Our greatest fears

Baltimore City Paper: NEWS. Interviews by Lee Gardner and Jason Torres

I would like you to pay especial attention to two of the last three interviews (of Anirban Basu and Lee Gardner).

I've mentioned it before: we're running out of room and food on this planet. Basu paints a further grim picture. What happens to a society when there is no middle class? Pre-industrial and early-industrial Russia comes to mind. It was little more than aristocracy and the serfs. We all know what a great contribution to Western (or any) civilization that group of people made. Well, ultimately, it led to the Soviet Union. But it was much easier to hold a revolution back in 1917.

Without a middle class, the US would have nothing more than the filthy rich (the top 5%), the dirt poor, and those who work in the government. I work in the government. My mother worked for the IRS. My father was in law enforcement. We were/are all middle class people. Hard to figure out who would constitute ANY "middle class" in this kind of a future. And what will happen to the social systems we have in place when the vast majority of people are either on the government dole (either through the social system or on the government payroll)? Who will pony up that dough? The top 5%?? Hell no! These are the people who pay to put politicians into power (through special interest groups, lobbyists, etc). They're not going to give away their hard-earned millions and billions of dollars (in most cases, I'm not saying that sarcastically). But they'll be the only ones with the money. It's either:

(a) the richest people in the US will be fronting all (I said, ALL) tax revenues...
(b) we just ignore the poor (who will be the largest voting base by far), or ...
(c) put an end to shipping so many jobs overseas.

"A" will never happen. The top 5% have too much vested interest in keeping the bulk of their money. Note that the top 5% of Americans pay more than 5% of the total tax revenue. So you can thumb your nose at the upper crust all you want. The majority of these folk got their money the hard way: they earned it. And yes, there are the handful of corporate scumbags who seemed to revel in "earning" that money off the backs of the repressed, etceteras (insert your liberal rant here). But they are a minority. We should also note that some of THE richest people in the WORLD are the biggest philanthropists. They could just as easily keep all their billions of dollars.

"B" is unconscionable. And, to prevent a popular uprising a-la 1917 Russia, we'd have to confiscate all the guns and be able to track ... well, everyone. Strange...that's what a lot of conspiracy theorists are saying what's happening right now. Everyone go get your tinfoil hats now! But all levity aside, this is a potential scenario. Think about it logically: what WOULD "average" Americans do if we were all lumped into the 95% who are the "have nots?" Just grin and bear it? Or, perhaps, we'll entertain ourselves with the lives of celebrities and reality TV, and try to escape from it all.

"C" is also not likely without the voters banding together and telling the politicians "NO." We would have to enact laws that control how big businesses outsource jobs, AND to restrict who gets what rights when they come into this country--especially if entry into this country was illegal. And, in just two breaths, I've already alienated Republicans and Democrats, in that order. (the politicians, at least)

Thus, my view of the future is not very bright. Maybe I just have my head up my ass, because the outlook really is quite shitty.

Our greatest fears

Baltimore City Paper: NEWS. Interviews by Lee Gardner and Jason Torres

I would like you to pay especial attention to two of the last three interviews (of Anirban Basu and Lee Gardner).

I've mentioned it before: we're running out of room and food on this planet. Basu paints a further grim picture. What happens to a society when there is no middle class? Pre-industrial and early-industrial Russia comes to mind. It was little more than aristocracy and the serfs. We all know what a great contribution to Western (or any) civilization that group of people made. Well, ultimately, it led to the Soviet Union. But it was much easier to hold a revolution back in 1917.

Without a middle class, the US would have nothing more than the filthy rich (the top 5%), the dirt poor, and those who work in the government. I work in the government. My mother worked for the IRS. My father was in law enforcement. We were/are all middle class people. Hard to figure out who would constitute ANY "middle class" in this kind of a future. And what will happen to the social systems we have in place when the vast majority of people are either on the government dole (either through the social system or on the government payroll)? Who will pony up that dough? The top 5%?? Hell no! These are the people who pay to put politicians into power (through special interest groups, lobbyists, etc). They're not going to give away their hard-earned millions and billions of dollars (in most cases, I'm not saying that sarcastically). But they'll be the only ones with the money. It's either:

(a) the richest people in the US will be fronting all (I said, ALL) tax revenues...
(b) we just ignore the poor (who will be the largest voting base by far), or ...
(c) put an end to shipping so many jobs overseas.

"A" will never happen. The top 5% have too much vested interest in keeping the bulk of their money. Note that the top 5% of Americans pay more than 5% of the total tax revenue. So you can thumb your nose at the upper crust all you want. The majority of these folk got their money the hard way: they earned it. And yes, there are the handful of corporate scumbags who seemed to revel in "earning" that money off the backs of the repressed, etceteras (insert your liberal rant here). But they are a minority. We should also note that some of THE richest people in the WORLD are the biggest philanthropists. They could just as easily keep all their billions of dollars.

