Went to see "The Book of Eli" Saturday night with my daughter. I read some reviews on a couple of "survivalist" forums and decided I had to see it. I took my eight-year-old with me, was a little concerned about the "R" rating due to violence, but not terribly bad for the amount of violence. A couple of attempted rapes, but no nudity or completion of the scene. She enjoyed the movie and it helped her to understand a bit more about why I store extra food and supplies.
The Christian theme in the movie is not overstated, but runs throughout. Non-Christians might not enjoy this movie because the main character, Eli, carries the word of God and is guided by Him throughout the movie.
I give this movie a thumbs-up. It is somewhat violent, escapist, and implausible at times. However, Eli is likeable and leads one to admire him for his quest to bring his book to "the West" where it is needed. Some elements of the plot are obvious from the beginning, such as who is good and who is evil. Other elements are revealed in good time. And the ending contains a couple of interesting twists and an appropriate comeuppance for the villain.
My favorite line: When the young woman who accompanies Eli on his quest asks about how the world was before the apocalypse, Eli says something to the effect, "They threw away things that people kill each other for now." An interesting epitaph for our times.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Quote of the Day
If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it wrong.
--Joe Biden, overestimating the competence of the Obama administration, Feb. 6, 2009.
--Joe Biden, overestimating the competence of the Obama administration, Feb. 6, 2009.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Retarded Politicians of the Week
Four members of the Washington State Senate have so distinguished themselves with mental incapacity that the honor of Retarded Politician of the Week must be shared amongst them.
The winners are:
Senator Darlene Fairley, D-32
Senator Adam Kline, D-37
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-36
Senator Joe McDermott, D-34
The four mental incompetents have introduced a Senate bill, SB 6396, which seeks to ban a class of firearms, the dreaded and misnamed "assault weapons" based upon their appearance and ability to hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Aside from violating Washington citizens' Second Amendment rights, the bill proposes violating the Fourth Amendment rights of current owners of "assault weapons" by requiring said owners to submit to searches by the Sheriff. Also notable is the exception from the law granted to law enforcement and government employees.
The following are the proposed changes to RCW 9.41.010:
(20) "Assault weapon" means:
(a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also possesses any of the following:
(i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located rear of the trigger;
(ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
(iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a telescoping stock;
(iv) A barrel shroud;
(v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
(vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;
(b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle, or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;
(d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
(e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
(f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of any person.
(21) "Detachable magazine" means a magazine, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.
(22) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially or completely encircle the barrel.
(23) "Muzzle brake" means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.
(24) "Muzzle compensator" means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.
(25) "Conversion kit" means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault weapon.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(1) No person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon conversion kit, except as authorized by subsection (3) of this section.
Any assault weapon or assault weapon conversion kit the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale, or other transfer of which is prohibited under this section is a public nuisance.
(2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of the following:
(a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and
(b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any of the following:
(a) The possession of an unloaded assault weapon for the purpose of permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency in this state.
Any assault weapon relinquished pursuant to this subsection shall be destroyed;
(b) The transfer of any assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or dealer to a law enforcement agency in this state for use by that agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes;
(c) The possession of an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, but only if the person legally possessing the assault weapon has complied with all of the requirements of subsection (5) of this section;
(d) The possession of an assault weapon that has been permanently disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile.
(4) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any person:
(a) While lawfully engaged in shooting at a duly licensed, lawfully operated shooting range;
(b) While lawfully participating in a sporting event officially sanctioned by a club or organization established in whole or in part for the purpose of sponsoring sport shooting events.
(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:
(a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;
(b) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the
assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container during transport.
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any person in this state who, after the effective date of this section, acquires title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession, shall, within thirty days of acquiring title, do one of the following:
(a) Comply with all of the requirements of subsection (5) of this section;
(b) Dispose of the assault weapon pursuant to subsection (3)(a) of this section; or
(c) Permanently disable the assault weapon so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile.
(7)(a) Any person convicted of violating subsection (1) or (2) of this section is guilty of a class C felony.
(b) Any person convicted of violating subsection (5) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(8) This section does not apply to:
(a) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies, or other law enforcement officers of this or another state while acting within the scope of their duties;
(b) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized services, when on duty;
(c) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to possess assault weapons; or
(d) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in assault weapons, or the representative or agent of the person who is properly licensed under federal or state laws to do so and who is acting within the usual and ordinary course of the business.
So, my 9mm pistol that holds fifteen rounds would be a banned weapon subjecting me to warrantless inspections by the county sheriff, yet my 9mm pistol that holds ten rounds and has exactly the same operating principles is perfectly kosher?
My Ruger 10/22 with a twenty round magazine makes me a felon, yet with a ten round magazine it's all cool?
None of this matters if I'm a cop or the right kind of government employee? Didn't Heinrich Himmler propose the same kind of laws back in the good old days of totalitarian national socialism?
Senators Fairley, Kline, Kohl-Welles, and McDermott are a bunch of f*****g idiots and should be turned out of office at the very next opportunity, if they cannot be recalled sooner.
Until the next election or recall drive they are just the Retarded Politicians of the Week.
P.S. Washington residents: Write to your legislators. I just did, and I am going to post their replies alongside my letters to them on the door of my office.
The winners are:
Senator Darlene Fairley, D-32
Senator Adam Kline, D-37
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-36
Senator Joe McDermott, D-34
The four mental incompetents have introduced a Senate bill, SB 6396, which seeks to ban a class of firearms, the dreaded and misnamed "assault weapons" based upon their appearance and ability to hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Aside from violating Washington citizens' Second Amendment rights, the bill proposes violating the Fourth Amendment rights of current owners of "assault weapons" by requiring said owners to submit to searches by the Sheriff. Also notable is the exception from the law granted to law enforcement and government employees.
