A few observations on the healthcare debate-
I really should read the ACA legislation, because it seems that an awful lot of people are still accusing others of not having done so. Its three thousand pages long, which seems like a lot until I look at the Robert Jordan books that line my library shelves- 16 books totalling (by my estimate) about 10,000 pages of voluntary reading. I'm pretty certain I could get through it, given enough determination. Anyone else done this yet?
Lacking that, I have to rely on what politicians are saying about it, which is not a good way to get at the truth. However, using my best judgement, logic, and powers of observation, I have filtered a few key points. The ACA does NOT provide free healthcare for the American people, despite the protestations that it does. So all those people who are insisting that it does would seem to be A) mistaken or B) lying. In the spirit of fairness, it is apparent to me that a few people are lying to the populace and a large number of people are, unfortunately, believing them. What the ACA does do, on the other hand, is channel an incredible amount of money into the capacious pockets of a very small group of people who, incidentally, are frequently cast as the villains in this theatre. The ACA isn't busting the stranglehold of greedy and capricious insurance executives- it is REINFORCING IT.
The next observation is that the people in opposition to the ACA seem to be objecting to all the wrong aspects of it, and those in support seem to be using all the wrong reasons to support it. Quite honestly, the Republican Party should be lauding its efforts to encourage people to work with the private insurance industry, while the Democratic Party should be furious that it forces (and I mean that, the act REQUIRES, under a huge tax penalty) one to give money to billionaires. Welcome to topsy turvy world.
Now an observation in the hyperbole. First, its not the President's personal playground. Yes, he supported it, but the man wasn't a legislator when it was passed, so BY DEFINITION its not his legislation. Calling it Obamacare gives him far too much credit while simultaneously cheapening efforts to alter or end it, by short-circuiting any logic and turning the entire argument into an ad hominem attack. Its called the Affordable Care Act- it really doesn't matter if it does what its name says, for the sake of accuracy, use its real name. Second, its not going to be the single most devastating thing thats ever happened, and to say so makes one sound shrill and alarmist. If a person makes a dozen good, solid arguments and then ends with, "This will cause the dead to rise from the grave hungering for brains at midnight tonight!" And that last part never happens, they just shot ALL their arguments in the foot. Now, on the other side, everyone out there that gets all dreamy eyed over the ACA- I really do think you are being lied to, and when you parrot back those lies with your breathy voice, it makes us pragmatists feel like we're living in Brave New World. Its creepy, and does not help your cause. This is not the vast humanitarian effort you seem to think it is.
Now, I may just a wild-eyed optimist, but I still thnk there is room for truth and logic in debate, and compromise, but that faith is fading day by day. So, if we could all step up and get a few facts in order, we could still hammer out a useful result from this furnace of disaster. It may be we are out of time for that, but I really hope not.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
On Shutdown
Life is still veerrrryyy busy, so this will be a brief note, followed by another period of reflection.
By reports, the Fed.gov shut down this morning at the stroke of twelve (no word yet on who is finding the glass slipper) and some confusion exists as to the what and why. My observation? Group 1 decided not to compromise on their belief and dedication to Cause A, despite repeated threats from Group X. As both groups would only accept a full accounting of their demands, no agreement could be reached. Please, fill in the placeholders in your own time; we don't want spoilers in the comments. In fact, although I have never been interested in filtering conversation, I intend to MadLib any comments made referencing real people or parties, for my own entertainment.
As to the results- I fully expect that this shutdown will remarkably resemble the sequester cuts of earlier this year (partially because we are, in fact, in the throes of the very same debate) in that there will be basically no changes made in the operation of the federal government with the sole exception of making any contact with the gneral population as painful as possible. This will be seized upon by both guilty parties. The intent, of course, will be to encourage the population to contact their elected officials and respectfully request that they swallow their oath and make us comfy again. Since this is being done by both parties, I predict little gain in that regard. What I DO expect s a lot of confused, angry people arriving at the gates of National Parks and Monuments. Some of them will probably subsequently sneak in anyway.
In conclusion, Congress has once again placed a splinter squarely in our eye, fully expecting that we will thank them not only for removing it later, but thank them for putting it there in the first place.
By reports, the Fed.gov shut down this morning at the stroke of twelve (no word yet on who is finding the glass slipper) and some confusion exists as to the what and why. My observation? Group 1 decided not to compromise on their belief and dedication to Cause A, despite repeated threats from Group X. As both groups would only accept a full accounting of their demands, no agreement could be reached. Please, fill in the placeholders in your own time; we don't want spoilers in the comments. In fact, although I have never been interested in filtering conversation, I intend to MadLib any comments made referencing real people or parties, for my own entertainment.
