw in 1929. Only the most basic and necessary of governmental services will be provided, and the average Joe on the street will simply have to learn to "make do" with what he has or can do himself.
I don't want this to happen, obviously. I like living the dolce vita, myself. I simply know to the bottom of my soul that it can't continue in an unsupportable environment. Something must provide the means to live that life, and I fear we simply don't have those means anymore.
Boiling the frog does seem to fit the description of the state of our nation. Were we plunged into "hot" water (i.e. dropped into a political situation where communism ruled all aspects of our lives), we'd all no doubt "jump out" of the pot. This isn't that sort of revolution, though... it is a slow, methodical shift in the national paradigm away from self-reliance and toward a complete dependency on the government.
Two points:
1) Ryan really didn't answer my question. I'm mainly concerned that the War on Terror is not only NOT being won, it is actually costing the US far more in damages over the long run than it is gaining us in short term safety. There is an attrition factor here that isn't being taken into account, and I'm not talking about pure manpower numbers... I'm talking about the "numbness" that comes from a prolonged national effort. We live the "normal life"... the modern "dolce vita" that is sapping our ability to adapt as a society in the face of change, hardship or disaster... while more and more of our individual rights, freedoms and liberties are removed to provide more dolce vita. In the meanwhile, our efforts to "win" the War on Terror are actually contributing to its protraction... perhaps even giving our enemies exactly what they wanted in the first place: a divided America unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to win the effort long-term.
2) I'm not as pessimistic as Ryan seems to be about the future options that America has in this regard. Sure, things look grim now, and probably will get worse in the near future before they ever get better... but that, too, is normal.
I really do think that, unless some outside factor intervenes in the national scene (i.e. another massive terrorist attack as big or bigger than 9-11) the US (and by extension, the world) will see an socio-economic "reset" point. Another great depression seems the most likely scenario. So much wealth is tied to utterly insubstantial matters that it really won't take a huge leap of imagination to see another crash of the sort we saw in 1929. Only the most basic and necessary of governmental services will be provided, and the average Joe on the street will simply have to learn to "make do" with what he has or can do himself.
I don't want this to happen, obviously. I like living the dolce vita, myself. I simply know to the bottom of my soul that it can't continue in an unsupportable environment. Something must provide the means to live that life, and I fear we simply don't have those means anymore.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
The consul of Julius and Caesar...
Fans of the podcast that Titus turned me on to will recognize my title as an ancient running joke among Romans of a certain era. Always two consuls stood for election. Always two were elected. Always. Yet with the demise of his colleague, Consul Gaius Julius Caesar didn't bother with ensuring that this colleague was replaced. Hence the consular year was jokingly referred to as "The consul of Julius, and Caesar." And this joke dovetails nicely into my response, as I will focus primarily on the NSA/powers of the state.
So I get a text the other day that reads, "Posted. But read very carefully." I know at that moment that I am not to read said post until I have a solid 45 minutes to respond. Titus has undoubtedly written something just to get my hair up, hoping it will lead to something productive because he's bored that afternoon, so why not screw with Ryan (hehe). But your worries were misplaced my friend. Perhaps this little anecdote will help explain why...
When I was in my early twenties I sat down across the table from the individual who's title was "Chair of the Department of Political Science" at the University of Southern Mississippi. Now, if you can believe it, at that age I was somewhat cocky about my handle on politics, debate, history, and the world in general. Again, I 'm sure you find this a jaw dropping revelation, but stick with me. So there I sat - under the very real pretense of getting "counseled" on how best to earn a PhD in poly sci - and I found myself ITCHING to start a fight with this "chair person." As far as I knew, all egg head PhD's were leftists, and the opportunity to test my acumen against someone deemed a "professional" was simply too much to resist. Damn the credits, I have a pissing contest to win, saddle up. So I broke with the credits this and that, and dissertation rules here and there, blah, blah, blah, and flat out interrupted mid sentence to ask, "Can I ask you something?" And this very gracious "Chairperson X" responded, "Of course." I proceeded. "Are you a Republican or Democrat?" At the time, in my world, these were the only two entities that existed, hence no choice C. She (yes, a she) responded, completely disarming me, with her own question, "Are those my only two choices?"
I'll save you the suspense... I sat there dumbfounded, not saying a word. Pretty suave, huh?
She smiled and went on to give me some advice I never quite forgot. She said, and I quote: "See, you think that politics is a straight line. You have the Right, which the Left hates. The Left, which the Right hates. And the middle, whom everyone hates. But it's not a straight line, it's a circle. The Left and Right separation simply takes you on different paths to the same destination. And at the end of those paths, when the two lines meet to complete the circle, you have total state domination. Hitler is the extreme Right, Stalin the extreme Left, but their method of rule is the same. They end at the same place."
