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.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
