I understand (I think) what James was saying, although I don't know that Bush has made 9 of the 10 steps Ms. Wolf has described... I could only count 6, and those only to varying degrees. His question is a valid one, especially about the way in which we view "terrorism" as a society. I will address that post in my next... uh... post.
I want to know if Baddboy is actually saying he thinks a democracy can only exist for a limited time. If we follow the example given and go with a round number like 200 years before a democratic society implodes... then there are more than enough examples in history to refute that. Great Britain has been a democratic society for more than 350 years, and a mild argument can be made that the democratic process does, indeed, date back to 1215 in England. Iceland has maintained its democratic nature for more than 1,000 years, and Switzerland isn't far behind them. The only actual "direct democracy" that I know of as an institutional government lasted for more than 600 years in the city-state of Athens, beginning in 510 BC.
Now, we (the USA) are the largest democratic society that nears the 200 year mark with a population of 303 million. The UK is older, but only has 61 million. India is far bigger at 1.1 billion people, but has only existed as a free democratic society for about 60 years. China isn't as democratic as I guess any of us would wish... but at 1.3 billion they have been having "elections" since 1933, a little longer than India.
Anyway, we have existed as a nation for more than 225 years... and people like Niomi Wolf (sp?) or Pat Buchannan can write book after book detailing the end of our culture and society, but any rational, right-minded observer will have to admit that we are far more functional than most democratic states on the block. We maintain the highest standard of living, our health care is unrivaled on the entire globe, and our economy dictates the cast majority of the rest of the world's economies... if you doubt that, just look at the global indicators for 1929, 1977, 1984 and 2000.
Don't get me wrong... I still feel that there are very compelling arguments about the benefits of a monarchy in keeping a society together across vast differences of culture, language, religion and race. History is replete with examples of dynasties that have rule vast multi-cultural empires for ages (literally)... but it is the word "dynasty" that brings to mind the failure of the monarchical system of rule, even with a Constitution in place (as in Britain). People from George Lucas to Frank Hebert have all made valid defenses of the imperial-monarchical system, but it is the dynastic nature of most monarchies that is their undoing.
But... we don't live in a monarchical society. We live in a republic, a republic that maintains a free-market economic system and has instituted a representative government built on very well-placed checks and balances. The Founding Fathers did one thing right, if they did nothing at all... they KNEW they didn't know EVERYTHING, so they left enough room in the Constitution for the fledgling Republic to grow and develop as it needed to over the intervening 225 years. They based their assumptions on what I firmly believe... to the core of my being... are UNIVERSAL truths concerning MAN and the SOCIETIES he creates:
All MANKIND is created EQUAL by GOD.
ALL PEOPLE should expect EQUAL treatment under the LAW, at ALL times.
The Nation and its Government is instituted BY the People, FOR the People, and OF the People.
The failure of a society as it falls into tyranny, as far as I can determine from my meager knowledge of history, is not because of greed (as stated by Marx and Baddboy's sources) and the want of a "free ride" (as stated by Pat Buchannan and Ann Coulter)... it is because of ignorance.
The German people elected a party in 1933 whose ONLY platform was one based on hatred and intolerance... the National Socialists. The failure of nearly every single democratic society in Central and South America is because the people vote with almost no knowledge of what the long-term goals of their parties are, and thus you get Pinochets and Chavezes, either through direct election or inevitable coup d'etats.
It is almost never acknowledged, but I do think that one of the greater advances that the Founding Fathers accomplished was in limiting the franchize to educated land-owners. This limitation may be seen as an injustice by most liberals, but it has shown to have been a strong piece of a very successfull nation-building effort. To this day, the simple fact that less than 44% of eligible voters actually VOTE is undoubtedly a good thing... far too many people vote with no concept of what they are voting for, or why. At no point in this nation's history has it ever been more evident that too many people take the vote completely for granted. Instead of being the somber and solemn task that it is... it is portrayed as something "cool" and "trendy" to be accomplished for status and position in society. "Get out the Vote" is an excellent example of this.
Anyway... society here in America has seen this kind of trend "left" many times in the past, and it is always followed by a trend "right" with a rapid move back to center. This swing has existed since the 1840's, and has never stayed to one side of the "idle" for more than 15 years yet... and it won't this time either. The nation saw its "ruin" projected with the boat-loads of Irish in the 1840's... and survived quite nicely. The "crisis" of the 1860's was one of the toughest ever... but we survived and were stronger than ever for living through it. The moral "bankruptness" of the Roaring '20s idn't kill America, and neither did the 1960's. The "Yuppy" movement lasted all of 4 years... and brought us nothing more damaging than Bill Clinton for 8 years.
That's why I say...
Naomi Wolf and Pat Buchannon... go FUCK youselves!
Monday, December 3, 2007
HEHE go figure
I got this in an email today and have not verified it to be true yet but I still thought it was an interesting read.
How Long Do We Have? About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say About the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government." "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.""From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every Democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy,which is always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years" "During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage
"Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "Governmental dependency" phase.
some interesting things to consider, doesn't seem like BS to me though
Baddboy
How Long Do We Have? About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say About the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government." "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.""From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every Democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy,which is always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years" "During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage
"Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "Governmental dependency" phase.
some interesting things to consider, doesn't seem like BS to me though
Baddboy
What to say about Naomi Wolf?
This post should register a 9.2 on the Ryan Freakout Meter, so hang on. And before anyone goes postal, read the whole post and think about it for a minute before loading the nine 16 inch Navy rifled battleship guns and unleashing the broadsides.
I have not purchased or read Naomi Wolf's "The End of America," and on principle I will not spend money on it because I never paid for any of Ann Coulter's books, nor Newt Gingrich's, you get the picture. But I have listened and watched to several Naomi interviews and took these notes.
According to Naomi, all despots wanting to close an open society generally follow the same ten steps. Mussolini, Hitler, Pinochet, pick your 20th century despot and you get the picture, so says Naomi. So, they are:
1) Invoke a terrifying internal/external threat.
2) Create a prison system outside the rule of law where torture takes place.
3) Create a paramilitary force.
4) Create a surveillance apparatus aimed at ordinary citizens.
5) Arbitrarily detain and release citizens.
6) Target individuals of opposition.
7) Infiltrate opposition groups.
8) Restrict the press.
9) Recast opposition and dissent as treason.
10) Subvert rule of law.
Naomi then identifies all of the above save the last point against the Bush Administration.
Now, I'm the first one of the Bund to brush this off as inflammatory rhetoric, but I like it for a couple of reasons. Number one, it's historical. The girl did her homework, she backs each point up in her verbal arguments and there's no subjectivity to the discussion. This point happened in 1931, this point is happening now. This point happened in 1929 Italy, this point happened in 2003 America. (Google End of America and you'll see the interviews. My note taking wasn't that copious, so either take my work or check it out yourself.) Number two, it's intelligent. Here is opposition that doesn't say, "Don't do this because Bush did it," it's opposition because it says and makes a valid argument, "Don't do this because it's unconstitutional and here's why." Number three, it gives me hope for a rebirth of the Democratic Party. If the Democrats want to use a plank of Executive Branch moderation, that's something truly conservative. If the Democrats want to attack the global threat of terrorism not as a war but as a crime, that's an alternative position, not an anti-Bush position. An original perspective. (And think about it. Viewing global terrorism as a crime and not a war, Great Britain has been doing that for three quarters of a century and doing reasonably well. We could learn something from that thought process. But that's for another thread.)
So now that we're peaking on the Ryan Freakout Meter, let me get to what I DON'T like about this argument.
It can be used for no less than three different time frames in American History.
I'll use two in depth and hint at several more.
Abraham Lincoln used all ten steps, including martial law and the suspension of habius corpus. (The Constitution does specifically state the writ of habius corpus can be suspended in times of invasion or imminent threat. Not bad mouthing Lincoln here.) FDR suspended habius corpus as well, but still only went to nine on the Naomi bad meter. You can point out several instances where both Nixon and Wilson crossed several points on the Naomi list, and maybe you get the point.
Worth considering. Running out of time on this post, I'll write more this evening.
I have not purchased or read Naomi Wolf's "The End of America," and on principle I will not spend money on it because I never paid for any of Ann Coulter's books, nor Newt Gingrich's, you get the picture. But I have listened and watched to several Naomi interviews and took these notes.
