Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Deja Vu All Over Again

  1. #1

    Deja Vu All Over Again

    Everyone on this blog knows that two nickels ain't worth a dime, but 55 is probably coming back. Notice I didn't mention "NMSL". Obama has taken a hands-off approach to an NMSL in keeping with his obvious political strategy of trying to please everyone and avoid tough, unpopular moves. He's too smart to re-open the Jimmy Carter playbook and take full responsibility for such a farce.

    Here's what's going to happen. The climate bill which has been put off until this spring, will contain, as its centerpiece, a 17% reduction in greenhouse gases produced by the USA by 2020. Besides "Cap and Tax", this ridiculous bill will likely contain what, in Washington-ease, is known as "demonstration projects". These "projects" will require that states show how they can act individually to meet their own quota of gas reduction. One of the first things they'll do is return to 55. Don't think so? Hell, we're already doing it here in Tennessee with urban freeway speed limits of 65 for cars and 55 for trucks to reduce ozone, etc., and (believe it or not) some stretches of urban freeway that were slated for higher limits have either been kept at 55 or reduced back because of NOISE POLLUTION concerns. Not much of a leap that the states will use 55 as a means to show the feds that they mean business about CO2. Good ol' 55 will no longer be used to save fuel (1974-1977), or lives (1977-1995), but the whole damn world (2010).

    There are many things about my youth that I miss and would like to re-live. The Double Nickel is not one of them. Maybe it's true: The best songs have been written, the best films have been made, and our best days are behind us. What's ahead? Institutionalized stupidity.

    Hwyhawg

  2. #2
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,750
    Quote Originally Posted by hwyhawg View Post
    Everyone on this blog knows that two nickels ain't worth a dime, but 55 is probably coming back. Notice I didn't mention "NMSL". Obama has taken a hands-off approach to an NMSL in keeping with his obvious political strategy of trying to please everyone and avoid tough, unpopular moves. He's too smart to re-open the Jimmy Carter playbook and take full responsibility for such a farce.

    Here's what's going to happen. The climate bill which has been put off until this spring, will contain, as its centerpiece, a 17% reduction in greenhouse gases produced by the USA by 2020. Besides "Cap and Tax", this ridiculous bill will likely contain what, in Washington-ease, is known as "demonstration projects". These "projects" will require that states show how they can act individually to meet their own quota of gas reduction. One of the first things they'll do is return to 55. Don't think so? Hell, we're already doing it here in Tennessee with urban freeway speed limits of 65 for cars and 55 for trucks to reduce ozone, etc., and (believe it or not) some stretches of urban freeway that were slated for higher limits have either been kept at 55 or reduced back because of NOISE POLLUTION concerns. Not much of a leap that the states will use 55 as a means to show the feds that they mean business about CO2. Good ol' 55 will no longer be used to save fuel (1974-1977), or lives (1977-1995), but the whole damn world (2010).

    There are many things about my youth that I miss and would like to re-live. The Double Nickel is not one of them. Maybe it's true: The best songs have been written, the best films have been made, and our best days are behind us. What's ahead? Institutionalized stupidity.

    Hwyhawg

    Hey Hawg,

    A bleak - but accurate - prediction. I share your gloom and doom. Chiefly because we're now in what you might call a social feedback loop, where the sum total of stupidity/arrogance/power lust gets worse each year and feeds off itself, creating more of the same.

    I see only one way out - and I do not say it lightly: Physical resistance and revolution (if necessary). The United States, singular, is a diseased and impossible entity that cannot survive without becoming more and more totalitarian. But the former states (plural), which today are mere administrative arms of the federal government, could have a chance at returning to sanity.

    I have come to believe that human liberty and small-scale everything are inextricably intertwined. Big Government and Big Business are the natural outgrowth of the Big Country.

    Jefferson was right.

  3. #3
    Ridin Dirty dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Front Royal, VA
    Posts
    1,606
    Institutionalized stupidity: excellent title

    Physical resistance: scary thought

    You guys are freaking scaring me!

    "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato "
    -Mussolini
    All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

  4. #4
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,750
    Quote Originally Posted by dom View Post
    Institutionalized stupidity: excellent title

    Physical resistance: scary thought

    You guys are freaking scaring me!
    I probably like it even less than you do. I'm over the hill; I'm fairly comfortable with my life - and just about the last thing I want to do/deal with is social upheaval, revolution and god knows what else.

    But I do think it's coming - like it or not/over the hill or not.

  5. #5

    Revolution

    Eric/Dom,

    Yes, it's scary, but we must take solace in the Founding Fathers. Jefferson believed that revolution was a perfectly reasonable method for affecting change. Washington, even at his lowest point at Valley Forge, kept the Continental Army together and pressed on to victory. Remember that only 20 years earlier he was fighting WITH the Brits against the French. He fought against British tyranny, even as his legacy made him a celebrated "subject of the realm". These two sons of Virginia knew the enemy was TYRANNY, wherever the source.

    Many of the constructors of the Constitution were visionary in their insistance that states were sovereign, and that federal powers derived upwards from the states and the people. A rhetorical question- Why has the First Amendment been stretched and, by judicial fiat and activism, been so widely construed to modify our very culture, while the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have been blatently ignored? Ben Franklin said that they had given us a "...Republic, if we [could] keep it".

    I contend that we have lost it, and largely because we have ignored the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I studied constitutional law in college and also took a graduate course in it. In college, my professor (who was very conservative) argued incessantly with me about the legality of secession. I spent many afternoons in his office engaging in these discussions under a huge portrait of Abraham Lincoln. His argument that secession was illegal was based on the following, dubious argument: The Articles of Confederation provided for, in its Preamble, a "perpetual union". The Constitution provided for, in its Preamble, a "more perfect union". Therefore, the intent of the drafters of the Constitution was to create a "more perfect" version of a "perpetual" union. Therefore, secession was deemed illegal. Perhaps "dubious" is a generous adjective....

    The rebuttal should be obvious to anyone who has a cursory knowledge of American history. How was the Constitution ratified? On a state-by-state basis. How is the Constitution amended? By looking to the spirit of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Namely by state legislatures or by a convention of the people. How WERE senators elected? Originally by the state legislatures. Why were more populous states given the same number of senators as sparsely-populated ones? To give each SOVEREIGN STATE equal power in the higher body. Why is the Chief Executive elected not by the people, but by Electors apportioned on a state-by-state basis and selected by the states themselves? To insure that SOVEREIGN STATES have a say in who the Chief Executive is. Furthermore, if secession was illegal, then why, during Reconstruction, did the states in "rebellion" have to ratify the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as a precondition for READMISSION to the Union? You guys catch my drift. Through arguably unwise amendments to the Constitution and a runaway federal judiciary which loosely, and again, SELECTIVELY, interprets clauses such as "equal protection of the laws", we have moved away from the republican ideal of the Founders. We have evolved from a nation of sovereign states and "dual federalism", which kept government "closer to the people" and thus easier to petition, to a nation of "centralized federalism" which reduces states to districts with district nicknames, birds and trees. The typical urban citizen now lives under, and pays oppressively for, four layers of government, and the bottom three are suppressed by mandates, unfunded or otherwise, from Washington, DC.

    Revolution? Perhaps. Through the "interposition" of the states between the federal government and the people to reject federal statutes a state finds objectionable. Through the principle of "nullification", in which a state declares a federal statute null and void within its borders, said state deriving its authority from the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Finally, secession if necessary, which I believe (perhaps as a Southerner) to be completely legal. If federal repression results, then such repression should be deemed illegal and repulsed with all available means.

    Yes, Dom. It's scary. It's scary even to suggest. I'm sure federal agencies from the FBI to the NSA will be tuning in to me from now on. I welcome the scrutiny. I merely wish to return Jefferson and other Founders to their rightful position- upright in their graves.

    Hwyhawg

  6. #6
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,750
    Hi Hawg,

    Well-said.

    I agree with the sentiments (and the facts are incontrovertible).

    But, we have a few challenges the Founding generation didn't face.

    First, the masses of this country (or a large portion of them) are both ignorant of and indifferent to the origins of the country and the intended purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. To put a finer point on it, millions of these maggots (and I don't use the term lightly) don't want freedom. They want entitlements, they want "security." They want government jobs and make-work. They want racial set-asides. They want payola and corporatocracy and empire.

    I'd say 40 percent of the population - if not more.

    Perhaps 20 percent, I'd estimate, would support the sort of limited republic as envisioned by the founders and which we enjoyed for about 70 years, from 1787 to 1860.

    Second, we are no longer a homogenous volk sharing an essentially common culture and history. Until passage of immigration "reform" in 1965, this country was still overwhelmingly anglo-saxon (more than 80 percent). Now it is a polyglot continental Bosnia, populated with peoples of every race/ethnicity/religion, with the inevitable fractiousness that entails. Do you suppose Somali tribesmen or Afghan Pushtuns give a hoot about George Washington? And after all, why should they? Most blacks loathe "white America," its history and traditions - and are eager to impose on this country what was imposed on South Africa after the end of Apartheid.

    Of course, we're not allowed to discuss this openly. That would be "racist."

    Multiracial/multi-ethnic states are a diseased fiction - a prop of the Left, used to undermine the homogeneity (and instinct for self-preservation) of specific peoples, in order to impose order out of chaos.

    Their order.

    America - freedom and ordered liberty - was an outgrowth of the West and the West is an outgrowth of the anglo-saxon peoples. Without the anglo-saxon peoples you cannot have the West. Nor the concepts that derive from the Western tradition. Other traditions will replace them.

    Are replacing them.

    Still, there are areas of the country (and even whole states, such as Montana, New Hamphsire/Vermont, etc.) that remain largely what they were, pre 1965 - and thus could be what they were pre-1865.

    That's a fight worth making. And one I'd be ready to join.

  7. #7

    Breathing Is Now an Endangerment to Public Health

    Eric,

    First of all, I completely agree with your response below to my statement on constitutional principles. I applaud your comment, in particular, on people being undesirous of freedom and liberty. As a people, Americans have become a people not unlike piglets suckling milk from the Washington sow. Since Lincoln, FDR, Johnson, and even Bush II, we've been conditioned to become more and more dependent upon the national government. I would argue that whether one's heritage is Anglo/Western European, Eastern European, Asian or African, virtually ALL are ignorant of our heritage and history. I could only hope that your estimate of 20% getting it is really that high....

    To segue ignorance of our values into the fact that today, America became an unabashed autocracy, the EPA ruled exhaling to be an "endangerment to public health". A truly offensive homage to institutionalized stupidity. I thought the anchor of the "BBC World News" was, going to have an on-camera orgasm tonight. This EPA ruiling, resulting from the US Supreme Court's recent decision that CO2 could be regulated as a toxic gas (can we say judicial activism?) now gives Odumbo the authority to change almost everything about the way we live virtually overnight. This crap from a country which preaches to other nations about fostering freedom and democracy within their own borders. EPA Administrator Jackson said, tonight, that as for cars and trucks, the automakers needed (paraphrasing) "...guidance on emissions reduction, and were asking for such guidance.... They need to know the 'rules of the road'...". Ridiculous. Seems to me they are doing a pretty good job of working this problem out themselves.

    In fact, one of the few redeeming qualities of America is that we tend to work many of our problems out ourselves through the PRIVATE SECTOR. If you even buy into the notion that global warming is man-made, and that, therefore, autos are the enemy, then here's an idea that would require LESS federal regulation- allow us to remove our catalytic converters which are actually CREATING CO2, and allow the automakers the elbow room to mitigate the resulting carbon monoxide emissions through innovation. Give small businesses that can develop carbon monoxide sequestration technology TAX BREAKS. If you want to do something on a personal level, hell, plant a tree. In Tennessee, we have something called the Greenbelt Law. I stress that this is a STATE law. In part, the statute encourages those who own 15 or more acres to use their land for agricultural or forestation purposes in exchange for a property tax break. If you choose to use the land for residential or commercial development, then you not only lose the tax break but you have to pay up to three years of retroactive taxes equaling the differential between Greenbelt and what you would pay if the land was developed.

    In summation: Less federal regulation, more private sector innovation, personal initiative and (since the federal government can't incentivize people out of a wet paper bag [ie. a 55 mph NMSL which might be arguably practical, again, just for the sake of argument, in New Jersey or Delaware but hardly in Montana]) STATE AND LOCAL tax or other incentives to innovative small businesses, farmers and land owners to reduce CO2. After all, and going back to our previous discussion in this thread, we SHOULD have learned from eighth-grade civics class that the states are the "laboratories of democracy". By extension, they can also be laboratories of innovation and in determining what works best for their citizens.