Again, I sat there contemplating, not sure what to say next. Maybe I mumbled something, but who the hell knows. Her chuckling must brought me out my stupor because the next words I remember saying were, "But you're a political science professor, if in the end it doesn't matter, that we're destined to destroy ourselves, why bother?" And she responded, "That's why I'm a Libertarian. Not because I want prostitution legal or people to be able to do drugs, but because governments only do one thing, no matter who is in power... grow."
Now I've thought on that a lot lately. At the time I knew I had been schooled, but I wasn't sure why. Now I am. And listening to these History of Rome podcasts has only reinforced why. No matter the nation or time period, each time a man in any given society is elected, to any post, it is on a campaign pledge to do "something." No one gets elected saying I'm going to keep things exactly the same. And it's just human nature that the "something" be bigger, more. When it came to Roman antiquity I was always caught up in questions like, "Who was the first emperor? When did the Republic officially die?" But there's no demarcation line that you can point to and say "here!", right here is where they switched from a Republic to a dynastic imperium. It doesn't work like that. It's a death by a thousands cuts over generations, at least. Bad precedent, at the moment of its' occurrence, seems to occur in a vacuum, or as an anomaly. But it doesn't, because that precedent is used to create two more, then four, then eight. Until you wake up one day and being 180 degrees from where the Republic was founded is the new "normal." What did Titus say, that the acts taken now, as part of due course, would have had you arrested and hauled in front of a congressional hearing in 1996? We're living it brothers. I listen to these podcasts or read the Old Testament and catch myself shaking my head asking, "How did they not see how awful that would turn out?" or, "That never works, why are you trying that?" And when I catch myself doing that I feel like an idiot. Of course they couldn't see it. Very rarely can anyone see it. The names of those that stand up and try to put the brakes on, or those that really did reduce the power of the office they held (or at least tried to) are inevitably washed away in a tide of, "And furthermore, when I''m elected I will..." Or they are men that really did exist as an anomaly. From Cicero and Sulla to Reagan and Ron Paul. They're momentary heads popping up from the water, grabbing a breath so the body can live just a little bit longer. And whatever else they are, they certainly aren't the norm. And that's why that professor was a Libertarian. She had already traveled on this ideological path and had arrived at the very reasonable realization that there is no power we can grant or allow our government that they will not, in the end, use to curtail our freedom. The temptation is just too great, the arc of history just too clear. So she had decided on the only label that maximized freedom and minimized the government. But she was under no illusion, she knew Libertarian ideas (not to mention parties) had zero chance of penetrating the power structure that is our federal government. Which is why her party admission rung of resignation to our fate.
So this is my really long, elaborate, scenic route to get me here Titus - I agree with you. Our government is so powerful, so large, that when it makes mistakes they are so big that everyone in government is forced to agree that they're not mistakes. Instead, they become the new norm. Jambo wants to convince me that we're not on the back nine. Ok, maybe he's right. But what is undeniable, what he can not argue, is that we will eventually hit that 10th hole. He claims "We've been through worse." But the thing is, whatever does at last do us in, it doesn't have to be "worse." It just has to be last. Just a little bit more than we can take after the long march down. There is no civilization, no defined government or peoples in the history of mankind that did not "end." Then you turn the page... or cue up the next podcast. All we can do as informed citizens, through our vote, standing for office, or launching our post into the cacophony of the vast online universe, is try to slow our march downward. Maybe even bring it to an unrecognizable momentum. But in the end, whether taking the Right's path or the Left's, we will "go away." Our liberties are like frogs in a pot being turned up ever so slowly. Each new temperature is the new normal. And government - under either party - is the hand on the dial.
Don't get me wrong, we can stay that hand for a while. Maybe you get a leader here and there that really does try to do "less", not "more." But at some point our world will begin boiling around us. And like the frogs we will begin saying to each other, "Don't worry, this is normal. We've dealt with worse." And then some wiz kid from the year 2475 will shake his head, turn off his hologram imaging podcact on "The History of America", grab his government approved helmet, and as he hops into his atmosphere friendly hover craft to go pick up his cloned, state issued procreation mate, will mumble, "How did they not see that coming? That could never happen to the United Federation of Gender Nuetral Carbon Based Lifeforms... we're different."
So are we safer? Sure we are. I'm also sure that future boy is safe from an STD...
So I get a text the other day that reads, "Posted. But read very carefully." I know at that moment that I am not to read said post until I have a solid 45 minutes to respond. Titus has undoubtedly written something just to get my hair up, hoping it will lead to something productive because he's bored that afternoon, so why not screw with Ryan (hehe). But your worries were misplaced my friend. Perhaps this little anecdote will help explain why...