As to the results- I fully expect that this shutdown will remarkably resemble the sequester cuts of earlier this year (partially because we are, in fact, in the throes of the very same debate) in that there will be basically no changes made in the operation of the federal government with the sole exception of making any contact with the gneral population as painful as possible. This will be seized upon by both guilty parties. The intent, of course, will be to encourage the population to contact their elected officials and respectfully request that they swallow their oath and make us comfy again. Since this is being done by both parties, I predict little gain in that regard. What I DO expect s a lot of confused, angry people arriving at the gates of National Parks and Monuments. Some of them will probably subsequently sneak in anyway.
In conclusion, Congress has once again placed a splinter squarely in our eye, fully expecting that we will thank them not only for removing it later, but thank them for putting it there in the first place.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Light Posting vs Burnout
I was digging through some feeds in my reader today, and thinking about blogs and bloggers. Now, some (such as Breda) maintain that blogs are dead- she maintains nearly the same following in facebook snippets as she did when blogging. Others have split off in different directions- SayUncle has gone all-linky/less-thinky, while Sebastian and Bitter are real life Active Activists. Caleb has staff writers now, and gets paid. Others have shuffled away, or abruptly ended, their sites cold or sold, or 404. I've never been good at 'post every day' blogging, but some are. Others drift in now and then (like me) drop nuggets of gold or Uberposts in their own way. Come this October, I've been riding this horse for 4 years. There's been gaps, some long ones, but I keep coming back, because I think there are some things I can't keep to myself. Thanks for reading. It'll keep coming as it always does, steady by jerks, until I either give up or run out of things to say.
Stock Market
You may think I have something to observe about the Dow Average or Securities exchange, but nope, not that kind of stock. For one, I understand only a very little about those things, but my understanding is mostly that its a complicated way of turning a small amount of real money into a great deal of playtime pretend money; or, to put it another way, like relieving one's bladder in a tornado and making bets on who gets wet. For two, I doubt any observations of mine will be particularly useful on that subject and it is, therefore, a bit of a waste of my increasingly precious time. So today, we are going to talk about chicken stock instead!
I've been making my own chicken stock for several years now, and I recently panicked to find that I had in stock only one lonely quart jar thereof. As can be imagined, this is unacceptable to me, and I set about remedying that situation.
I don't really consider stock a survival ration, so the lack is not truly an emergency, but I think it very neatly illustrates the difference between gettin' by and living well. I use homemade chicken stock in a great variety of ways, from the standard soups and sauces to rice dishes and crockpot meals, and the homemade stuff is cleaner, cheaper, and much tastier than most of the store bought stuff you can find. This plays into my preps in a big way.
Some of the things we do as preps are matters of life and death- a reliable way to heat your home during a Minnesota or Montana winter blackout is the difference between living and freezing to death in your own home. A backup generator to give you lights during a summer storm blackout in the same place generally save your life, but it makes it easier and more comfortable, and level of comfort is a big part of feeling good about your situation. In that vein, having homemade stock on hand is the difference between basic survival and eating well. Imagine for a moment, a long term blackout in the early summer, in a temperate zone. With no refrigeration, food isn't coming to the grocery, nor is electronic commerce operating. After, say, a week, most people are completely out of food, until the Red Cross starts bringing in canned goods or MREs. During that week, one family digs into their emergency supplies of rice and beans- only requiring water to prepare, they light their emergency backpacking stove and boil up some rice. No spices, no meat, no flavor really, but you now what? They're eating, and that's more than other people are doing. They are surviving. Now on to my family- during that same week, I've been digging into my cans and jars. Instead of plain rice, I have savory rice, cooked with stock and canned veggies. The next day, we have a green salad (dandelion grows everywhere, a little bitter but quite nutritious) with homemade vinegarette (I can make vinegar, too, from cider, or beer, or old wine, even sugar water) and sourdough croutons. Even if it lasts long enough that I'm shooting pigeons for protein, we can stew them up with some rice and make gravy. Which of these families would you rather dine with? THATS the difference between survival and living well.
I'll finish off with a recipe (of sorts)-
One chicken carcass. I like to roast a chicken then make stock the next day. Save the giblets, the bones, the neck, etc. Broil this the next day to crisp everything up and get the fat out (Fat, the friend of roasting and sausage, is the enemy of stock). Save all the juices from the roast, and add this to the stock pot.
Veggies- i mix and match sometimes, depending on what I have, but a few things should always go in- onions (3 or so) celery (half a bunch, leaves and all) carrots, whole black pepper, and salt. Additionally, I like to add cilantro, garlic, basil, and sometimes some fresh rosemary. The best part is that you can just put in what you have. I suppose bell peppers would be good, some folks add a parmesan rind, there's lots of options. One note here- any leafy greens will occlude your stock. I like the flavors they add, but don't expect a crystal clear liquid if you add these. Just chop everything into quarters and dump it in. Things like onions don't even need peeled, since its all coming back out later.
About the fat- its very important to get all the fat out of your stock. I refrigerate the carcass overnight and peel off the layer or solidified fat before putting the juices in the stockpot. Similarly, once you have broiled and crisped the carcass, most of the fat will be rendered out. Don't put this in the pot.
Once you have everything in stock pot, add about two gallons plus a quart of water and bring it all to a low simmer. If you boil it, whatever fat is left will emulsify and cloud your stock. Cover, and simmer for about 4 hrs, till the chicken carcass falls apart easily. Strain it through a cheesecloth into large containers (I use half gallon mason jars), discarding the solids. Cool these overnight in a refrigerator. The next day, filter again through cheesecloth or paper towels- this should remove the rest of the now congealed fat, leaving a clear amber liquid.
If you do get stock you can't clarify with filtering, you can raft an egg white in it, which will pull in a lot of the emulsified fat. Crack an egg and remove the yolk. Crush up the shell and add it to the white, then whip it up with a little cold water. Bring your stock to a high simmer and gently float the egg white mixture into it. Simmer 5 minutes or so, then cool and strain the egg out. It should be noticeably clearer.
There are two ways forward from here- canning and freezing. Freezing is simple; ladle your cooled, filtered stock into bags or containers and freeze them. You'll have to thaw them before use, but if you have lots of freezer space and no pressure canner, its an option.
To can your chicken stock, first establish how many jars you will need to procede. Wash, rinse, prep, etc as required. (If you are just getting inti canning, I recommend downloading the USDA Home canning guide, available for download here). Next, decant the filtered stock back into your stock pot, and heat it to just under boiling (this will be easier on the jars and save time on the canning cycle). Fill the jars to a 1/2" headspace, them process them in a pressure canner (NOT A BOILING BATH CANNER! ONLY A TRUE PRESSURE CANNER WILL SAFELY PROCESS MEAT PRODUCTS!) for the recommended time. In my case, it was 11 lbs of pressure for 25 minutes (pint jars).
Voila! Shelf stable for up to a year! I do this about 4 times per year, meaning my family of two uses about 8 gallons of stock per year. If I were buying high quality stock at the store, my canner (no inexpensive) was paid for the first year, plus you have absolute control of the flavor, quality, and ingredients! Now go out and build up your stock portfolio!
I've been making my own chicken stock for several years now, and I recently panicked to find that I had in stock only one lonely quart jar thereof. As can be imagined, this is unacceptable to me, and I set about remedying that situation.
I don't really consider stock a survival ration, so the lack is not truly an emergency, but I think it very neatly illustrates the difference between gettin' by and living well. I use homemade chicken stock in a great variety of ways, from the standard soups and sauces to rice dishes and crockpot meals, and the homemade stuff is cleaner, cheaper, and much tastier than most of the store bought stuff you can find. This plays into my preps in a big way.
Some of the things we do as preps are matters of life and death- a reliable way to heat your home during a Minnesota or Montana winter blackout is the difference between living and freezing to death in your own home. A backup generator to give you lights during a summer storm blackout in the same place generally save your life, but it makes it easier and more comfortable, and level of comfort is a big part of feeling good about your situation. In that vein, having homemade stock on hand is the difference between basic survival and eating well. Imagine for a moment, a long term blackout in the early summer, in a temperate zone. With no refrigeration, food isn't coming to the grocery, nor is electronic commerce operating. After, say, a week, most people are completely out of food, until the Red Cross starts bringing in canned goods or MREs. During that week, one family digs into their emergency supplies of rice and beans- only requiring water to prepare, they light their emergency backpacking stove and boil up some rice. No spices, no meat, no flavor really, but you now what? They're eating, and that's more than other people are doing. They are surviving. Now on to my family- during that same week, I've been digging into my cans and jars. Instead of plain rice, I have savory rice, cooked with stock and canned veggies. The next day, we have a green salad (dandelion grows everywhere, a little bitter but quite nutritious) with homemade vinegarette (I can make vinegar, too, from cider, or beer, or old wine, even sugar water) and sourdough croutons. Even if it lasts long enough that I'm shooting pigeons for protein, we can stew them up with some rice and make gravy. Which of these families would you rather dine with? THATS the difference between survival and living well.
I'll finish off with a recipe (of sorts)-
One chicken carcass. I like to roast a chicken then make stock the next day. Save the giblets, the bones, the neck, etc. Broil this the next day to crisp everything up and get the fat out (Fat, the friend of roasting and sausage, is the enemy of stock). Save all the juices from the roast, and add this to the stock pot.
Veggies- i mix and match sometimes, depending on what I have, but a few things should always go in- onions (3 or so) celery (half a bunch, leaves and all) carrots, whole black pepper, and salt. Additionally, I like to add cilantro, garlic, basil, and sometimes some fresh rosemary. The best part is that you can just put in what you have. I suppose bell peppers would be good, some folks add a parmesan rind, there's lots of options. One note here- any leafy greens will occlude your stock. I like the flavors they add, but don't expect a crystal clear liquid if you add these. Just chop everything into quarters and dump it in. Things like onions don't even need peeled, since its all coming back out later.
About the fat- its very important to get all the fat out of your stock. I refrigerate the carcass overnight and peel off the layer or solidified fat before putting the juices in the stockpot. Similarly, once you have broiled and crisped the carcass, most of the fat will be rendered out. Don't put this in the pot.
Once you have everything in stock pot, add about two gallons plus a quart of water and bring it all to a low simmer. If you boil it, whatever fat is left will emulsify and cloud your stock. Cover, and simmer for about 4 hrs, till the chicken carcass falls apart easily. Strain it through a cheesecloth into large containers (I use half gallon mason jars), discarding the solids. Cool these overnight in a refrigerator. The next day, filter again through cheesecloth or paper towels- this should remove the rest of the now congealed fat, leaving a clear amber liquid.
If you do get stock you can't clarify with filtering, you can raft an egg white in it, which will pull in a lot of the emulsified fat. Crack an egg and remove the yolk. Crush up the shell and add it to the white, then whip it up with a little cold water. Bring your stock to a high simmer and gently float the egg white mixture into it. Simmer 5 minutes or so, then cool and strain the egg out. It should be noticeably clearer.
There are two ways forward from here- canning and freezing. Freezing is simple; ladle your cooled, filtered stock into bags or containers and freeze them. You'll have to thaw them before use, but if you have lots of freezer space and no pressure canner, its an option.
To can your chicken stock, first establish how many jars you will need to procede. Wash, rinse, prep, etc as required. (If you are just getting inti canning, I recommend downloading the USDA Home canning guide, available for download here). Next, decant the filtered stock back into your stock pot, and heat it to just under boiling (this will be easier on the jars and save time on the canning cycle). Fill the jars to a 1/2" headspace, them process them in a pressure canner (NOT A BOILING BATH CANNER! ONLY A TRUE PRESSURE CANNER WILL SAFELY PROCESS MEAT PRODUCTS!) for the recommended time. In my case, it was 11 lbs of pressure for 25 minutes (pint jars).
Voila! Shelf stable for up to a year! I do this about 4 times per year, meaning my family of two uses about 8 gallons of stock per year. If I were buying high quality stock at the store, my canner (no inexpensive) was paid for the first year, plus you have absolute control of the flavor, quality, and ingredients! Now go out and build up your stock portfolio!
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Feeling good about OC
Ok, some of the very few that read this may have missed me (if not, don't bother telling me so), as I've been very busy with Danger. This week, though, was too good of an Open Carry Experience not to share.
Monday, and once Tuesday, I had no less than four major remarkable conversations about Open Carry.
One, a stocker at the grocery store, was interested in whether or not I ever get hassled about it, as he was considering a little bit himself. I shared with him a few of my positive experiences, talked a little about the local laws, and he went on his way with a thoughtful look and, I think, an increased determination. A couple things stick out from this conversation- first off, this is our regular grocery store, and I am (I think) becoming something of a fixture there. On my own, I'm not an exceedingly memorable person, but the combination of small child in a carrier and Open Carry (as well as a ready smile and luxurious beard) probably starts to stand out in the minds of the employees. I've seen this kid there before, and I know this is not the first time he's noted the gun on my hip. It is, however, the first time he's asked about it. I got the impression he's been mulling this decision for a while, and has gradually been deciding to act on it. Diplomacy for the Win! Second, he and others have mentioned an aspect of the law that I have not encountered myself, and it makes me wonder where the belief comes from. Specifically, he was under the impression that having a Concealed Carry license removed OC from the table. I have done my diligence in familiarizing myself with Oregon's various laws (I can't quote chapter and verse, but I make sure to remain in compliance) and have not found this to be the law anywhere in Oregon. Possibly this rule exists in other places or states, but I have not come across it anywhere.
The second conversation came a scant few minutes later, near the deli, where two women were waiting for their cold cuts. While different in exact wording from other conversations I've had, the effect was the same. They noticed the combination of small child and large gun and found it to be most droll, as well as entirely appropriate. With a smile, I replied that one does what one must to keep his family safe, and they agreed. They both seemed very receptive to the idea that the gun was a tool for safety, which underscores the idea that the world is not necessarily a safe place, and we all must do what we can to mitigate that. This mirrors a number of other conversations I've had, notably a handful of very similar conversations with Mothers, children in tow, at that very same store. Quite a contrast to the Moms Demand Action crowd, who do not seem to coincide with very many real people I have met.
The next two encounters were in my own home, and both were strikingly similar (in fact both were with employees of our new pest control service). I don't care much for people knocking on my door to sell me things, but I understand that business always needs new customers- in fact, I spent some time in that same manner back when I was in roofing. When the clean cut young man started his pitch on pest control, My Lovely Wife answered, and we eventually decided to allow them to treat our home. OpSec priciples were followed of course, and proper documentation was obtained before allowing the pitch to proceed. Upon noticing my sidearm, he expressed quite an approval, and mentioned that he and his wife had been considering the purchase of their first firearm. In point of fact, it was my understanding that the matter was broached by his wife, who grew up in a shooting family. The very next day, the tech arrived at our home to do the initial treatment. He also noticed the gun on my hip, expressed his approval, and engaged in some conversation regarding shooting and carrying. At that point he admitted that his wife is a much better shot than he, and had been discussing with him the purchase of an arm for home defense! Strange, I have seen so many people purporting not only that gun ownership is in decline, but that women were against such a thing! Its almost like the Bloomberg and Brady people are... Wrong, or something.
In all, I consider this to have been a very good week to be an Open Carrier. Not only do I feel I am continuing in good form to be an ambassador for our culture, but I have managed to strike up conversation with several people interested in joining our inclusive little group, and one who seems quite on the verge of regular carry himself. A net win, I'd say, and a far cry from the dying culture that others wish us to be.
Monday, and once Tuesday, I had no less than four major remarkable conversations about Open Carry.
One, a stocker at the grocery store, was interested in whether or not I ever get hassled about it, as he was considering a little bit himself. I shared with him a few of my positive experiences, talked a little about the local laws, and he went on his way with a thoughtful look and, I think, an increased determination. A couple things stick out from this conversation- first off, this is our regular grocery store, and I am (I think) becoming something of a fixture there. On my own, I'm not an exceedingly memorable person, but the combination of small child in a carrier and Open Carry (as well as a ready smile and luxurious beard) probably starts to stand out in the minds of the employees. I've seen this kid there before, and I know this is not the first time he's noted the gun on my hip. It is, however, the first time he's asked about it. I got the impression he's been mulling this decision for a while, and has gradually been deciding to act on it. Diplomacy for the Win! Second, he and others have mentioned an aspect of the law that I have not encountered myself, and it makes me wonder where the belief comes from. Specifically, he was under the impression that having a Concealed Carry license removed OC from the table. I have done my diligence in familiarizing myself with Oregon's various laws (I can't quote chapter and verse, but I make sure to remain in compliance) and have not found this to be the law anywhere in Oregon. Possibly this rule exists in other places or states, but I have not come across it anywhere.
The second conversation came a scant few minutes later, near the deli, where two women were waiting for their cold cuts. While different in exact wording from other conversations I've had, the effect was the same. They noticed the combination of small child and large gun and found it to be most droll, as well as entirely appropriate. With a smile, I replied that one does what one must to keep his family safe, and they agreed. They both seemed very receptive to the idea that the gun was a tool for safety, which underscores the idea that the world is not necessarily a safe place, and we all must do what we can to mitigate that. This mirrors a number of other conversations I've had, notably a handful of very similar conversations with Mothers, children in tow, at that very same store. Quite a contrast to the Moms Demand Action crowd, who do not seem to coincide with very many real people I have met.
The next two encounters were in my own home, and both were strikingly similar (in fact both were with employees of our new pest control service). I don't care much for people knocking on my door to sell me things, but I understand that business always needs new customers- in fact, I spent some time in that same manner back when I was in roofing. When the clean cut young man started his pitch on pest control, My Lovely Wife answered, and we eventually decided to allow them to treat our home. OpSec priciples were followed of course, and proper documentation was obtained before allowing the pitch to proceed. Upon noticing my sidearm, he expressed quite an approval, and mentioned that he and his wife had been considering the purchase of their first firearm. In point of fact, it was my understanding that the matter was broached by his wife, who grew up in a shooting family. The very next day, the tech arrived at our home to do the initial treatment. He also noticed the gun on my hip, expressed his approval, and engaged in some conversation regarding shooting and carrying. At that point he admitted that his wife is a much better shot than he, and had been discussing with him the purchase of an arm for home defense! Strange, I have seen so many people purporting not only that gun ownership is in decline, but that women were against such a thing! Its almost like the Bloomberg and Brady people are... Wrong, or something.
In all, I consider this to have been a very good week to be an Open Carrier. Not only do I feel I am continuing in good form to be an ambassador for our culture, but I have managed to strike up conversation with several people interested in joining our inclusive little group, and one who seems quite on the verge of regular carry himself. A net win, I'd say, and a far cry from the dying culture that others wish us to be.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Selecting for Chaos
An observation on the various happenings in Europe and the US, regarding violence and the rising of the violent subgroups.
One of the things that I think is critical at this junction is the fact that we are selecting (in an unintended fashion) for strength of violence. With each successive iteration, with each round of gun control, we remove the ability to resist from a few more, leaving the truly heinous behind. We disarm the people who are willing to obey the law, while those willing to flout it continue to go about their business. The people who would do the most good are being denied arms, while the people who do the most harm are left intact. In its turn, we are intentionally selecting for ease of governance while unintentionally selecting for heinous violence.
Look at this another way- start with an armed populace. Some will be good at heart but weak, some good but strong, others vile but weak or vile but strong. (I'm drastically simplifying the shadings). Ask for the guns, telling them its for the greater good. The good/weak, not trusting themselves for their own defense, will hand them in. The good but strong will resist. The vile but weak don't care for the greater good, and will ignore. The vile but strong will see easier targets in the unarmed. Now threaten them all a little bit, if they don't give the guns back. The vile but weak will give up- they can't hack it. But the vile/strong (who were commiting the most heinous acts anyway) aren't going to give it up that easy. Ok, so now try to take them by force. The good/strong will have moral objections to killing you when you try to take them- the vile/strong will have none. You will successfully disarm the good/strong, but fail to disarm the vile/strong.
It is important to look at some examples- the Aryan Brotherhood, the Cartels of South America, and violent street gangs of US cities.
The AB is a group that is defined by race- only one color allowed. In our cultural quest for equality (no time here to comment on THAT), we have suppressed any group that values the white (grrr, I hate this terminology) race. We have removed or destroyed all but the most insidious group- a group that represents all of the latent violence, distilled through social engineering to remove any voices that would caution or restrain them. Basically, the only ones left are the hardest or most adherent, as social pressure has removed any and all moderates from their ranks.
Next example, the drug Cartels. When various recreational drugs were illegalized in the US, a black market naturally sprung up. At first, there were many groups that were involved in it, but an increasingly intense Law Enforcement effort has removed most of those it can handle. Unfortunately, we have not reduced the demand for these drugs, thereby guaranteeing that the groups who are left have several things in common. First, they are much richer than they were before- enforcement having removed all their rivals, each remaining Cartel occupies a much larger portion of the market share. Second, they are the most ruthless and the most difficult to catch, otherwise they would have been caught already. Third, they are the most successful- those successes are what built both their reputation and their ability to remain elusive. Relying on the Law Enforcement's methods has, indeed, reduced the number of drug supply groups in the United States, but the unintended consequence is that the remaining groups are stronger, more influential, much much richer, and immeasurably more vicious than the ones that came before them. They were selected for those very traits.
Finally, the street gangs. Granted, there is some overlap between youth street gangs and both racist subgroups and drug running, but I think it is important to focus on the community aspect of these groups in particular- mostly because THEY HAVE ONE. One aspect of the street gang phenomenon is that of belonging. Your gang is your home, your family, and your protection. In many ways, it echoes the tribalism of the US prior to settlement by Europeans. Each tribe generally looks out for its own, guards its members against attacks by other groups, and the majority of the violence occurs over either a scarcity of resources or on the borders between two expanding groups. Many kids join these gangs not for the prestige, or the money, but for a sense of belonging. And, not incidentally, for the protection afforded a member. One difference of note is that the resources are not food or shelter but money and influence. The margins on the drug supply are the highest profit margins of any product in the world today, so it is unsurprising that these are the markets that these gangs operate in. Systematic suppression by social and law enforcement methods, as described in relation to the other two groups, have selected for the highest level of violence, and the lowest level of moderation.
