In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Future Times? | Main | Maui Notebook »

March 24, 2009

Secession: One of the Year's Political Themes?

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* More secession rumblings.

* Macho rightie action star Chuck Norris wants Texas to secede.

* Granola-munching academic hipsters in Vermonters are calling for secession too.

* Here's a secessionism primer.

Just to clarify: My point here isn't to argue for or against secession, though please feel free to go right ahead with such gabfests. My point is simply to notice that secession is being talked about out loud, and to wonder, "What might this mean? And what might explain why this is happening now?" BTW, if you think that the emergence of the topic of secession into the realm of public discourse has no significance, please say so -- but please also give reasons why you think that's the case.

Bonus links:
* Raw milk continues to be an issue too. Is there a connection between the raw milk movement and the various secession movements? I sure think there might be.
* Ropke and Schumacher fan Matthew Redard discovers the Slow Money movement. (Hey, I've blogged approvingly about Ropke, Schumacher, and the Slow movement myself.)

Best,

Michael

UPDATE: Shouting Thomas wants to secede from Woodstock. But will Woodstock let him go?

posted by Michael at March 24, 2009




Comments

"Bonus link: Raw milk continues to be an issue too. Is there a connection between the raw milk movement and the various secession movements? I sure think there might be."

Reading about the health concerns of raw as voiced by experts was hysterical. Raw milk dangerous? No more so than ground beef! Once again experts miss the forest for the trees. And the gov't has been wrong so many times regarding nutrition/health over the years that I have a tendency to dismiss what they say. If they want to go after unsafe foods, they ought togo after Big Ag. But I'm not holding my breathe. Keep you laws off my kitchen!

Posted by: Stilton on March 24, 2009 1:22 PM



Hey, no one's leaving unless they take their pro-rata share of the national debt with them. And that right there is a deal-killer.

Posted by: Bill on March 24, 2009 2:04 PM



Rob Williams, editor and publisher of Vermont Commons, a multimedia independent statewide news journal, said, “The federal government, we believe, has overstepped its constitutional authority in so many different ways Foe example….. It’s corrupt to the core.
Agree to an extent but give me examples It’s too centralized, too bloated, too unresponsive to the needs of most citizens in this country.” I really think Barack is trying to change that but he is one many amongst many.

I really think it is the best option for Vermont. Vermonters know their own needs. To be honest, Obama might be doing great things down in Washington, but how often do you think he thinks about Vermont?”
IIRC, Vermont was one of those states Obama grabbed from Hillary. Did/Does Vermont have a manufacturing industry? I would think that eliminating the income tax on unemployment benefits, extending cobra, and the +13-20 bucks each paycheck will help those in Vermont moreso than in big cities where it is in someways easier to secure another job.
What natural resources does Vermont have(timber?)? I hope they don’t plan of surviving on tourism alone because that won’t keep Vermont afloat during hard times.


If you look at the U.S. – if you look at the people in Vermont, to people in Georgia, to people in Texas, to the Midwest, to the Northeast, to Florida – we’re so different. We all have different ideas of things that we want out of the government.” This is very true. Accents, food culture are very different.

Posted by: chic noir on March 24, 2009 4:52 PM



Obama might be doing great things? If he ever looks away from his teleprompter he might encounter reality one of these days.

Posted by: Bob Grier on March 24, 2009 5:30 PM



Bill: Hey, no one's leaving unless they take their pro-rata share of the national debt with them. And that right there is a deal-killer.

Hell no, Bill. That's why we're outta here. OK, maybe we'll take on our share of the pre-bailout-and-stimulus debt. But seriously, why do you think people are so pissed off? Because they and theirs are being shoved into perpetual debt-servitude by a bunch of transnational kleptomaniacs who are succeeding in dumping the losses from their own bad bets and general all-around ADHD psychotic idiocies on Joe and Jill U.S. Taxpayer (whose diminishing wealth - having been hoovered into the kibble-bowls of the fat cats over the last several decades - is in no state whatever to support such further depredations). Psst...I say we all book it and let the Chinese et al. bondholders give the psycho-pigs the knee-capping they've got coming to 'em. Mum's the word, pass it on.

But seriously seriously, you are seeing this because more and more people are being noticeably affected by the ongoing, and now nearly complete, process of the governing class detaching itself from the interests of the nation, and more and more blatantly and unapologetically pursuing its own at the expense of most of the citizenry. Societies immemorially produce a fat-cat class who naturally work toward reducing the polity to their own private fleece'n'gut colony. If handled adroitly, this can be carried on indefinitely. When however they lose all control over their avarice, as is happening now, they get stupid, hubris ensues, and the tumbrils roll.

Seriously seriously seriously, I have no idea if very many people are as pissed off as my biased reading might suggest. The vast majority is probably oblivious and mostly obsessed with American Idol and their porn downloads, for all I really know. Oh, *I'm* plenty pissed off, but whose got my back? Ah hell, I'm old, and female, with puny girl arms, and probably couldn't even take out Weasel-Boy Geithner.

Posted by: Moira Breen on March 24, 2009 5:34 PM



I'm seriously considering succeeding from Woodstock. Our Town Board is just too damned wacky. I'm embarrassed to be associated with it.

I'm thinking of forming my own independent village out in the mountains... a refuge for patriotic Americans adrift in the anti-American swamps of the extreme left.

I wrote a bit about it on my blog

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 24, 2009 6:17 PM



If Illinois was to "secede", it would be to prevent the Federal government from interfering with the looting of the people by corrupt state and local politicos. The last decade has seen a continual parade of Illinois politicians into Federal prisons. Upstate, downstate, Democrats, Republicans...

Williams complains the Federal government is

too centralized, too bloated, too unresponsive to the needs of most citizens in this country.

The City of Chicago is all of that, and thoroughly corrupt as well.

BTW, Norris did not say he wants Texas to secede. What he said was that if things get much worse, Texas will "rise up" - and possibly attempt secession.

IMHO, all this talk is absurd fantasy. Take Texas. 44% of Texans voted for Barack Obama. Does anyone think any of those people would support secession to escape the oppressive Obamacratic Federal regime? Of 254 counties in Texas, Obama carried 28 - including Harris County (Houston), Dallas County, El Paso County, Travis County (Austin), Bexar County (San Antonio), Webb County (Laredo), Hidalgo County (McAllen), Cameron County (Brownsville), and Jefferson County (Beaumont). If a majority of Texans have the right to secede from the U.S., the Obamist majorities in these counties should have the right to secede from Texas - taking away most of the state's large cities including its capital.

The premise of the secessionists of 1860 was that American "states" were fully sovereign, and therefore a majority in a state could do whatever it pleased - including depriving the minority of its Federal rights and protections. This is obvious nonsense.

Secession is practical only when the seceding population is truly separate from the remainder - geographically and otherwise. That means near-unanimity in the relevant area. If unionists and secessionists are intermingled, then secession is going to be painful, destructive, and bloody. Very probably exchange of populations will be required, and permanent grievances implanted. Look how well the secession of Ireland from Britain worked out - eight-eight years later, there is still terrorist violence.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on March 24, 2009 6:23 PM



Moira: I hear your frustration and I understand your sentiments. But I repeat, no one is allowed to leave without taking their fair share of the national debt. If a state was allowed to leave scott-free, there would be a stampede to the door by the 49 remaining states.

But, hey, maybe you're on to something. All 50 states leave debt-free, then re-unite. A clean slate. Brilliant!

Posted by: Bill on March 24, 2009 6:37 PM



I agree with Rich. "Secession" is a lot like Halloween for supposed grown-ups. There's a lot of bile about how bad the federal government is and not much logic about what to do if you're magically the Republic of Vermont.

Who prints driver's licenses? Or money? Whose picture goes on Vermont money? Can I use Vermont money in New Hampshire? Someone please print a handbook so I can understand how you wacky rebels think.

Posted by: Joe Valdez on March 24, 2009 9:09 PM



If anyone bothered to look, they'd see a lot of Vermonters are actually expat New Yorkers, especially the ones with jobs and businesses.

The movie "Baby Boom" from the 80's captures Vermont to a T, absent any reference to the rampant alcoholism. No state in the union is more protective of its "brand" than Vermont; there is no industry but tourism and the "Made in Vermont" label. Let 'em go, and in 5 years they'll be begging Canada to let them in!

Posted by: Brutus on March 24, 2009 9:13 PM



Bill, are you just trolling or do you honestly believe the onus is on [the people who most strongly object to the policies of our government-slash-aristocracy] to pay off debts they had no hand in creating.

From my perspective as a young person, that is pretty laughable. Trying to put me on the hook for thousands of dollars of debt is just passing the buck from those who are really culpable. Now, I think the case could be made that the state governments themselves are worth disassembling as well -- I wouldn't disagree there.

Posted by: Not Your Choice on March 24, 2009 9:49 PM



I'm all in favor of California seceding. We just need to legalize the weed first so we can pay for it.

Posted by: JV on March 24, 2009 9:55 PM



Brutus, you think Canada might take Vermont now? That would solve everyone's problem.

Posted by: Bob Grier on March 24, 2009 10:06 PM



---Who prints driver's licenses? Or money? Whose picture goes on Vermont money? Can I use Vermont money in New Hampshire? Someone please print a handbook so I can understand how you wacky rebels think.---

Are those serious questions? They aren't exactly massive stumbling blocks.

PS, states print DL's, not the Feds...Check the one in your wallet. It'll say State of CA.

Posted by: anon on March 24, 2009 10:37 PM



Never mind secession. What this country has always needed is expulsion. The Constitution is silent on the former, but strongly hints at the latter with Article IV, Section Four: every state shall have a republican form of government.

South Carolina couldn't have seceded in 1861 had she, along with Mississippi and Louisiana, been expelled once the 1820 Census revealed white men had become a minority in those three states. Similarly, the "Sand States" which caused the late uncreditworthiness could be sent packing today. Along with any jurisdiction with handgun prohibition.

Shed the right places, and the rest of the Republic[s] don't look so dire anymore.

Of course, South Africa tried this with the Bantustans, and didn't get too far.

Posted by: Reg Cæsar on March 25, 2009 3:26 AM



On this thread secession is the attractive, if slightly wacky, garnish, the artfully carved bit of watermelon that adorns the plate. The meat and potatoes can be found in the Slow Money movement link.

From division of the national debt to who gets the military bases ... and the military personnel who call VT or CA or TX home ... the notion of secession has so many practical and legal hurdles that it is little more than a means of symbolically registering the depths of our dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Now, Slow Money, that's what I'm talkin' about! This is one manifestations of the growing recognition that we have more power as consumers than we do as voters. Creating, supporting, and participating in local economies has a real impact on far more than the flavor or nutritional value of that local farmer's raw milk.

At the end of the week I plan to attend a talk by Michael Schuman, attorney and author of The Small Mart Revolution: How Local Businesses Are Beating the Global Competition and Going Local: Creating Self-Reliant Communities in the Global Age. The idea is to keep the cash circulating in the neighborhood, not having 83 cents of every dollar siphoned off to some corporate back office where it gets divvied up between producers in SE Asia, top management compensation packages, lobbyists, and off shore banks.

We can do more to alter our situation by doing all we can to support local businesses, eat local food, and even create and use local currencies than we ever will by convening to talk about secession.

Posted by: Chris White on March 25, 2009 8:19 AM



Not Your Choice: I'm not trolling. You say you had no hand in accumulating the debt. Wrong. Your duly-elected Congressmen went to Washington and played an active role in rolling up the debt. They placed earmarks in legislation that took tax dollars paid by people outside your state and spent those dollars in your state. Now that the deed is done, you can't simply wash your hands and walk away. If your state so objected to the $10 trillion (and now way, way more) being accumulated, it should have seceded a long time ago. Kind of like going to a restaurant, eating an entire filet mignon, then saying you're not paying because it wasn't to your liking.

Also, for the fans of Texas secession, how long do you think it would take, without the protection of the US, for the Mexican drug cartels, armed to the teeth, to invade that state and make it their base of operations?

Posted by: Bill on March 25, 2009 9:47 AM



"Also, for the fans of Texas secession, how long do you think it would take, without the protection of the US, for the Mexican drug cartels, armed to the teeth, to invade that state and make it their base of operations?"

A small, well-armed and motivated force would mop the floor with Mexican drug cartels. That isn't exactly a new thing either.

Posted by: anon on March 25, 2009 10:36 AM



I've always thought the U.S.A was too large and too disparate a conglomeration to last forever. It's not a matter of "if" but of "when" and "who first?"

Leftie yuppies may be irritating, but I think they're onto something with their buy-local schtick.

Too bad that much of the *other* stuff they support has the effect of atomizing whatever is left of the Authentic American Community, but hey, sometimes you gotta give the devil his due. ;)

Posted by: omw on March 25, 2009 11:16 AM



Secession is childish...or more properly adolescent. Up here in the World's Most Boring Country, we've had a "secessionist" movement for a long time, that being Quebec of course. But get this. Here's Quebec's idea of "secession":

A seat in the UN. A different colour on the map. BUT: not one penny of the national debt, even though much of it has been accumulated on Quebec's behalf; continued presence of 3 justices from Quebec on Canada's Supreme Court (!); continued protection by Canada's military (less amusing than you think--Quebec's had probems with Indians that only the Army was able to suppress) while at the same time paying NO TAXES to support that military; continued used of Canadian passports; continued use of Canadian money (why?); and in some schemes, continued sending of members to Canada's parliament(!).

If this doesn't sound like separation to you, hey, we all think the same thing up here too. Including the separatists! A Quebec separatist wag once joked that what les separatistes wanted was "a free and independent Quebec in a strong and united Canada".

How teenage of them, of course. They're like the nineteen year old, loafing in the basement, playing his ungodly music at all hours, demanding he be fed and clothed and X-boxed for FREE, all while neither attending school nor working at a job. And sulking and preening and displaying for all to see.

When it comes to Quebec "separatism", it's obvious it's just a game played to extract as many benefits as possible from hapless, enabling English Canada. Quebec has no intention of separating.

And neither do your secessionists. Bill called it. Ask your "secessionists" do you want your share of the debt? To protect yourselves at your own expense? Print your own money?

Well no you don't. And that means you're all as serious about "seceding" as a spoiled adolescent brat is when he threatens to leave home any time someone else in the family tells him to turn his goddamned music down.

Which is to say, not serious at all.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 25, 2009 11:19 AM



Dodging the questions of whether breakup will ever happen, or how, or whether it's do-able, or whether it makes sense ... It's interesting that the topic's in the air, no? And probably indicative of something-or-other.

Hey, that trustworthy and sober source The New York Post claims that these days it isn't just whackos and fringies who are concerned:

LINK

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 25, 2009 11:59 AM



Y'all should just kick the nineteen-year-old out onto the curb. ;) It's really the best thing for everyone involved! Even if he doesn't pay you back for the last two years of loafing around, at least you won't be on the hook for his future cable bills, right?

Posted by: omw on March 25, 2009 12:03 PM



As to the bigger question "Why are (more?) people talking about secession now?" I think it stems from people's sense that there is no hope in reforming the system. The federal government is a gigantic, byzantine freak-show made of conjoined octopi engaged in a hot steaming orgy, and it's only getting freakier, baby.

People who deeply distrust Obama have also largely lost their trust in the Republicans, and so suddenly find themselves outside the political system entirely, because that's really all there is right now.

Either you like Obama and all he stands for, or you're a retarded Republican-party loyalist, or you're a self-styled political heretic. Given our history of reverencing iconoclasts, which of those choices sounds the best?

Posted by: omw on March 25, 2009 1:06 PM



Rich Rostrom: IMHO, all this talk is absurd fantasy. Take Texas. 44% of Texans voted for Barack Obama. Does anyone think any of those people would support secession to escape the oppressive Obamacratic Federal regime?

Of course it's a silly fantasy right now - but yeah, I bet you could find some secessionist sympathizers who voted for Obama. What, you think they were all big Bush or McCain fans? Well, actually, I'd bet they don't vote at all, or vote for Ron Paul, or more likely yet some 3rd-party candidate I've never heard of. The point is that if things ever got to the point where there were serious and widespread rumblings about secession, it wouldn't be a Democrat/Republican divide but a Washington/anti-Washington conflict. Unlike the 1860s, the parties won't represent either side of a flash-point issue - or rather, they will equally represent the same side of the flash-point issue.

I don't see secession, but quite possibly a gradual process of the decline of the unifying central power, and rather less-than-revolutionary dissolution and reorganization. (Not that there wouldn't be some ugly bits of civil unrest along the way.) It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the maps change in 50-100 years time. It won't be a matter of "But can we survive without Washington's protection, and do they have the power to force us to stay?", but rather, "We're going to have to shift for ourselves because Washington is no longer capable of protecting us." The phantasmagorical debt that we're quibbling about divvying up in our imaginary secessionist scenario represents the beginning of the decay of the unifying power. Things fall apart, and over time people reorganize themselves.

Posted by: Moira Breen on March 25, 2009 1:23 PM



Expulsion it is, omw. Consider it reverse secession. "You're seceding? No child. Wrong-o! It us who are seceding from your ungrateful selfish *ss! Now get outta here ya bum!"

Sigh. I have a dream...

More serious secession movements in the US are likely to occur locally as heavily white or Asian suburbs and urban outliers try to secede from increasingly burdensome NAM-dominated cities. As California continues to become third world, the lingering first world parts will begin internal secession. Naturally, the NAMs will NOT want to lose the goose that lays their welfare/AA eggs, and there will be some interesting discussions about this topic all around America eventually, as NAMs, especially Hispanics, spread the joy of their vibrant presence to every state in the Union.

It will be interesting to see if the children and grandchildren of the boomer/swipples who've sold their (the kids' and grandkids') birthrights for potage will be able to pull out from under the massive overlay of the needy and greedy that their forebears will have laid upon them.

I'm becoming doubtful. Ah, we boomers. What a brave new world we're leaving to our descendants.

May they curse our names forever.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 25, 2009 1:43 PM



"As to the bigger question "Why are (more?) people talking about secession now?" I think it stems from people's sense that there is no hope in reforming the system. The federal government is a gigantic, byzantine freak-show made of conjoined octopi engaged in a hot steaming orgy, and it's only getting freakier, baby." omw

Too funny. I do my part by hacking away at a tentacle now and then but it just grows back. Anyway. I'll be long dead before things fall apart to the point of needing to be rebuilt. What to do in the meantime?

"I'm becoming doubtful. Ah, we boomers. What a brave new world we're leaving to our descendants."

For some reason, Patrick, I picture you boomers as the psycho ex-child star character Bettie Davis played in "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane".

As ever, Moira, you're more rational and insightful than the dudes who frequent this sight. I"m with you about the inevitability of decline and I think Chris's discussion of building smaller communities relates. We should be observing religious groups that are already functioning outside mainstream society to see how they are co-existing with the beast that is our government while maintaining their heritage and living according to their religious values. How do we go backwards and become parts of smaller more autonomous communities rather than anonymous members of a transnational state? I've been thinking about this for years but have only arrived at the conclusion that I could raise a child as part of a somewhat insular religious community and be a valued member because I was nurturing a member of the group I myself could never realistically belong to such a group. Outside the bounds of religion and without a clear ethnic heritage, I can't think of any other foundation for group identity.

Posted by: shiva on March 25, 2009 2:09 PM



I agree that the talk of secession reflects people's belief that our government has gone off the rails and no longer functions for our benefit. And that's why I believe secession is just a precursor to a more serious discussion (and a more realistic goal) of revolution. Those small "tea parties" occurring across the country are only going to get more commonplace and the grievances more numerous.

Posted by: Bill on March 25, 2009 2:12 PM



Posted by PatrickH at March 25, 2009

Not only will the NAMs not want to lose the productive parts, but you can sure as hell bet that the liberals/leftists/multi-culturalists in charge don't want to see that wealth/productivity disappear either(or the ability to control/punish whites that don't want to live that way or agree). NAMs will also use this (or any) opportunity to behave like savages. White leftists will enable and support this(they did in Cincinatti/Katrina/LA Riots/Crown Heights, etc..). If you thought Oakland was bad...
After all, who will finance their programs, NAMs that use more from the system than they contribute? The nastiest fight will be between the white left and those that want to be free from the disaster they've created. Potential Yugoslavia type stuff.

Posted by: Nobody on March 25, 2009 2:23 PM



Bill, your argument really doesn't hold a lot of weight considering the debt we're talking about was largely accumulated before I was born, or before I even had the right to vote. You want to present the facade of being the temperate rational analyzer, but the reality is your analysis is predicated on bogus assumptions.

What you're essentially saying is that "we" (the under-whatever crowd) have to remain indentured servants to the aristocrats for years to pay off decisions they made, which we may not have even had a say in. No thanks.

Posted by: Obvious Troll is Obvious on March 25, 2009 4:16 PM



The dissolution of the US into smaller regions would probably be a good thing from the point of view of government accountability. Probably the optimal scale for a democratic country is 8-10 million people, 20 million at most, of fairly homogeneous stock. Unfortunately it won't happen, ever. Primarily because there are very few regions of the country where a majority of the population has roots going back more than 3 generations. Parts of the South, maybe Utah. But the general population moves around so much, especially the elites, and is so diluted by constant immigration that most Americans have no real strong local ties. Local allegiances maybe, but not the deep roots you find in other parts of the world.

Posted by: vanya on March 25, 2009 4:19 PM



Bill, your argument really doesn't hold a lot of weight considering the debt we're talking about was largely accumulated before I was born, or before I even had the right to vote.

92% of the debt was accumulated over the past 20 years. And 57% of the debt was accumulated over the last 8 years. Does your birthday fit somewhere in there? If so, my analysis - as you call it - is quite accurate.

Secondly, we're talking about secession. Tell me your secession plan for your "under-whatever crowd". How are you going to pull that off without taking any of us older folks - tainted by the debt you claim you had nothing to do with - along with you? Will there be a huge migration to a debt-free promised land - some sort of modern day exodus?

While I wasn't trolling before, I am now and apologize. But I just couldn't resist.

Posted by: Bill on March 25, 2009 5:31 PM



Michael,

I have notified the Town Board of Woodstock that I am seceding and no longer recognize their authority.

I'll let you know how things turn out.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 25, 2009 5:49 PM



Chuck Norris is still a WND columnist? Hmmm. Well, his support didn't help Mike Huckabee much, so I doubt his turning secesh would help the secesh movement (not that he really is going secesh).

Posted by: Will S. on March 26, 2009 12:05 AM



...the boomer/swipples who've sold their (the kids' and grandkids') birthrights for potage...

Ah, we boomers. What a brave new world we're leaving to our descendants.
May they curse our names forever.
--PatrickH

Why does everyone lay responsibility for today's biggest political problems on a generation that wasn't old enough to vote (AFDC, Medicare, immigration) or even born (Social Security, nuclear weapons) when those problems began?

For what it's worth, Barry Goldwater probably carried the boomer vote-- he got 55% of the total in Georgia, the only state in which any boomers were enfranchised by 1964. Bill Clinton and George W Bush could have voted in Georgia that year. But poor Laura was a day too young!

Posted by: Reg Csar on March 26, 2009 2:06 AM



Why does everyone lay responsibility for today's biggest political problems on a generation that wasn't old enough to vote (AFDC, Medicare, immigration) or even born (Social Security, nuclear weapons) when those problems began?

Because they don't seem to be doing anything about those problems. For instance, honestly reforming that pyramid scheme known as Social Security has never come from the Boomers.

But, basically, as the Boomers came of age, every single "quality of life" metric has gotten worse:
- Rate of marriage
- Divorce rate
- Illegitimacy
- Violent Crime
- Petty Crime
- Drug Use
- Illegal Immigration
etc.

Personally, I am beginning to think that these things were going to get worse no matter what. Still, that is the argument.

Posted by: Usually Lurking on March 26, 2009 10:07 AM



Chris White stole my thunder, and said it better than I would. Thanks for the Slow Money link.

Secession is simply easier than anyone thinks. First off: we can and DO change our governments (local, state and federal) at will. It's called the democratic process---not perfect but probably the best around.

Secondly, so much of our supposed oppression is self-imposed. We buy too much and make or grow too little. We drive too often and walk or bike too seldom. We borrow too much and save too little. We spend too much money on cures and not enough thought or effort on prevention. We watch too much TV and read too few books. We add needless cost to our lives by our government-supported over-acquisitiveness (to include our serial acquisition of new spouses and the serial creation of new families).

By taking care of our own business and our own spouses, families, jobs, cubbards and neighbors, we essentially opt-out of most of what's ailing us. But in doing so we must adopt new responsibilities to compensate for the losses, and I think that's why most people don't.

Posted by: Matt Mullenix on March 26, 2009 11:58 AM



Reg, I pointedly described the faulty ones as being boomer/swipples, which covers from the boomers to now pretty well. Notice that I pointed out that kids and grandkids of those groups would have ample opportunity to blame boomer/swipples for their problems. Why? Just add up how much national debt has been incurred in recent years. How much America's population has grown because of immigration, both legal and otherwise. How much tax burdens have risen. And especially, how much of America's population has become NAM, and therefore a present and future drain on the incomes and wealth of the kids and grandkids of the boomer/swipples.

Take a look at UL's stats, and ask yourself who dominated the political system for the last several decades during which massive social deterioration occurred? The immigration act passed in 65 may indeed have been the font of American folly on immigration, but the 86 reform, which opened the floodgates to the recent Hispanic waves, was recent enough, as is the failure to even enforce the act.

The boomers will probably die off, at least the first wave, before things get too bad in the US. But the follow-on boomers, and especially boomer and post-boomer kids and grandkids are going to reap the whirlwind right during the time when they'll be trying to develop careers, raise families, buy a home(!), and all the other things that younger people need a stable, civilized polity within which to achieve those aims.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 26, 2009 12:23 PM



For instance, honestly reforming that pyramid scheme known as Social Security has never come from the Boomers.

Let's see... fifty million or so of us got our first lesson in Realpolitik from watching our parents and grandparents destroy Barry Goldwater precisely for merely suggesting "honestly reforming" the third rail of American politics. Even Ronald Reagan, the only US politician in our adult lives to combine courage with success, shied away from directly addressing it. What were we supposed to do-- write in Gen. Pinochet?

By your reasoning, George W Bush is a paragon of honesty and grit compared to Reagan. That tens of millions of oldsters enriched by Social Security died, and tens of millions of youngsters impoverished by it grew to adulthood, in the years between Reagan and the second Bush-- allowing the latter quite a bit more leeway-- somehow doesn't enter into the equation.

Posted by: Reg Cæsar on March 26, 2009 11:06 PM



"And neither do your secessionists. Bill called it. Ask your "secessionists" do you want your share of the debt?"

There is no "share of the debt". The debts of the USG are denominated in US Dollars. The USG has the right to print however many US Dollars it pleases.

How about this as a deal Bill? Vermont gets 1/50th of the federal debt and the right to print 1/50th as many dollars as the USG has. Problem solved.

Posted by: Steve Johnson on March 27, 2009 12:28 PM



I wouldn't mind seeing California secede, that would free us from Pelosi, Boxer, and Waxman, among others.

Posted by: Patrick on March 27, 2009 9:14 PM



"Not Your Choice: I'm not trolling. You say you had no hand in accumulating the debt. Wrong. Your duly-elected Congressmen went to Washington and played an active role in rolling up the debt."

You're an idiot. The state I live in seceded and was forcibly reincorporated into an involuntary union. But even if that weren't true -- if I lived in Pennsylvania, say -- how would *I* have had a hand in the accumulation of the debt? And how would I have benefitted from the expenditures? The national government's top priority is a demographic transformation to render my people powerless and subservient. Billing Americans for their government's debt is like billing the Poles for the debts of the Nazi and Soviet regimes that split up their country.

Posted by: ben tillman on March 29, 2009 10:59 PM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?