What Have You Done With The Life You Have Left?

Life is the greatest gift we have and we are fortunate enough to be living in a time were our lifespan keeps increasing every decade.  That is as long as you aren't a fatty or take crappy care of yourself you will live a long life. The point being that there is a pretty good likelihood that those of us alive today could possibly live to our theoretical maximum life span, this is of course not factoring what advances in genetics and biotechnology could do to increase our life span. But the seemingly unstoppable upward trend of our maximum life spans is not the focus of my post. One thing is for certain, I, you, and everyone else will die. Whether there is an empty void, reincarnation, or an after life no one can rightly determine with full confidence, but we do know our time is limited, and this is important.

It is easy for us have our life pass us by and not even realize it's passing us buy. I'm not simply talking about the individual that passes through live on the consumerist morphine drip. I'm talking about us, the individuals who blog, read blogs in this ever growing circle. Observer calls it watching from the box and I call it living in my head but they are the same thing, the acts of a passive individual. In this case the passive individual isn't mindless like the masses, in fact it is probably quite the opposite. The passive individual in this case is very contemplative and intellectual. A lot of our time spent on this earth will be watching and analyzing the world around us. I don't need to expound on the benefit of having this disposition of which you are all well aware but there is a potential problem. That problem is inactivity.

Paradox of Libertarianism: The Majority of People Don't Care About Liberty And They Never Did

I recognize that America, the west, and perhaps the globe, is entering a period of decline. What is at the end of this decline is murky, will we see a collapse of the United States as a political entity? Increased global conflict? Mutant wombats roaming the earth? There are a lot of differing ideas on where America is going. Some individuals, like Vox, assert that America is heading towards a break up of the Union. I have heard others, the most optimistic anyways, that it is simply a generational decline in the standards of living. Whereas I maintain that the United States as a geopolitical entity will retain it's position, but display more blatant avarice overseas, but the end of our republic. Regardless, America's levels of freedom and prosperity are declining.

The Captian makes a great case for it in his book, which I have not read yet but do plan to order, about how to live our lives. One thing he has mentioned frequently is that there is no reasoning stressing about things that you have no control over whatsoever.  The fact is that nothing I do, short of being a modern day Moses, will change what is going to happen. So don't waste your time worrying. And for the most part I do a good job. But there are days when I get reminded about the one uncomfortable truth that explains why we are in this decline.

Most Americans, most people on this globe, most people in history, do not understand what liberty is. And they don't care. In fact, the majority of people are hostile to liberty.
 

The last assertion is a very serious claim to make, but unfortunately, I have concluded that it is undeniably true; or it appears that way to me on my morose days. Sure people care about having freedom for themselves, and maybe their close associates, but they couldn't care less about the freedom of the other person two towns over, much less a thousand miles a way. How else can you explain anti-smoking laws, the FDA using paramilitary to storm raw milk vendors, or the call for individuals to have greater government involvement in our lives?

I have literally meet individuals that have stated they don't care that government restricts x, the right to bear arms, as long as they grant y, for example free health care. Never mind the demonstrably atrocious job the government has done with education or even managing their own check books. These individuals cannot, or will not, discern that social services are not rights. Free health care, education and a guaranteed standard of living is nice, of course ignoring the dire economic ramifications of robbing Peter to pay Paul, but they aren't innate rights. To speak our mind, to move with out hindrance, to stake our claim, those are rights. You are born with them, given by God if you will.

Yet the fact remains that individuals will gladly give up their rights if they think it will make them more comfortable. American leftists, Cuba and free health care is a great example. Never mind that Castro treated his own people like second class citizens, creating segregated beaches and hotels for wealthy tourists only, his country has free health care (with the best care going to the most equal citizens of course)! American conservatism, as it exists now, is little better, as evident by the treatment of it's libertarian wing of its party. (I am looking at you Mr. Medved. It is hard to reconcile how someone so smart, can be so stupid when it comes to libertarians, save for the fact that you were once a leftist and even now are a conservative progressive.)

And this isn't just a phenomena limited to mordern day America, sadly no. Read enough history and you will see that this is true even of America in yesteryear. There were always calls for government action, for handouts, for favorable treatment (how else do you think those railroads got made?) but we lived in a unique period were it was far more limited and the national government far more concerned with the expansion of our nation that the legislation of our lives. And this leaves me with a depressing paradox. The paradox of libertarianism we can call it.

Given my assessment of human nature a true libertarian society, on a large national scale, can only exist if:

 a) Human beings are able to divorce their concept of freedom from the narrow and the selfish to the the wide and selfless
 or
 b) That if human beings can never get past their selfish notion of freedom then we must have enlightened leaders that can ensure that the anti-liberty agendas of various individuals never be codified into law.

You can see my problem here. Point a) assumes something that is impossible at this current place and time of human development, and I think may never be possible. My metamorphisis to libertarianism wasn't an easy process, and it only began once I came to terms with the fact that I did not truly understand, love, or really want freedom. It took years of feeling uneasy intellectually and a solid year of hard self reflection until I emerged a libertarian. Libertarianism, much like steel, isn't something you see very often naturally, it comes through passing the mental cruciable, much like forging steel, and only at the end of that mental cruciable do you get a true libertarian.

As for point b) well if point b) were possible, well, then we wouldn't be in the crisis we are in today now would we? This raises serious questions, in my mind at least, about the ability for us to ever achieve a society that truly value freedom.  Though this could change, and new information be brought to my attention to change my opinion, the depressing truth as I have seen it. Is that people don't care about liberty provided they get what they want.

Swiss Reject 2022 Olympic Bid

The Swiss voters appear to have more sense than their elected leaders.  While leaders talk about the benefits of hosting one of the most expensive pageants of manking, increased tourism, revenue, and better infrastructure, the instances of cities benefiting from the olympics are murkey. Sometimes those grand projects, such as Chinas much lauded stadium, end up empty or under utilized.

Get Some Silver Today

What is real money? Sound and hard money proponents will tell you that any desired item can serve as money. The most popular, by far, and with thousands of years of worldwide cultural backing is gold and silver. While silver may be the commodity of choice for the extremely wealthy and, increasingly, central banks, silver has been the common mans metal of choice.

But how many of you have owned silver? Held it in your hands and felt its weight. If you haven't, then I suggest you by some while it is still affordable. The first time I walked out of a mint with a bag of silver in my hand I was a changed man, I could never look at the paper bills that we call money, backed by essentially nothing (I do not consider a government promises as any sort of real backing) , the same way again. I've bought a fair bit of silver since the  and this weekend I added another addition to my collection. Save unlike the silver rounds I normally purchase, I bought a ten ounce bar.

This ten ounce bar is worth around $ 320, two days worth of work for a man who makes $ 20 an hour, or a weeks worth of wages for someone working a minimum wage job. And this is what makes gold and silver so desirable, because it the heft it carries isn't just physical, it represents time as well. The first time you hold silver, or gold, that you purchases yourself you gain a whole new understanding about money and it's relation to your time. Paper doesn't so this quiet as well.


In my opinion there are tons of benefits to owning  metal like silver, but the issuing has been written about extensively, and no argument is as convincing as actually owning some. Unless your deep in the blue pill world, the you will see why silver is superior to paper. In fact arguments and data won't even have to be presented to you, when you hold it's something instinctual.

In the end, considering views on the debt, federal reserve and the directing of the economy at large, I am simply aiming for wealth preservation. And let me tell you, I always feel like I am losing something when I put money in the bank, inflation, or stocks, earnings do not support spot prices, but I do not feel like that when I purchase silver. So do yourself a favor, get some silver today.

Observations: I am an American vs I am an American Citizen

I was watching a movie, TED, and there was a particular scene where the bear is kidnapped and hey starts saying he is an American citizens and that he has rights. It's innocuous, and the movie probably didn't mean anything by it, but I've been mulling on it anyways. What significance is there in saying 'I am an American citizen' versus 'I am an American' and I could see many people saying that differentiating the two is simply splitting hairs. But there is a difference, a big one, as they convey two separate identities. 

The two different phrases, while ostensibly describing the same person, an American is also an American citizen and it would appear to be vice verca, there is something at play.  The difference between the two phrases is the same difference between a nation, and a nation state. Individuals that study history and geopolitics know that a nation state is different from a nation.  Ideally, a nation state is simply the political organization and geopolitical boundaries that encompasses a nation.  Think Japan and Japanese, yes there are some minorities such as the naturalized Koreans and the Ainu, but their numbers are a mere fraction of the dominant people of the Island. 

In some instances a nation state borders does not encompass a single nation of people, think of the Kurds, whose people are split between Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Armenia. If you have paid attention to the news these last 20 years, it has been no small source of instability and tension in the region.  This isn't always the case, the United States has the various Indian nations, but once again their population is too small to be a source of instability, and the United Kingdom has been very stable in its 300 plus years of existence; There is talk of partitioning of Scotland out of the U.K, but I do not think it will happen.

Now, for the United Kingdom, they illustrate the difference between considering themselves a national or citizen of a nation.  Every person living in the United Kingdom is a British citizen and given their shared culture, trails and tribulations you would think they would think of themselves as British. However, talk to someone living in Glasgow, Cardiff, London, or Belfast, most individuals in these regions do not think of themselves as British, they are Scottish, Welsh, English, or Irish and this is self evident because if the people did think of themselves as British, then devolution wouldn't even be discussed.

Now, the British Isle could eventually have it's residents think of themselves a s British, national identities take a long time to form, and Great Britain has only existed for a couple hundred years. Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales as we think of them today have existed for over a thousands years.  But it could happen, three thousand years ago the Italian peninsula was a collection of competing tribes that spoke different languages, and it wasn't until the iron fist of Rome held it in unity for almost a thousand years, did an Italian identity really develop.

So how does this relate to America?  The United States is an anomaly in that regard as most individuals I have meet throughout the country think of themselves as American. I have spoken with people from the south that identify as Southerners and dudes from Texas that call themselves Texans, however, they will also say that they are American. It's a dual identity, one that I cannot identify with because I am not from that part of the country, but they still think of themselves as Americans, ad it is extraordinary.  This nation is only a few hundred years old, but it has managed to create a national identity in a short period of time, which has helped keep our country stable, however, recent cultural trends threaten this stability.

This isn't a post against immigration, far from it, as this nation was built upon immigrants and has enjoyed almost unrivalled success in spite of everything that history has told us should happen. This was largely due to the willingness to take who ever would come, but with the expectation that they would become American, that they would leave their old world traditions behind, and adopt new ones.

At the turn of the last century this was articulated as the melting pot idea of immigration. Pour in a bunch of different metals, heat it up, purge it of the impurities, and create a new metal stronger than anything that it was made out of.  Japanese, French, Russia, Jewish, Italian, Cuban, Indian so on and so forth, put it through the crucible of America, and you would get an American. It served the country very well but in today's progressive age, it is considered to ethno-centric, and the salad bowl, multicultural idea of America, came into being.

Now, instead of Americans, people who may look different and come from different lands but bound together by a shared culture and purpose, we get American citizens.  These are individuals that posses the rights and privileges of being a member of the polity, but they don't necessarily identify with their country of citizenship, it would be far more accurate to call them citizens of the United States.  Their numbers aren't widespread, but they do exist. The best example of these types of individuals are people who come to this nation, stay long enough to make their fortune, get their citizenship, and then they return to their home nation, all the while never giving up their citizenship to the United States.

It might perplex Americans, especially those who now how Byzantine and expensive our legal immigration and citizenship laws are, why anyone would do this, but there is a reason. Citizenship to the United States confers advantages. I met one man in Korea, a very devout and brave man, he once faced execution in North Korea as an accused spy, who had become a United States citizen, but now resides in Korea. When asked by a newspaper why he retained American citizenship, his answer was simple, and to the point, 'You guys (Americans) are like the Roman Empire. Americans can go to other countries far easier than many others.' 

The man was very forthright with his response, and I don't blame the man at all, he paid his dues and acquired citizenship, if he wishes to return home to his people and keep American citizenship then so be it, but I mention it to illustrate a point. He, and others like him, are not Americans, they don't say they are, but they are American citizens.  Whether we will admit it our not a persons loyalty is to their family, friends, and people, the state comes afterwards. Just look at the "Americans" who went back to their country, or parents country of origin, to fight against us. We can call them traitors, and ask how they could attack their country,but you have to understand, they were never Americans.

This issue is admittedly minor. America, despite the citizen of the world none-sense pushed by globalist progressives, is a very patriotic nation. Love of country isn't a dirty concept in America, how much some self loathing Americans might wish to to be, and we are rapidly seeing that globalists progressives best efforts in Europe, that it isn't there either. But it is a potential issue.

Once again I refer to Rome who, at the end of their empire, at millions of citizens, but few Romans. I mentioned in my post about the Constitutio Antioninia that Rome started to suffer a manpower crisis after extending citizenship, because the major impetus to get non-Romans to join, citizenship, was removed. They had what they wanted, the benefits of being associated with Rome, so why bleed for Rome, after all, they were Celts, Germanics, Iberians, Dacians, Thracians and Greeks, not Romans, let Romans bleed for Rome.  It's strange to think ,that an empire encompassing a quarter of the worlds population, was overcome by a couple of hundred thousand barbarians.  When the Celts assaulted the eternal city a thousand years before the fall every man in Rome, and almost every Latin and Italian allied to Rome, stood up against them and ultimately prevailed. And they prevailed because they were defending their home, their people, their 'patria'. The Empire fell because the various factions of Rome turned inward, to their own people, rather than assist their supposed brethren, after all, they were all Romans weren't they?

Culture matters, this is something we can never forget. I do not care who my neighbors and countrymen are, be they Jew, Islamic, Christian, Black, Asian, or White, it makes no difference to me so long as they share my culture, my American culture.  And this is something globalists need to understand, it took almost 12,000 years, since the settling of Jericho, and the beginnings of the city state, for the modern concept of the nation state to develop. It seems utterly foolhardy to think that we can advance humanity to the next stage of interconnection, the world nation state, that is a mere fraction of the time that it took for the nation to come into being.

Fortunately for us, in all the battles that we will have to fight, the infantilization of our country, statism, corruption this one is probably the easiest. It doesn't require a large government policy, in fact I think government action would hurt this cause, and it only requires that we speak out against the globalist nonsense and refuse to be shamed by those who would argue that patriotism is something to be ashamed of. It's a war of ideas, and the battlefield is in our favor in this one, but we must never give an inch. I will not apologize for being patriotic, nor do I equivocate or back track when individuals dare say that my expectations that people assimilate and become American is provincial/racist/close minded, I dismiss those arguments for the foolish ones that they are, and I have said outright that I consider citizen of the world idea an infantile one. We (the West) can offered to think this way (for now) due our position in the world, but it would be a grievous mistake to think that national sentiments do not exist elsewhere in the world and that in our coming struggles that nations will not act out on their sentiments.

For those who would say that I am advocating a kind of nationalism that resulted in two terrible World Wars, I would first reply and say that you need to study why those wars actually happened, and I would then also say that I am not. A realistic world view is not something to be turned away from, nations and people act out in their own self interest, it is simply the macro version of what human beings do on a daily basis, and it doesn't mean you cannot come into accommodation. The citizen of the world concept is far more dangerous to global peace and stability than accepting the reality of national differences. Just look at what the EU wrought in Greece, their (the EU) efforts to try and stifle national sentiment in favor of a trans-European identity, that does not innately exist, has resulted in the rise of Islamic violence, but of course the butchering of a youth in England is not related to that now is it, and counter extreme national retaliation, and it all resulted because the EU tried to create a nation of European citizens before there was a unified sense of Europeans among them. We must not make the same mistake as Europe.

His Excellency: The Greatest American Ever

Tim's answer to question one made me chuckle, it was a good answer, that who governs least governs best. William Harrison certainly fit that description, but that, along with question number 4, made me think about my favorite president, who is my hero, and committed the most important act in American history.  It is easily the most important event in our history, yet it is not widely taught in our schools, it is not celebrated, and it occured before the Constitution was even signed. Incidently enough, the event occurs right next to Christmas, and I think it fitting, as it is the greatest gift we Americans have ever recieved.

Because on that day December 23, 1776, General George Washington Commander in Chief of the Continental Armies of America formally resigned his military commission and returned military power back to the continental congress. George Washington could have used his armies to claim a crown, and many of his soldiers wanted him to do just that, yet George Washington refused to do so. And in the tradition of the great Cincinnatus voluntarily gave up absolute power.

This act was so monumentous, and unheard of, that even King George expressed admiration for the man. It is just as impressive today as it was over 200 years ago. Did Castro return power to the people? Did Lenin. Did Mao? No they did not. In my mind, George Washington's act, is one of the very reasons why we did not suffer under a reign of terror, unlike revolutionary France, and it set the tone of our nation from the get go. How could any other man think of grabbing the reigns of power, when George Washington, known as His Excellency by his men, refused to do so?

For this reason, and this reason alone, George Washington is the only man ever to have deserved the presidency.  He is the only man that can honestly claim to have occupied the office without ever desiring power because his previous actions almost two decades ago when he refused power.  I have few men that I idolize, that I think of as heroes, who I can say that I love. George Washington is among those men.


Mr. Washington, is the greatest American ever.

Progessivism and The New Noblesse Oblige

Hierarchical structures have existed throughout human history, ever since man was first able to walk on two feet and grip his rudimentary tools.  The feudalistic system of the middle ages was a direct off evolution of the patronage system of ancient Rome, which started out as an informal agreement between a benefactor and benefactee and only became formalized into the feudalistic system with the collapse of the Roman economic system, and the concept of betters leading, or guiding, their lessors have direct roots to our first governing system, the tribal system.

It is easy to see why so many individuals are drawn to government solutions, after all, our human brain is geared to operate in small tribal communities lead by a chieftain, in wolf packs we would call him the alpha, and given the relatively small size of tribes, no more than a hundred or so individuals, the system worked relatively well. After all, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here today now would we? Our societies have evolved, but the evolution isn't nearly so large as we would like to think. It is  simply complex reiterations of the basic tribal systems, I mean, if tribal thinking isn't still inherent in modern man then how can you explain the almost fanatical attachment individuals have to regional sports teams? Or just look at the social cliques of high school kids.

Rule By The Nobility Never
Really Went Away

I mention this only to offer some contextual back ground to my post.  Because, with the evolution of our tribal system into larger and more complex systems, certain concepts were articulated.  One concept, noblesse oblige, articulated a rule that was meant to not only prevent abuse of privilege by the elite, but also stipulate that the privileged inherited grave responsibility.  Noblesse oblige has existed as long as formal human social structures have existed, but it wasn't until given the name it has now until the early 19th century by the French. It has been used to articulate the need of nobility to act honorably and justly to their less privilege compatriots, and also, by the morally bereft to justify the cruelty of tyrants.

This is something we need to understand, libertarianism isn't natural, it isn't an innate part of human nature, it has to be discovered and wrestled with rationally. People who do not admit that they have to wrestle the way human beings work with libertarianism, for example the perennially stupid making perennially stupid decisions, and that they have never felt doubt about their ideology, well they are lying, or just no examining their beliefs hard enough.  Ultimately, libertarianism is an intellectual decision, of the mind, not one of our instincts. This is why so many human beings continue to elect individuals that support policies that we do not understand, they are using the instincts, rather than their rational. It wouldn't be so terrible if our instincts weren't woefully out of synch with how complex societies operate.

With this background we move onto progressivism. Now progressivism isn't really all that new, yes some of the causes of progressivism are new, and aren't necessarily diametrically opposed to libertarianism, but the solutions they propose are nothing new. And in fact I should state now, many of the solutions proposed by traditional conservatives are also nothing new. The idea that social ills must be addressed by the state. This is were the variant strains of libertarianism diverge from progressivism and conservatism. 

One of the biggest tenants of progressivism is that the state must ensure that we are all equal. I call these progressives equalists. This isn't the notional that everyone should be treated equal under the law, I support that equalism, but that every one should be equal, i.e those with more give to those with less and that special favors be given to disadvantaged groups to 'level' the playing field.  I have made my, contempt, for such a system abundantly clear so I won't say much more on the matter. I will say that most equalists aren't a huge threat to our society. They will one day be forced to deal with the reality that no, not all people are equal, and when that day comes, provided they don't become mentally unhinged, they can be reasoned with.  It is a different strain of progressivism that worries me, the progressives who would consider themselves, whether consciously or unconsciously, the new nobility of America, those are the progressives that worry me.

While some of these progressives who view themselves as our nobility are equalists, in the end I think they make up a minority, and don't hold that much sway.  You see, living in a progressive city, I can attest to one thing. Not all progressives are equalists, in fact, I have met many who aren't.   They have come right out and said they do not think all people inherently are equal. This scares me. The fact that they don't think all people are 'equal' doesn't bother me, I do not think that myself, but being libertarian, I am content with everyone being treated equal under the law, and then let everyone live their own lives the best they can. Not so with the non-equalist progressive.

I can understand the allure of 'equalism' and the desire of some progressives to achieve that magical state were everyone is truly equal. It will never happen, there will never be 100% parity in representation, salary, power, or intellect, the challenge is beyond our capabilities or our systems and attempting to do so will harm society in the long run, but the intentions are well meaning. But the non-equalist progressive, well that is a contradiction.  Here we have an individual that admits that individuals are not, can not, and will not ever be equal to each other, yet they support equalist policies. The question is, why? Surely a person, who knows the utter fallacy that is equalism, that these policies will only cause ruin

The answer, I believe, is advancement. Individuals, who knowingly support policies that are ultimately futile, do so because they believe they derive some benefit from them.  'Yes,' they might rationalize to themselves, 'I can see how policy x really doesn't work, but it benefits me, helps me move up the ladder, and because it does so, I will support it.'  Millions, or even Billions, of dollars wasted. The discussion of competent individuals because they are not a protected group? It doesn't matter so long as the policy helps them achieve their ultimate destination.

There is also another aspect at play. That is the unfortunate reality that human beings like telling human beings what to do. As much as it is true that human beings form hierarchical social structures in nature, it is also true that humans, outside a select few, like being the leader, or at least enjoy the perks that leaders enjoy. Moreover, these type of individuals excel in a particular eviroment, one favored by major corporations and governments.  You can get truly exceptional individuals of great talent and intellect, but history is replete with those type of individuals being cast out, only to have them return when they shake the very foundations of whatever world, think of Steve Jobs.

