Housing Bubble, credit bubble, public planning, land use, zoning and transportation in the exurban environment. Specific criticism of smart growth, neotradtional, forms based, new urbanism and other top down planner schemes to increase urban extent and density. Ventura County, California specific examples.
Nice pics I love the freshness of the water drops. I miss the avocado tree in our back yard in Kali. No flowers here yet but the first sign of weeds greening up today! Still have a foot of snow in the shady areas.
Lamb up slightly (~600 votes) with 100% of precincts in (but absentee ballots still on tap). So, Dems poised to take a special election in a district Trump won by 20 points.
Personally, I believe Trump actively campaigning ultimately hurts those candidates, (enough that I believe Saccone and Judge pedophile might have won if Trump had NOT campaigned for them). My theory is that the "Trump" voters, (as opposed to regular Republicans) ... that made the difference against Hillary are naturally NOT going to come out if Trump himself is not on the ballot. I view these as 'anti-partisans'. They were voting specifically for the MAN - not the policies, which is both why they are insanely loyal to Trump, regardless of policy, and why they have no interest in going to vote for someone not Trump, even if Trump asks them to do so.
Meanwhile, Trump is such a polarizing force, he naturally motivates anti-Trumpers to come out ... so, in the end, when Trump "stumps" the net effect is negative (for the Red team), as he motivates more blue teamers to come out, while having less effect in getting Red teamers out to vote.
Note: If this theory is correct - these Trump voters WILL return to vote for Trump in 2020, assuming he is on the ballot.
Oh, I'm not saying the candidates are completely irrelevant. I absolutely think that matters. But, when you're dealing with R+22 districts (or states), and you end up with recount level differences (regardless of which side ultimately wins), then it does matter whether Trump campaigning FOR you is a net positive or net negative.
For example, I think at some point advertising not only has a diminishing returns aspect - but likely a reversing returns aspect. I think over-advertising turns off a subset of voters (both parties) and keeps them at home. So, if Candidate A is grossly overspending candidate B, I believe there is a point where the ads actually start reversing gains and start costing votes instead of gaining them.
Also, Trump is notoriously bad about turning every speech into HIS campaign speech, (he's been dissed many times for barely mentioning the guy he's come to supposedly support).
But, for special elections specifically, it's even more about turnout than other elections, and evidence suggests Trump voters stay home, while anti-Trumpers come out. In Alabama specifically, I saw a district turnout breakdown comparing Trump vs. Moore/Jones turnouts, and it was literally a case where Trump had the largest turnout gains (compared to 2016) were the specific districts that had the smallest turnout in the Senate race.
I'm just saying in "normal" politics, if a candidate is really popular in an area, and he asks for help, some portion of his supporters will listen to that plea and turn out. But, Trump doesn't seem to have that impact.
Keep in mind that PA-18 isn't really +22 for the Republicans. That plus 22 was uniquely DJT v HRC with a substantial "not HER" component. The Rs also get hurt in that the departing disgraced Congresscritter was a Republican and thus tainted the brand. No matter which way it goes I doubt there will be any takeaway lessons for the midterms. Except! The Dems at the national level are really broke.
Will likely be a recount, so unlikely PA-18 will be finalized for at least a week.
My personal takeaways from PA-18.
1) Yes, candidates matter. But partisanship still means the pool of voters that will slosh is small. 2) It's much easier to convince a voter to stay home than come out (whether that is your intent). 3) There is some minimal amount of money necessary to be competitive, but after a certain point, extra money can become detrimental. (Republican PACs outspent Dem PACs by a 5:1 margin in PA-18). 4) Trump campaigning is a net negative for Red team, unless Trump himself is on the ballot. (Supports Strange in primary - Strange loses; supports Moore in general - Moore loses; Campaigns for Saccone - Saccone loses. All of these in bright red territory). 5) The Republican Party has NOTHING to run on at this point, as the 'tax cut' strategy in PA failed - and Trump's meandering, contradictory, engraved in steam policy positions undermine party positions on a daily basis. 6) The lack of leadership and message by the DNC seems to be working better than Hillary era meddling.
Problem on Trumps side is America never likes to take it's medicine. Most problems now needed action 40 years ago. So how many are on the fence and his support was really not helpful. T could be a one and done even doing a lot of good. Time will tell.
Reagan's biggest gift to Clinton was deficits. Reagan was wrong. He thought running up debt would constrain Congress. It didn't and Clinton ran with it.
That and crushing inflation.
That and destroying the Soviets.
That and as you mention the pain of Volker and generous Uncle Alan.
I think Reagan was what was needed "at the time" -- so a net plus while in office, but a number of foundational changes that were built upon to the detriment of all later on.
But, personally, I credit Bush Sr. as the architect of the Clinton expansion, NOT Reagan. It was Bush that was willing to take the political hit to raise taxes AND institute a working PayGo that curtailed the abusive spending of BOTH parties (until Jr. scrapped it).
The Republican Party lost me during the Shrub years.
What I cannot fathom is that they have TWICE implemented tax cuts, while our economy was ALREADY at full employment. First, under Shrub, and now under Trump. Any pretense of being fiscally "responsible" (forget conservative) is long gone. While there's a bunch of stuff they could potentially blame on the Trump lunacy ... but that's on the Party, not His Trumpness.
Reagan warned us about the coming global economy. Unfortunately the government piss away the country for profits. The Republicans lost me with Bush II and sadly looking back I should have left with Bush I, now a fiscal conservative. The Red Blue war gives little to get excited about. Action rarely follow the words spoken, by then they are elected. Bush II was daddy's boy and a socialist at heat. Obummer really had zero experience to reflect on and was a charmer with poor performance. Trump Crazy like a fox and I hope he continues on with his agenda.
Just to be tedious. I am a conservative from the definition circa 1910. I am not a circa 2018 Republican.
This last tax cut was unfortunately necessary despite being unwarranted and uneconomic. People needed to see that taxes could be lowered and it would show up in their daily lives.
the number to watch is the carrying cost of the Federal Debt. Declining interest rates saved Obama from tough choices.
Nah, just crazy. What agenda? I favored tariffs which would hit back at China and its pollution. Instead we are saving the steel industry which they have been trying and failing to do since I was a week lassie.
The Obama "tax Holiday" was targeted specifically at working individuals (since it was specifically payroll tax), and was about the same annual size as the current Trump tax, (which is spread between individuals and businesses). What did THAT tax cut (and expiration) prove?
Tariffs and trade agreements improving the our positions will cost consumers money so their tax break will fade away. Immigration, notice the ICE activity going on? In the end if the wall gets built and the bleeding stops then entry level and adult jobs will be available to the youth and cut welfare. Kali is scared they may have to mow and trim their own lawns. Go long Roomba lawn mowers! ;)
LBD, I suggest going to take a look at the historical BLS tables for Age 16-19 employment.
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsatabs.htm
For whites, participation rate peaked in 1978, and took it's most precipitous fall during the Bush II years ... followed by another plunge during the housing crash - (with no recovery at all since). Kids aren't LOOKING for jobs, because they don't need them. No change to immigration is going to change that. Meanwhile, the current 16-19 white U3 is pretty much the same as other 'full employment' time periods.
For BLACK 16-19 participation, it was more volatile over time, but also took a major down plunge during the Bush II era, and then another plunge during housing crisis. BUT, black participation is actually back up to 2004 levels. Meanwhile, black 16-19 U3 is sitting at historical lows.
Changes to immigration will have ZERO impact on teen participation or unemployment. But, you are exactly right about going long regarding robot lawn mowers.
The problem with entry level jobs is NOT availability. The problem is that entry level jobs pay about 25% less than they did (relative to inflation) compared to the 50 and 60s).
In 1957, my mom and her best friend could share an apt., and both work entry level jobs at minimum wage, and pay their bills, buy gas and food with no help from foodstamps or welfare. The two full time minimum wage incomes combined to be 80% of median income. Today that figure is 54%.
I lived the era in Kali my state of birth, Left in 78. To be blunt the saying was if you want something done get a Mexican. All the fast food was already taken over by immigrants probably illegals. Just before I left I ordered an Ice tea at a Jack in the Box. Mistake I made was asking for a slice of lemon. All of the staff could not speak English and I gave up and left. The American life style was changed for me forever. Trickle up to adult jobs in Denver 90's I needed a roof replaced and the salesman cringed when I asked for a non immigrant crew. Stated he could not make a living and the quality was not as good and would not give a time line to finish the job. Yes Americans don't work when we teach them that college leads to riches and losers do integrity entry level hard work jobs. Then trickle up shoved many adults out of making a living. IMO
LL, should we kill the steel/aluminum industry and order military equipment from Geely or Great Wall? We need the industrial capacity in case of war.
I can certainly see an argument for keeping certain industries (like steel) for National Security reasons.
But, why not subsidize OUR DOMESTIC 'mission critical' industries rather than utilize tariffs?
I know there are cases where short-term tariffs have worked (Harley-Davidson), but IMO that's a lot riskier in regards to inciting trade wars - whereas internal government subsidies seem to generally result in more grumbling than punitive retaliation.
Of course, subsidies are viewed as evil from the right.
And I'm not even saying subsidies are necessarily the best option. Tax breaks or incentives are another option. The key here is that given a lot of different options, IMO, the current admin seems bent on picking the ones with the worst possible outcomes.
Subsidies IMO create an atmosphere of greed as Obummer did with solar, wind and battery businesses. Tariffs make competition more fair IMO especially after dumping product to take over certain markets. I remember japan with cars and electronics. Harley fans where protected. Now Harley sales are dying again as the old farts pass away. Plant closing in MO, producing in India and Indonesia. Selected subsidies for the Republicans IMO, take import duty on Ethanol as example along with other farm subsidies. Both have their pets for votes.
Steel to be really competitive we need nukes for power and robotics. Which means less jobs then before. Our failure to build mini nukes has been a huge mistake IMO.
Kids should be in school and not exploited for political purpose. They arn't learning crap anymore. Educated illiterate society the government has created.
Lot of the rest of the world has many big Nuke reactors. I am talking small reactors. They are underground self contained and bury in place when finished. They also would break up the grid reducing a mass terror attack. They may be able to use material that is considered spent from a big reactor. We should have data from nuke subs and carriers to show the safety. It's been 40 years since the China Syndrome movie scared everyone. Time to revisit if the rest of the world has not had a Chernobyl or built on the earth quake fault like Japan who have gone back to building more. There is stupid and then there is stupid.
HS failure is part of the plan to push college degrees and Bankster student loans. Bunch of sick people in the government controlled system. IMO.
Oh, that's not so bad. People don't even want nuclear reactors on space ships for glod's sake. Hub was always muttering about that. Even if the ship exploded, there were protections built in which I forget. I think some feared it would explode past the orbit of Mars and harm interplanetary space. The depth of ignorance is incredible.I
Some talking head are said the dems will win in the area of 100 seats, not just 24. Lamb is a very attractive chap too, which you can't discount. I see him running for prez, many moons for now.
Yeah, and their youthful ignorance will come back to bite them. For now they're the statist's "useful idiots".
Someday they'll realize they were demonstrating against the very rights they were exercising. But hey, snowflakes gotta beg for their safe spaces.
Not to sound too pessimistic, but they're not the least bit prepared for the world ahead of them, which'll bear a lot more resemblance to our ancestors than ours.
Not sure if it will happen in my life - but I have a growing suspicion that the NRA will ultimately and ironically be the instrument that ultimately causes the 2nd Amendment to be removed.
The demographic winds are already blowing -- over the past 40 years, % of homes with guns has dropped from over 50% to under a third, (even as the total number of guns has continued to climb). The long, slow march has been a steady migration of guns into an increasingly militant, paranoid and intransigent minority of Americans, propped up, and hopped up by NRA doctrine and propaganda.
And on the horizon, and entire generation of kids brought up with a regularly occurring drumbeat of mass shootings to further solidify the notion that people who are in love with guns "all" seem to be unhinged. Regardless of the accuracy of the belief - it will ultimately become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
61 comments:
Getting rid of two yuge boxes of CDs and about 50 duplicate DVDs.
Next is digitizing the entire organized DVD collection. 939 titles.
The Dunkin's at Logan Airport remains open. good for rthem. I could live on Lemons and Boston Cremes indefinetly.
Yuck. They prolly weren't real Boston Cremes.
Sad that Toys r Us is liquidating. I bought my kids toys there
Daughter may be snowed in tomorrow.
Any word on the off year election?
Nice pics I love the freshness of the water drops. I miss the avocado tree in our back yard in Kali. No flowers here yet but the first sign of weeds greening up today! Still have a foot of snow in the shady areas.
Lamb up slightly (~600 votes) with 100% of precincts in (but absentee ballots still on tap). So, Dems poised to take a special election in a district Trump won by 20 points.