When I was in my early twenties I sat down across the table from the individual who's title was "Chair of the Department of Political Science" at the University of Southern Mississippi. Now, if you can believe it, at that age I was somewhat cocky about my handle on politics, debate, history, and the world in general. Again, I 'm sure you find this a jaw dropping revelation, but stick with me. So there I sat - under the very real pretense of getting "counseled" on how best to earn a PhD in poly sci - and I found myself ITCHING to start a fight with this "chair person." As far as I knew, all egg head PhD's were leftists, and the opportunity to test my acumen against someone deemed a "professional" was simply too much to resist. Damn the credits, I have a pissing contest to win, saddle up. So I broke with the credits this and that, and dissertation rules here and there, blah, blah, blah, and flat out interrupted mid sentence to ask, "Can I ask you something?" And this very gracious "Chairperson X" responded, "Of course." I proceeded. "Are you a Republican or Democrat?" At the time, in my world, these were the only two entities that existed, hence no choice C. She (yes, a she) responded, completely disarming me, with her own question, "Are those my only two choices?"
I'll save you the suspense... I sat there dumbfounded, not saying a word. Pretty suave, huh?
She smiled and went on to give me some advice I never quite forgot. She said, and I quote: "See, you think that politics is a straight line. You have the Right, which the Left hates. The Left, which the Right hates. And the middle, whom everyone hates. But it's not a straight line, it's a circle. The Left and Right separation simply takes you on different paths to the same destination. And at the end of those paths, when the two lines meet to complete the circle, you have total state domination. Hitler is the extreme Right, Stalin the extreme Left, but their method of rule is the same. They end at the same place."
Again, I sat there contemplating, not sure what to say next. Maybe I mumbled something, but who the hell knows. Her chuckling must brought me out my stupor because the next words I remember saying were, "But you're a political science professor, if in the end it doesn't matter, that we're destined to destroy ourselves, why bother?" And she responded, "That's why I'm a Libertarian. Not because I want prostitution legal or people to be able to do drugs, but because governments only do one thing, no matter who is in power... grow."
Now I've thought on that a lot lately. At the time I knew I had been schooled, but I wasn't sure why. Now I am. And listening to these History of Rome podcasts has only reinforced why. No matter the nation or time period, each time a man in any given society is elected, to any post, it is on a campaign pledge to do "something." No one gets elected saying I'm going to keep things exactly the same. And it's just human nature that the "something" be bigger, more. When it came to Roman antiquity I was always caught up in questions like, "Who was the first emperor? When did the Republic officially die?" But there's no demarcation line that you can point to and say "here!", right here is where they switched from a Republic to a dynastic imperium. It doesn't work like that. It's a death by a thousands cuts over generations, at least. Bad precedent, at the moment of its' occurrence, seems to occur in a vacuum, or as an anomaly. But it doesn't, because that precedent is used to create two more, then four, then eight. Until you wake up one day and being 180 degrees from where the Republic was founded is the new "normal." What did Titus say, that the acts taken now, as part of due course, would have had you arrested and hauled in front of a congressional hearing in 1996? We're living it brothers. I listen to these podcasts or read the Old Testament and catch myself shaking my head asking, "How did they not see how awful that would turn out?" or, "That never works, why are you trying that?" And when I catch myself doing that I feel like an idiot. Of course they couldn't see it. Very rarely can anyone see it. The names of those that stand up and try to put the brakes on, or those that really did reduce the power of the office they held (or at least tried to) are inevitably washed away in a tide of, "And furthermore, when I''m elected I will..." Or they are men that really did exist as an anomaly. From Cicero and Sulla to Reagan and Ron Paul. They're momentary heads popping up from the water, grabbing a breath so the body can live just a little bit longer. And whatever else they are, they certainly aren't the norm. And that's why that professor was a Libertarian. She had already traveled on this ideological path and had arrived at the very reasonable realization that there is no power we can grant or allow our government that they will not, in the end, use to curtail our freedom. The temptation is just too great, the arc of history just too clear. So she had decided on the only label that maximized freedom and minimized the government. But she was under no illusion, she knew Libertarian ideas (not to mention parties) had zero chance of penetrating the power structure that is our federal government. Which is why her party admission rung of resignation to our fate.