According to Naomi, all despots wanting to close an open society generally follow the same ten steps. Mussolini, Hitler, Pinochet, pick your 20th century despot and you get the picture, so says Naomi. So, they are:
1) Invoke a terrifying internal/external threat.
2) Create a prison system outside the rule of law where torture takes place.
3) Create a paramilitary force.
4) Create a surveillance apparatus aimed at ordinary citizens.
5) Arbitrarily detain and release citizens.
6) Target individuals of opposition.
7) Infiltrate opposition groups.
8) Restrict the press.
9) Recast opposition and dissent as treason.
10) Subvert rule of law.
Naomi then identifies all of the above save the last point against the Bush Administration.
Now, I'm the first one of the Bund to brush this off as inflammatory rhetoric, but I like it for a couple of reasons. Number one, it's historical. The girl did her homework, she backs each point up in her verbal arguments and there's no subjectivity to the discussion. This point happened in 1931, this point is happening now. This point happened in 1929 Italy, this point happened in 2003 America. (Google End of America and you'll see the interviews. My note taking wasn't that copious, so either take my work or check it out yourself.) Number two, it's intelligent. Here is opposition that doesn't say, "Don't do this because Bush did it," it's opposition because it says and makes a valid argument, "Don't do this because it's unconstitutional and here's why." Number three, it gives me hope for a rebirth of the Democratic Party. If the Democrats want to use a plank of Executive Branch moderation, that's something truly conservative. If the Democrats want to attack the global threat of terrorism not as a war but as a crime, that's an alternative position, not an anti-Bush position. An original perspective. (And think about it. Viewing global terrorism as a crime and not a war, Great Britain has been doing that for three quarters of a century and doing reasonably well. We could learn something from that thought process. But that's for another thread.)
So now that we're peaking on the Ryan Freakout Meter, let me get to what I DON'T like about this argument.
It can be used for no less than three different time frames in American History.
I'll use two in depth and hint at several more.
Abraham Lincoln used all ten steps, including martial law and the suspension of habius corpus. (The Constitution does specifically state the writ of habius corpus can be suspended in times of invasion or imminent threat. Not bad mouthing Lincoln here.) FDR suspended habius corpus as well, but still only went to nine on the Naomi bad meter. You can point out several instances where both Nixon and Wilson crossed several points on the Naomi list, and maybe you get the point.
Worth considering. Running out of time on this post, I'll write more this evening.
History 101
There are over 2,600 headlines this morning focused on Australia's new PM and his intentions to sign on with the Kyoto Accords to address "global warming". Obviously, I haven't read them all, but the vast majority of those I have viewed are the "see... someone is seeing the light!" kind of articles, while a few are well-written and serious criticism of the entire issue, and the US's role in a "greener" world.
The President (and by extension, the GOP as a whole) is going to have to face the fact that the rest of the world is going to continue to buy into the "global warming" panic that Gore et al are selling on a daily basis.
How does the current administration, and any future administration the GOP might want to work into the White House, best accomplish its business with a world obsessed with "greenhouse gases"? What does history teach us?
In the 1930's, a "conservative" Congress enacted several Neutrality Acts that made it nearly impossible for government or industry to intercede on behalf of European allies that might ask for or need American assistance in the growing global conflict. Fascism was crushing the Iberian peninsula, Italy and North Africa, and nearly all of central Europe, while blatant Imperialistic aggression was raging across the Pacific Rim. These acts were signed by a very reluctant PotUS that fought tooth and nail to beat them out of a vote... but the overwhelming support these Acts engendered in America caused him to sign them, and find alternative methods to achieve his goals in Europe and the Pacific.
To counter the Neutrality Acts, FDR forced the Lend-Lease Act... a resounding success (as seen in hind sight) in that it allowed for the assistance that the UK, France, Russia and China needed, but removed entirely the onus of massive loans that the pre-WWI policies had placed on belligerent nations. No re-payment was needed in the Lend-Lease program, thus the already war-driven economies of Great Britain and China, and those about to develop in France and Russia weren't hampered by the question of how and when they would repay loans to the US.
Lend-Lease did something else... it allowed the US to give away older, less advanced equipment and arms to nations in need, and allowed the US to spend large chunks of cash to build newer, better replacements... and by extension, prepare our own industrial sector for a war-time production that might have been slowed without Lend-Lease.