The following are the proposed changes to RCW 9.41.010:
(20) "Assault weapon" means:
(a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also possesses any of the following:
(i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located rear of the trigger;
(ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
(iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a telescoping stock;
(iv) A barrel shroud;
(v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
(vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;
(b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle, or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;
(d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
(e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
(f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of any person.
(21) "Detachable magazine" means a magazine, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.
(22) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially or completely encircle the barrel.
(23) "Muzzle brake" means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.
(24) "Muzzle compensator" means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.
(25) "Conversion kit" means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault weapon.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(1) No person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon conversion kit, except as authorized by subsection (3) of this section.
Any assault weapon or assault weapon conversion kit the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale, or other transfer of which is prohibited under this section is a public nuisance.
(2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of the following:
(a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and
(b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any of the following:
(a) The possession of an unloaded assault weapon for the purpose of permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency in this state.
Any assault weapon relinquished pursuant to this subsection shall be destroyed;
(b) The transfer of any assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or dealer to a law enforcement agency in this state for use by that agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes;
(c) The possession of an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, but only if the person legally possessing the assault weapon has complied with all of the requirements of subsection (5) of this section;
(d) The possession of an assault weapon that has been permanently disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile.
(4) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any person:
(a) While lawfully engaged in shooting at a duly licensed, lawfully operated shooting range;
(b) While lawfully participating in a sporting event officially sanctioned by a club or organization established in whole or in part for the purpose of sponsoring sport shooting events.
(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:
(a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;
(b) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the
assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container during transport.
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any person in this state who, after the effective date of this section, acquires title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession, shall, within thirty days of acquiring title, do one of the following:
(a) Comply with all of the requirements of subsection (5) of this section;
(b) Dispose of the assault weapon pursuant to subsection (3)(a) of this section; or
(c) Permanently disable the assault weapon so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile.
(7)(a) Any person convicted of violating subsection (1) or (2) of this section is guilty of a class C felony.
(b) Any person convicted of violating subsection (5) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(8) This section does not apply to:
(a) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies, or other law enforcement officers of this or another state while acting within the scope of their duties;
(b) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized services, when on duty;
(c) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to possess assault weapons; or
(d) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in assault weapons, or the representative or agent of the person who is properly licensed under federal or state laws to do so and who is acting within the usual and ordinary course of the business.
So, my 9mm pistol that holds fifteen rounds would be a banned weapon subjecting me to warrantless inspections by the county sheriff, yet my 9mm pistol that holds ten rounds and has exactly the same operating principles is perfectly kosher?
My Ruger 10/22 with a twenty round magazine makes me a felon, yet with a ten round magazine it's all cool?
None of this matters if I'm a cop or the right kind of government employee? Didn't Heinrich Himmler propose the same kind of laws back in the good old days of totalitarian national socialism?
Senators Fairley, Kline, Kohl-Welles, and McDermott are a bunch of f*****g idiots and should be turned out of office at the very next opportunity, if they cannot be recalled sooner.
Until the next election or recall drive they are just the Retarded Politicians of the Week.
P.S. Washington residents: Write to your legislators. I just did, and I am going to post their replies alongside my letters to them on the door of my office.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Can You Say "Filibuster"?
Filibuster! Filibuster!
Filibuster! Filibuster!
Congratulations to Senator-elect Scott Brown, R-MA.
As Dick Morris so aptly put it, the election of Scott Brown "marks the last bill Obama is ever going to pass of any consequence, except for bipartisan stuff. This is the end of the Obama ascendancy, because he has so systematically alienated the 40 Republicans, that now that there are 41, none of them is going to give him the right time of day."
Filibuster! Filibuster!
Congratulations to Senator-elect Scott Brown, R-MA.
As Dick Morris so aptly put it, the election of Scott Brown "marks the last bill Obama is ever going to pass of any consequence, except for bipartisan stuff. This is the end of the Obama ascendancy, because he has so systematically alienated the 40 Republicans, that now that there are 41, none of them is going to give him the right time of day."
Monday, January 18, 2010
Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln: Both Rotten Bastards
Catchy title, eh? Actually, this is a post advocating Anarchism, but a good lead-in is a discussion of how Lincoln and Obama have trampled States' and individual rights.
Just as Abraham Lincoln is noted in history as having saved the Union and ended the practice of slavery (in the seceding states), the One, Barack Hussein Obama, is supposed to be the first post-racial president, the one who preserves the Union in the face of our current calamity, and sets us on a new path to prosperity. In school we were taught to idolize Lincoln, and he is considered by many to be one of our great presidents. The mainstream media idolizes Obama and dutifully reports the Obamaganda to the public, urging us to consider him to be a great president.
Lincoln and Obama do have one thing in common that qualifies both as rotten bastards: the centralization of federal authority over the states and the citizens. When the Southern states asserted their rights, the answer from Lincoln's Washington was that the States could not assert their rights and withdraw from the Union. The Union was not made up of the several States; the States were merely components of the single enormous state and were by force returned to the federal structure. Fast forward to 2010, where only fringe elements espouse the concept of the individual State having rights. In this age a gluttonous federal government taxes and regulates nearly every aspect of life in the States, and the States line up like beggars at a soup kitchen for their handouts from the federal master. Obama is the latest master to occupy the plantation mansion, taxing our lifeblood away from us and centralizing federal authority to a degree not seen in any living person's lifetime. He has the banks and financial sector answering to him, he controls two of the three remaining automakers, he has granted Interpol sweeping immunity over its actions on American soil, he is proposing limiting our energy use through cap and trade, he is taking away our rights to determine our own health care choices, he is allowing us to be overrun with illegal immigrants and siccing his federal goons on local lawmen who have enforced immigration laws, his attorneys and BATFE agents are threatening states who have enacted home-state gun laws, and he is conspiring with the United Nations and Mexico to curtail Americans' Second Amendment rights. These attempts (and successes) at conolidating federal power are frightening.