So this is my really long, elaborate, scenic route to get me here Titus - I agree with you. Our government is so powerful, so large, that when it makes mistakes they are so big that everyone in government is forced to agree that they're not mistakes. Instead, they become the new norm. Jambo wants to convince me that we're not on the back nine. Ok, maybe he's right. But what is undeniable, what he can not argue, is that we will eventually hit that 10th hole. He claims "We've been through worse." But the thing is, whatever does at last do us in, it doesn't have to be "worse." It just has to be last. Just a little bit more than we can take after the long march down. There is no civilization, no defined government or peoples in the history of mankind that did not "end." Then you turn the page... or cue up the next podcast. All we can do as informed citizens, through our vote, standing for office, or launching our post into the cacophony of the vast online universe, is try to slow our march downward. Maybe even bring it to an unrecognizable momentum. But in the end, whether taking the Right's path or the Left's, we will "go away." Our liberties are like frogs in a pot being turned up ever so slowly. Each new temperature is the new normal. And government - under either party - is the hand on the dial.
Don't get me wrong, we can stay that hand for a while. Maybe you get a leader here and there that really does try to do "less", not "more." But at some point our world will begin boiling around us. And like the frogs we will begin saying to each other, "Don't worry, this is normal. We've dealt with worse." And then some wiz kid from the year 2475 will shake his head, turn off his hologram imaging podcact on "The History of America", grab his government approved helmet, and as he hops into his atmosphere friendly hover craft to go pick up his cloned, state issued procreation mate, will mumble, "How did they not see that coming? That could never happen to the United Federation of Gender Nuetral Carbon Based Lifeforms... we're different."
So are we safer? Sure we are. I'm also sure that future boy is safe from an STD...
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Something I've been thinking about for awhile...
Today, July 4th, seems a particularly good day to ask this question that has been bothering me for more than a week now...
Since the breaking of the Snowden leak story, and the facts that have stemmed from the leak itself and the subsequent followup stories and comments, I've been forced to ask myself (and now you guys):
Is America safer today then we were in 2000? Is the War on Terror accomplishing anything for the US as a whole?
Let me lay things out for you...
We have overthrown the Taliban in Afghanistan, and have pulled the bulk of our forces out of that country... yet the situation in Afghanistan is every bit as fluid and volatile as it was in 2000... perhaps even more so. We have overthrown the despotic regime of Hussein in Iraq, and that nation is as chaotic as it has ever been, with a civilian death toll of more than 500 per month since the removal of US forces. Terrorism in both nations right now is as high and as deadly as it has ever been.
Libya, Egypt, Turkey, and Syria have all erupted into bloody, deadly hotbeds of violent protest and unrest, costing thousands of lives (many of which were American). America has intervened in each of these nation's crisis', in one way or another, with no measurable effect to lessening the violence. In fact, the only real result of our intervention in these states seems to be greater and greater local resentment of US intervention.
We have watched as US policy in prosecuting the War on Terror has turned the public opinion of "ally" nations such as Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia into seething cauldrons of hatred towards anything American. This, coupled with the state-initiated institutional anti-American madrasas that are teaching hundreds of thousands of young men and women to hate ANYTHING America (especially in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), has produced a degree of anti-US resentment in the streets of most of the Muslim world that is as great now as it has ever been in the past.
Perhaps most distressing of all, though...
Since the implementation of such "protective" measures as the Patriot Act, we have seen the "land of the free" become less and less "free" with each passing year. Revelations today show that standard operating procedure for domestic surveillance in 2013 would have landed you an indictment and Congressional hearings in 1996. The means by which both the Bush and Obama administrations have used military force to surveil and even kill Americans landed members of the Gestapo into the docks during the Nuremberg Trials facing death sentences. Snowden proved that very nearly 1 out of every 3 Americans in this country has had phone conversations, emails, texts and search histories from their computers monitored and recorded and stored for future review. 110 million people in this country, monitored and recorded without cause, due process or public oversight... but with access to such information easily available to even the lowest members of the bureaucracy's hired help, without even the possibility of oversight or review outside of the monthly one hour "briefings" that the eight members of the Senate Intelligence Committee receive but CANNOT talk about... ever... even to voice concern or dissent.
I'm afraid that what I'm about to say now is going to insight some wrath, but...
If THIS is the means by which we are to make America safer (and I do mean "safer", because there is no 100% SAFE from terrorism/extremism/random violence), then I'm not sure the price is worth the prize. If we can only "win" by allowing a level of "police control" that only a generation ago would have been called "fascist", then I fear we have already lost.
The men that planned to bring down the WTC didn't want to drop buildings... they wanted to sow division and distrust and FEAR (read: TERROR) in the hearts of Americans everywhere. It is looking more and more like they are winning, and we are losing.
Since the breaking of the Snowden leak story, and the facts that have stemmed from the leak itself and the subsequent followup stories and comments, I've been forced to ask myself (and now you guys):
Is America safer today then we were in 2000? Is the War on Terror accomplishing anything for the US as a whole?
Let me lay things out for you...
We have overthrown the Taliban in Afghanistan, and have pulled the bulk of our forces out of that country... yet the situation in Afghanistan is every bit as fluid and volatile as it was in 2000... perhaps even more so. We have overthrown the despotic regime of Hussein in Iraq, and that nation is as chaotic as it has ever been, with a civilian death toll of more than 500 per month since the removal of US forces. Terrorism in both nations right now is as high and as deadly as it has ever been.
Libya, Egypt, Turkey, and Syria have all erupted into bloody, deadly hotbeds of violent protest and unrest, costing thousands of lives (many of which were American). America has intervened in each of these nation's crisis', in one way or another, with no measurable effect to lessening the violence. In fact, the only real result of our intervention in these states seems to be greater and greater local resentment of US intervention.
We have watched as US policy in prosecuting the War on Terror has turned the public opinion of "ally" nations such as Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia into seething cauldrons of hatred towards anything American. This, coupled with the state-initiated institutional anti-American madrasas that are teaching hundreds of thousands of young men and women to hate ANYTHING America (especially in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), has produced a degree of anti-US resentment in the streets of most of the Muslim world that is as great now as it has ever been in the past.
Perhaps most distressing of all, though...
Since the implementation of such "protective" measures as the Patriot Act, we have seen the "land of the free" become less and less "free" with each passing year. Revelations today show that standard operating procedure for domestic surveillance in 2013 would have landed you an indictment and Congressional hearings in 1996. The means by which both the Bush and Obama administrations have used military force to surveil and even kill Americans landed members of the Gestapo into the docks during the Nuremberg Trials facing death sentences. Snowden proved that very nearly 1 out of every 3 Americans in this country has had phone conversations, emails, texts and search histories from their computers monitored and recorded and stored for future review. 110 million people in this country, monitored and recorded without cause, due process or public oversight... but with access to such information easily available to even the lowest members of the bureaucracy's hired help, without even the possibility of oversight or review outside of the monthly one hour "briefings" that the eight members of the Senate Intelligence Committee receive but CANNOT talk about... ever... even to voice concern or dissent.
I'm afraid that what I'm about to say now is going to insight some wrath, but...
If THIS is the means by which we are to make America safer (and I do mean "safer", because there is no 100% SAFE from terrorism/extremism/random violence), then I'm not sure the price is worth the prize. If we can only "win" by allowing a level of "police control" that only a generation ago would have been called "fascist", then I fear we have already lost.
The men that planned to bring down the WTC didn't want to drop buildings... they wanted to sow division and distrust and FEAR (read: TERROR) in the hearts of Americans everywhere. It is looking more and more like they are winning, and we are losing.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
My response to the "old chestnut"...
I'm not sure what Jambo is referencing in his last, but I'd have to say his most memorable position on education that I can easily recall was given at great length on F. Ryan's patio very late one night after a case of High Life and a dozen brats on the grill: the nationalization of the education system.
I'm not going to try and remember all the details, but it was basically a call for the Federalization of all teachers, and thus all curriculums, into one homogeneous body. No more local school boards, only an education system as far flung and locally focused as any post office, DoAg office, or Federal building.
I personally hope this isn't what Jambo was referring to. I don't think this is the answer. Perhaps I have it wrong, and Jambo wasn't talking about this. It was discussed in person, and not written down (even we weren't taking "minutes" during these gatherings), and alcohol was an ingredient in all these get-togethers.
To answer Jambo's question, I think the demise of the education system in this nation began with the institution of national education standards via Carter's Department of Education. In taking the effort to educate our children out of the hands of local school boards and placing it in the hands of Washington bureaucrats, we have simply surrendered the right to educate our kids to a cookie-cutter system that is trying to force ALL kids into the same model. Those that fit in and comply are successful, and those that do not are labelled as "failures" or "problems" and left behind (regardless of Bush's NCLB Act).
More importantly, we (as parents and educators) see that the responsibility for education has been taken from us, and the consequences for failure are left to society to fix. "We" are no longer the primary educators of our children, the "state" is. Those few of us that take the responsibility seriously (home schoolers, charter schoolers, etc) are labelled as "fringe" elements of society and told we are damaging our kids. We are "non compliers" who actively work to undermine the system, not concerned parents looking to do the best for our kids.