So, historically, we see that by not wasting effort and resources in fighting a "no-win" fight with Congress, FDR could work to find alternative means to achieve his goals... and garnered public support along the way.
Bush has made his position on Kyoto blatantly clear... "no frigging way". Okay, done deal. So why continue to fight the call of the vast majority of the public to make the effort (and YES, spend the money!) on finding and developing new, alternative, NON-petroleum based fuel sources here in the US? Why only repeat the mantra that we are going to free ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil? Why not give the country (and the WORLD) the example that we can and WILL do just that? Why not make it a national priority?
Since my satellite radio has been back on, I have heard the conservative pundits say time and again that there isn't enough "sacrifice" for the common goals of this nation by the public. They think that America is so intent on not losing one iota of personal freedom and standard of living that our efforts to win the War on Terror, and the very specific actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, might be curtailed... and I AGREE! Yet these same pundits (Church and Reagan, by far the loudest) say that any Federal interference in the price of gasoline or the requirements that auto-makers must meet in production of vehicles is an infringement on their "RIGHT" to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
By simply regulating the price of gasoline (responsibly, of course... in the same manner tobacco or alcohol is regulated) so that a portion of the price goes to offset the costs of research and development of alternative fuels and energy, how much more appealing would the "green" movement find a GOP administration? By attaching additional funds to defense bills that promote or directly fund alternative fuel development, or hydrogen-based fuel supply and distribution within current US abilities, how much quicker will the Dems in Congress pass the bills?
In short... where does the US lose by following FDR's example here? Once these initial steps are taken, then it will be all the easier to enact a "Manhattan-style" project to free America from foreign oil... how can that be bad?
The President (and by extension, the GOP as a whole) is going to have to face the fact that the rest of the world is going to continue to buy into the "global warming" panic that Gore et al are selling on a daily basis.
How does the current administration, and any future administration the GOP might want to work into the White House, best accomplish its business with a world obsessed with "greenhouse gases"? What does history teach us?
In the 1930's, a "conservative" Congress enacted several Neutrality Acts that made it nearly impossible for government or industry to intercede on behalf of European allies that might ask for or need American assistance in the growing global conflict. Fascism was crushing the Iberian peninsula, Italy and North Africa, and nearly all of central Europe, while blatant Imperialistic aggression was raging across the Pacific Rim. These acts were signed by a very reluctant PotUS that fought tooth and nail to beat them out of a vote... but the overwhelming support these Acts engendered in America caused him to sign them, and find alternative methods to achieve his goals in Europe and the Pacific.
To counter the Neutrality Acts, FDR forced the Lend-Lease Act... a resounding success (as seen in hind sight) in that it allowed for the assistance that the UK, France, Russia and China needed, but removed entirely the onus of massive loans that the pre-WWI policies had placed on belligerent nations. No re-payment was needed in the Lend-Lease program, thus the already war-driven economies of Great Britain and China, and those about to develop in France and Russia weren't hampered by the question of how and when they would repay loans to the US.
Lend-Lease did something else... it allowed the US to give away older, less advanced equipment and arms to nations in need, and allowed the US to spend large chunks of cash to build newer, better replacements... and by extension, prepare our own industrial sector for a war-time production that might have been slowed without Lend-Lease.
So, historically, we see that by not wasting effort and resources in fighting a "no-win" fight with Congress, FDR could work to find alternative means to achieve his goals... and garnered public support along the way.
Bush has made his position on Kyoto blatantly clear... "no frigging way". Okay, done deal. So why continue to fight the call of the vast majority of the public to make the effort (and YES, spend the money!) on finding and developing new, alternative, NON-petroleum based fuel sources here in the US? Why only repeat the mantra that we are going to free ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil? Why not give the country (and the WORLD) the example that we can and WILL do just that? Why not make it a national priority?
Since my satellite radio has been back on, I have heard the conservative pundits say time and again that there isn't enough "sacrifice" for the common goals of this nation by the public. They think that America is so intent on not losing one iota of personal freedom and standard of living that our efforts to win the War on Terror, and the very specific actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, might be curtailed... and I AGREE! Yet these same pundits (Church and Reagan, by far the loudest) say that any Federal interference in the price of gasoline or the requirements that auto-makers must meet in production of vehicles is an infringement on their "RIGHT" to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
By simply regulating the price of gasoline (responsibly, of course... in the same manner tobacco or alcohol is regulated) so that a portion of the price goes to offset the costs of research and development of alternative fuels and energy, how much more appealing would the "green" movement find a GOP administration? By attaching additional funds to defense bills that promote or directly fund alternative fuel development, or hydrogen-based fuel supply and distribution within current US abilities, how much quicker will the Dems in Congress pass the bills?
In short... where does the US lose by following FDR's example here? Once these initial steps are taken, then it will be all the easier to enact a "Manhattan-style" project to free America from foreign oil... how can that be bad?
Saturday, December 1, 2007
This is JUST what I was talking about...
My work schedule is a bit off this week... I am working a true "swing" schedule, rotating through grave, evening and day shifts to cover someone's vacation plans. Not an issue at all, just background as to why I was listening to Sean Hannity when I was (I would normally have been sleeping).
So, it was yesterday, during the whole "Hillary hostage" crisis, that I had the Sirius Sat radio tuned in to the conservative talk and Hannity was on. I must have been just starting his third hour "free for all" and Sean takes a caller from Minnesota that started this whole stream of thought in my head.
The caller was an avowed "liberal" (coming from MN, he was probably DFL, too... former supporter of Wellstone), but listened to Hannity on a regular basis. He called to ask the simple question of "What if" the hostage taker in NH had been associated with or influenced by the likes of "Stop Hillary Express" or other anti-liberal blogs and websites. Does the conservative pundit arena of bloggers and talk radio have a responsibility towards the actions of even the disturbed and fringe-elements that might be listening?
Let me state here that he wasn't ACCUSING the radio hosts or bloggers of instigating the act, or influencing the alleged "bomber"... only asking a "what if" question on the radio.
So, Hannity asks when HE had ever made a statement that could be construed as advocating ANY kind of violence or illegal action on the part of his listeners. A very legitimate question, and one the caller made a point to say he didn't think Sean had done, only that the possibility existed that the passion and feeling that people like Hannity put into their shows can influence listeners... good and bad.
Hannity persisted in asking for a "specific" example of his making inflammatory remarks that could be misconstrued. The caller gave a very specific example. March of 2006, Hannity made an appearance in Florida with... you guessed it... Ann Coulter. However, before the caller could voice his example... as soon as Coulter's name was mentioned, in fact... Hannity killed the connection and hung up. He then spent the next 5 minutes saying the conversation was unproductive and "moronic" in nature.
I took this to mean that Sean was NOT ready to face the music of his affiliation with the likes of Coulter... whom, I am quite sure no one will argue... DOES make inflammatory statements that are tastless at best, and hate-inspiring at worst. Who can deny that Coulter has voiced a wish that every liberal "gun control" advocate be robbed at gunpoint, that "liberalism" is a disease best treated with a bullet, and countless other little tid-bits that I can recount upon request.
When Democrats question the patriotism of soldiers in Iraq, or the ethics of anyone supporting the troops overseas, based solely on the politics of Dem vs GOP... people like Hannity and Ryan scream from the top of their lungs (and justly so, I agree). When people like Coulter (and by extention, Hannity) do the same in the other direction... they hang up the phone and call the conversation "moronic".
Can someone please... PLEASE... explain how that ISN'T a blatant example of hipocracy?
So, it was yesterday, during the whole "Hillary hostage" crisis, that I had the Sirius Sat radio tuned in to the conservative talk and Hannity was on. I must have been just starting his third hour "free for all" and Sean takes a caller from Minnesota that started this whole stream of thought in my head.
The caller was an avowed "liberal" (coming from MN, he was probably DFL, too... former supporter of Wellstone), but listened to Hannity on a regular basis. He called to ask the simple question of "What if" the hostage taker in NH had been associated with or influenced by the likes of "Stop Hillary Express" or other anti-liberal blogs and websites. Does the conservative pundit arena of bloggers and talk radio have a responsibility towards the actions of even the disturbed and fringe-elements that might be listening?
Let me state here that he wasn't ACCUSING the radio hosts or bloggers of instigating the act, or influencing the alleged "bomber"... only asking a "what if" question on the radio.
So, Hannity asks when HE had ever made a statement that could be construed as advocating ANY kind of violence or illegal action on the part of his listeners. A very legitimate question, and one the caller made a point to say he didn't think Sean had done, only that the possibility existed that the passion and feeling that people like Hannity put into their shows can influence listeners... good and bad.
Hannity persisted in asking for a "specific" example of his making inflammatory remarks that could be misconstrued. The caller gave a very specific example. March of 2006, Hannity made an appearance in Florida with... you guessed it... Ann Coulter. However, before the caller could voice his example... as soon as Coulter's name was mentioned, in fact... Hannity killed the connection and hung up. He then spent the next 5 minutes saying the conversation was unproductive and "moronic" in nature.
I took this to mean that Sean was NOT ready to face the music of his affiliation with the likes of Coulter... whom, I am quite sure no one will argue... DOES make inflammatory statements that are tastless at best, and hate-inspiring at worst. Who can deny that Coulter has voiced a wish that every liberal "gun control" advocate be robbed at gunpoint, that "liberalism" is a disease best treated with a bullet, and countless other little tid-bits that I can recount upon request.
When Democrats question the patriotism of soldiers in Iraq, or the ethics of anyone supporting the troops overseas, based solely on the politics of Dem vs GOP... people like Hannity and Ryan scream from the top of their lungs (and justly so, I agree). When people like Coulter (and by extention, Hannity) do the same in the other direction... they hang up the phone and call the conversation "moronic".
Can someone please... PLEASE... explain how that ISN'T a blatant example of hipocracy?
Friday, November 30, 2007
Another year, gone.
Today is the last day of hurricane season. We dodged another one.
Not to jinx us or anything, but if you look at the historical record, you have (recent memory now) Camille in '69, Frederick in '78, Elena in '86, Georges in '98, and Katrina in '05. God willing, our next direct hit named storm should be three to eight years away.
Which will be just enough time for a lot of the people who survived Katrina to leave, and a new crop of storm rookies to stand in front of a camera and brag about how they're not leaving. They'll be standing in front of a home that has been rebuilt and sold three different times before they got it, and tell everyone that "This house survived Katrina, we'll be fine."
At least I KNOW mine did. And thus the age old question rears its head again. Do I evacuate?
This answer changes all the time, but sitting comfortably at my desk on 11/30/07 at 8 AM, drinking my coffee and watching the kids get ready for school, I'd say that yes, I'd evacuate for a Cat 3 storm or higher. Not because I fear for my safety in my home. There is nothing I can do once the storm starts if, say, the roof peels away again or a tree takes out the window. I may as well be somewhere with electricity and drinkable water and air conditioning.
Now, if the budget office grants my request for a release of capital funds for the purchase of generators, now we're discussing an entirely different set of circumstances. But that budget meeting won't occur until spring of '08.
And lucky for me, neither will any discussion of evacuation.
Not to jinx us or anything, but if you look at the historical record, you have (recent memory now) Camille in '69, Frederick in '78, Elena in '86, Georges in '98, and Katrina in '05. God willing, our next direct hit named storm should be three to eight years away.
Which will be just enough time for a lot of the people who survived Katrina to leave, and a new crop of storm rookies to stand in front of a camera and brag about how they're not leaving. They'll be standing in front of a home that has been rebuilt and sold three different times before they got it, and tell everyone that "This house survived Katrina, we'll be fine."
At least I KNOW mine did. And thus the age old question rears its head again. Do I evacuate?
This answer changes all the time, but sitting comfortably at my desk on 11/30/07 at 8 AM, drinking my coffee and watching the kids get ready for school, I'd say that yes, I'd evacuate for a Cat 3 storm or higher. Not because I fear for my safety in my home. There is nothing I can do once the storm starts if, say, the roof peels away again or a tree takes out the window. I may as well be somewhere with electricity and drinkable water and air conditioning.
Now, if the budget office grants my request for a release of capital funds for the purchase of generators, now we're discussing an entirely different set of circumstances. But that budget meeting won't occur until spring of '08.
And lucky for me, neither will any discussion of evacuation.
HAHAHA
I'm posting from work, tonight! Somehow, I managed to log on to Blogger in spite of the corporate filter.
HAHAHAHA!
That's it... nothing else to say.
HAHAHAHA!
That's it... nothing else to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