And that is why they support big government, ultimately it isn't even the politics, it's knowing that whatever cause the government takes up, a new opportunity arises. Calls for government to regulate and dictate an aspect of Americans lives that hadn't been overseen before? Great, it's another opportunity to become the chief undersecretary to the secretary of the deputy director of the department of fuzzy bunnies. It's another opportunity to become part of the technocratic ruling class.

All modern progressivism is today, what it has devolved into, is the concept of noblesse oblige. But rather than the nobility be conferred hereditarily, it is awarded by credentialism. The ring you are expected to kiss is now the ring with the most certificates, diplomas, unviersities and fellowships under his or her belt.  It is the perversion of the meritocracy, were one's status is based off of their actual accomplishments, into the technocracy, were ones status is based on how many of the right kind of documented accomplishments one has.

MBA's And The Chinese

I hope they don't buy that kind of schlock like we did in the states. I once considered an MBA program, and then while studying for it, I realized that it would have been a colossal waste of time. How exactly do you teach management and leadership skills in a program? The answer is you really can't. The best way to learn is on the field from someone you think is a good leader, it's far cheaper than a degree, and far more effective.

New York Staters Challenge Govenor

Read this news article via Vox Day.  Looks like a lot of New Yorkers are planning to ignore the recently passed gun registration law, not a big surprise really, hundreds of thousands of assault rifles disappeared after California passed their restrictive laws, and Canada recently ended their long gun registry due to cost over runs and non-compliance.  While I do not expect gun owners to start shooting at agents, I also don't expect the state agencies to spend any real time trying to enforce the ban. It's too expensive, too unpopular, too time consuming and there are simply bigger fish to fry.

Now, I am not normally a fan of protests, I think they are a waste of time. I live in Seattle and every day I walk by one protest or another, war protests (far smaller now that Bush is out of office), police brutality protests, environmental protests, impeachment protests (both Bush and Obama), any protest you can think of, and none of them have ever accomplished anything, ever. You can look overseas and see the futility of most protests as well.

The media made a big ballyhoo about the Arab spring, specifically the Egyptian protests. Yet now we see that the protests accomplished little, and many private geopolitical intelligence analysts said as much. You might say that the protests resulted in the over through of Murabarak's government, but that isn't exactly the case. The military simply deposed one of their own, Murabarak was a park of the Egyptian military, and put a new guy in charge. The conflict between the government and the protesters was really a conflict between the Egyptian police and the protesters, the military wasn't involved. But the military has been pushing back on protestors now, much harder than the police could.

Then we have the Green revolution in Iran, we saw how that ended. A regime that has no compunction in using near indiscriminate violence against it's citizenry cannot be unseated, or significantly alter their policy, via protest.  Outside of Tripoli, the only 'succesful' revolution has been Libya, and quite possibly Syria.  Non-violent protest doesn't usually work.  Individuals will point to the civil rights movement and their achievements, but that just solidifies my point.

The reason why the civil rights protests of the 1960's worked wasn't because they were protests. It was the governments reaction to them that changed public opinion. The American people saw individuals peaceably protesting fundamental violations of their civil rights. Seeing children, women, and the elderly have dogs set upon them, beaten, and sprayed with fire hoses was deeply unsettling to the American public. And that is why the civil rights protest meant something, there was something to loose. Mr. King wasn't a fool, far from it he was a very shrewd man, he knew that the southern state governments were going to react disproportionately hostile to their peaceful marches.  He knew there was no quicker, and arguably more moral, way to achieve their justly demanded rights than to go up against the segregation machine and get worked over.

Real protests, that have any hope of ever accomplishing something, must require that the protester put themselves on the line, that they stand to suffer for their opinion, though this is only the case in a nation that isn't run by a bunch of thugs like Iran, Bahrain, or Syria. That is the reason why no one cared about what happened to OWS. They weren't protesting for a fundamental human right, and even though the police often did not acquit themselves very poorly, the OWS protesters often tried to use intimidation, via force of numbers, to shut government office down.

But back to the topic at hand. The protest by gun owners in New York is more of a challenge than anything else. Either the New York state government starts knocking on people's doors and taking people in for failing to comply or they expose their laws for the toothless decrees that they are. Either way it is a no win situation for the Governor, assuming that New York staters don't meekly acquiesce to his law. If they do peacefully resist, well after taking in so many uncle Neds and Grandpa Bills, the public's opinion would start to turn. If they don't go try to vigorously enforce their law, well it kind of exposes the myth that more gun laws will prevent the problem. Kind of hard to argue we need more gun laws if the government can't enforce the ones already on the books.

Advice to HR People at Career Fairs

 

The Captain has a lot to say about human resources, none of it good, and like him, I hold a dim view of it as well. While I have not had the (dis)pleasure to deal with all the worst aspects of it, I do know that out of all the interviews I have ever done, the ones with HR are my least favorite. Interviewing with the employees is great because they ask you important questions, interviewing with management is a mixed bag, sometimes it's good sometimes bad, I have never liked interviewing with HR.

 

Bizarre questions, which really have little to due with the job, such as where do you see yourself in 5 years or why do you want this job, serve no purpose.  Everyone knows that 5 years from now there is a good chance I will not be there, it could be because I was laid off, it could be because I found something better, it could be because I simply wanted to move to a new state. A question like that might have made sense 30 to 40 years ago when lifetime employment wasn't uncommon, you could argue that a question like that could gauge motivation, though even then I am skeptical of the merits of such a question, but in todays age when the average employment period is something like 2 to 3 years, it doesn't make much sense to ask the question.  It's not that I am against working for the same company for 10 to 15 years, in fact that would be quiet nice, but the likelihood isn't that great, so let us face reality. I am interviewing for a job I believe I can do, you should ask me questions that gauge my ability to do said job.

 

Now, the image below isn't necessarily that of an HR person. It could be a manager or an employee that was asked to go to the career fair, it isn't uncommon. However, and this is only anecdotal experience, every fair I have been to the business casual uniform was the outfit of HR.  Now I can only speak for the banking, finance, real estate analysis and corporate jobs, I know that certain groups like engineers don't always dress up for these events, but employees and managers that have gone have always been in a suit and tie for men, and the equivalent for women.

 

The reason being is that people understand that the career fair isn't about just finding an employee, in fact career fairs probably aren't the best way to find a job though you should still do them, but they are also opportunities to market yourself. What I see in the picture doesn't impress me.

 

Right off the bat I do not like the interviewers dress. While a company, and its representatives, can dress however they want, within company guidelines, for interviews within the company, this is a career fair. There are potential competitors here! What happens if your rival company shows up in three piece suits when you show up with a blue blouse that is too small and you can see the outline of your bra straps? You get what happened when the Marine and Army recruited at my college, the Marines were in Dress Blues and the army in their baggy BDU's, and the result was that the Marines had way more people visiting their information booth. 

 

Secondly, she is reading the resume. Look, there is a line of half dozen people behind that well dressed man, whose body posture indicates that he isn't happy with going on. Why waste every one's time? You can go back and read those later, talk to the man! Not only is it going to save time, make the experience more enjoyable for everybody, but it is a far better way to get a feel for a person. Take notes on the back of it and if you really liked the interview with the man then put a mark next to his name or something. Read the rest of the stuff later on your own time!

 

Thirdly, and this is common, why are companies wasting money on little trinkets to hand out? I doubt the guy wants a pen, he wants a job, and pens are like a buck thirty anyways.  Moreover, they spent money on pens, yet I do not see any billboards, posters, or brochures.  This is an event for the company to market itself! The best prospects aren't going to bother going to a booth that makes the company look like it it is a rinky dink operation, but that is exactly the impression I am getting right now.

 

Lastly, the HR woman's body posture, and I am reasonably sure it is an HR woman, is poor. She is hunched over and even from the image alone I get the impression that she doesn't want to be there or even care. Just look at the guy standing in front of her. Blank expression, arms in front of him, hand over wrist, slumped over shoulders. Yes it could be because he is undergoing a job hunt grind, but any HR person or job recruiter worth their salt should be able to get someone to be engaged, and this man doesn't look engaged, and it is probably because he can sense this person doesn't give two craps.

 

There is my rant about HR.  Now if it turns out that the women in the picture is not HR, well, it doesn't matter. My complaints about HR are still valid and my criticism of what I see doesn't change.  Good companies realize that employees are an asset and not just say it at a job interview because people can tell when they are being fed a load. 

Stratfor: Decline of the Middle Class

Here is a good article from George Friedman and the crisis of the middle class and how it is a threat to long term American global power.  It is good in the sense that does identify that danger that the declining middle class, or rather the shifting of what it means to be middle class, posses to America's ability to project power abroad.  It is also good as it does a great job illustrating how many of the highly intelligent, and even not so highly intelligent, in positions of real power, the American bureaucracy, view what is happening in America. I respect George Friedman immensely, he is very insightful in world affairs and his prognostications are based on good sound fundamentals, that being said, he is a person who advises the elites, and has a somewhat similar outlook in regards to governments ability to deal with problems.