Life is getting more and more interesting these days. Stay safe out there!
One of the things that I think is critical at this junction is the fact that we are selecting (in an unintended fashion) for strength of violence. With each successive iteration, with each round of gun control, we remove the ability to resist from a few more, leaving the truly heinous behind. We disarm the people who are willing to obey the law, while those willing to flout it continue to go about their business. The people who would do the most good are being denied arms, while the people who do the most harm are left intact. In its turn, we are intentionally selecting for ease of governance while unintentionally selecting for heinous violence.
Look at this another way- start with an armed populace. Some will be good at heart but weak, some good but strong, others vile but weak or vile but strong. (I'm drastically simplifying the shadings). Ask for the guns, telling them its for the greater good. The good/weak, not trusting themselves for their own defense, will hand them in. The good but strong will resist. The vile but weak don't care for the greater good, and will ignore. The vile but strong will see easier targets in the unarmed. Now threaten them all a little bit, if they don't give the guns back. The vile but weak will give up- they can't hack it. But the vile/strong (who were commiting the most heinous acts anyway) aren't going to give it up that easy. Ok, so now try to take them by force. The good/strong will have moral objections to killing you when you try to take them- the vile/strong will have none. You will successfully disarm the good/strong, but fail to disarm the vile/strong.
It is important to look at some examples- the Aryan Brotherhood, the Cartels of South America, and violent street gangs of US cities.
The AB is a group that is defined by race- only one color allowed. In our cultural quest for equality (no time here to comment on THAT), we have suppressed any group that values the white (grrr, I hate this terminology) race. We have removed or destroyed all but the most insidious group- a group that represents all of the latent violence, distilled through social engineering to remove any voices that would caution or restrain them. Basically, the only ones left are the hardest or most adherent, as social pressure has removed any and all moderates from their ranks.
Next example, the drug Cartels. When various recreational drugs were illegalized in the US, a black market naturally sprung up. At first, there were many groups that were involved in it, but an increasingly intense Law Enforcement effort has removed most of those it can handle. Unfortunately, we have not reduced the demand for these drugs, thereby guaranteeing that the groups who are left have several things in common. First, they are much richer than they were before- enforcement having removed all their rivals, each remaining Cartel occupies a much larger portion of the market share. Second, they are the most ruthless and the most difficult to catch, otherwise they would have been caught already. Third, they are the most successful- those successes are what built both their reputation and their ability to remain elusive. Relying on the Law Enforcement's methods has, indeed, reduced the number of drug supply groups in the United States, but the unintended consequence is that the remaining groups are stronger, more influential, much much richer, and immeasurably more vicious than the ones that came before them. They were selected for those very traits.
Finally, the street gangs. Granted, there is some overlap between youth street gangs and both racist subgroups and drug running, but I think it is important to focus on the community aspect of these groups in particular- mostly because THEY HAVE ONE. One aspect of the street gang phenomenon is that of belonging. Your gang is your home, your family, and your protection. In many ways, it echoes the tribalism of the US prior to settlement by Europeans. Each tribe generally looks out for its own, guards its members against attacks by other groups, and the majority of the violence occurs over either a scarcity of resources or on the borders between two expanding groups. Many kids join these gangs not for the prestige, or the money, but for a sense of belonging. And, not incidentally, for the protection afforded a member. One difference of note is that the resources are not food or shelter but money and influence. The margins on the drug supply are the highest profit margins of any product in the world today, so it is unsurprising that these are the markets that these gangs operate in. Systematic suppression by social and law enforcement methods, as described in relation to the other two groups, have selected for the highest level of violence, and the lowest level of moderation.
Life is getting more and more interesting these days. Stay safe out there!
Friday, April 19, 2013
Where will the Narrative lead us?
It appears, from news stories this morning, that the Boston situation has at least partially brought to a close. Granted, it was at the cost of another life, and a running gun battle in the streets to Boston and its suburbs, but suspects have been identified, the subsequently dispatched or pursued vigorously. This, in its course, is a dynamic situation in which the application of well armed police officers and armored vehicles is appropriate. Pity we have to deal with their peace time operations, though.
