Monday, August 31, 2009

Who’s The Terrorist?

copyright (c) 2009 CR Edmunds
Also published in Glenwood Gazette Sept. 2009 (Gale Moore, pub., Silver City NM)

The other day I got thinking about terrorism. So much of our lives these days are dictated by the fight against terrorism. We’ve all come to accept the invasive tactics of the US Government everywhere around us in the name of security. We even have a branch of government, Homeland Security, that has in a short time secreted its tentacles into everything in order to keep us safe from terrorists. We have to accept wands and pat-downs and X-rays of our person and our belongings in airports and public buildings, we have travel restrictions and passports to visit neighboring friendly ally countries, phone taps, email taps, credit checks, security cameras on street corners, photo-traffic citations on and on, all in the name of public safety.

Of course, doesn’t this all assume terrorism is something external to the US, that it comes from bad guys from other countries who want to render the US helpless?

I got thinking about how a bunch of bad guys that were really organized and very well financed could most effectively pull the US or any country down. (I want to point out to Homeland Security that I read a lot of fiction and much of what I’m writing here is already in print don’t come busting my doors down while telling me free speech doesn’t count because of the Patriot Act). Anyway, it has become clear to me that, logically, terrorism really would be just a first step. A kind of softening up a country for the real blows that will bring it down. The KO, if you will.

What would weaken a country more than flying planes into landmark buildings? Homeland Security and/or the media would have us believe that it would be nuking a big city. But really, would that take down the US? Were a resilient bunch of citizens I think that wiping out LA (for instance) would just make us all really, really mad once we got over being really, really sad (think of how sad and mad - wed be at losing our Famous Faces in such an attack).

No, I think what would really work to weaken a country would be to literally weaken its people. And it seems to me that the traditional ways of weakening a people would be just as effective now as they have been throughout history: Starvation and disease and isolation.

Here’s the thing: People who eat well are healthy and they don’t get sick as easily. So, if you think about it, wouldn’t the smartest thing be, if you were terrorists and wanted to take down the US, to destroy the food supply, thereby make people dependent on bad food so they’ll get sick more easily?

My thinking goes like this: The US agricultural base is being destroyed by factory farming and by more and more restrictions on small farming (NAIS, anyone?). Our forests, the biomass from the thinning of which could probably replace the use of petroleum for transportation fuel in 10 years, are being burned up because of more and more restrictions on hazardous fuels reduction projects and a push to expand wilderness and create roadless areas on public lands.

Where are our environmental groups in this picture? Are they supporting local production of healthy foods, which is so much less destructive to Mother Earth than factory farming? No, they work hard to destroy small farmers and ranchers. Are they supporting forest restoration that would result in reduced carbon pollution of our atmosphere by reduction of forest fires? No, they work hard to suppress the cutting of any trees at all. Are they supporting use of biomass to create an alternative to petroleum based transportation fuels? No, they fight efforts to develop sustainable, renewable energy.

What do environmental groups do to make our planet a healthier place, where humans and all species can thrive?

Well, actually, when you add up what they are doing, the answer to that question is: Nothing. In fact, when you look at the big picture of environmental efforts by the Big Name Environmental Groups (whose board members are mostly attorneys, not scientists), what that picture really looks like is a series of well-coordinated actions that are aimed to weaken the citizens of this country through starvation, disease and isolation.

Its so plausible: Destroy the family farms and ranches in the name of endangered species. Further destroy local production of healthy foods in the name of pure water. Destroy the possibility of alternative energy sources by attacking wind farms and use of biomass from forests. Destroy the forests themselves by not allowing restoration work, thereby encouraging massive wildfires only one of which can in a few days or weeks dump as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as one big city does in a year. (Ironically, the supposedly endangered species' habitats are destroyed as well by wildfire). And when things go down the tubes on our planet because of the success of the above actions, blame it on small farmers and ranchers and you and me, average Joe and Jane US citizen, and file even more lawsuits in the name of environmentalism, because, don’t you know, they’ve got to save the planet.

And then… TKO?

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

How stupid does Obama think we are?

U.S. Raises Estimate for 10-Year Deficit to $9 Trillion
NY Times 08/25/09

The Obama administration, citing an economic downturn that has been deeper than it had first thought, raised its estimate on Tuesday of the government's deficit over the next decade to $9 trillion from $7.1 trillion. More...

$7.1 trillion, $9 trillion - what difference does it make? We've been sold out, people. We're talking $9 with 12 zeros after it in debt! In just over half a year we've gone from "mere" billions to trillions in debt. Does Obama really expect us to think this is an economic improvement?

And, perhaps more worrisome - is it possible that the number is even worse than that?