Furthermore, the death of American education is moved further towards its terminus by a nation-wide teacher's union (or unions) that force local school boards to make payroll and benefits the largest expense in any annual budget each and every year. Last year, in my own local school district, payroll and benefits accounted for 68% of every dollar spent in the district, and that is slated to go up another 2% next year. When the school board voted to reduce the number of teachers, the unions sued and won... which forced the district to keep 32 teachers on the payroll, with benefits, even though they weren't needed to teach the kids. This "added" expense will now force the district to consider either closing an actual school (and forcing hundreds of kids to longer bus commutes and far larger class rooms) OR ending very nearly ALL extracurricular activities such as band, theater, robotics club, sports et al. So, in order to maintain the number of dues-paying teachers within the district, my school board will cut football, band, and the theater classes (among others) to the point that only those kids that can PAY for their equipment upfront will be allowed to participate. That's an EXTRA $550 a year for a football student, $600 for a band student, and $350 for a drama student.
The long and short of it is simply this (for me):
The Department of Education adds a tax to my income that means I'm putting my money into the education of children that do not live in my area. I'm paying for schools and teachers on the other side of the country, as well as for schools and teachers in my own district. I'm not opposed to paying the taxes, but let me take the money that I would be paying the Education Department and let me put it towards my own district. Let everyone else do the same thing.
I'm running out of time, so I'll end here. Let me know what you think.
I'm not going to try and remember all the details, but it was basically a call for the Federalization of all teachers, and thus all curriculums, into one homogeneous body. No more local school boards, only an education system as far flung and locally focused as any post office, DoAg office, or Federal building.
I personally hope this isn't what Jambo was referring to. I don't think this is the answer. Perhaps I have it wrong, and Jambo wasn't talking about this. It was discussed in person, and not written down (even we weren't taking "minutes" during these gatherings), and alcohol was an ingredient in all these get-togethers.
To answer Jambo's question, I think the demise of the education system in this nation began with the institution of national education standards via Carter's Department of Education. In taking the effort to educate our children out of the hands of local school boards and placing it in the hands of Washington bureaucrats, we have simply surrendered the right to educate our kids to a cookie-cutter system that is trying to force ALL kids into the same model. Those that fit in and comply are successful, and those that do not are labelled as "failures" or "problems" and left behind (regardless of Bush's NCLB Act).
More importantly, we (as parents and educators) see that the responsibility for education has been taken from us, and the consequences for failure are left to society to fix. "We" are no longer the primary educators of our children, the "state" is. Those few of us that take the responsibility seriously (home schoolers, charter schoolers, etc) are labelled as "fringe" elements of society and told we are damaging our kids. We are "non compliers" who actively work to undermine the system, not concerned parents looking to do the best for our kids.
Furthermore, the death of American education is moved further towards its terminus by a nation-wide teacher's union (or unions) that force local school boards to make payroll and benefits the largest expense in any annual budget each and every year. Last year, in my own local school district, payroll and benefits accounted for 68% of every dollar spent in the district, and that is slated to go up another 2% next year. When the school board voted to reduce the number of teachers, the unions sued and won... which forced the district to keep 32 teachers on the payroll, with benefits, even though they weren't needed to teach the kids. This "added" expense will now force the district to consider either closing an actual school (and forcing hundreds of kids to longer bus commutes and far larger class rooms) OR ending very nearly ALL extracurricular activities such as band, theater, robotics club, sports et al. So, in order to maintain the number of dues-paying teachers within the district, my school board will cut football, band, and the theater classes (among others) to the point that only those kids that can PAY for their equipment upfront will be allowed to participate. That's an EXTRA $550 a year for a football student, $600 for a band student, and $350 for a drama student.
The long and short of it is simply this (for me):
The Department of Education adds a tax to my income that means I'm putting my money into the education of children that do not live in my area. I'm paying for schools and teachers on the other side of the country, as well as for schools and teachers in my own district. I'm not opposed to paying the taxes, but let me take the money that I would be paying the Education Department and let me put it towards my own district. Let everyone else do the same thing.
I'm running out of time, so I'll end here. Let me know what you think.
Friday, June 28, 2013
This probably isn't going to make me very popular here...
... but to be totally honest, I'm glad the DOMA is gone.
I agree with F. Ryan that America is becoming more and more hypocritical in its views of moral and ethical limits in individual lives. The left wants what it wants and will do anything to get it, even if that means changing its tone-view-opinion 180 degrees, as Clinton just did.
However, the right has gone too far, too. I agree with the premise that "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman that is sanctified by God... but it cannot be codified and legislated by government without opening the topic up to hypocrisy and abuse. At least not in today's world. Moral and ethical limits are set, understood and followed by the individual... because they are individual in nature, not because they are mandated by the state.
The government should have no Federal authority to regulate, legislate or limit marriage. Let's face it, it was only regulated to start with to drum up new taxes and fees in the late 19th Century. The government needs to get out of the marriage business, once and for all.
I agree with F. Ryan that America is becoming more and more hypocritical in its views of moral and ethical limits in individual lives. The left wants what it wants and will do anything to get it, even if that means changing its tone-view-opinion 180 degrees, as Clinton just did.