The next question, of course, is the why. I would hope that the remaining suspect at least has time to proclaim his intentions for the day before meeting with his doom. I would imagine he is none too keen in the prospect of capture; should he prefer death, I little doubt that the officers in pursuit shan't unnecessarily object to obliging him. It appears that there may be some ties to the Chechen rebels- if so, I am not aware of their similar operation on this soil prior. Even should the connection be proven, it leaves as many questions as answers. Foremost, the questions In my mind are 'Why now? (What has changed that led them to the act)', 'Why here? (Meaning the marathon in particular, but also why at all here? Their rebellion is with Russia, and we have a decreasing influence in the area)', and 'To what end? (I have not been able to derive a suitable advantage obtained from this act)'.
I may return to this line of inquiry later, but the more pressing question to me is what will be done with the situation on a domestic front. We have recently heard from at least one fringe position that it was hoped to be a rural white male bomber (thus reinforcing their stereotype), which could then be used to advance their cause in no small way. Although I am yet ignorant of the specifics, I have it on credible rumor and recent history that this act was hoped to be linked to the Tea Party (or could at least be unjuriously alleged). Now, the specifics (if they bear out) being what they are, the media will be put in a position to either report on a plot that does not seem to support their narrative or to investigate means to turn it to their advantage. Politicians will be in a similar quandary. No doubt there will those on the Right who will shortly renew their calls to closely regulate religion, and those on the Left will call for close regulation of any substance used in the construction of these devices. Subsequent to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah bombing, agricultural applications of fertilizer were largely targeted for disruption by a concerned but ill informed public. It was widely asked where this man could obtain such huge quantities o a dangerous substance- at that very moment there was roughly 5 times the volume of both fertilizer and diesel fuel on hand at our farm, and my family operates a very small farm. I will not be surprised to hear a hue and cry for the careful control of even potential substances, nor will I be surprised by increased call for restrictions placed on people of similar background, religious beliefs, or ethnicity of the suspects.
The acts themselves highlight a growing concern that we are bound for difficult times. The facade of strength is worn, weaknesses are being exploited, and we as a nation and a culture are finding it difficult to react to the instability. While the positive feedback loop is rare in Nature, it is exceedingly common in Mankind. There are those poised to capitalize on our current weaknesses (there always are) and I do not doubt that they are encouraging more atrocities even as we speak, whether through direct means or tacit approval. We must be on our guard.
The next question, of course, is the why. I would hope that the remaining suspect at least has time to proclaim his intentions for the day before meeting with his doom. I would imagine he is none too keen in the prospect of capture; should he prefer death, I little doubt that the officers in pursuit shan't unnecessarily object to obliging him. It appears that there may be some ties to the Chechen rebels- if so, I am not aware of their similar operation on this soil prior. Even should the connection be proven, it leaves as many questions as answers. Foremost, the questions In my mind are 'Why now? (What has changed that led them to the act)', 'Why here? (Meaning the marathon in particular, but also why at all here? Their rebellion is with Russia, and we have a decreasing influence in the area)', and 'To what end? (I have not been able to derive a suitable advantage obtained from this act)'.
I may return to this line of inquiry later, but the more pressing question to me is what will be done with the situation on a domestic front. We have recently heard from at least one fringe position that it was hoped to be a rural white male bomber (thus reinforcing their stereotype), which could then be used to advance their cause in no small way. Although I am yet ignorant of the specifics, I have it on credible rumor and recent history that this act was hoped to be linked to the Tea Party (or could at least be unjuriously alleged). Now, the specifics (if they bear out) being what they are, the media will be put in a position to either report on a plot that does not seem to support their narrative or to investigate means to turn it to their advantage. Politicians will be in a similar quandary. No doubt there will those on the Right who will shortly renew their calls to closely regulate religion, and those on the Left will call for close regulation of any substance used in the construction of these devices. Subsequent to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah bombing, agricultural applications of fertilizer were largely targeted for disruption by a concerned but ill informed public. It was widely asked where this man could obtain such huge quantities o a dangerous substance- at that very moment there was roughly 5 times the volume of both fertilizer and diesel fuel on hand at our farm, and my family operates a very small farm. I will not be surprised to hear a hue and cry for the careful control of even potential substances, nor will I be surprised by increased call for restrictions placed on people of similar background, religious beliefs, or ethnicity of the suspects.
The acts themselves highlight a growing concern that we are bound for difficult times. The facade of strength is worn, weaknesses are being exploited, and we as a nation and a culture are finding it difficult to react to the instability. While the positive feedback loop is rare in Nature, it is exceedingly common in Mankind. There are those poised to capitalize on our current weaknesses (there always are) and I do not doubt that they are encouraging more atrocities even as we speak, whether through direct means or tacit approval. We must be on our guard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)