The point is not to engage in a litany of Obama's fascist agenda, although he is the current president and enemy of the States. The Obama agenda, while more audacious than that of past presidents, is a continuation of the erosion of States' and individuals' rights. The comparison with Lincoln is apt in that it shows that the conspiracy to deny the rights of the States and the citizens has long been in progress. It can be said that the enactment of the Constitution itself served to consolidate federal power at the expenses of the States and their citizens. Consider Murray Rothbard's view that the Constitutional Convention was "nothing but a 'coup d'état,' centralizing power and destroying the far more tolerable arrangements of the Articles of Confederation". If the Constitutional Convention was not a centralization of federal power at the expense of the states and citizens, why were amendments necessary to limit the new federal power?
I admit that a few of the aforementioned thoughts are not original to me. Another that is not original to me, but that I am giving serious consideration to, is the idea of becoming an Anarchist. Conservative, liberal, Democrat, or Republican is to subscribe to the current order. The order that continues and expands the federal dominance over the States and their citizens. The dominance is so entrenched and corrupt that no one can even effectively challenge its continued existence. Yes, you can protest, but you cannot take your ball and go home. The Confederate States of America found out the hard way. Even the Libertarians do not challenge the federal beast's continued existence, they only want to pare it back to necessary functions.
The Tenth Amendment, reserving all rights to the States and the people which are not expressly granted to the federal government, is effectively dead. The only route left for reclaiming and reasserting our God-given Constitutional rights is through a revolution. None of the three major political parties is a place for revolutionaries. All three parties want to run the plantation; none want to burn it down and start over. There is no place at the table for those who want to end the tyranny of centralized federal power and give the power back to the States and citizens.
That makes Anarchism attractive as a political movement. Deconstruction of the federal behemoth. Restoration of the rights of the individual. Association of individuals in governance by their consent, which may be withdrawn.
As I stated earlier, a few of these thoughts were not my own. I was inspired by the article The Reluctant Anarchist, by Joseph Sobran. A worthy read.
Just as Abraham Lincoln is noted in history as having saved the Union and ended the practice of slavery (in the seceding states), the One, Barack Hussein Obama, is supposed to be the first post-racial president, the one who preserves the Union in the face of our current calamity, and sets us on a new path to prosperity. In school we were taught to idolize Lincoln, and he is considered by many to be one of our great presidents. The mainstream media idolizes Obama and dutifully reports the Obamaganda to the public, urging us to consider him to be a great president.
Lincoln and Obama do have one thing in common that qualifies both as rotten bastards: the centralization of federal authority over the states and the citizens. When the Southern states asserted their rights, the answer from Lincoln's Washington was that the States could not assert their rights and withdraw from the Union. The Union was not made up of the several States; the States were merely components of the single enormous state and were by force returned to the federal structure. Fast forward to 2010, where only fringe elements espouse the concept of the individual State having rights. In this age a gluttonous federal government taxes and regulates nearly every aspect of life in the States, and the States line up like beggars at a soup kitchen for their handouts from the federal master. Obama is the latest master to occupy the plantation mansion, taxing our lifeblood away from us and centralizing federal authority to a degree not seen in any living person's lifetime. He has the banks and financial sector answering to him, he controls two of the three remaining automakers, he has granted Interpol sweeping immunity over its actions on American soil, he is proposing limiting our energy use through cap and trade, he is taking away our rights to determine our own health care choices, he is allowing us to be overrun with illegal immigrants and siccing his federal goons on local lawmen who have enforced immigration laws, his attorneys and BATFE agents are threatening states who have enacted home-state gun laws, and he is conspiring with the United Nations and Mexico to curtail Americans' Second Amendment rights. These attempts (and successes) at conolidating federal power are frightening.
The point is not to engage in a litany of Obama's fascist agenda, although he is the current president and enemy of the States. The Obama agenda, while more audacious than that of past presidents, is a continuation of the erosion of States' and individuals' rights. The comparison with Lincoln is apt in that it shows that the conspiracy to deny the rights of the States and the citizens has long been in progress. It can be said that the enactment of the Constitution itself served to consolidate federal power at the expenses of the States and their citizens. Consider Murray Rothbard's view that the Constitutional Convention was "nothing but a 'coup d'état,' centralizing power and destroying the far more tolerable arrangements of the Articles of Confederation". If the Constitutional Convention was not a centralization of federal power at the expense of the states and citizens, why were amendments necessary to limit the new federal power?
I admit that a few of the aforementioned thoughts are not original to me. Another that is not original to me, but that I am giving serious consideration to, is the idea of becoming an Anarchist. Conservative, liberal, Democrat, or Republican is to subscribe to the current order. The order that continues and expands the federal dominance over the States and their citizens. The dominance is so entrenched and corrupt that no one can even effectively challenge its continued existence. Yes, you can protest, but you cannot take your ball and go home. The Confederate States of America found out the hard way. Even the Libertarians do not challenge the federal beast's continued existence, they only want to pare it back to necessary functions.
The Tenth Amendment, reserving all rights to the States and the people which are not expressly granted to the federal government, is effectively dead. The only route left for reclaiming and reasserting our God-given Constitutional rights is through a revolution. None of the three major political parties is a place for revolutionaries. All three parties want to run the plantation; none want to burn it down and start over. There is no place at the table for those who want to end the tyranny of centralized federal power and give the power back to the States and citizens.
That makes Anarchism attractive as a political movement. Deconstruction of the federal behemoth. Restoration of the rights of the individual. Association of individuals in governance by their consent, which may be withdrawn.
As I stated earlier, a few of these thoughts were not my own. I was inspired by the article The Reluctant Anarchist, by Joseph Sobran. A worthy read.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
A Conspiracy for Conspiracy Theorists
The government may be taking an active, Orwellian interest in conspiracy theorists. Rather than installing two-way Telescreens in every American household to monitor citizens' communications and thoughts, the government may be planning to infiltrate groups espousing conspiracy theories and engage in "counterspeech" and other propaganda campaigns. The enlightened anti-civil libertarian proposing such a government policy is none other than President Obama's director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein. Mr. Sunstein, formerly a professor at Harvard Law School, has been mentioned as a future appointment to the United States Supreme Court.
Mr. Sunstein co-authored a paper in 2008 titled "Conspiracy Theories", in which he expresses the view that Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. Mr. Sunstein is particularly concerned about conspiracy theories about nefarious actions by the United States government, and the "extremists" who espouse such views. Never mind the substantial number of conspiracy theories involving the government that have subsequently proven to be true. Mr. Sunstein acknowledges that some conspiracy theories have proven to be true, then discards these proven theories to focus on the "false" conspiracy theories, ignoring the fact that the proven conspiracy theories were at one time widely considered to be false. Why else would these once disbelieved theories have been called conspiracy theories?
I have long taken the position that in a free society must be an enlightened society, and that one of the prerequisites of such an enlighted society must be the free exchange of ideas. This includes ideas I disagree with and ideas that I have dismissed as crackpot conspiracies. Information is power, whether for the purpose of making decisions about our governance or for identifying the enemies of our free society. The right to free expression by conspiracy theorists serves both purposes. On one hand, sometimes the conspiracy theorists are correct or may raise an issue regarding our government that bears watching. On the other hand, the conspiracy theorists may reveal themselves as persons we should be wary of having association.
Mr. Sunstein clearly views conspiracy theorists and their theories as a threat to his pet interests: big, all-knowing and all-controlling government and the elites such as Mr. Sunstein himself who think they know what is best for us proles. His considered and proposed solutions to a non-existent problem is revealing in its trust in the power of government over the people. Mr. Sunstein first considers the range of options for dealing with those pesky conspiracy theorists:
(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.
(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.
(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.
Without explanation as to the reasons for considering options (1) and (2), Mr. Sunstein explains that our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5). Sounds a bit inspired by the likes of Dear Leader Kim Jong Il of North Korea or Chairman Mao. Given the Obama administration's penchant for doublespeak, I would venture to guess that "informal communication" from the government might be translated as a visit by KGB...I mean DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and her gun-toting black-pajama party.
Considering that our government is supposedly of the people, by the people, and for the people, I find Mr. Sunstein's recommendation particularly offensive. This is because Mr. Sunstein's proposal is all about the government serving its own interests in countering conspiracy theories. Mr. Sunstein appears to subscribe to the common liberal fallacy that our government is an entity in its own right with its own interests to be served. If the government was actually concerned about the effect of conspiracy theories, it would act in such a way that would not foster the formation of conspiracy theories.
To his credit, Mr. Sunstein does consider that the government could behave in such a manner that conspiracy theorists would not have fodder for formation of their theories. He correctly states that the simplest governmental technique for dispelling false (and also harmful) beliefs – providing credible public information . To his discredit, Mr. Sunstein believes that the goverment openly providing information does not work, in any straightforward way, for conspiracy theories.
Mr. Sunstein's policy recommendations actually may help to explain the activities of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration. After promising in 2006 that the Democratic controlled Congress would be the most open and ethical in history, Nancy Pelosi has presided over a Congress that has been anything but open and ethical. Likewise, Candidate and then President Obama promised* to end secrecy in government and to open the legislative process to the public on his agenda. Since January 20, 2009, the Obama administration has withdrawn into the secrecy and double-dealing reminiscent of Chicago politics, with a long list of promises broken. Given the behavior of this administration, will anyone be surprised if it is plagued by more conspiracy theories than any other administration in U.S. history?
The answer to Mr. Sunstein's concerns about conspiracy theorists is the one that he and the Obama administration have discarded: Be an honest and open government that governs within constitutional limitations. I need not explain constitutional limitations to Mr. Sunstein or President Obama. Both were law professors at prestigious universities, Mr. Obama in particular having touted his previous employment as a constitutional law professor. To govern within constitutional limitations, a good start for the Obama administration would be to keep the promises President Obama made during his campaign and at his inauguration.
The Obama administration and the Democratic party in Congress have acted to foster formation of conspiracy theories about nefarious government activities when they have actually engaged in nefarious activity such as:
--DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano commissioning a report identifying concerned citizens, who happen not to agree with the Democratic party line, as potential terrorists.
--voting on, and sometimes passing, legislation without any actual reading of the legislation and without allowing the public to know what is in the legislation. Prime examples of this are the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the "stimulus bill") and the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
--voting on legislation in the middle of the night, such as the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
--buying votes for unpopular legislation, such as promises of federal aid made to Senator Mary Landrieu, D-LA, and Senator Ben Nelson, D-NE, for their votes on the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
--making sweetheart deals with special interests, such as giving the United Auto Workers an ownership stake in the government-packaged bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler, and deals with the unions not to pay taxes on "Cadillac" health plans, not to mention special bailouts for consumer unfriendly banks such as JPMorganChase, Citibank, and Bank of America who have long records of taking advantage of consumers.
--campaiging on a promise to respect the Second Amendment right of Americans to keep and bear arms, then Attorney General Eric Holder states an intention to re-enact the wrongly-named assault weapons ban, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton negotiates for the U.S. to sign on to the United Nations Small Arms Treaty* despite its effects on our constitutional rights and sovereignty, and working with with Mexico on the CIFTA treaty to limit American Second Amendment rights.
I could spend the rest of the month coming up with examples of nefarious behavior by the Obama administration. The point, however, is that the Obama administration apparently believes Mr. Sunstein's assessment that providing the public with credible information will not dispel conspiracy theories. By governing in secrecy, engaging in doublespeack, breaking promises, and disregarding the constitutional limitations of government, Obama has created an environment in which conspiracy theorists and their creations will thrive. Unlike the conspiracy theories Mr. Sunstein purports to target with his policy recommendations, I would wager that a substantial number of conspiracy theories circulating since January 20, 2009 are true.
Next for Mr. Sunstein and the President: The Enemies List.
*These links are to government websites, and could be subject to revision at any time. Just ask Winston Smith.
Mr. Sunstein co-authored a paper in 2008 titled "Conspiracy Theories", in which he expresses the view that Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. Mr. Sunstein is particularly concerned about conspiracy theories about nefarious actions by the United States government, and the "extremists" who espouse such views. Never mind the substantial number of conspiracy theories involving the government that have subsequently proven to be true. Mr. Sunstein acknowledges that some conspiracy theories have proven to be true, then discards these proven theories to focus on the "false" conspiracy theories, ignoring the fact that the proven conspiracy theories were at one time widely considered to be false. Why else would these once disbelieved theories have been called conspiracy theories?
I have long taken the position that in a free society must be an enlightened society, and that one of the prerequisites of such an enlighted society must be the free exchange of ideas. This includes ideas I disagree with and ideas that I have dismissed as crackpot conspiracies. Information is power, whether for the purpose of making decisions about our governance or for identifying the enemies of our free society. The right to free expression by conspiracy theorists serves both purposes. On one hand, sometimes the conspiracy theorists are correct or may raise an issue regarding our government that bears watching. On the other hand, the conspiracy theorists may reveal themselves as persons we should be wary of having association.
Mr. Sunstein clearly views conspiracy theorists and their theories as a threat to his pet interests: big, all-knowing and all-controlling government and the elites such as Mr. Sunstein himself who think they know what is best for us proles. His considered and proposed solutions to a non-existent problem is revealing in its trust in the power of government over the people. Mr. Sunstein first considers the range of options for dealing with those pesky conspiracy theorists:
(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.
(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.
(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.
Without explanation as to the reasons for considering options (1) and (2), Mr. Sunstein explains that our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5). Sounds a bit inspired by the likes of Dear Leader Kim Jong Il of North Korea or Chairman Mao. Given the Obama administration's penchant for doublespeak, I would venture to guess that "informal communication" from the government might be translated as a visit by KGB...I mean DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and her gun-toting black-pajama party.
Considering that our government is supposedly of the people, by the people, and for the people, I find Mr. Sunstein's recommendation particularly offensive. This is because Mr. Sunstein's proposal is all about the government serving its own interests in countering conspiracy theories. Mr. Sunstein appears to subscribe to the common liberal fallacy that our government is an entity in its own right with its own interests to be served. If the government was actually concerned about the effect of conspiracy theories, it would act in such a way that would not foster the formation of conspiracy theories.
To his credit, Mr. Sunstein does consider that the government could behave in such a manner that conspiracy theorists would not have fodder for formation of their theories. He correctly states that the simplest governmental technique for dispelling false (and also harmful) beliefs – providing credible public information . To his discredit, Mr. Sunstein believes that the goverment openly providing information does not work, in any straightforward way, for conspiracy theories.
Mr. Sunstein's policy recommendations actually may help to explain the activities of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration. After promising in 2006 that the Democratic controlled Congress would be the most open and ethical in history, Nancy Pelosi has presided over a Congress that has been anything but open and ethical. Likewise, Candidate and then President Obama promised* to end secrecy in government and to open the legislative process to the public on his agenda. Since January 20, 2009, the Obama administration has withdrawn into the secrecy and double-dealing reminiscent of Chicago politics, with a long list of promises broken. Given the behavior of this administration, will anyone be surprised if it is plagued by more conspiracy theories than any other administration in U.S. history?
The answer to Mr. Sunstein's concerns about conspiracy theorists is the one that he and the Obama administration have discarded: Be an honest and open government that governs within constitutional limitations. I need not explain constitutional limitations to Mr. Sunstein or President Obama. Both were law professors at prestigious universities, Mr. Obama in particular having touted his previous employment as a constitutional law professor. To govern within constitutional limitations, a good start for the Obama administration would be to keep the promises President Obama made during his campaign and at his inauguration.
The Obama administration and the Democratic party in Congress have acted to foster formation of conspiracy theories about nefarious government activities when they have actually engaged in nefarious activity such as:
--DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano commissioning a report identifying concerned citizens, who happen not to agree with the Democratic party line, as potential terrorists.
--voting on, and sometimes passing, legislation without any actual reading of the legislation and without allowing the public to know what is in the legislation. Prime examples of this are the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the "stimulus bill") and the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
--voting on legislation in the middle of the night, such as the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
--buying votes for unpopular legislation, such as promises of federal aid made to Senator Mary Landrieu, D-LA, and Senator Ben Nelson, D-NE, for their votes on the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
--making sweetheart deals with special interests, such as giving the United Auto Workers an ownership stake in the government-packaged bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler, and deals with the unions not to pay taxes on "Cadillac" health plans, not to mention special bailouts for consumer unfriendly banks such as JPMorganChase, Citibank, and Bank of America who have long records of taking advantage of consumers.
--campaiging on a promise to respect the Second Amendment right of Americans to keep and bear arms, then Attorney General Eric Holder states an intention to re-enact the wrongly-named assault weapons ban, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton negotiates for the U.S. to sign on to the United Nations Small Arms Treaty* despite its effects on our constitutional rights and sovereignty, and working with with Mexico on the CIFTA treaty to limit American Second Amendment rights.
I could spend the rest of the month coming up with examples of nefarious behavior by the Obama administration. The point, however, is that the Obama administration apparently believes Mr. Sunstein's assessment that providing the public with credible information will not dispel conspiracy theories. By governing in secrecy, engaging in doublespeack, breaking promises, and disregarding the constitutional limitations of government, Obama has created an environment in which conspiracy theorists and their creations will thrive. Unlike the conspiracy theories Mr. Sunstein purports to target with his policy recommendations, I would wager that a substantial number of conspiracy theories circulating since January 20, 2009 are true.
Next for Mr. Sunstein and the President: The Enemies List.
*These links are to government websites, and could be subject to revision at any time. Just ask Winston Smith.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Quote of the Day
"I'm blacker than Barack Obama."
--former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich
In color or in character? --Nairb
--former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich
In color or in character? --Nairb
Saturday, January 9, 2010
U.S. to Israel: Agree to Your Own Destruction or We Cut Aid
That's not exactly what was said, but that is what Komrade Obama's envoy for Mohammedan ass-kissing, George Mitchell, has effectively said to Israel.
The U.S. is threatening to cut aid to Israel if it does not advance the so-called "peace process". Story here. This "peace process" largely involves Israel surrendering territory to the so-called Palestinians (in reality just another group of Mohammedan Arabs), rendering Israel vulnerable to continuing attacks by these Arabs.
Take a look at the peace plans being put forward by the other Mohammedan Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This is similar to the plan the Saudis came up with years ago, and previously rejected by Israel. To agree with such a plan, Israel would be agreeing to national suicide.
The history of this peace process, dating back to Mohammed "Yasser" Arafat's taqiyya of the mid-1970's, has been that the Israeli's make offers and concessions, then the Mohammedan Arab Palestinians concede nothing except empty promises, and then attack Israel again and again.
Notably, the U.S. has provided at least $600,000,000.00 in foreign aid to the Fatah-conrolled Palestinian Authority and $300,000.00 in humanitarian aid to Gaza. Story here. Gaza is of course controlled by Hamas, a U.S.-declared terrorist organization, so the aid cannot be given directly to Hamas. Hamas, of course, will get its hands on the money, no doubt about that. Neither Hamas nor Fatah have renounced their previous calls for the destruction of Israel.
Both Fatah and Hamas are engaged nearly continually in hostile actions towards Israel. Neither has contributed in any significant way to the "peace process". Neither has made any concessions. Both continue to stand around waiting for handouts from the Israelis and the U.S.
Komrade Obama's Second Carter Administration is just as anti-semitic as it's 1977-1981 predecessor. Komrade Obama demands that Israel make advances (read as "concessions") to the Mohammedan Arab Palestinian's or risk losing U.S. aid. After we have given $900,000,000.00 in aid to people sworn by their "religion" to destroy the Jews and, by extrapolation Israel, where is the similar demand on the Mohammedan Arab Palestinian to advance the "peace process"? Where are the Obamic demands for Mohammedan Arab Palestinian concessions? Where are the Obamic demands for the Mohammedan Arab Palestinians to renounce violence and disarm?
Komrade Obama claims that he wants lasting peace in the middle east. Either Obama is ignorant of the taqiyya being practiced by the Mohammedan Arab Palestinians, or is committing taqiyya himself. I believe it is the latter, as Obama's ass-kissing of every Mohammedan he can find tells me that the only "peace" Obama seeks is that of the Umma. In the Umma, you are either a Mohammedan, a Dhimmi, or dead.
Why be concerned? Israel has been squeezed by The Second Carter Administration since its inception last year. A friend of mine with intelligence connections is certain that Israel is feeling very insecure, and is very impatient with the Obama administration. He says that the Israeli kowtowing to Obama is to show that Israel made every reasonable concession prior to taking military action against Iran and perhaps any of it new allies. Expect Israel to take action within the next month or so.
This could be the flashpoint for the beginning of the end.
The U.S. is threatening to cut aid to Israel if it does not advance the so-called "peace process". Story here. This "peace process" largely involves Israel surrendering territory to the so-called Palestinians (in reality just another group of Mohammedan Arabs), rendering Israel vulnerable to continuing attacks by these Arabs.
Take a look at the peace plans being put forward by the other Mohammedan Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This is similar to the plan the Saudis came up with years ago, and previously rejected by Israel. To agree with such a plan, Israel would be agreeing to national suicide.
The history of this peace process, dating back to Mohammed "Yasser" Arafat's taqiyya of the mid-1970's, has been that the Israeli's make offers and concessions, then the Mohammedan Arab Palestinians concede nothing except empty promises, and then attack Israel again and again.
Notably, the U.S. has provided at least $600,000,000.00 in foreign aid to the Fatah-conrolled Palestinian Authority and $300,000.00 in humanitarian aid to Gaza. Story here. Gaza is of course controlled by Hamas, a U.S.-declared terrorist organization, so the aid cannot be given directly to Hamas. Hamas, of course, will get its hands on the money, no doubt about that. Neither Hamas nor Fatah have renounced their previous calls for the destruction of Israel.
Both Fatah and Hamas are engaged nearly continually in hostile actions towards Israel. Neither has contributed in any significant way to the "peace process". Neither has made any concessions. Both continue to stand around waiting for handouts from the Israelis and the U.S.
Komrade Obama's Second Carter Administration is just as anti-semitic as it's 1977-1981 predecessor. Komrade Obama demands that Israel make advances (read as "concessions") to the Mohammedan Arab Palestinian's or risk losing U.S. aid. After we have given $900,000,000.00 in aid to people sworn by their "religion" to destroy the Jews and, by extrapolation Israel, where is the similar demand on the Mohammedan Arab Palestinian to advance the "peace process"? Where are the Obamic demands for Mohammedan Arab Palestinian concessions? Where are the Obamic demands for the Mohammedan Arab Palestinians to renounce violence and disarm?
Komrade Obama claims that he wants lasting peace in the middle east. Either Obama is ignorant of the taqiyya being practiced by the Mohammedan Arab Palestinians, or is committing taqiyya himself. I believe it is the latter, as Obama's ass-kissing of every Mohammedan he can find tells me that the only "peace" Obama seeks is that of the Umma. In the Umma, you are either a Mohammedan, a Dhimmi, or dead.
Why be concerned? Israel has been squeezed by The Second Carter Administration since its inception last year. A friend of mine with intelligence connections is certain that Israel is feeling very insecure, and is very impatient with the Obama administration. He says that the Israeli kowtowing to Obama is to show that Israel made every reasonable concession prior to taking military action against Iran and perhaps any of it new allies. Expect Israel to take action within the next month or so.
This could be the flashpoint for the beginning of the end.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Retarded Politician of the Week
State Representative Sue Tibbs, R-OK.
Oklahoma state representative Sue Tibbs has sponsored a law that took effect November 1, 2009 which makes it a felony for a person to fortify his or her home. The law's stated effect is to penalize those who impede law enforcement's ability to get into a home or harm a law enforcement officer when drug activity is taking place in the home.
Here is the text of the law:
A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 540C of Title 21, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully fortify an access point into any dwelling, structure, building or other place where a felony offense prohibited by the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act is being committed, or attempted, and the fortification is for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer, or to harm or injure a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties.
B. For purposes of this section, “fortify an access point” means to willfully construct, install, position, use or hold any material or device designed to injure a person upon entry or to strengthen, defend, restrict or obstruct any door, window or other opening into a dwelling, structure, building or other place to any extent beyond the security provided by a commercial alarm system, lock or deadbolt, or a combination of alarm, lock or deadbolt.
C. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of not more than five (5) years, or by a fine in an amount not exceeding Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2009.
What makes this somewhat retarded is that impeding a law enforcement officer's ability to enter a home already constitutes two other crimes, depending upon the scenario. If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to make an arrest and the perpetrator uses his fortifications to avoid arrest, he is resisting arrest. If the law enforcement officer has an arrest warrant, add obstruction of justice to the charges. If the perpetrator uses his fortifications to harm the law enforcement officer, whether or not there is another crime being committed, look for assault on a law enforcement officer charge or an attempted murder charge (depending on the specific facts). In other words, there are already laws on the books to deal with this.
What makes this law and its sponsor, Representative Tibbs, full-blown retarded is that it gives the jack-booted thugs who wear full-face masks and black outfits without police markings license to arrest, on the pretext of drug activity, any person who fortifies the entrances to his or her home. This is an infringement upon the civil liberties of every Oklahoman, to be forcibly digested along with all the other "it's for your own good" bullshit coming out of the so-called War on Drugs.
While I do not use illegal drugs of any kind, I do not take kindly to being told what I can and cannot do with my property. If I want to fortify my doors and windows, I'm going to do it. In fact, I am going to do it. Nobody should have to give up the right to protect their domicile if they want to smoke a doobie in the privacy of their own home.
Unfortunately, Oklahomans have a lesser right to be secure in their own homes thanks to Retarded Politician Sue Tibbs. Thank God I don't live in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma state representative Sue Tibbs has sponsored a law that took effect November 1, 2009 which makes it a felony for a person to fortify his or her home. The law's stated effect is to penalize those who impede law enforcement's ability to get into a home or harm a law enforcement officer when drug activity is taking place in the home.
Here is the text of the law:
A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 540C of Title 21, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully fortify an access point into any dwelling, structure, building or other place where a felony offense prohibited by the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act is being committed, or attempted, and the fortification is for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer, or to harm or injure a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties.
B. For purposes of this section, “fortify an access point” means to willfully construct, install, position, use or hold any material or device designed to injure a person upon entry or to strengthen, defend, restrict or obstruct any door, window or other opening into a dwelling, structure, building or other place to any extent beyond the security provided by a commercial alarm system, lock or deadbolt, or a combination of alarm, lock or deadbolt.
C. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of not more than five (5) years, or by a fine in an amount not exceeding Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2009.
What makes this somewhat retarded is that impeding a law enforcement officer's ability to enter a home already constitutes two other crimes, depending upon the scenario. If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to make an arrest and the perpetrator uses his fortifications to avoid arrest, he is resisting arrest. If the law enforcement officer has an arrest warrant, add obstruction of justice to the charges. If the perpetrator uses his fortifications to harm the law enforcement officer, whether or not there is another crime being committed, look for assault on a law enforcement officer charge or an attempted murder charge (depending on the specific facts). In other words, there are already laws on the books to deal with this.
What makes this law and its sponsor, Representative Tibbs, full-blown retarded is that it gives the jack-booted thugs who wear full-face masks and black outfits without police markings license to arrest, on the pretext of drug activity, any person who fortifies the entrances to his or her home. This is an infringement upon the civil liberties of every Oklahoman, to be forcibly digested along with all the other "it's for your own good" bullshit coming out of the so-called War on Drugs.
While I do not use illegal drugs of any kind, I do not take kindly to being told what I can and cannot do with my property. If I want to fortify my doors and windows, I'm going to do it. In fact, I am going to do it. Nobody should have to give up the right to protect their domicile if they want to smoke a doobie in the privacy of their own home.
Unfortunately, Oklahomans have a lesser right to be secure in their own homes thanks to Retarded Politician Sue Tibbs. Thank God I don't live in Oklahoma.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Knowing the Unprepared
Sometimes I wonder whether all the efforts I put into preparedness really have any purpose. I haven't gone whole-hog into this venture, as I do not have an underground bunker in my backyard, nor do I have a retreat in the woods complete with solar panels, rain catchment system, and a moat. I have, however, started changing the way I live to be better prepared for eventualities.
I have been slowly changing my vehicles to emphasize four-wheel-drives that can carry some cargo and tow a trailer. I have some use for these in my ordinary life as there are materials to haul and camping trips to be made.
I have also been upgrading my camping equipment, as much of this equipment is useful for bugging in as well as bugging out. If the power goes out for a week like it did in the winter of 1996, I can see my way around the kitchen with oil lamps while I heat up my canned chili on the campstove. Other camping equipment would be similarly useful, whether it be water filters or portable propane hot water heaters.
I have also been putting away food that stores for long periods, and increasing the amount of convenience foods I keep on hand. For example, we like canned ravioli, so I keep more on hand and rotate through it.
I don't know whether my preps will enable my family and I to survive an economic collapse, natural disaster, or TEOTWAWKI, but I would like to think we have a fighting chance. Provided we don't get overrun or have to flee without any of our preps, I figure that we could survive nearly a year on what I have put away.
The problem I see in preparing for an uncertain future is that we are the only ones in the family that are doing it. My brother visited me recently from Alaska (we both grew up there) and stayed a few days at my home. When he saw my rows of buckets along the back wall of the kitchen, he started looking into them. I told him that it was long-term food storage. His reaction? "Oh, you're one of those." Meaning "survivalist" types. He just doesn't get it, although I thought that he would have been a little more in tune considering that almost all food in Alaska has been trucked in.
Incidentally, prepping is not new to me. I have been putting away preps on and off since 1994. I have been taking it more seriously for about the past year.
I took my brother with me to the gun show that was in town for the weekend. One of the tables was occupied by a pro-militia group. My brother had a negative reaction and remarked about the anti-government, "redneck" types. He is usually reliably conservative and despises Comrade Obama as much as I do, but I do not think that he understands what ordinary people are feeling about the Obama administration and the economy.
I sense that my brother thinks I am a paranoid, survivalist, gun-nut. That is probably true, and I take no offense. However, I worry about him because he acts like all of the other sheeple that I know. Content that his paycheck keeps clearing and that his current lifestyle continues uninterrupted. Meanwhile the winds of change are swirling around. What will happen to him if the economy does collapse or if hyperinflation turns our country into a post-modern Weimar republic? How will he provide for his own children? He does not see what is coming, scoffs at being prepared, and is unconcerned.
I have put emphasis on prepping for those I have a direct responsibility to save, namely myself, my significant other, and my child. I not only worry about how my brother and other relatives are going to make it when the SHTF, but I worry about my own family. We have preps to get through any number of scenarios, but our survival would be seriously impaired if we had to provide for twelve on preps meant for three. Most of our relatives do not know about my preparedness "hobby", but we are the ones who are always prepared and that everyone else comes to. I have no doubt it will be the same when SHTF.
None of this had really bothered me until my brother came to visit. Now I have something to think about....
I have been slowly changing my vehicles to emphasize four-wheel-drives that can carry some cargo and tow a trailer. I have some use for these in my ordinary life as there are materials to haul and camping trips to be made.
I have also been upgrading my camping equipment, as much of this equipment is useful for bugging in as well as bugging out. If the power goes out for a week like it did in the winter of 1996, I can see my way around the kitchen with oil lamps while I heat up my canned chili on the campstove. Other camping equipment would be similarly useful, whether it be water filters or portable propane hot water heaters.
I have also been putting away food that stores for long periods, and increasing the amount of convenience foods I keep on hand. For example, we like canned ravioli, so I keep more on hand and rotate through it.
I don't know whether my preps will enable my family and I to survive an economic collapse, natural disaster, or TEOTWAWKI, but I would like to think we have a fighting chance. Provided we don't get overrun or have to flee without any of our preps, I figure that we could survive nearly a year on what I have put away.
The problem I see in preparing for an uncertain future is that we are the only ones in the family that are doing it. My brother visited me recently from Alaska (we both grew up there) and stayed a few days at my home. When he saw my rows of buckets along the back wall of the kitchen, he started looking into them. I told him that it was long-term food storage. His reaction? "Oh, you're one of those." Meaning "survivalist" types. He just doesn't get it, although I thought that he would have been a little more in tune considering that almost all food in Alaska has been trucked in.
Incidentally, prepping is not new to me. I have been putting away preps on and off since 1994. I have been taking it more seriously for about the past year.
I took my brother with me to the gun show that was in town for the weekend. One of the tables was occupied by a pro-militia group. My brother had a negative reaction and remarked about the anti-government, "redneck" types. He is usually reliably conservative and despises Comrade Obama as much as I do, but I do not think that he understands what ordinary people are feeling about the Obama administration and the economy.
I sense that my brother thinks I am a paranoid, survivalist, gun-nut. That is probably true, and I take no offense. However, I worry about him because he acts like all of the other sheeple that I know. Content that his paycheck keeps clearing and that his current lifestyle continues uninterrupted. Meanwhile the winds of change are swirling around. What will happen to him if the economy does collapse or if hyperinflation turns our country into a post-modern Weimar republic? How will he provide for his own children? He does not see what is coming, scoffs at being prepared, and is unconcerned.
I have put emphasis on prepping for those I have a direct responsibility to save, namely myself, my significant other, and my child. I not only worry about how my brother and other relatives are going to make it when the SHTF, but I worry about my own family. We have preps to get through any number of scenarios, but our survival would be seriously impaired if we had to provide for twelve on preps meant for three. Most of our relatives do not know about my preparedness "hobby", but we are the ones who are always prepared and that everyone else comes to. I have no doubt it will be the same when SHTF.
None of this had really bothered me until my brother came to visit. Now I have something to think about....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