Personally, I believe Trump actively campaigning ultimately hurts those candidates, (enough that I believe Saccone and Judge pedophile might have won if Trump had NOT campaigned for them). My theory is that the "Trump" voters, (as opposed to regular Republicans) ... that made the difference against Hillary are naturally NOT going to come out if Trump himself is not on the ballot. I view these as 'anti-partisans'. They were voting specifically for the MAN - not the policies, which is both why they are insanely loyal to Trump, regardless of policy, and why they have no interest in going to vote for someone not Trump, even if Trump asks them to do so.
Meanwhile, Trump is such a polarizing force, he naturally motivates anti-Trumpers to come out ... so, in the end, when Trump "stumps" the net effect is negative (for the Red team), as he motivates more blue teamers to come out, while having less effect in getting Red teamers out to vote.
Note: If this theory is correct - these Trump voters WILL return to vote for Trump in 2020, assuming he is on the ballot.
I think it's simple old guy Republican and young Dem with a not traditional extremest message. Dems need to learn insanity is back firing. IMO
Lamb is a really strong centrist candidate. Marine Captain and federal prosecutor. Lots of crossover positions.
Oh, I'm not saying the candidates are completely irrelevant. I absolutely think that matters. But, when you're dealing with R+22 districts (or states), and you end up with recount level differences (regardless of which side ultimately wins), then it does matter whether Trump campaigning FOR you is a net positive or net negative.
For example, I think at some point advertising not only has a diminishing returns aspect - but likely a reversing returns aspect. I think over-advertising turns off a subset of voters (both parties) and keeps them at home. So, if Candidate A is grossly overspending candidate B, I believe there is a point where the ads actually start reversing gains and start costing votes instead of gaining them.
Also, Trump is notoriously bad about turning every speech into HIS campaign speech, (he's been dissed many times for barely mentioning the guy he's come to supposedly support).
But, for special elections specifically, it's even more about turnout than other elections, and evidence suggests Trump voters stay home, while anti-Trumpers come out. In Alabama specifically, I saw a district turnout breakdown comparing Trump vs. Moore/Jones turnouts, and it was literally a case where Trump had the largest turnout gains (compared to 2016) were the specific districts that had the smallest turnout in the Senate race.
I'm just saying in "normal" politics, if a candidate is really popular in an area, and he asks for help, some portion of his supporters will listen to that plea and turn out. But, Trump doesn't seem to have that impact.
Keep in mind that PA-18 isn't really +22 for the Republicans. That plus 22 was uniquely DJT v HRC with a substantial "not HER" component. The Rs also get hurt in that the departing disgraced Congresscritter was a Republican and thus tainted the brand. No matter which way it goes I doubt there will be any takeaway lessons for the midterms. Except! The Dems at the national level are really broke.
Totally agree who is gonna tell him?
M?
Romney won it by +17.
While I can imagine a number of different valid takeaways ... I cannot fathom how you get to "the National Dems are broke" based on PA-18.
Yep.
Yep. Yep
Yep. Yep. Yep.
Half a yep
Yep. Has Lamp how definitely won?
Will likely be a recount, so unlikely PA-18 will be finalized for at least a week.
My personal takeaways from PA-18.
1) Yes, candidates matter. But partisanship still means the pool of voters that will slosh is small.
2) It's much easier to convince a voter to stay home than come out (whether that is your intent).
3) There is some minimal amount of money necessary to be competitive, but after a certain point, extra money can become detrimental. (Republican PACs outspent Dem PACs by a 5:1 margin in PA-18).
4) Trump campaigning is a net negative for Red team, unless Trump himself is on the ballot. (Supports Strange in primary - Strange loses; supports Moore in general - Moore loses; Campaigns for Saccone - Saccone loses. All of these in bright red territory).
5) The Republican Party has NOTHING to run on at this point, as the 'tax cut' strategy in PA failed - and Trump's meandering, contradictory, engraved in steam policy positions undermine party positions on a daily basis.
6) The lack of leadership and message by the DNC seems to be working better than Hillary era meddling.
Problem on Trumps side is America never likes to take it's medicine. Most problems now needed action 40 years ago. So how many are on the fence and his support was really not helpful. T could be a one and done even doing a lot of good. Time will tell.
Lamb
Engraved in steam🤣 great
I will steal that!!
I have long contended that Bill Clinton enjoyed a fantastic economic boom because Reagan made us make some tough choices.
Reagan's biggest gift to Clinton was Greenspan. After Volcker's tough love the easy-money-man opened up spigots that have yet to be closed.
What would Volcker do now?
Reagan's biggest gift to Clinton was deficits. Reagan was wrong. He thought running up debt would constrain Congress. It didn't and Clinton ran with it.
That and crushing inflation.
That and destroying the Soviets.
That and as you mention the pain of Volker and generous Uncle Alan.
I think Reagan was what was needed "at the time" -- so a net plus while in office, but a number of foundational changes that were built upon to the detriment of all later on.
But, personally, I credit Bush Sr. as the architect of the Clinton expansion, NOT Reagan. It was Bush that was willing to take the political hit to raise taxes AND institute a working PayGo that curtailed the abusive spending of BOTH parties (until Jr. scrapped it).
The Republican Party lost me during the Shrub years.
What I cannot fathom is that they have TWICE implemented tax cuts, while our economy was ALREADY at full employment. First, under Shrub, and now under Trump. Any pretense of being fiscally "responsible" (forget conservative) is long gone. While there's a bunch of stuff they could potentially blame on the Trump lunacy ... but that's on the Party, not His Trumpness.
Reagan warned us about the coming global economy. Unfortunately the government piss away the country for profits. The Republicans lost me with Bush II and sadly looking back I should have left with Bush I, now a fiscal conservative. The Red Blue war gives little to get excited about. Action rarely follow the words spoken, by then they are elected. Bush II was daddy's boy and a socialist at heat. Obummer really had zero experience to reflect on and was a charmer with poor performance. Trump Crazy like a fox and I hope he continues on with his agenda.
Just to be tedious. I am a conservative from the definition circa 1910. I am not a circa 2018 Republican.
This last tax cut was unfortunately necessary despite being unwarranted and uneconomic. People needed to see that taxes could be lowered and it would show up in their daily lives.
the number to watch is the carrying cost of the Federal Debt. Declining interest rates saved Obama from tough choices.
Nah, just crazy. What agenda? I favored tariffs which would hit back at China and its pollution. Instead we are saving the steel industry which they have been trying and failing to do since I was a week lassie.
Wee
Agree last paragraph. Rest, no.
I am a bull moosette, hoping to see some bull meese .
I don't thing the improvement in daily life will happen.
We shall see
Rob,
The Obama "tax Holiday" was targeted specifically at working individuals (since it was specifically payroll tax), and was about the same annual size as the current Trump tax, (which is spread between individuals and businesses). What did THAT tax cut (and expiration) prove?
Tariffs and trade agreements improving the our positions will cost consumers money so their tax break will fade away. Immigration, notice the ICE activity going on? In the end if the wall gets built and the bleeding stops then entry level and adult jobs will be available to the youth and cut welfare. Kali is scared they may have to mow and trim their own lawns. Go long Roomba lawn mowers! ;)
Errrr, nothing.
Only if manufactured here.
LBD, I suggest going to take a look at the historical BLS tables for Age 16-19 employment.
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsatabs.htm
For whites, participation rate peaked in 1978, and took it's most precipitous fall during the Bush II years ... followed by another plunge during the housing crash - (with no recovery at all since). Kids aren't LOOKING for jobs, because they don't need them. No change to immigration is going to change that. Meanwhile, the current 16-19 white U3 is pretty much the same as other 'full employment' time periods.
For BLACK 16-19 participation, it was more volatile over time, but also took a major down plunge during the Bush II era, and then another plunge during housing crisis. BUT, black participation is actually back up to 2004 levels. Meanwhile, black 16-19 U3 is sitting at historical lows.
Changes to immigration will have ZERO impact on teen participation or unemployment. But, you are exactly right about going long regarding robot lawn mowers.
The problem with entry level jobs is NOT availability. The problem is that entry level jobs pay about 25% less than they did (relative to inflation) compared to the 50 and 60s).
In 1957, my mom and her best friend could share an apt., and both work entry level jobs at minimum wage, and pay their bills, buy gas and food with no help from foodstamps or welfare. The two full time minimum wage incomes combined to be 80% of median income. Today that figure is 54%.
I lived the era in Kali my state of birth, Left in 78. To be blunt the saying was if you want something done get a Mexican. All the fast food was already taken over by immigrants probably illegals. Just before I left I ordered an Ice tea at a Jack in the Box. Mistake I made was asking for a slice of lemon. All of the staff could not speak English and I gave up and left. The American life style was changed for me forever. Trickle up to adult jobs in Denver 90's I needed a roof replaced and the salesman cringed when I asked for a non immigrant crew. Stated he could not make a living and the quality was not as good and would not give a time line to finish the job. Yes Americans don't work when we teach them that college leads to riches and losers do integrity entry level hard work jobs. Then trickle up shoved many adults out of making a living. IMO
LL, should we kill the steel/aluminum industry and order military equipment from Geely or Great Wall? We need the industrial capacity in case of war.
LDB,
I can certainly see an argument for keeping certain industries (like steel) for National Security reasons.
But, why not subsidize OUR DOMESTIC 'mission critical' industries rather than utilize tariffs?
I know there are cases where short-term tariffs have worked (Harley-Davidson), but IMO that's a lot riskier in regards to inciting trade wars - whereas internal government subsidies seem to generally result in more grumbling than punitive retaliation.
Of course, subsidies are viewed as evil from the right.
And I'm not even saying subsidies are necessarily the best option. Tax breaks or incentives are another option. The key here is that given a lot of different options, IMO, the current admin seems bent on picking the ones with the worst possible outcomes.
BBC seems to be saying Lamb won.
The steel industry died a long time ago, as far as earning a profit. If steel is needed for war,and it is, subsidize some.
Yep.
Students marching down Pennsylvania avenue, as I did in my youth. Yay, students.
UK Parliamentarians boo.
Refreshing.
Subsidies IMO create an atmosphere of greed as Obummer did with solar, wind and battery businesses. Tariffs make competition more fair IMO especially after dumping product to take over certain markets. I remember japan with cars and electronics. Harley fans where protected. Now Harley sales are dying again as the old farts pass away. Plant closing in MO, producing in India and Indonesia. Selected subsidies for the Republicans IMO, take import duty on Ethanol as example along with other farm subsidies. Both have their pets for votes.
Steel to be really competitive we need nukes for power and robotics. Which means less jobs then before. Our failure to build mini nukes has been a huge mistake IMO.
Kids should be in school and not exploited for political purpose. They arn't learning crap anymore. Educated illiterate society the government has created.
Well. Then marching won't hurt, since they aren't learning anything anyway.
Kids are doing this themselves.
Actually the students at where I go to take classes complain how much of a waste high school was. Teach to the test only.
.
Not until there's a place to deposit nuclear waste
You guys are a little too young to get it.
Lot of the rest of the world has many big Nuke reactors. I am talking small reactors. They are underground self contained and bury in place when finished. They also would break up the grid reducing a mass terror attack. They may be able to use material that is considered spent from a big reactor. We should have data from nuke subs and carriers to show the safety. It's been 40 years since the China Syndrome movie scared everyone. Time to revisit if the rest of the world has not had a Chernobyl or built on the earth quake fault like Japan who have gone back to building more. There is stupid and then there is stupid.
HS failure is part of the plan to push college degrees and Bankster student loans. Bunch of sick people in the government controlled system. IMO.
Oh, that's not so bad. People don't even want nuclear reactors on space ships for glod's sake. Hub was always muttering about that. Even if the ship exploded, there were protections built in which I forget. I think some feared it would explode past the orbit of Mars and harm interplanetary space. The depth of ignorance is incredible.I
People are stupid, would they forget in a thousand years?
A thousand years ago, we were just coming out of the Grey Ages. (Not Dark, quite)
Some talking head are said the dems will win in the area of 100 seats, not just 24. Lamb is a very attractive chap too, which you can't discount. I see him running for prez, many moons for now.
Kids are doing this themselves.
Yeah, and their youthful ignorance will come back to bite them. For now they're the statist's "useful idiots".
Someday they'll realize they were demonstrating against the very rights they were exercising. But hey, snowflakes gotta beg for their safe spaces.
Not to sound too pessimistic, but they're not the least bit prepared for the world ahead of them, which'll bear a lot more resemblance to our ancestors than ours.
Useful idiots who don't want to be shot. Gosh.
Not sure if it will happen in my life - but I have a growing suspicion that the NRA will ultimately and ironically be the instrument that ultimately causes the 2nd Amendment to be removed.
The demographic winds are already blowing -- over the past 40 years, % of homes with guns has dropped from over 50% to under a third, (even as the total number of guns has continued to climb). The long, slow march has been a steady migration of guns into an increasingly militant, paranoid and intransigent minority of Americans, propped up, and hopped up by NRA doctrine and propaganda.
And on the horizon, and entire generation of kids brought up with a regularly occurring drumbeat of mass shootings to further solidify the notion that people who are in love with guns "all" seem to be unhinged. Regardless of the accuracy of the belief - it will ultimately become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
New post.
Post a Comment