To the powers-that-be and all people who have not lost their jobs (yet):
Do you realize how bad it is? Do you have any idea how terrible the economy is right now?
Oh, I'm not talking about the DOW, Nasdaq, the FTSE or Hang Seng; the stock markets go up and down on criteria I do not understand. Some huge corporation announces the layoff of thousands of people, and the stock market rejoices, because, gee, that company needed to shed some of the "dead weight" to become "profitable." Forget about what happens to the thousands thrown out of work...they can find new jobs.
Oh, can they?
I'm not talking about Goldman Sachs or other investment firms. Don't know anything about them, except that when they started to go under water they cried for help, and our government put my grandchildren in hock for the rest of their lives to rescue them with billions of dollars, and then had to argue with those same failed companies over whether or not their CEOs should get multi-million-dollar bonuses, when in fact they were responsible for the failure. (go figure...)
I'm not talking about the United States' "balance of trade," either. For a long time we've been bringing more into this country than we've been sending out. Anybody with half a brain knows that if the country stops manufacturing we're not long for this world. We can't just buy things from other countries indefinitely, and figure we will survive by being the world's hospitals, schools and fast-food chains. That is just a given.
No, what I'm talking about is what those we laughingly call "our leaders" refer to condescendingly as "Joe 6-Pack." The average people. The backbone of this nation. The people who grew up working hard, and hoping they've provided enough so their children won't have to work as hard as they did. The ones who developed a career but always kept a "backup" skill in the wings -- as a waitress or construction labor -- just in case that career vaporized.
Well, not only are the careers vaporizing, even the backup jobs are getting hard to find.
What happens when a newspaper lays off 30 people with no warning, some of who have worked there for decades...not even sparing the one who had been promised by a former publisher that he would "always have a job there for as long as he lived," because he'd been one of the first to work there?
What happens when construction jobs fall off so drastically that 80 applicants show up for a new project, when the company has just 6 job openings?
The experienced workers -- over 40 but not yet old enough to draw what is laughingly called Social "Security" -- never get a job, because the companies can pick and choose among the young and vigorous workers, who will work cheap.
And what about Social Security and other government safety nets? A couple of years ago, a news program on TV was looking at the Social Security program -- wise in its inception, it was designed as an investment program for old age; you put money in while you're working, the government invests it, and when you are old they pay it out in monthly installments.
But what did the politicians do with it? They practically salivated at the jaws when they saw this dragon's horde of loot. They found all kinds of uses for it. But, notice, the politicians don't put money into Social Security. I used to work for the federal government, and I don't think any federal employees put into Social Security. They have a private retirement plan.
But you, on the other hand, have to put into Social Security. Why? So the politicians can play with your money. The news program I watched a couple of years ago said the Social Security program was running out of money (gee, who could have seen that coming??), but if you were born before 1955 you would probably be okay.
Want to guess what year I was born?
What about unemployment? Not long ago a state (that will remain unnamed) closed down all their job service offices and put everything online. Nice. Efficient. Right? But what if you're unemployed and can't continue paying for an Internet connection? Or maybe you could never afford one, never learned how to use the Internet?
To top it all off, you're supposed to apply each week...on Sunday. Even the public libraries are closed on Sunday, so then those with no Internet go to the library on Monday to apply, and their check gets in the bank a day late.
And the icing on the cake is that after X number of weeks, this same state unemployment program skips a week. What's the purpose of that? Somebody is supporting his family on $250 a week, and looking for a job, and then in the middle of this struggle, they skip a week.
A few weeks ago -- it was the same week the North Koreans launched a cyber-attack on some computer systems in the U.S. and Japan, and so maybe it was because of that -- the online unemployment system for this same state was apparently overwhelmed. It could have been by the sheer numbers of people applying for benefits. Numerous efforts to log on to file were met with error messages. The system did not straighten out until Monday. How many harried unemployed workers had a panic attack over that?
Okay, what about food stamps? That helps, right? Many of the old-timers will take unemployment as a right, figuring they've paid into it all these years, but they "don't want no government handout." And they put off applying for something like food stamps until they've nearly lost the roof over their heads. When they finally break down and put in for food stamps, what happens?
Social worker: Don't expect results for a few weeks.
Applicant: Are they pretty busy?
Social worker: They are overwhelmed. They are 2 short on personnel, and just completely overwhelmed.
Applicant (thinking there might be a job opening there): Are they going to hire some more people, then?
Social worker (laughing bitterly): No! They're not going to hire anybody! They're already paying overtime. Just don't expect any response for a few weeks. It may take them 3 weeks to get to you.
As you look for work, application after application after application usually only gets you spam in your e-mail from sharks that cruise the online job boards. And the genuine employers don't call you back to let you know you're out of the hiring pool, because of the sheer volume of applications. They can't inform everybody.
In just the past 2 weeks on the Internet, I have seen a man wanting to buy a camper for his family to live in after he lost his job; a news story about campgrounds filling up with people newly homeless who had worked as contractors and managers; a single mom with 2 kids who had downgraded from running an arts center to "people tell me I'm a good cook...I'll cook for you" and needing someone to help her fix up her house so she can sell it.
Workers are selling their tools, farmers are selling their tractors, horselovers are giving their horses away. People are going broke.
This is how a Depression starts, folks. I've heard it said that whether you call it a recession or a depression depends on whether you're the one that's lost a job. If that's so, how many lost jobs does it take before our government considers it a depression?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
What are our children eating?
I came across the following report online, and I believe we should all be aware of the impact of processed and genetically modified food products on ourselves and our children:
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Comanche County Chronicle, Elgin, OK, September, 2008
Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria's processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was described as out-of-control. There were weapons violations, student disruptions, and a cop on duty full-time. After the change in school meals, the students were calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more weapons violations, and no suicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug violations. The new diet and improved behavior has lasted for seven years, and now other schools are changing their meal programs with similar results.
Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet by conducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed them the junk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The mice freaked out. Their behavior was totally different than the three mice in the neighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good karma; they were fed nutritious whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept during the day inside their cardboard tube, played with each other, and acted very mouse-like.
The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboard tube, were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, fought often, and two mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the three month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk food mice with a diet of whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice came around.
Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days. Even on the first day of junk food, the mice's behavior "changes drastically." They become lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still takes the mice about two to three weeks on unprocessed foods to return to normal. One year, the second graders tried to do the experiment again a few months later with the same mice, but this time the animals refused to eat the junk food.
Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice genetically modified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts of the cage. When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their well-behaved neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear and tried to climb the walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead at the end of the experiment.
It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the Wisconsin experiments also contained genetically modified ingredients. And although the Appleton school lunch program did not specifically attempt to remove GM foods, it happened anyway. That's because GM foods such as soy and corn and their derivatives are largely found in processed foods. So when the school switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GM crops were taken out automatically.
Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the behavior of humans or animals? It would certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis of a single student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. On the other hand, it is equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.
We are just beginning to understand the influence of food on behavior. A study in Science in December 2002 concluded that "food molecules act like hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering cell division. The molecules can cause mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness." The problem is we do not know which food molecules have what effect.
The bigger problem is that the composition of GM foods can change radically without our knowledge. Genetically modified foods have genes inserted into their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they don't just snap into place. Gene insertion creates unpredicted, irreversible changes. In one study, for example, a gene chip monitored the DNA before and after a single foreign gene was inserted. As much as 5 percent of the DNA's genes changed the amount of protein they were producing. Not only is that huge in itself, but these changes can multiply through complex interactions down the line.
In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in the composition of GM foods, they are typically measured for only a small number of known nutrient levels. But even if we could identify all the changed compounds, at this point we wouldn't know which might be responsible for the antisocial nature of mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning to identify the medicinal compounds in food. We now know, for example, that the pigment in blueberries may revive the brain's neural communication system, and the antioxidant found in grape skins may fight cancer and reduce heart disease. But what about other valuable compounds we don't know about that might change or disappear in GM varieties?
Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on the market, independent researchers published a study showing that it contains 12-14 percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has changed that we don't know about? [Monsanto responded with its own study, which concluded that soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. They failed to disclose, however, that the laboratory that conducted Monsanto's experiment had been instructed to use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens results.]
In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal of Nutrition that concluded in the title, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans." The study only compared a small number of nutrients and a close look at their charts revealed significant differences in the fat, ash, and carbohydrate content. In addition, GM soy meal contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor, a well-known soy allergen. The study also used questionable methods. Nutrient comparisons are routinely conducted on plants grown in identical conditions so that variables such as weather and soil can be ruled out. Otherwise, differences in plant composition could be easily missed. In Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely varying climates and geography.
Although one of their trials was a side-by-side comparison between GM and non-GM soy, for some reason the results were left out of the paper altogether. Years later, a medical writer found the missing data in the archives of the Journal of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the scientists left them out. The GM soy showed significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin that may block the body's ability to assimilate other nutrients.
Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the amount of trypsin inhibitor, indicating that the allergen may survive cooking more in the GM variety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump in soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was introduced.)
We don't know all the changes that occur with genetic engineering, but certainly GM crops are not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports from all over North America describe how several types of animals, when given a choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk, deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, the Dutch student mentioned above first determined that his mice had a two-to-one preference for non-GM before forcing half of them to eat only the engineered variety.
Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on children. They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they convert more of the food into body-building material. Altered nutrients or added toxins can result in developmental problems. For this reason, animal nutrition studies are typically conducted on young, developing animals. After the feeding trial, organs are weighed and often studied under magnification. If scientists used mature animals instead of young ones, even severe nutritional problems might not be detected. The Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young ones.
They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein 10- or 12fold before feeding the animals. And they never weighed the organs or examined them under a microscope. The study, which is the only major animal feeding study on GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid finding problems.
Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment going on one which we are all a part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the impact of these foods on our health, our behavior, or our children. Thousands of schools around the world, particularly in Europe, have decided not to let their kids be used as guinea pigs. They have banned GM foods.
The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods is only one of several reasons why these foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse (see http://www.seedsofdeception.com).
With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in Appleton, parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that diet plays. When making changes in what kids eat, removing GM foods should be a priority.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...icle_14507.cfm
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Comanche County Chronicle, Elgin, OK, September, 2008
Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria's processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was described as out-of-control. There were weapons violations, student disruptions, and a cop on duty full-time. After the change in school meals, the students were calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more weapons violations, and no suicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug violations. The new diet and improved behavior has lasted for seven years, and now other schools are changing their meal programs with similar results.
Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet by conducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed them the junk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The mice freaked out. Their behavior was totally different than the three mice in the neighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good karma; they were fed nutritious whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept during the day inside their cardboard tube, played with each other, and acted very mouse-like.
The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboard tube, were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, fought often, and two mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the three month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk food mice with a diet of whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice came around.
Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days. Even on the first day of junk food, the mice's behavior "changes drastically." They become lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still takes the mice about two to three weeks on unprocessed foods to return to normal. One year, the second graders tried to do the experiment again a few months later with the same mice, but this time the animals refused to eat the junk food.
Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice genetically modified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts of the cage. When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their well-behaved neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear and tried to climb the walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead at the end of the experiment.
It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the Wisconsin experiments also contained genetically modified ingredients. And although the Appleton school lunch program did not specifically attempt to remove GM foods, it happened anyway. That's because GM foods such as soy and corn and their derivatives are largely found in processed foods. So when the school switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GM crops were taken out automatically.
Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the behavior of humans or animals? It would certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis of a single student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. On the other hand, it is equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.
We are just beginning to understand the influence of food on behavior. A study in Science in December 2002 concluded that "food molecules act like hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering cell division. The molecules can cause mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness." The problem is we do not know which food molecules have what effect.
The bigger problem is that the composition of GM foods can change radically without our knowledge. Genetically modified foods have genes inserted into their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they don't just snap into place. Gene insertion creates unpredicted, irreversible changes. In one study, for example, a gene chip monitored the DNA before and after a single foreign gene was inserted. As much as 5 percent of the DNA's genes changed the amount of protein they were producing. Not only is that huge in itself, but these changes can multiply through complex interactions down the line.
In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in the composition of GM foods, they are typically measured for only a small number of known nutrient levels. But even if we could identify all the changed compounds, at this point we wouldn't know which might be responsible for the antisocial nature of mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning to identify the medicinal compounds in food. We now know, for example, that the pigment in blueberries may revive the brain's neural communication system, and the antioxidant found in grape skins may fight cancer and reduce heart disease. But what about other valuable compounds we don't know about that might change or disappear in GM varieties?
Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on the market, independent researchers published a study showing that it contains 12-14 percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has changed that we don't know about? [Monsanto responded with its own study, which concluded that soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. They failed to disclose, however, that the laboratory that conducted Monsanto's experiment had been instructed to use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens results.]
In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal of Nutrition that concluded in the title, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans." The study only compared a small number of nutrients and a close look at their charts revealed significant differences in the fat, ash, and carbohydrate content. In addition, GM soy meal contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor, a well-known soy allergen. The study also used questionable methods. Nutrient comparisons are routinely conducted on plants grown in identical conditions so that variables such as weather and soil can be ruled out. Otherwise, differences in plant composition could be easily missed. In Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely varying climates and geography.
Although one of their trials was a side-by-side comparison between GM and non-GM soy, for some reason the results were left out of the paper altogether. Years later, a medical writer found the missing data in the archives of the Journal of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the scientists left them out. The GM soy showed significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin that may block the body's ability to assimilate other nutrients.
Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the amount of trypsin inhibitor, indicating that the allergen may survive cooking more in the GM variety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump in soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was introduced.)
We don't know all the changes that occur with genetic engineering, but certainly GM crops are not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports from all over North America describe how several types of animals, when given a choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk, deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, the Dutch student mentioned above first determined that his mice had a two-to-one preference for non-GM before forcing half of them to eat only the engineered variety.
Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on children. They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they convert more of the food into body-building material. Altered nutrients or added toxins can result in developmental problems. For this reason, animal nutrition studies are typically conducted on young, developing animals. After the feeding trial, organs are weighed and often studied under magnification. If scientists used mature animals instead of young ones, even severe nutritional problems might not be detected. The Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young ones.
They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein 10- or 12fold before feeding the animals. And they never weighed the organs or examined them under a microscope. The study, which is the only major animal feeding study on GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid finding problems.
Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment going on one which we are all a part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the impact of these foods on our health, our behavior, or our children. Thousands of schools around the world, particularly in Europe, have decided not to let their kids be used as guinea pigs. They have banned GM foods.
The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods is only one of several reasons why these foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse (see http://www.seedsofdeception.com).
With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in Appleton, parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that diet plays. When making changes in what kids eat, removing GM foods should be a priority.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...icle_14507.cfm
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Resource for swine flu information
A website for up-to-date information on the swine flu (H1N1 influenza) worldwide is at:
http://trancy.net/
Statistics released by the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate the H1N1 virus may be mutating and becoming resistant to such antiviral medications as Tamiflu.
Right now nations in the Southern Hemisphere (Australia, New Zealand, most of South America) are in the middle of winter...their flu season. Our flu season in the U.S. won't begin for several months yet, so the best indication of what we can expect from this deadly virus come winter will be what goes on south of us through September.
http://trancy.net/
Statistics released by the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate the H1N1 virus may be mutating and becoming resistant to such antiviral medications as Tamiflu.
Right now nations in the Southern Hemisphere (Australia, New Zealand, most of South America) are in the middle of winter...their flu season. Our flu season in the U.S. won't begin for several months yet, so the best indication of what we can expect from this deadly virus come winter will be what goes on south of us through September.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Death of a nation
I've been noticing deaths in the headlines, of famous people. Everyone knows about Michael Jackson's passing, but there have been a number of others recently.
The ones that stand out to me, that have been at least a peripheral part of my life up to now, include Ed McMahon, David Carradine, Farrah Fawcett, Karl Malden, Robert McNamara and athletes Alexis Argüello and Steve McNair. Some of these have had value in my life, most haven't...they've just been people that everyone knows, whose names are familiar to most of the people of my generation.
But their deaths got me to thinking about how my generation -- the tail-end of the "Baby Boom" of the fifties -- is slowly but surely ceding its place to another generation. A generation to whom those names are but a vagrant breeze in their memory. What kind of United States of America will this new generation inherit? And what will they make of it?
My mother died in March. She would have been 94 in November. She remembered a time when there were no cars, no television or computers, when radio was new. She remembered planting and harvesting a crop of corn with her brother during the Great Depression. She lived through at least 5 wars -- sending her husband off to fight in World War II, 2 sons in Vietnam, and a grandson in the present war. She made me sit down and watch Neil Armstrong's steps on the moon when it was broadcast on TV..."This is history in the making!" she said. And she witnessed the rise of the computers, although she never got the hang of e-mail. She always preferred a real letter written on paper.
I think about the changes that have happened in Mom's lifetime, and the changes that have come in just my lifetime...I remember when the last of those born in slavery died in this nation, one by one. The last of the men who fought in World War I died out, one by one, and now those who fought in World War II are disappearing. The last of the Tuskegee Airmen are slowly passing away in the headlines of our newspapers, one by one. And -- one by one -- the rights we've enjoyed as the freest nation on the face of the earth are disappearing, just the same way.
Will the generation that is rising up now as adults even remember a time when they did not have to present identification for everything? Will they remember a time when they were not photographed by security cameras everywhere they went? A time when their personal information was not available to any government official with the proper equipment to read the little strip on the back of their driver's license. Will they remember that Social Security cards used to have a disclaimer printed on them that they could not be used for identification? Will they realize that Social Security used to be "secure"? That it was an old-age trust fund set up to be self-sustaining, not a teat for every government program to suck on? Will they remember when a dollar had the assurance printed on its face that you could turn it in for the equivalent amount in precious metals?
Will our children have a memory of a time when they did not have to be concerned about the NSA and other criminal factions using the "back door" in Windows to spy on their online activities? Will they ever know that the founders of this country said, ""When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."?
Will our children remember a time when they did not fear strangers, or policemen, or the government of these United States? Will our grandchildren grow up having any idea what it means to be free?
The ones that stand out to me, that have been at least a peripheral part of my life up to now, include Ed McMahon, David Carradine, Farrah Fawcett, Karl Malden, Robert McNamara and athletes Alexis Argüello and Steve McNair. Some of these have had value in my life, most haven't...they've just been people that everyone knows, whose names are familiar to most of the people of my generation.
But their deaths got me to thinking about how my generation -- the tail-end of the "Baby Boom" of the fifties -- is slowly but surely ceding its place to another generation. A generation to whom those names are but a vagrant breeze in their memory. What kind of United States of America will this new generation inherit? And what will they make of it?
My mother died in March. She would have been 94 in November. She remembered a time when there were no cars, no television or computers, when radio was new. She remembered planting and harvesting a crop of corn with her brother during the Great Depression. She lived through at least 5 wars -- sending her husband off to fight in World War II, 2 sons in Vietnam, and a grandson in the present war. She made me sit down and watch Neil Armstrong's steps on the moon when it was broadcast on TV..."This is history in the making!" she said. And she witnessed the rise of the computers, although she never got the hang of e-mail. She always preferred a real letter written on paper.
I think about the changes that have happened in Mom's lifetime, and the changes that have come in just my lifetime...I remember when the last of those born in slavery died in this nation, one by one. The last of the men who fought in World War I died out, one by one, and now those who fought in World War II are disappearing. The last of the Tuskegee Airmen are slowly passing away in the headlines of our newspapers, one by one. And -- one by one -- the rights we've enjoyed as the freest nation on the face of the earth are disappearing, just the same way.
Will the generation that is rising up now as adults even remember a time when they did not have to present identification for everything? Will they remember a time when they were not photographed by security cameras everywhere they went? A time when their personal information was not available to any government official with the proper equipment to read the little strip on the back of their driver's license. Will they remember that Social Security cards used to have a disclaimer printed on them that they could not be used for identification? Will they realize that Social Security used to be "secure"? That it was an old-age trust fund set up to be self-sustaining, not a teat for every government program to suck on? Will they remember when a dollar had the assurance printed on its face that you could turn it in for the equivalent amount in precious metals?
Will our children have a memory of a time when they did not have to be concerned about the NSA and other criminal factions using the "back door" in Windows to spy on their online activities? Will they ever know that the founders of this country said, ""When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."?
Will our children remember a time when they did not fear strangers, or policemen, or the government of these United States? Will our grandchildren grow up having any idea what it means to be free?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
