Just another wood stove post...if times get hard

       As almost always, there is a Plan B.

            Using a hot burning wood will allegedly also burn out creosote. Here locally in east Tennessee I use cedar for that.  Cedar also burns slow and hot, so it is good for cooking, too.

            What follows is an FAQ from a Company selling something. Yet it also has some good ideas that might benefit all of us.

            Here's the post:           

Q. Is it necessary to clean my chimney if I burn seasoned wood? A. More than necessary, it is essential to protect against costly and potentially fatal chimney fires. Creosote is a natural by-product of wood burning. The rate of creosote buildup is affected by residence time, smoke density and stack temperature. Animal nests and deteriorating mortar and cracked tiles are problems that need immediate attention. To insure your chimney is working safely and efficiently, have your chimney inspected and cleaned annually. Q. How can a chimney catch fire? A. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that each year about 30,000 residential fires originate in chimneys. Many of the fires are the result of the buildup of a highly combustible material called creosote. Once the chimney is coated with creosote, there is great potential for a serious chimney fire. At this stage, the flames from a burning newspaper could be sufficient to ignite the creosote. The substance burns rapidly and, as it spreads though the flue, creates a draft that intensifies the fire. As creosote burns, it peels and curls off the inside walls of a chimney, then drips into the flue and literally forms balls of fire that are propelled upward by the updraft. These fire balls shoot onto the roof and can quickly destroy a home. Fires can also occur due to high temperatures that melt mortar, crack tiles, and cause liners to collapse and damage the outer masonry material. Q. What is creosote? A. Creosote is a natural by-product of the wood burning process. It originates as condensed components in smoke, and dries to a flaky, solid or glazed form. It can be recognized in three distinct stages. First-stage creosote is flaky soot. Second stage creosote forms soft, gummy deposits. Third stage creosote is a hard, glazed substance that appears quite shiny and literally bakes onto the sides of a chimney. If there is a buildup of glazed creosote in your chimney, we recommend you immediately discontinue use of your stove or fireplace and contact a professional chimney sweep. Q. What can I do about creosote in my chimney? A. Our recommendation is shared by the National Fire Protection Association, fire chiefs, fire marshals, insurers and safety experts everywhere: KEEP YOUR CHIMNEY CLEAN! Homeowners should keep in mind that there are several conditions that promote formation of highly combustible creosote in chimneys, including burning unseasoned wood, restricted air supply and fires that do not burn at a high enough temperature. We recommend the following: 1. Have your chimney cleaned and inspected on an annual basis by a certified chimney sweep. 2. Between annual cleaning by a professional chimney sweep, use a properly sized chimney brush to clean the chimney. 3. For on-going maintenance, apply one of our creosote control products. They are specially formulated to prevent creosote build-up and convert creosote over time into a dry, flakey substance that is easily removed. 4. Use of a stove thermometer insures you are burning at the optimum temperature. If the fire is burning at a low temperature, it will promote soot and creosote buildup. 5. To insure your firewood supply is properly seasoned and will have good heat content, have it split and stacked a year in advance. Q. Is creosote the only problem I have to contend with in my chimney? A. While creosote is a major concern, it is not the only concern. Leaves, birdnests or debris from your heating system can block your chimney. A crack or break in the flue tile can interfere with the chimney’s ability to vent properly. If you have experienced a chimney fire and the flue temperature exceeded 2000°F, the mortar might melt, tiles could be cracked, or the liner might have collapsed. An inspection by a certified chimney sweep will uncover any of these issues. Q. How can I find a certified chimney sweep in my area? A. Please visit the National Chimney Sweep Guild at www.ncsg.org. They are the organization that trains and certifies professional sweeps. Q. What is the difference between soot and creosote? A. Soot is primarily composed of unburned carbon particles, but may also contain ash. It has a soft texture and is black or brown in color. The flammability of soot will depend on the concentration of soot and ash. Soot is combustible, since it is made of carbon. Ash is noncombustible. Creosote is a deposit that is a by-product of incomplete combustion. It is either curly, flaky deposits, gummy or bubbly deposits. It is flammable. The next stage is glaze, which is described as a shiny, tarry substance. Glaze can form puddles or drip down and make formations that resemble black icicles. Glaze is the densest type of chimney deposit and, therefore, represents the greatest amount of fuel to burn in the event of a chimney fire. Glaze is also the most difficult type of deposit to remove from the chimney. Q. I have heard of a product called Chimfex to help put out chimney fires. Where can I purchase it? A. Chimfex has not been available for several years, but it will be back on the market in July, 2009. Any of our customers will be able to sell it to you. Q. What should I use to seal the joints in my metal stove pipe to keep the smoke from coming out? A. We recommend Rutland’s Seal It Right. It can be used in temperatures up to 800°F. It flows to create a gasket, but will also allow you to take the pipes apart for inspection and cleaning. Q. What is the difference between an airtight stove and a free-burning or non-airtight stove? A. Generally, an air-tight stove is one that has carefully fitted seams, has a door that seals tightly, and an air inlet that controls the burn rate. A free-burning stove is one with a loose fitting door and without good air regulation. It may also be a stove that can be operated with the door open or closed.

The rising of a third Party

       While I may live locally in east Tennessee, I read nationally and internationally. Hence I am confident in my thoughts and feelings.

            And I sense the times they are a changing.

            And it's everywhere...politically, culturally, morally, economically, even in the education of our young people. Our values are changing.

            And if I am on to something, I also know change takes time.

            Specifically, our great and well intentioned socialist ideas and efforts of the last century are coming to an end for lack of success, and obvious to most, changes that are adverse to most of us. If I am correct, then this transcends recent things like having a crummy President, or two poorly performing National Political parties. Said another way, it has taken time to get into today's mess, and will take time to change. And by this idea, I mean at all levels, from federal down to local, even public school boards.

            The good news is that change is more about leadership, and the future, with a focus on how to get there, and where we want to go. I see little looking backwards, and complaining; and more looking forward and leading to another way.

            Even the present dinosaurs will grow old, die, and go away eventually.

            And even there will always be leaders, and followers. The low-intelligence people, really most are just poorly educated, and busy with their own lives, will be lead by others. In the new world USA the idea is called a republic, which we already have.

            Here in the new world USA, one way to accomplish all this is a third party, and I sense it is arising throughout the land. Our new world USA history is full of third parties, usually led by one man. But this time I sense it is based on an idea, or ideas,  and is at all levels of growth, organization, and financing throughout our land. Heck the idea doesn't even have an agreed upon name. Many presently call it the Tea Party, named I think for the Boston Tea Party, but really even no agreed upon name is in my mind.

            And again, change takes time. I would expect this idea applies to a third party movement, too. I am thinking like the national elections of 2020 will be big, though incremental time and intervening elections will begin to change things in a smaller way.

            The last third party that rose to extended national prominence was the Whig Party, and that was based on ideas, and not some individual.

            Such may be the nature of whatever third party arises in the new world USA.

What a 'Militia' Meant in Revolutionary America

The Kentish Guards were defined by a sense of community, not by their guns or by government edict.

·

·

By CHRIS BRAY

 

It's the discussion Americans can never settle: Does the Second Amendment convey an individual right to bear arms, or does it only establish the means to arm the state military institutions that the Founders knew as the militia and we know as the National Guard?

Those stark choices shrink our history into cartoonish simplicity. The real story is far more complex and illuminating. At the nation's beginning, there was a variety of middle ways regarding militias, a set of expectations and boundaries built in culture and enforced by community.

In a box at the Rhode Island Historical Society, a contract describes the creation of a militia in Kent County during the crisis year of 1774. "We the subscribers do unanimously join to establish and constitute a military independent company," reads an agreement signed by dozens of local men. "That on every Tuesday and Saturday in the afternoon for the future, or as long as occasion require it shall be judg'd necessary or expedient a Meeting to be held at the House of William Arnold in East Greenwich for the Purpose aforesaid."

You and Bill and I hereby agree to make an army, and let's meet at Bill's house to practice.