    Of course, all of the above is predicated on the notion that one even believes in, shamefully, a fellow Tennesean named Al Gore's unsubstantiated, inflated and reckless claims, many of which have been proven downright false. What will "institutionalized stupidity" bring us instead? A war against livestock farmers (because growing meat increases CO2), MANDATORY federal guidelines on how you can use and what you can do with your own land and homes, incredibly high utility bills (because the feds won't let us drill for more, cleaner natural gas and won't allow more nuclear energy production), and a whole new generation of junky, dangerous k-cars, electronically governered, by satellite, to stay at or below 55 mph. Meanwhile, China (who's oil drilling on our Continental Shelf) and India will be laughing their butts off. Even Georgie Orwell would be amazed.

    Hawg

  8. #8
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,750
    I do think 20 percent or so "get it" - my evidence being, among other things, support for Ron Paul.

    The thing is, however, that government (and culture) reflects the majority, or at least a working majority. I therefore see no way that the 20 (or even 30 percent) who support a genuinely limited government could erect such a government let alone maintain it, when the remaining 70-80 percent don't want freedom; indeed, when they are eager to use the government to impose their values on others, or to obtain material benefits from it, and so on.

    This is why I believe that the only way to recover what was America (note - not the United States) is for that 20-something percent to somehow do something akin to what the Jewish Zionists did prior to the founding of the state of Israel:

    They need, first, to awake - to become conscious of their plight and (absolutely key) self-conscious of themselves as a distinct people, just as the Founding generation was.

    Second, they need to determine which geographic areas of the country are still viable - which areas are still relatively depopulated (freedom and a mass/urbanized society are mutually exclusive) and whose population is still majority "pro-freedom." (And frankly, majority white. It's not a question of being "against" minorities or other ethnic/racial groups, or "racism." It's simply a recognition of the fact that human beings are tribal and multi-ethnic societies are unworkable. A homogeneous society has no race-ethnic problems - and a common culture and history. No one fights over what kids should be taught, what holidays should be celebrated or languages spoken. Multiculturalism and diversity are dangerous ploys of the left that have been used to undermine what was left of liberty in this country and which have been embraced by too many conservatives - who don't think about it enough and who have lost any insight into the facts about human nature.)

    Third, they need to coalesce into these areas, physically becoming the dominant peoples. Just as "hispanics" have de facto invaded and taken over the Southwest; just as blacks have taken over Detroit, Atlanta and so forth. As my friend Peter Brimelow has observed, demography is destiny - and he is absolutely right.

    Fourth, once a critical mass of pro-freedom people have come to dominate a state/geographic region, they must openly agitate for peaceful separation from the United States - demanding their right to live freely under their own system, speaking their own language, enjoying their own traditions, among their own and like-minded people.

    Is this realistic or likely? Probably not. But if not pursued, if not achieved, it will be not just the end of America or rather its remnants. It will be the end of the entire cultural tradition that made America possible.

  9. #9
    Senior Member J. ZIMM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    THE HIGH DESERT, OREGON
    Posts
    371
    We used to be a Democracy. Now it's heading toward a Dick-tatorship...

  10. #10
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,750
    Quote Originally Posted by J. ZIMM View Post
    We used to be a Democracy. Now it's heading toward a Dick-tatorship...
    Correction - we used to be a republic. Huge difference (as I am certain you know).

    In a republic, the rights of the individual are protected against "the majority." The government has a few specific, defined powers - and beyond them it may not transgress, irrespective of "the vote."

    In a republic, government is mostly about administration of those few, specific powers. In a democracy, it is about "leadership" (so-called) meaning, each demagogue vies for public support by offering to use the police power of the state to forcibly extract benefits for "Jones" at the expense of "Smith" (though this is usually not made explicit).

    Democracy was - rightly - viewed by the ancient Greeks and Romans as the surest path to an absolute dictatorship and the dread enemy of any sort of ordered liberty.

    A wag defined democracy as three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner... .

    The Soviets held elections and people voted constantly. Only they had no real choice - just like in modern America. Democrat or Republican, you will get government.

    Lots of it.

Similar Threads

  1. Deja vu: Another negro offers change
    By doncoo in forum The Third Rail...
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-10-2011, 10:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •