Category Archives: News

One Second After

Posted on by

One Second After by William R. Forstchen

I just finished reading One Second After by William R. Forstchen (in fact, I read it in one sitting last night), and this is a book I must recommend to anyone who cares about being ready for whatever comes next.

While Forstchen’s apocalyptic electromagnetic pulse event is flawed in some ways and his aftermath scenario is a definite worst case, his story does an outstanding job of pointing out the incredible vulnerabilities our way of life faces if we experience a disruption of the critical goods and services we continue to expect to be delivered to us without fail.

This book, like others in its category, is not so much about trying to predict the future–although Forstchen is trying to deliver a stern warning about the very real threat posed by EMP–as it is trying to point out that we’re all at risk because we have so little capacity to support ourselves in the event we do not have access to electricity, technology, global distribution systems, and fuel.

Forstchen’s story may scare you, but if you are smart, it will force you to think. And if it forces you to think, then it should force you to act. Do so while there is still time. Be ready now.

DLH

 

Some thoughts on Irene

Posted on by

Hurricane Irene has come and gone, leaving a swath of destruction in her wake. The latest reports indicate 21 people died, millions are without power, and the high winds and flooding have probably caused hundreds of millions if not billions in damages on the densely populated East Coast. Yet, it was not as bad as it could have been.

What strikes me about this event is the combination of media and government hype versus the backlash by many people because this event was not as bad as it could have been. Both the hype and the backlash prove that virtually everyone involved failed to get the real point: you should have already been ready before the hurricane came and you should still be ready now that it is gone.

Readiness is not piles of canned food and bottled water collected in advance of a known emergency. Readiness is not panicked preparations just before a disaster. Readiness is not falling for the hype then returning to apathy after it has passed.

No, readiness is being ready for whatever comes next both when things are calm and when things are in chaos. Readiness is a way of life, one that is so different than what most Americans live in 2011 that the mere suggestion of this kind of readiness seems alien and apocalyptic.

Nevertheless, the kind of readiness I describe is the only way to be ready. It means establishing a certain kind of autonomy from the very society that encourages us to be unready then panic when something bad seems about to happen. It means doing hard work for yourself and establishing local networks for what you can’t do yourself. It means being ready to feed, clothe, shelter, and defend yourself when no one else is able to do so. It means being ready to be a leader when all the so-called leaders have abandoned everyone.

My hope is that people will see Irene as a warning instead of an arbitrary occurrence. Be ready because you never know what will happen next.

DLH

Thoughts on a Ron Paul candidacy

Posted on by

There’s been a little play in the media recently (thank you, Jon Stewart) about how the rest of the media has been ignoring the strength of a Ron Paul candidacy. This can’t help but boost his legitimacy and make him a serious contender in 2012.

Be careful what you wish for.

I identify with his libertarian leanings on domestic issues and his conservative positions on things like financial and social policy, but I think his positions on things like defense and international relations make him a bad fit as our chief ambassador and commander-in-chief.

I think Ron Paul would make a great president for all the wrong reasons because he would paralyze Congress for four years at least. Either Congress would get its act together during that time or the voters would oust both Paul and many incumbents in 2016.

I think many operatives in the Democratic party hope for a Ron Paul candidacy in the same way they were ecstatic about Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate: it is never about whether they are good candidates and always about how well their attacks will play in the media.

I don’t think Paul will get the nomination any more than I think Herman Cain will. In fact, I’d bet on a Perry-Bachmann/Bachmann-Perry ticket right now, but a lot can change in 12 months. What I do think could happen is that Paul could run as a third party candidate, and he may well be the one would could win.

I wonder if that’s really a good thing?

DLH

Is the 14th Amendment a remedy to the debt crisis? What do you think?

Posted on by

One of the ideas that keeps appearing as a solution to the debt crisis is that the president could unilaterally raise the debt ceiling by using the power some see implied in Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.

The problems I see with this interpretation is that it doesn’t seem like the 14th Amendment was intended to grant any president that kind of power and that the power to spend money at all still rests firmly with Congress.

Now, I grant that the debt ceiling question results from the fact that Congress authorized spending in excess of what it authorized in borrowing, and I also grant that the president has the responsibility to ensure the sovereignty of the United States, which includes its debts.

I think the underlying problem here is that there is no check against excess by the federal government against its citizens. Granting any president the right to borrow without the approval of Congress seems like an even worse slope than deficit spending already represents.

Yet, this problem is hardly cut and dried, and I am not sure where I stand on it either. What do you think?

DLH

The day no one fought back

Posted on by

Last week, a madman visited a terrible tragedy on the nation of Norway, murdering 76 people in a rampage that included a car bomb and a shooting spree at an island camp for youth.

Yet in the hour and a half that shooting spree occurred on that island, a even more tragic thing occurred: no one fought back.

I do not blame the victims for this fact because, frankly, they had the idea of fighting back robbed from them by a society that indoctrinated them into believing all violence is wrong. Because of that indoctrination, someone who rejected it was able to systematically take 76 lives without fear for his own safety. Reports indicate he surrendered peacefully to the police when they finally arrived.

What is even more sad to me than the event itself is the response it will illicit from the very people responsible for the fact that no one fought back. These people will call for more laws, tighter regulations, and more pacifist indoctrination, all the while ignoring the fact that none of those efforts succeeded in preventing this terrible tragedy.

And it is a tragedy that will happen again and, more than likely, soon.

The only counter to this kind of madness is to teach ourselves and our children that there is a time and a place for violence. There is a time and a place to fight back. Defending oneself and others threatened by violence is not wrong. We need to teach ourselves again that no human can have greater love than to die defending others from harm.

Until we begin to teach this ideal again, more senseless tragedy of this magnitude will follow, but it will not have had to.

DLH

Underhanded

Posted on by

In American politics, at least, underhanded tactics are a time tested way to bully one’s political adversaries into doing what one wants them to do. Barack Obama seems particularly versed in underhandedness, as he once again demonstrated yesterday.

The problem, as is usually true with underhanded political tactics, is that it does nothing to solve the problem and will likely make the problem worse. Obama has used fear to motivate millions of Americans to badger their representatives into doing something that could very easily prove destructing for the country, and he did so to achieve political goals that could very easily prove destructive to the country.

Let’s face reality: Social Security is part of the reason our federal government is so far in debt to begin with, and without substantial reform–yes, even cuts–to the program, our federal government cannot remain solvent. The specter of checks not going out in August is just the tip of a very deep iceberg for a government that borrows almost half of every dollar it spends.

If the president wants to be a real leader, he should present a plan that might actually save the government from default, both now and in the future. Instead, he makes the same old tired arguments he always has: tax the rich, spend like a drunk sailor on shore leave.

In the meantime, he fiddles while Washington burns, and now his song has been tuned to make people dance in fear.

DLH

Stop trying to preserve government programs and do it yourself

Posted on by

As the budget and deficit talks between Congress and the White House drag on, I have been reading a lot of articles, especially from progressive sources, about how people need to act to preserve this or that spending program because of how beneficial it is. Almost every one of those programs shares very specific characteristics: they are almost always focused at a local problem and are almost always focused at helping individuals do something.

Here’s my idea: why not abandon the federal programs and try making these things happen ourselves if they’re really worth doing.

“But,” you might say, “where is the money going to come from?”

Isn’t that kind of the whole point? Because the federal government is taking so much money out of the the economy in taxes, there is no money for local people to do local things. If that reality is the case, then it makes sense to let the federal programs expire, let the money reenter the economy, and let local people take over doing local things.

Of course, the problem is a lot more complicated than that. For instance, even if the federal government makes these cuts, it won’t add up to the $1 trillion in deficit spending projected for next year, nor will it really dent the $14 trillion in debt the federal government has already accrued.

No, even if these locally focused federal programs expire, there still may not be money, and that reality must force local people focused on local things to consider an even more aggressive approach. In my view, it’s time for us to rebuild our localities so that they can withstand the disaster our federal–and state, really–governments have inflicted upon us.

This aggressive approach means abandoning the government solution in favor of hard work and sacrifice at the local level. It means accepting that the government, and the people who continue to benefit from government spending, is going to continue to rip us off. It means deciding to work together to find local solutions to local problems even when there is no money. It means caring enough about what happens to us and our neighbors that we’re willing to do what it takes to make things work for us.

These things can happen, but people have to do them. I will give you an example:

This year, the village of Covington, Ohio and several enterprising individuals started a farmer’s market (Facebook) on Friday nights in the parking lot of the government building there. It’s a small market, one I participate in, but it has the distinction of having no government involvement except at the local level.

Now, this market will live and die on two things: will people from the area who are doing things participate, and will people who live in the area frequent it? Frankly, this is a test of whether people believe a local thing can work, and it’s up to the local people to make it work.

Some might say that it’s just a farmer’s market, but I say it’s more than that: it’s local; it’s independent; it’s focused on the community; it’s the way jobs and the future will be created. But, these things will only be true if people actually participate.

So, here’s the test: will people participate locally, or will they keep expecting someone else to solve the problem for them? It’s up to you to decide.

DLH

Slow motion disaster

Posted on by

I cannot help but get the sense as I watch events unfold in Greece that we are watching the unfolding of a slow motion disaster, the beginning of a whole series of disasters as western economies begin to fold under the weight of the incredible debt they have accrued over the past 50 years paying for social programs their nations could never afford.

No one ever wants to believe these kinds of things will happen to them or in the time they are living, but a quick look around the world right now with any kind of realistic outlook shows that they are happening and that they are going to affect every one of us soon.

The question that remains is what each of us is going to do in response to the massive and enduring changes that will result from this slow motion disaster. Now is the time for people who care to stop talking in terms of rhetoric and to start doing. Get ready while there is still time to do so.

DLH

It’s monumental news, but we need to keep it in perspective

Posted on by

The news that Osama bin Laden has been killed is certainly monumental, incredible news, especially since he managed to evade capture for such a long time. Yet, as important as his death may be, it marks but a single event in a much larger, longer conflict.

To a great degree, bin Laden was a figurehead, a rallying figure for the millions upon millions of people around the world who use their interpretation of Islam to justify violence, oppression, hatred, and fear. While his death removes that figurehead, it does not remove the justification.

This conflict is not and never was going to be won by simply killing bin Laden any more than Iraq was secured by simply capturing Saddam Hussein and killing his sons. This conflict is not even going to be won by the application of military force alone. Instead, this is a conflict over the hearts and minds of people held in tyranny for generations, and it is going to take conviction and diplomacy as well as force to win.

Because of this fact, we must resist the powerful urge to conclude that we have won and that it is now time to wind things down. There may yet be a time when that reaction is appropriate, but it must be a time when the future of Afghanistan is as secured as it ever will be. Yes, it has been a long war, and many of us who have been paying attention to these things all along have said it was going to be, but we cannot quit before the job is done, because the consequences of quitting will be worse than those of outright failure.

So, we should celebrate the victory bin Laden’s death represents, but we should do so with the caution born of the knowledge that a rough road still lies ahead. And, we should resolve ourselves to walk that road until its end.

DLH