However, the right has gone too far, too. I agree with the premise that "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman that is sanctified by God... but it cannot be codified and legislated by government without opening the topic up to hypocrisy and abuse. At least not in today's world. Moral and ethical limits are set, understood and followed by the individual... because they are individual in nature, not because they are mandated by the state.
The government should have no Federal authority to regulate, legislate or limit marriage. Let's face it, it was only regulated to start with to drum up new taxes and fees in the late 19th Century. The government needs to get out of the marriage business, once and for all.
Here's an old chestnut...
Ryan brought this up in his last post. It reminded me of a premise to a massive plot line in an unpublished work of mine.
What is the greatest flaw in the American education system?
Ryan laments his "classmates" knowing nothing of basic civics, but being nearly Ph.D candidates in their immersion of American "pop" culture. So is this a sign of a failed system? Are horrible teachers to blame? Is it a fault of American society in general? The demise of the nuclear family?
I am not going to post my answer yet. But I have time stamped proof that this answer, my opinion at least, was put to paper in 2005 almost immediately after the book was published. I am interested in what you guys have to say.
The parameters of the question are wide. It encompasses all levels of education, from kindergarten to post graduate. Have at it.
What is the greatest flaw in the American education system?
Ryan laments his "classmates" knowing nothing of basic civics, but being nearly Ph.D candidates in their immersion of American "pop" culture. So is this a sign of a failed system? Are horrible teachers to blame? Is it a fault of American society in general? The demise of the nuclear family?
I am not going to post my answer yet. But I have time stamped proof that this answer, my opinion at least, was put to paper in 2005 almost immediately after the book was published. I am interested in what you guys have to say.
The parameters of the question are wide. It encompasses all levels of education, from kindergarten to post graduate. Have at it.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
The Demise of DOMA...
First, I have to say Bill Clinton is shameless. He applauded the overturning of DOMA. When a reporter correctly pointed out that he signed DOMA into law he retorted that he only did that to keep the Republicans from passing something much more gay unfriendly. Uh huh. Never mind the countless times he argued in its' favor during its' passage, or his pro DOMA speech at the signing ceremony. The man simply has zero scruples.
What I want to say about this is simple - pro gay marriage people, advocacy groups, and activists you are ALL, each of you, bigots if you do not now take up the cause of plural marriage. Polygamy fits each and every one of your arguments for gay marriage. It's between consenting adults; you can't define "love" for other people; who are you to impose your definition of morality on others?; they deserve the right to hospital visitation and inheritance as a spouse, and on, and on, and on.
The case chosen by the Supreme Court was about two women, legally married in Canada, whom wanted their relationship to have legal standing in the US. That right was affirmed in the majority. Ok, fine. Now if a man moves to the US from Saudi Arabia with his four wives, where those marriages are recognized as perfectly legal, how on earth does anyone who applaudes this ruling oppose his "right" to maintain the legal status of those marriages in the US? Tell me how that works. Yet the pro gay marriage crowd explodes into uncontrollable fits if you attempt to compare the two, or suggest that polygamy is the logical next step.
Now look, I don't subscribe to arguments invoking incest, or beastiality, because the underlying behavior in those instances is itself illegal. One of the pro gay marriage arguments is that homosexuality - the act itself - has long since been made legal, so you can not deny their right to codify legal behavior into law via marriage. These same activists will not tolerate, however, any comparisons to polygamy. Why? For three or more adults to move into a house, have sex with each other, share in the expenses and general upkeep of that home and their life, is legal. Does everyone not agree? If the underlying behavior of the relationship is legal, than than the lawful recognition of their relationship must occur, says the SCOTUS. In fact pro polygamy groups released press statements declaring this ruling a big win for their cause ... I agree.
At this point I'd rather the government divorce itself from the institution marriage all together (and about a thousand other areas). Go to a flat tax and don't involve the government in your relationships at all. But that's not what's going to happen. They'll go in the opposite direction, more intervention. Clergy who deny marrying same sex couples will have their tax exempt status pulled, or have denied their ability to sign off on a marriage license all together (and I mean their literal signature that goes on the license declaring he performed the ceremony). Not to mention, chaplains in the military will be forced to marry gay soldiers, and then of course, as I've stated, polygamy is around the corner. Welcome to it America - your freedom, and that of your church as an institution, to practice your religion as you see fit will give way to the coming interpretations of this ruling... the two simply cannot coexist. To reach any other conclusion is, as Spock would say, "highly illogical captain."
What I want to say about this is simple - pro gay marriage people, advocacy groups, and activists you are ALL, each of you, bigots if you do not now take up the cause of plural marriage. Polygamy fits each and every one of your arguments for gay marriage. It's between consenting adults; you can't define "love" for other people; who are you to impose your definition of morality on others?; they deserve the right to hospital visitation and inheritance as a spouse, and on, and on, and on.
The case chosen by the Supreme Court was about two women, legally married in Canada, whom wanted their relationship to have legal standing in the US. That right was affirmed in the majority. Ok, fine. Now if a man moves to the US from Saudi Arabia with his four wives, where those marriages are recognized as perfectly legal, how on earth does anyone who applaudes this ruling oppose his "right" to maintain the legal status of those marriages in the US? Tell me how that works. Yet the pro gay marriage crowd explodes into uncontrollable fits if you attempt to compare the two, or suggest that polygamy is the logical next step.
Now look, I don't subscribe to arguments invoking incest, or beastiality, because the underlying behavior in those instances is itself illegal. One of the pro gay marriage arguments is that homosexuality - the act itself - has long since been made legal, so you can not deny their right to codify legal behavior into law via marriage. These same activists will not tolerate, however, any comparisons to polygamy. Why? For three or more adults to move into a house, have sex with each other, share in the expenses and general upkeep of that home and their life, is legal. Does everyone not agree? If the underlying behavior of the relationship is legal, than than the lawful recognition of their relationship must occur, says the SCOTUS. In fact pro polygamy groups released press statements declaring this ruling a big win for their cause ... I agree.
At this point I'd rather the government divorce itself from the institution marriage all together (and about a thousand other areas). Go to a flat tax and don't involve the government in your relationships at all. But that's not what's going to happen. They'll go in the opposite direction, more intervention. Clergy who deny marrying same sex couples will have their tax exempt status pulled, or have denied their ability to sign off on a marriage license all together (and I mean their literal signature that goes on the license declaring he performed the ceremony). Not to mention, chaplains in the military will be forced to marry gay soldiers, and then of course, as I've stated, polygamy is around the corner. Welcome to it America - your freedom, and that of your church as an institution, to practice your religion as you see fit will give way to the coming interpretations of this ruling... the two simply cannot coexist. To reach any other conclusion is, as Spock would say, "highly illogical captain."
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Point taken...
Ryan is right, of course. I do hope he wasn't too offended by what I wrote in my last post. I wasn't "poo-pooing" comparisons he might have made between ancient Rome and the US today, since there are many, many to be made. However, one doesn't have to look too far to see comparisons made by facts (or untruths) taken completely out of context. And most comparisons ARE made by taking things completely out of context.
Here's one that Ryan's last post did make me think of, though... immediately:
In 212 AD, the very bad emperor named Caracalla delivered the "Edict of Caracalla" which made all free men (meaning no slaves or women) "citizens" of Rome and the Empire. Amid all the myriad of "bad" things Caracalla did, many look on this edict as his one and only redeeming action as Emperor of the Rome and ruler absolute of the entire civilized world... but it wasn't.
Citizenship in the 3rd Century of the new millennium was NOT the same as it was in the old Republic... or even what it was during the rule of Julius Caesar or Augustus. It was NOT something people fought wars to obtain or defend anymore... it was simply a means to expand the tax base of an increasingly insolvent Empire. People, common people on the streets, gained nothing by the 212 Edict other than a new means by which Caracalla could squeeze 28% of all profits and income from an additional thirteen million previously exempt men who had never and would never see the city of Rome... or even the Italian peninsula... EVER!
That, my friends, sounds an awful lot like the sort of disdain for "citizenship" and "civic duty" that F. Ryan is describing, doesn't it?
Preach on, Brother!
Here's one that Ryan's last post did make me think of, though... immediately:
In 212 AD, the very bad emperor named Caracalla delivered the "Edict of Caracalla" which made all free men (meaning no slaves or women) "citizens" of Rome and the Empire. Amid all the myriad of "bad" things Caracalla did, many look on this edict as his one and only redeeming action as Emperor of the Rome and ruler absolute of the entire civilized world... but it wasn't.
Citizenship in the 3rd Century of the new millennium was NOT the same as it was in the old Republic... or even what it was during the rule of Julius Caesar or Augustus. It was NOT something people fought wars to obtain or defend anymore... it was simply a means to expand the tax base of an increasingly insolvent Empire. People, common people on the streets, gained nothing by the 212 Edict other than a new means by which Caracalla could squeeze 28% of all profits and income from an additional thirteen million previously exempt men who had never and would never see the city of Rome... or even the Italian peninsula... EVER!
That, my friends, sounds an awful lot like the sort of disdain for "citizenship" and "civic duty" that F. Ryan is describing, doesn't it?
Preach on, Brother!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