"B" is unconscionable. And, to prevent a popular uprising a-la 1917 Russia, we'd have to confiscate all the guns and be able to track ... well, everyone. Strange...that's what a lot of conspiracy theorists are saying what's happening right now. Everyone go get your tinfoil hats now! But all levity aside, this is a potential scenario. Think about it logically: what WOULD "average" Americans do if we were all lumped into the 95% who are the "have nots?" Just grin and bear it? Or, perhaps, we'll entertain ourselves with the lives of celebrities and reality TV, and try to escape from it all.

"C" is also not likely without the voters banding together and telling the politicians "NO." We would have to enact laws that control how big businesses outsource jobs, AND to restrict who gets what rights when they come into this country--especially if entry into this country was illegal. And, in just two breaths, I've already alienated Republicans and Democrats, in that order. (the politicians, at least)

Thus, my view of the future is not very bright. Maybe I just have my head up my ass, because the outlook really is quite shitty.

FARK should've used an "Obvious" tag

Bloomberg.com: U.S.

Isn't this already common knowledge?? I mean, c'mon! "'They took a student who loved his school and crushed his spirit,' Doyon, 46, says." That's what schools do! Remember the schoolmaster from "The Wall?"

Here. Lemme do it for you.

"They took a student who loved his school and crushed his spirit," Doyon, 46, says.

They did, however, use the "Asinine" tag for the overall story. I guess the two tags had to duke it out, and "Asinine" won.

The clock is ticking

Gerson: A New Faith-Based Agenda - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

I've heard two things in recent days that are pretty disturbing:

1. Around 2048, the population of Earth will double to about 13 billion (yikes!)
2. Around 2048, the oceans will be effectively fished out.

At about the same time all this talk is going on, there's a lot of talk about helping kids in Africa, the AIDS problem, more cases of tuberculosis, etc. We're also finding new ways, via science, to extend a person's life span and the quality of life for all those years.

The problem I see is that, in one hand, we're killing the Earth by overpopulating it; and in the other, we're trying our damnest to preserve and extend human life.

We can't do both at the same time. Can we? What will happen, as I see it, is sometime before 2048, resources will be at such a premium that a really big, global war is going to erupt. And/or, despite our best efforts, billions (probably the majority of human population) will suffer. More land will HAVE to be cleared to produce food, which means we can kiss our rain forests goodbye.

I will be in my seventies when 2048 rolls around. With all the pressures on our environment, and the subsequent pressures on society, I am really not looking forward to my "golden years." Is there anything we can do to ensure that those people who are around the middle of the century aren't looking at dead oceans, crowded countrysides, lack of food and resources... What are our options?

There are some pretty draconic ones, others are just heartless.

1. Not to give a damn about the poor, underdeveloped countries. Anyone with a beating heart can't subscribe to that option; but the underdeveloped world accounts for the vast majority of humans on this planet. Left to their own devices, without special life-saving technologies, perhaps at least this section of the world will level out population-wise very soon. But the suffering level would be too high.
2. Let's start a war! That's always been successful at killing off millions of civilians. Look at WWII for a good example.
3. Population control. China already has a "one child" policy. Some more detached provinces of China even force sterilization and abortion (which is illegal). Something heavy-handed will have to be passed as a law, limiting our basic, human rights. Telling people to stop having sex isn't going to work by itself.
4. Stop looking for ways to extend human life. Take all the money from cancer research, etc, and put it into education, social welfare, etc. Improve the quality of life for everyone, while they have time on this Earth. But don't extend that time.
5. Get the fark offa this planet. This is the best option. But it is also impossible. Scientists don't believe we will be anywhere NEAR the technology needed to (for example) travel faster-than-light for another hundred to two hundred years. If ever. Outside of that, we'd have to engineer space ships that are self-sustaining for hundreds of years. And a lot of them. VERY expensive.

One can also hope that, in time, we'll develop new technologies that will help feed all these people without killing off entire species (or ecosystems). Better feed practices for private, local fish farms, so we don't have to farm the ocean to death. But who is to say what's going to work? All I know is, by most scientists' best guesses, and from what I feel about these guesses, we only have about 40 good years left on this planet. Something drastic needs to be done. Or, perhaps, Mother Nature herself will find a way to take care of us, once and for all.

So long, Bob

After 50 years, Bob Barker to say goodbye to TV - CNN.com

Bob Barker is leaving TPIR. He isn't 100% sure what he's going to do yet...probably work in charities dealing with animal-rights causes. Or maybe a movie: "He said he'd take on a movie role if the right one came along, but filmmakers, take note: 'I refuse to do nude scenes. These Hollywood producers want to capitalize on my obvious sexuality, but I don't want to be just another beautiful body.'"

ZOMG MY BRAIN JUST MELTED! AAAAARGHH!!!

Anyone else worried?

Pacific News Service > News > Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps