Crash!

I’m usually pretty flippant about end of the world predictions. To my mind, when I run out of Irish whiskey and cigars, that’s very definitely a “the end of the world” scenario, with anything else merely a minor inconvenience. Yet I’m constantly bombarded by quite serious news articles predicting assorted disasters in the news, often written by some pretty solid people who are neither prone to panic nor believers in conspiracy theories. It seems they are getting very concerned about the potential end of the world as we know it. Granted that there are plenty of options available, so take your pick I guess. We’ve nearly all seen the movie “2012”, or at least understand the claims about the foreboding end of the Mayan calendar cycle. Well, Hollywierd might wax hysterical about that one, but the Mayans don’t seem to be very concerned. Heck, our calendar runs out every year, and rather than the world ending, we just start a new calendar. And we seem to have survived Y2K as well. There are always the stories about incoming “planet killer” asteroids, but the last one to hit us happened 65 million years ago. The Yellowstone super volcano could blow up as well, but that last happened 640,000 years ago. Both of these are distinct possibilities (a case of “when it happens”, not “if it happens”), but there’s not much we could do about it, and neither is predicted for the immediate future. We also have the run-of-the-mill disasters, including floods, hurricanes, winter storms, oil spills, crime waves, riots and such, but they hardly rate as world threatening incidents. Terrorists with a nuclear weapon or two might rearrange the local real estate someplace, and the threat of Islamic bio-weapons are certainly a concern, but I rather doubt that they’d kill off the entire human population. The threat of a global thermonuclear war is still a rumble in the background, but things are reasonably quiet on that front. We also have the theoretical “heat death” of the universe in a few trillion years (unless the equally theoretical “big crunch” comes first), but again, I doubt that any of us will be around to see it happen. Finally we have the biblical “end of days”, but when that day comes about all anyone can do is stand quietly, hat in hand, and hope ‘ya haven’t done too many bad things in your life. (Bankers, Lawyers, Politicians and Corporate CEO’s beware!)

So what is it that concerns these solid citizens who are predicting “the end”? A much more mundane subject I’m afraid, as when Sen. Judd Gregg (R) of New Hampshire recently stated his fears that the United States is on a course for economic disaster. Gregg said that the overwhelming debt and exploding deficits will lead to "the financial meltdown of our nation.” Along with that comment, a large number of economists and financial experts are predicting pretty much the same thing. After all, what can happen when unemployment seems locked in at 10%, and Washington is loading down the taxpayers with huge new entitlement programs on top of huge old entitlement programs… and printing trillions of inflated dollars to pay for it all? Well, I would say that such a meltdown is a distinct possibility, along with probably being a whole lot closer than I care to think about! After all, we can’t keep spending money we don’t have. Despite the beliefs of the left, the United States is not swimming in wealth, and what wealth we do have is more a case of cash flow, not money in the bank. And we’ve been supporting most of the world since the end of WW II as it is. Considering that the entire western world has been swimming in a massive pool of debt, with many nations facing the imminent specter of bankruptcy, I rather do think we are facing the “end of the world”, or at least our old familiar world. Sure, humanity as a species will survive, the planet will still be here, along with the sea and the sky, but human civilization “as we know it” is due for a massive shake-up!

We all saw what happened to the Russians when the Soviet economy collapsed, and it wasn’t pretty. But we might remember that the Russian empire, vast as it was, is still a fairly limited part of the world, and besides, the western nations poured plenty of money and resources into keeping things from completely falling apart. Russia itself, with the resources of Siberia to draw on, is coming along fairly well nowdays. Most of the “Beserkistan” republics are still functioning, abit with lots of foreign help and their normal low standard of living. But what happens when a highly urbanized industrial nation such as the United States suffers an economic collapse, and drags the rest of the western world down with it? The worldwide grid goes down, that’s what happens! No work, no electricity, no telephones, no food deliveries, no “energy” available, the banks are closed, the factories are closed, and there’s no benign socialist Obama government to assist us! By Golly, we just might have to survive on our own! ‘Course a lot of folks claim that something like that really couldn’t happen to us… the gub’ment wouldn’t allow it. Ain’t wistful thinking grand!? Something just doesn’t smell right here, and that little alarm bell is ringing in the back of my head.

Naturally the first question that comes to mind is… what can we do about it? And the first answer is… load the old pick-up with groceries and head for the hills, a response that might be realistic under a full scale nuclear attack, but unless you happen to have an insane income your options are rather limited. Property “in the hills” is expensive, while farmers, ranchers, and Smokey Bear all get really upset when they find you squatting on their land. So, without a fully equipped and stocked vacation cabin off in the woods, that may not be your best bet… well, unless you live in a heavily populated urban area, in which case I’d say it’s probably time to “get out of Dodge”. Most of us have enough groceries stashed in the pantry to last for some time, but can you feed the family for a year, or even longer? And how do you plan to cook that food without gas, electricity, or whatever? How about heating the house through the winter? Not everybody has wood heat in this day and age. Water is a necessity of life, and what do you do when nothing comes out of the tap anymore?

Many individuals might have a lot of skills that are useful in a survival situation, and even I could handle most things in a pinch. But I’m not so great that that I could do all those needed things in a hurry! I’m a fair medic but I’m certainly not a surgeon. I could grow a garden if needed, but I’m not a farmer or gardener, and any food I manage to grow would likely be at a sustenance level more than anything else, leaving me to doubt that I’d have a lot of time to apply to other desperately needed projects. Consider, I used to know several wannabe pioneer type mountaineers that figured they could head for the high country and live off the land. Perhaps… but even the Indians didn’t try that one in the winter, and their survival skills were a whole lot better than ours are!

If you live in a small town, your best option may well be to stay home, and work on the “what do we do” situation within the community. After all, most communities have nearly every skill imaginable available to them, the infrastructure is already in place, as is the social organization. Most counties and some towns have an Emergency Management Office that does an excellent job of planning for, and handling, fires, floods, and Ice Storms. They also consider the really big possibilities, but… in a real crunch… and when no aid will be forthcoming from the feds or the state, I rather think those offices are going to find themselves overloaded, and we are surely going to be totally on our own. After all, can we realistically expect the County to stash away a years supply of groceries… for all of us!? So how about we, as individuals, follow the old Boy Scout motto of “Be Prepared”, and at least come up with a generalized community wide plan of of what we would need to handle the unthinkable?

Alvin Greene

Bill Warner of Yucca Valley Calif. is hardly naïve, understanding that in the world of American politics, his little group — the Lincoln Club of the Morongo Basin — is hardly a drop in the bucket of political power and influence. Its purpose he claims is "to promote, educate and advance conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, small limited government, free enterprise, the rule of law, private property rights, and the preservation and protection of individual liberty." The group has only 25 members, and has raised around $10,000 to further its goals. "It's our way of doing what we can do," he says. Warner is 65 and soft-spoken, the kind who asks questions before making decisions, and doesn't consider himself either a rabble-rouser or "tea party-er." Yet in March, Warner packed up and drove to Harry Reid’s hometown of Searchlight, Nev., to join thousands of others at a tea party protesting today’s big government.

Annamarie Miller is a schoolteacher with a love of history and ideas. Though hardly menacing, she is a renegade who refuses to take any authority figure's word at face value. That she says began during her student days at California State University, and "I became disillusioned by the revisionism of history. A lot of stuff they were teaching me twisted the truth." Inspired by campaign literature, she began to question the "truths" of authorities.

Two more or less ordinary people… neither are rich and famous, and neither are “powers in the land”. Both seem to be more or less ordinary citizens who are “fed-up” with the current political situation in our nation. Nor are they alone. It is this kind of action that helped tea party favorite Sharron Angle capture the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Nevada, who is now challenging Majority Leader Harry Reid. It helped tea party darlings Raul Labrador here in Idaho and Todd Lally in Kentucky win their congressional primaries. It helped libertarian Rand Paul beat out an establishment candidate in Kentucky. The tea party movement is after-all a loose knit coalition of individuals and groups who are somewhat upset by Washington’s continued spending, our constantly rising taxes, constant raids on our individual liberty, and the uncontrolled growth of government.

On the Sept. 7th 2008 broadcast of "Meet the Press", then Senator Obama was asked about his position on the American Flag by retired USAF General Bill Ginn, and explained that "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ."

“When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past".

"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path… My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America "

Well, I’m certainly overwhelmed! Mr. Obama wants us to “… conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails”. Humm… yet in the “peaceful” Islamic nation of Iran, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, mother of two, has been sentenced to being stoned to death, for running afoul of Islamic religious law. The thought of Islam over running and destroying Israel, and the ensuing holocaust, leaves me cold as well.

But we, even as individuals, can change things. An unemployed 32-year-old black Army veteran with no campaign funds, no signs, and no website shocked South Carolina by winning the Democratic Senate primary! Alvin Greene defeated Vic Rawl, a former judge and state legislator, who had a $186,000 campaign warchest. Even with the deck stacked against him, Greene said that he wasn't surprised by his victory. "I wasn’t surprised, but not really. I mean, just a little, but not much. I knew I was on top of my campaign, and just stayed on top of everything, I just—I wasn't surprised that much, just a little. I knew that I worked hard and did," Greene stated in an interview. With that, the left has decided that Alvin Greene's “unplanned” victory in the South Carolina Democratic primary must be the result of a Republican dirty trick. Greene won, beating the establishment candidate despite having no job, home, campaign headquarters… or even a campaign! Other than a $10,000 filing fee which seems to have come out of nowhere, Greene put absolutely no effort into the race, which left Obama adviser David Axelrod saying that Greene was not a "legitimate" candidate, and called his victory "a mysterious deal."

Well, yeah, just how could a young African-American with strange origins, suspicious funding, shady associations, no experience, no qualifications, and no work history, appear out of nowhere and win an election?

McChrystal

I’m rather disturbed with the media firestorm generated by Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s somewhat inappropriate comments about the Obama administration. Disturbed, but not overly surprised. No military officer should publicly criticize his commander, and Gen. McChrystal is no exception. But the mainstream media is somewhat hysterical about McChrystal's apparent insubordination, published in (of all places) Rolling Stone magazine. They’re not concerned with the accuracy of the comments attributed to him, but rather they’re livid because he disagrees with, and apparently disrespects, the anointed one. I’ll note that this is a bit different from the reaction a few years ago when other military officers criticized President Bush’s Iraqi war policies. During Bush's time in office, active duty officers that spoke out against administration policy were “courageous whistleblowers”, and retired generals were sages of military policy. Now however, Gen. McChrystal is being treated as some sort of rabid dog that must be muzzled, and there are even calls to “change” the entire command structure of the US Military! However, Barry and his minions should I’d think, be held to the same standards to which they held President Bush. Since insubordination was considered a matter of competence when military leaders criticized Bush and Rumsfield, shouldn’t Obama welcome this independent strategic thinking? Perhaps the man with three Muslim names should acknowledge McChrystal’s concerns, and use them as a basis for re-evaluating his own strategy? Or as one pundit stated, “You know, live up to his promise of no ‘yes men’.”

Personally I think the general made a mistake in publicly stating any of his personal views while still a serving officer, even though the comments were made by officers on McChrystals staff, not by the General himself. The Commander in Chief has the right to remove a general “any time he sees fit,” said General Omar Bradley. Dismissing a general is seldom done, and can sometimes provoke considerable controversy. Still, President Lincoln replaced the hugely popular George McClellan during the Civil War for being overly cautious. President Harry Truman replaced the equally popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Commander of United Nation forces in Korea, for gross insubordination. President Reagan fired Gen Schweitzer from his National Security Council staff job. Gen. Eric Shinseki was forced out of the service for publicly criticizing the Bush administration policies in Iraq (instantly earning the media’s approval), and was rewarded by the leftists with his present job, that of Secretary of Veterans Affairs, although I rather doubt such a fate will come Gen. McChrystal’s way. With no military knowledge or experience of his own, and with none to speak of among his staff, Mr. Obama is caught between the proverbial “rock and a hard place” by Gen. McChrystal’s defection, so to preserve his credibility and authority, Obama had to fire General McChrystal. But doing so isn’t going to make things easy. The champions of Gen. Shinseki now look like hypocrites for firing a commander for saying what he thinks. The troops in the field, who always regard civilian meddling in military matters with a jaundiced eye, will likely consider the firing of a commander, barely a year after the last commander was canned for disagreeing with the White House, as an indication that the civilian leadership is doing little more than stumbling around in the dark, and that’s not going to help moral much. This also brings up an important question… what sort of military commanders do we want serving our nation? Like Gen. George Patton during WW II, McChrystal has strong personal opinions, an enviable military record, and a habit of letting his mouth run away from his common sense. But both of these men were highly successful commanders, and in the military there is no substitute for success. On the other hand, politicians (and our tradition of civilian control of the military), demand obedient, pliable servants who readily bend to political decree. This is hardly the type of commander we could expect to win wars. So what do we want… hard charging warriors who can successfully defend our national interests… or parade ground soldiers in pretty uniforms?

Unfortunately for Gen. McChrystal, rather than rely on his military public affairs officer, he apparently accepted the advice of an inexperienced civilian, a “strategic communications” agent who arranged the media embed with Michael Hastings of “Rolling Stone”, a leftist entertainment magazine, and an unknown factor to the general and his staff. To make matters worse, Hastings was working on an alarmist-sounding feature entitled “The Runaway General.” As Hastings describes it, much of his interaction with Gen. McChrystal and his staff, was in relaxed settings – a Paris hotel suite and a nearby Irish pub. Knowing that McChrystal has a habit of pushing the limits of authority, allowing a virtually unknown reporter with whom they had no previous relationship was an appalling error on the part of the Generals staff. Or was it? If McChrystal has the low opinion of his civilian leadership that his reported comments indicate, he should have done the honorable thing, resigned from military service, and then spoken out. But how much media exposure would that have gotten? I somehow doubt that the press would have been sitting on his doorstep reporting his every word, and the reasons for his resignation would not have received much publicity. However, Gen. McChrystal has been in service for thirty-four years, and I suspect he’s been seriously considering retirement anyway. What better way to go out than with a bang, and this particular bang will likely shake the Obama administration to its roots, along with just maybe getting something done about the political stalemate in Afghanistan!
Now we have Gen. Petraeus back in harness, selected by his one-time archenemy Barrack Obama, to command in Afghanistan. No longer the whipping boy for candidate Obama, Petraeus is the administrations last, best hope for getting us out of Afghanistan with at least some slight vestige of honor. Ironically, since the guy they helped get elected has “rehired” George Bush’s General, MoveOn.org now has to repudiate their portrayal of Petraeus as “General Betray Us”. Irony however is not something understood by the rabid leftists at MoveOn. McChrystal’s relationship with the press contrasts with that of Petraeus, who is much more practiced in dealing with reporters and the civilian leadership. Petraeus's staff officers tend to have extensive Washington experience as well, and will likely never allow themselves to be caught in this type of situation.

I greatly respect Gen. McChrystal’s military record, and can sympathize with him for the situation he now finds himself in. But he of all people should well understand that even though everyone is entitled to their opinion, military officers should know that theirs are best kept private, and not aired in the media… particularly so if they seriously disagree with the senior levels in the chain of command.