The Great Depression was a shock to the system, and it wasn't solved by the New Deal, nor even by World War II alone. The next drive for upward mobility came from post-war programs for veterans, of whom there were more than 10 million. These programs were instrumental in creating post-industrial America, by creating a class of suburban professionals. There were three programs that were critical:

1. The GI Bill, which allowed veterans to go to college after the war, becoming professionals frequently several notches above their parents.
2. The part of the GI Bill that provided federally guaranteed mortgages to veterans, allowing low and no down payment mortgages and low interest rates to graduates of publicly funded universities.
3. The federally funded Interstate Highway System, which made access to land close to but outside of cities easier, enabling both the dispersal of populations on inexpensive land (which made single-family houses possible) and, later, the dispersal of business to the suburbs.

There were undoubtedly many other things that contributed to this, but these three not only reshaped America but also created a new dimension to the upward mobility that was built into American life from the beginning. Moreover, these programs were all directed toward veterans, to whom it was acknowledged a debt was due, or were created for military reasons (the Interstate Highway System was funded to enable the rapid movement of troops from coast to coast, which during World War II was found to be impossible). As a result, there was consensus around the moral propriety of the programs.

George Friedman has always stated that politics is less about great men leading nations to desired ends and more about great men realizing the constraints they are put under by geopolitics and acting as best they can within those constraints.  He does acknowledge that there are other events that contributed to America prosperity after WWII, but he is off the opinion that it was three government programs enabled American growth.

I differ with Friedman and would say that the GI Bill probably didn't do a whole lot. It wasn't a bad program, and you could certainly make an argument, which I agree with, that individuals sacrificing years of their life to defend their nation are owed some compensation of some sort. What really mattered is that millions of GIs received far better managerial, organizational and logistical experience from their time in the service.  The military, while like any organization is full of inanities, is a results oriented organization, at least on the squad, platoon and company levels, were decisions have real consequences.  The GI might have helped facilitate growth to some degree, but I think the desire to build beyond the travesties of war and build a better future for their children had more to do with it.  Simply change Hanlons razor 'never attribute to malice which is adequately explained by stupidity' to 'never attribute to insight which can adequately be explained by human nature.

Moreover, I would consider his second point as  short sighted by our government. Yes it made college more affordable for returning GI's, however, this could be ground zero for the beginnings of both the college and housing bubbles. Just because it took about a half centuries for the negative externalities of the college and housing bubbles to appear doesn't mean this wasn't the gestation point.

George Friedman is spot on about this point however:

American society on the whole was never egalitarian. It always accepted that there would be substantial differences in wages and wealth. Indeed, progress was in some ways driven by a desire to emulate the wealthy. There was also the expectation that while others received far more, the entire wealth structure would rise in tandem. It was also understood that, because of skill or luck, others would lose.

What we are facing now is a structural shift, in which the middle class' center, not because of laziness or stupidity, is shifting downward in terms of standard of living. It is a structural shift that is rooted in social change (the breakdown of the conventional family) and economic change (the decline of traditional corporations and the creation of corporate agility that places individual workers at a massive disadvantage).

The inherent crisis rests in an increasingly efficient economy and a population that can't consume what is produced because it can't afford the products. This has happened numerous times in history, but the United States, excepting the Great Depression, was the counterexample.

There isn't really much more to add save other than that he doesn't even consider the negative effects of the Federal Reserve, rampant deficits and eroding constitutional liberties.  Now, it would be disingenuous not to say that George Friedman has openly said he fears for the republic, and that continued empire means the continued erosion of the American republic. Republics and Imperial ambitions cannot coexist for long, and he does mention that, moreover, George Friedman may not intentionally down playing those actions. He is a geopolitical analyst first and foremost, and a student of history, and America is undergoing many of the same maladies that brought down republican Rome and replaced it with imperial Rome. It may simply be a case that he is writing about America the nation versus America the state; America the republic.  The disconcerting truth is that the nation of America doesn't need the republic to still be a nation. Many of nations have seen numerous types of states in their time, monarchy, dictatorship, republic, so on and so forth. We may like to think that the republic form of statehood is part and parcel of our nation, but it isn't, and we are rapidly coming to this realization.

Lastly, there is this quote:

People who are smarter and luckier than I am will have to craft the solution. I am simply pointing out the potential consequences of the problem and the inadequacy of all the ideas I have seen so far. 

It has always bothered me that individuals who are intelligent, and George Friedman is undeniably very intelligent, buy into this technocratic notion of governance. This is one of the reasons why we are in the very situation we have today. Yes there are some fundamental changes, which he pointed out, that the nation faces, but almost every solution technocrats have come up with in the last 90 years has only served to magnify the current problems we face. Until technocrats realize that every cure they come up with is worse than the poison they are trying to treat, then we won't overcome the structure problems besetting our nation.