Formed by an agreement between armed individuals, the Kentish Guards became a militia organization without being a government institution, though the members would soon approach the colonial government of Rhode Island for a charter. It was a "militia of association," built in equal measure from multiple foundations. The men of the Kentish Guards weren't a militia merely because they each owned guns, and they weren't a militia because the government said they were. They became a militia when they talked among themselves, agreed on rules and a shared purpose, and signed a mutual contract. They were a militia as a community.

The agreement to make a militia empowered its members and restrained them at the same time, allowing them to act but demanding that they act together in considered ways. The early American militia was neither purely individual nor purely governmental; rather, it was deeply rooted in a particular place, making the militia a creature that stood with one foot in government and one foot firmly in civil society.

In this social vision, government couldn't properly take guns from the men who then made up political society, but those men couldn't properly use guns in ways that transgressed community values and expectations. The bearing of arms was a socially regulated act.

That mixed reality grew from a social world that looks nothing like our own. The first few American police departments were still many decades in the future, and the victims of crime could only shout for their neighbors.

Whole neighborhoods raced into the street in response to a cry for help, and victims could personally bring the accused before a local magistrate. Communities turned out to face military threats, neighbors joining neighbors for mutual defense. Adulterers and wife-beaters were often punished in the ritual called skimminton or charivari, bound to a fence post and paraded in shame by their jeering neighbors.

With this kind of local experience, the bearing of arms was an individual act undertaken in carefully shared and monitored ways. The historian T.H. Breen has described the citizen-soldiers of colonial Massachusetts as members of a "covenanted militia," bound by agreement.

Another historian, Steven Rosswurm, has described the negotiations between Pennsylvania's Revolutionary government and the ordinary men, serving as privates in the militia, who formed a "committee of privates" to present the terms under which they would perform armed service. Government did not just command; states and communities talked, bargained and agreed. Individuals were both free to act and responsible to one another for their actions, in a constantly debated balance.

In the predawn hours of April 19, 1775, militiamen of Lexington, Mass., gathered around their commander. Capt. John Parker greeted each man, writes the historian David Hackett Fischer in his book "Paul Revere's Ride," as "neighbor, kinsman, and friend," joining them to decide what they would do about the British regulars marching toward their town. "The men of Lexington . . . gathered around Captain Parker on the Common, and held an impromptu town meeting in the open air." They had a commander, and he joined them for discussion.

Today, we are presented with a false choice in which either the government bans assault weapons or an unfettered individual right makes it possible for a monster to spray bullets into schoolhouses. The forgotten middle ways of our nation's earlier days, that world of mutuality, excluded more people than it included, and its shortcomings are well known. But it also had real strengths, and the benefits of a strong civil society are lost to us when we expect government to address and solve our every problem.

Mr. Bray, a former Army infantry sergeant, is an adjunct assistant professor at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif.

A version of this article appeared January 26, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: What a 'Militia' Meant in Revolutionary America.

The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat

Pentagon push to mix the sexes ignores how awful cheek-by-jowl life is on the battlefield.

By RYAN SMITH

America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.

Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?

Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.

Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.

Mr. Smith served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq. He is now an attorney.

A version of this article appeared January 23, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat.

Flowers of the forest

       Most of us lament our dead.

            Usually it is our ancestors who die before us.

            Sometimes it is the young, including our Family and Friends. And sometime it is our pets, who have often become Family members in their own way.

            I myself have had both parents die, and a younger brother die early. So I think I know the drill, and the feelings and laments. I am now age 64, so I will also die sooner rather than later, and accept that. That's just normal, in my mind.

            Even in my earlier times, like around the 7th grade I had a friend of similar age die of leukemia circa the early 1960's. I still imagine he missed things like Vietnam, and all the ensuing things, like even today's problems.

            And even today, I have a favorite Family pet dying of old age, but I am more inured to it, like I expected it eventually. Still I lament this dog's fine life coming to an end on this earth. She was a loyal dog, who will be buried on the land she loved so much.

            So will I, I hope.

            But while I am alive, I will still act like a human, and fight for the things I think are important to me, and my Family and Friends, and even pets. Some even call it a way of life.

            And I have done it before, when I had to.

The counterattack begins

On General Mattis:

            Here’s the wiki link to the fellow Obama and his hired minions recently fired from CentCom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mattis

He has a cult following in the USA military, so I think you and I will hear more about him in the future. In other words, he may not go away because of others, not him. I expect him to be quiet.

He has been extended twice to stay in government service and work for the USA, so firing him now is an attention gainer if the poo poo hits the fan. Obviously he has some good qualities well thought of him not too long ago. Even Obama's administration appointed him to Central Command.

 

On General McCrystal:

Thanks. I wondered where Stanley McChrystal ended up? Sounds like he was a terrific leader. Sad to see him drummed out. Hopefully he ended up at least as a consultant for spec ops or something. 

Your guess is pretty good, I think.

And he was a very good leader, and is now in service in that area.

In other words, if times get hard, then he’s the kind of fellow we want around.

 

The articles are already appearing. Here's one by James Lewis.

It was Lincoln who said "Give me a general who will fight!" That was after the North was defeated over and over again by Robert E. Lee's smaller and more agile armies. Lincoln's first generals fought desperately hard, but not hard enough to win. In the upshot, the Civil War dragged out to became our bloodiest war ever, 600,000 dead -- mostly white folks. And yes, it was triggered by Christian Abolitionists who made slavery morally intolerable to half the nation.

Lincoln was therefore forced to find generals who would fight, and he found Sherman and Grant, who wreaked terrible destruction on the South. He could see no alternative.

Soldiers who survived the Civil War lived with their painful wounds for the rest of their lives. They had no modern painkillers, no antibiotics, just liquor, morphine and silent suffering. Fifty years after the Civil War, Oliver Wendell Holmes still ached from his near-fatal war injuries.

In stark contrast to Lincoln, who demanded to know the truth, Obama is now firing our most successful fighting general -- for telling the truth.

That's really all we need to know.

Mr. Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln, but baby, he ain't no Lincoln! Not even a Ford. Not even a Prius.

Martin Luther King was genuinely like Lincoln, because he knowingly risked his life for a cause greater than himself. And like Lincoln, Dr. King was martyred.

Real human progress comes hard, very hard.

There are heroes in the world. Most of humanity doesn't come close. Compared to Dr. King and Abe Lincoln, Obama is a hollow man, clinging to a faith outworn.

General James Mattis is being fired for insisting on complete contingency planning, according to Pentagon reporter Tom Ricks. Truth-telling isn't welcome in this administration, and that means big trouble ahead. General Mattis and the military understand that. The general insisted on full planning for all predictable outcomes.

Obama is a gambler, and he doesn't want to think about what might happen if his wild gambles don't pay off. He is amazingly overconfident. General Mattis is a thinker. He is a responsible combat leader.

The differences are huge.

Lincoln was driven by the conviction that the United States Constitution was the "last, best hope of Mankind." He believed with real justice that only in the New World could a profoundly new form of self-government plant deep roots. Historians like Niall Ferguson continue to make Lincoln's case on the facts. Ferguson points out that in South America, even Simon Bolivar gave up on the possibility of constitutional government. Spain and Portugal did not sow the seeds of self-government in their colonies. They sowed Hispanic caudillismo, the cult of macho heroes like Francisco Franco, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez.

For all its faults, Britain left a legacy of political compromise and electoral legitimacy all over the world. That is why English-speaking countries still practice electoral self-government today. Hong Kong has a British-style political culture. India does. Mainland China does not.

Political culture matters.

General Mattis rose to fame by the success of his combat strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Mattis who taught his Marines to tell the population that "we are your best friend and your worst enemy." In Iraqistan a lot of people got that.

In Afghanistan, after the Brits withdrew from Helmand Province with serious losses, the U.S. Marines took over the battleground. They practiced the Mattis Doctrine, walked combat patrols and risked personal death and injury to let the people decide. Today Helmand Province is pacified -- at least until Obama skedaddles outta there.
The Taliban are now holed up in the mountains. They are very patient fanatics.

At her media-spun Senate testimony Hillary Clinton said "We now face a spreading jihadist threat... We have to recognize this is a global movement." The media were more interested in the soap opera, of course, but that was Clinton's real confession about the Benghazi fiasco. Even the Democrats are willing to tell the truth when it suits their politics.

Meanwhile the Left still hates George W. Bush for recognizing the truth, and fighting the War on Terror after 9/11/01.

My crystal ball looks foggy today, but I'll bet we'll hear about the Mattis Doctrine again before the Long Jihad War is done. The Muslim jihad has been going on for fourteen centuries since Mohammed. It doesn't have to be declared, because it is in the Koran. But they declare it anyway everywhere Muslims are indoctrinated, except to the liberal suckers. We will hear all about the Mattis Doctrine as soon as this country is ready to face the obvious truth. Truth tellers will be in demand again.

Meanwhile, Obama is mentally locked into the idea that Marxism Lite is better than the U.S. Constitution.
But Lincoln was right and Obama is dismally wrong. In Lincoln's time, Europe had gone back to its ancient ways after the horrors of the French Revolution, turning away from elected governments in favor of Napoleonic emperors -- like the various Kaisers, Hitler, and Stalin.

The world wars of the 20th century all started with European imperialism: Austro-Hungarian, German, Soviet. They all imitated Napoleon and the Prussian Reich --- which inspired Karl Marx. Marxism is Prussian Kaisertum writ large. The Marxists don't admit that, but they have a problem with the truth anyway. They constantly lie to themselves; don't expect them to tell the truth about their own horror story.

Obama is a Euro-socialist who imagines that socialism has finally discovered the solution to peace and war. This is so delusional that it's not even worth arguing over. Only fantasy mongers believe it. But like his Kenyan father, Obama is mentally stuck in Marxism Lite. He wants to copy Eurosocialism at the very time it is breaking down in front of our eyes.

So Mr. Obama wants to withdraw from the world. Well, then let the Germans defend Europe, let Japan defend Asia, and leave South America to Hugo Chavez. America can then pretend there are no ballistic missiles armed with nukes only 20 minutes away in Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea. Ballistic missiles float free once they leave the atmosphere. The Iranians have launched satellites, proving that their rockets can also float around the world and hit New York City. Obama wants to cut the military to the bone while China and Iran, and soon Egypt (financed by the Saudis) have nukes and missiles.

Obama wants to have it both ways, spending tens of trillions to keep the Democrats in power forever while pleading poverty to take the American cop off the world beat. Obama doesn't dare to think about failure. But failure of leftist fantasies is the norm, not the exception. Mass delusion is what killed the Soviet Empire. Mass delusion is what we are seeing in America today, spread by the mass media.

Our military are smarter and more morally responsible than our demagogues. They constantly plan for what might happen, not just what they wish for.

General Mattis is a morally responsible individual. Obama is not.

So General Mattis has to go.

In Obama's America the voters still hope that delusional fantasies will turn out to be true. Doctors will work for free, miracle drugs will be developed free, taxes are only for the rich, and Democrats are really compassionate.

They're happy to give free liquor to the drunks, in exchange for a vote.

Well, the truth will out. As usual.

Meanwhile, General Mattis has taught his Marines and Soldiers to practice the Mattis Doctrine. Maybe some retired officers will do the needed contingency planning for unwanted futures that are sure to come. George Patton didn't stop planning when he was demoted. He knew he would be needed, soon enough.

That might save the United States when we turn to the truth tellers again.

Semper Fi, General.

No one has done better.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/dangerous_times_gimme_a_general_who_wont_fight.html#ixzz2J4nBUKVL

WHAT ARE FRESNEL PRISMS?

Fresnel prisms are wafer-thin, transparent sheets of adhesive plastic.

One side is fixed to the lens of the wearer's glasses, while the other has special grooves that alter the way light enters the eye.

The prisms, the strength of which can be adjusted depending on the patient's needs, are often used to treat double vision.

The stick-on panels may be worn for several months. If they prove particularly successful, patients can have glasses made with built-in prisms.

Double vision can occur in one or both eyes. It can be caused by an irregularly shaped cornea or abnormalities of the cornea, dry eye, or abnormalities of the lens or retina.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268073/Hillary-Clinton-Does-Secretary-State-double-vision-blood-clot-scare.html#ixzz2J0QB1UYw

The nation-state idea

       As in most ideas, there are pros and cons to the idea of a nation state.

            First the definitions.

                        The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation state" implies that the two geographically coincide. Nation state formation took place at different times in different parts of the earth but has become the dominant form of state organization.

The concept and actuality of the nation state can be compared and contrasted with that of the multinational state, city state, empire, confederation, and other state forms with which it may overlap. The key distinction from the other forms is the identification of a people with a polity.

            Second is an opinion...not a fact.

            I personally think the idea of a nation state is OK, if the boundaries are drawn in a way that reinforce themselves. Many of the present boundaries are just poor, and will probably change in the next century or two, anyway. If this happens, it will often be from fighting and death.  Many of the present-day  boundaries were drawn by diplomats or commercial and colonial interests, often foreign, and often over a century ago. Often today's boundaries include disparate peoples who don't really get along, yet these peoples are included in present day nation states. And it is something we still fight about, as if the decisions by long dead people are the be all, end all.

            Examples abound. A good example is present day Mali, which in its north has Arab Muslim peoples, and in its south has Black Christian and other Religion's peoples. Seldom do they work or marry together, but often they do fight each other. And even today foreigners, mostly French, are intervening for their own reasons. And many are dying because of this old boundary idea.

            So today perhaps is time for another Council of Vienna from 1814, or something like it. The idea is to come up with better boundaries and divisions of land than was done as long ago as the 19th century, sometimes even earlier. Now even I might fight to protect these newer boundaries. And this idea should not be restricted to the third world, but should be for the whole world. And probably to setup such a meeting might take a decade, but so what. One has to start somewhere if we think we can improve our world as we know it. And by improve, I am restricting myself to things like nation-states. Of course some nation-states will be more successful than others, kind of like some tribes are more successful than others already. That's just the way we humans are.

            Said another way, this idea is not some "make us all equal idea". Basically is just to recognize what is already happening, and has been happening for a long time, like since the 19th century.

What a difference three decades can make



The Worst Five Years

By Steve McCann

 

As the mainstream media unabashedly cheered, Barack Obama was inaugurated for a second time as President of the United States. He and the American left, in alliance with the media, have it made clear that, in a second term, their primary agenda items are to permanently embed so-called "social justice" into the fabric of the nation and to destroy an enemy worse than radical Islam: the American conservative movement -- the fate of the country or the people be damned. They have already traveled a considerable distance in making life far worse for the average American as they follow in the failed footsteps of their ideological forefathers.

A key feature of the old Soviet Union, and virtually all other unsuccessful socialist/communist states, was viewing the economy in five-year increments. Out of that came the much ballyhooed five-year economic plan as a staple of centralized or statist planning. Unfortunately, these plans always fell woefully short and often times the people of these countries were much worse off at the end of the five years than before.

As of the end of 2012, the United States has experienced the worst five-year period -- which includes, as the final four years, Obama's first full term -- since 1928-1932 and the start of the Great Depression. From 2009 through 2012 the Obama cabal, and their allegiance to statist policies, has been in charge for four years. The global financial crisis took place in the previous year, 2008, and based on the historical pattern of American economic recovery since the depression years, the United States should have been experiencing broad and significant economic and job growth by year three at the latest.

But thanks to Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress, not since 1928 through 1932 have the American people been more significantly worse off at the end of a five-year period than they were at the beginning. The telling statistics:

A) Since January 2008 the employment age population has increased by 11.7 million, yet there are 3.0 million fewer American employed. (146.3 million in January 2008 vs. 143.3 million in December 2012) Factoring the population growth and 2008 labor participation rate the unemployment rate for December 2012 would be 11.4% as compared to 4.9% in December of 2007.

B) At the end of 2007, the median household income was $54,489.00 (inflation adjusted); at the beginning of 2012 it had dropped to $50,020.00 (a decline of nearly 9%). The most precipitous plunge over a similar period since the Census Bureau started issuing that statistic. While American incomes were rapidly eroding, the cost of living continued to rise as the commodity price index (basket of food, fuel and other essential commodities) rose 20% from December 2007 to September 2012.

C) The average net worth of all American households from 2007 through the beginning of 2011 took a nose-drive, dropping by nearly 40%, a drop driven in great part by a devastating collapse in the median value of their homes ($250,000.00 in 2007 vs. $173,000 in 2012; a decline of 30%).

D) In December 2007, 26.5 million Americans were on food stamps at a cost of $30 Billion. As of December 2012, 47.7 million were accessing the food stamp program (increase of 80%) at a cost in excess of $70 billion. Further the government calculated 38.0 million Americans were living in poverty at the end of 2007 (poverty rate of 13.0%); however, by the beginning of 2012, 49.7 million were living in poverty and the rate had increased to 16.1%.

E) The nation's growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the past five years has also been the most anemic since the depression years. The GDP (adjusted for inflation) in 2007 was $15.5 trillion; in 2012 it is estimated to be $16.0 trillion, a difference of just .5 trillion -- a growth rate of 3 % over five years or an annual rate of a miniscule .6%.

F) While the nation's growth rate has been stagnant, spending by governments at all levels has increased dramatically from $4.9 trillion in 2007 to $6.2 trillion in 2012, a jump of 26.5% which is driven entirely by the federal government as it has increased its spending by nearly 41% over this period. This has resulted in the total national debt rising from $9.2 trillion at the beginning of January 2008 to $16.45 trillion as of today. (a staggering 79% increase).

G) In keeping with the pattern established by the five-year plans of the Soviet Union, there are three groups that have fared well over the past five years: federal bureaucrats, Deomcratic Party loyalists, and crony capitalists in bed with the Obama regime. Since December of 2007 there has been an increase of nearly 12% in new government jobs created (1.97 million vs. 2.2 million today). Further, the average total compensation for federal government employees increased nearly 9% to $126,200 by the beginning of 2011. Additionally, the number of government workers earning more than $150,000.00 has more than doubled over this same period. By comparison, the average total compensation for those in the private sector was $62,100.00 at the beginning of 2011, 49% of what the average federal employee realizes.

Despite this devastating landscape, Barack Obama was re-elected for a second term. He is the only incumbent president in modern American history to win while overseeing such an economic disaster for the American people. Some of the responsibility for that outcome can be placed at the feet of Mitt Romney, who ran an uninspired and tactically outdated campaign; but the majority of those that did vote, and ratified by those who did not, chose this result along with the media who, in their love affair with Obama, deliberately opted to ignore the disastrous results of the first Obama term.

It is now painfully obvious that the bulk of the American people cannot be reached by reason and historical facts; they must experience first-hand the worst of times before they wake up from their celebrity infatuation combined with the assumption that there will always be a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from an equally bottomless pit of wealth by a government committed to take care of them.

Barack Obama and the Democrats have signaled they intend to do nothing to alter the course the nation is on; in fact they intend to accelerate it. Without any firm and viable political opposition, wealth and job creation will further deteriorate with the second-term implementation of ObamaCare, higher taxes, ever increasing government expenditures, and the mushrooming debt, continued erosion of the value of the dollar and its potential demise as the world's reserve currency, as well as a Niagara Falls of new regulations.

The American people, including the Obama sycophants in the media, will be worse off in four years than they were at the end of 2012 (already a disaster) and a majority of the citizenry will increasingly experience the malaise and suffering of those who lived through the 1930's -- which was, in great part, exacerbated by the pursuit of policies similar to those of Barack Obama minus the mountain of debt -- a factor that will make matters significantly worse.

Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will potentially accomplish what their ideological socialist/Marxist soul mates also achieved: the destruction of their nation's economy as well as the standard of living for the people and they will do so with the tacit approval of the citizenry and the encouragement of the mainstream media.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_worst_five_years.html#ixzz2IyxIsDwB