0 votes

Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty..... TWENTY!!!???



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
meekandmild's picture

Let keep it alive for states rights

under the 9th and 10th amendments. call, visit, write, email your state representatives and media.

Whoa there, calm down!

Eight, NOT 20, states have EXPLICITLY REAFFIRMED their sovereignty; (some) analysts believe that over the next year UP TO another twenty states MAY also explicitly re-affirm their sovereignty.

This is not a trans-national uprising; nor is it a threat of an uprising; and it is COMPLETELY non-violent; however, it is a quiet, lower level distrust of the federal government that is slowly rising across the country.

The very fact that it is even seriously being brought up and considered in state legislature means the most powerful of the people's representatives (ie. state, not national) are aware of what is happening, and showing they will resist it.

Anyway, from the article:
=============================================
So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.
=============================================

e-mail your congressional district leaders

That's what I did and other people I know today.

The politicians are actually listening right now. They are very nervous.

-------------------------------------------------------
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds” - Sam Adams

-------------------------------------------------------
Peace, Freedom and Prosperity. Not War, Welfare and Bankruptcy.

------------

This is an awesome thing

This is great.

_________________________
http://www.jabronitools.com

youtube?

does anyone have a good video that explains the implications of all this?
---------------
“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement” - Thomas Jefferson

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Hot

diggity!

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

States Rights?

States Sovereignty? This does not sound right to me. States should not have rights, only individuals should have rights. Individuals should be the only Sovereigns. It is good to be the Queen.

HMMM?

I tell the truth and my post dissapears? Is this how it is on DP now? I know I have been gone for two weeks, but come on now! States have all the rights! We don't have crap! Until you face that you cannot face the beast in front of you. We have UCC courts in this country! Uniform Commercial Code is the law of COMMERCE. Commerce doesn't have constitutional liberties! The UCC doesn't recognize the constitution. You can be held in contempt for even mentioning the constitution inside UCC. This is why you must petition the state to take a case federal. The states have rights you dont! The whole thing is a scam! The main part of the scam is your vote! This is how they enslave you! Censorship is the sincerest form of flattery. If you don't like what I have to say, debate me! PROVE ME WRONG.

Sovereignty in this instance means...

State sovereignty means that each state is an individual, it has its own identity which is separate from any other state. However that identity is defined by its citizens because that is where its powers derive-- thus it has a duty to represent and protect them. Obviously since the citizens created their state and delegate its powers, they may also adjust its laws to suit their needs through their state legislature.
Without sovereignty your right to govern your state is usurped by the Federal government-- in that it will dictate what each state can and can't do. That was not within its limited constitutionally delegated powers which it was assigned at the time the states created it.

The Federal government would love for you to think that states are just lines on a map composing the United States. However they are not. By thinking it so you have actually allowed it to steal some of the personal sovereignty you stated people inherently have. I would say that the right to govern yourself is not something to just frivolously cast aside.

So, the power first comes from the people, then they pass a limited amount to their state, and the state passes an even more limited amount unto the Federal government.

I hope that made sense.

A few considerations

As I have said before I hate to quote Hamilton- we know that he was an ardent Federalist- however this quote is directly pertaining to this situation.

In the Federalist (No. 32) Hamilton stated that "an entire consolidation of the States into one national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitutional Convention of 1787] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all right of sovereignty which they before had and which were not, by that act exclusively delegated to the United States." He then went even further in issuing No. 33 which tells us that any acts committed by the Federal government that are not pursuant to the authority delegated to the it by the states would be "merely acts of usurpation" and not deserving the authority of law.

Of course with reassertion of sovereignty, the right to wield secession and nullification comes wrapped up in the total package- they are a set. However sovereignty is not synonymous with secession. Reaffirming our sovereignty as individual states serves to reassert that the Federal government is our [the sovereign state's] agent, and as such is only capable of wielding those limited powers which we strictly delegated to it.
It could be considered the figurative equivalent to a mother asserting who is in charge to her child. Thus we are stating "you have only those limited powers delegated and all others belong to the individual states-- to be dictated by its citizens. By historical authority (meaning the opinion when our compact was formed) you are only a citizen of your individual state and that state is a member of those united states.
To reaffirm sovereignty does not mean that secession is right around the
corner.
It is illogical to make predictions of future action based on a comparison of today and the 1860's-- though I can understand how people may at first lean towards making the connection. Let me point a few of these out.

Consider that the war over secession started, not when the first states began to secede but when a huge portion had already broken away. Why? Because the majority of the average northern citizens were in agreement that the sovereign states had the right to do so. It wasn't until newspapers began to be flooded with the bureaucrats and corporate entities calling for direct action lest the ships in the northern harbors rot from lack of southern cotton to export. That fact bit hard in the minds of wealthy, as was not a hard notion to conceive being the South held two large harbors themselves-- Savannah and Charleston. It was also warned that without the high tariffs and taxes collected upon southern imports and exports, funding for northern city works would cease to exist. Now I would like you to ask yourself this question, but please keep in mind that at the time our country had no income tax, "how much of the nation's revenue was the south actually supplying prior to the war?" Shockingly the answer is a disproportionate 87 percent!!!
Southern representatives, on numerous occasions over the years before the war, pleaded for the sympathy of the northern controlled Union, however they found little or none who would listen. So, one by one they began to feel that they were left with only one solution beneficial for their citizens -- secession. One wonders how old "Honest Abe" felt about this sad situation? Well when asked by a reporter why not just let the south go? Lincoln replied, “Let the South go?! Where then shall we get our revenues!” Convinced of the necessity and tempered in greed, the business sector began pushing for war. However, to rally the cause they needed something which would convince the unstirred citizens, the average man, to enlist and lay down his life for the Union. Slavery was the badge chosen, though many a northern soldier found himself shocked once he finally crossed the Mason Dixon line; unlike what he had been told 93% of the people he came to fight had no slaves to speak of.

Now here are the stark differences:

1.) The North and the South were two totally different and distinct cultures -- virtually too different countries even before the secession. Thus much was culturally misunderstood between one another and stereotypes abounded. The bureaucrats were quick to draw lines in the sand defining the south as immoral degenerates different than their northern brother.

2.) Because travel was not as easy, as in the average citizen had little exposure abroad, most people who came to fight caught their first glimpse of the normal everyday southerner -- and northerner for that matter -- when they engaged their first battle! All previous notions were usually derived from pictures or newspaper drawings which poised their enemy as the butt of a joke.

3.) The issue of abolishing the evil of slavery was used to muster the Northern Christian majority. However the basis for their righteous cause was based in flawed facts propagated by the Federal government (i.e. the amount of actual slave holders, what the average southerner was fighting for, and the real motive and intent of those in the Union who had made the call to arms).

In today's America the northern and southern citizens, though still bearing slight differences, have long been intermingling. Travel between the states is frequent. Sure there are still stereotypes, but with the advent of T.V. culture shock is not so much of a shock any more as it is a tingle. Issues which held huge underline moral undertones, such as the practice of slavery, are no longer present anymore (at least not here in the states). Also the states are no longer the homogeneous entities that they once were in regards to race. Minorities are now present throughout the states and it is much harder to vilify a diverse group of coexisting people. Furthermore we should consider that if states were to secede today their number would not be within a defined boundary but scattered throughout the whole of North America. Therefore any opposing army would be forced to split their forces across our great expanse in all four directions! We must also realize that our military is composed of citizens, many of whom have homes and loved ones within these states. I predict that vast amounts of otherwise dutiful service men and women would not be on board with destroying and enslaving their family and friends. I would also go so far as to say that whole bases would go AWOL, being commandeered by the officers and troops whom currently man them.
Let me reiterate I DO NOT SEE ANY OF THAT COMING TO FRUITION. Sovereignty is not an atomic bomb, or some doomsday device, it is the cornerstone to the Constitution. The Constitution was built around the idea of the individual states being sovereign, and thus it was intended to be the final protection-- the ultimate protection-- against those who would use Federal government to destroy the agreed conditions of our compact. It is for this very reason the ardent Federalists toiled long and hard to establish the "one nation" mentality. However, sovereignty can not be stricken from the books by any Federal amendment. It cannot be chased away like some unwanted guest. Only we the citizens of the sovereign states can yield such authority- and we have not done so!

Sorry for such long ramblings. ;-p

alwaysssimon

Thank you for such a great read,(not a ramblings) by no means.

awesome

very well written. great comment! if only the rest of America understood any of it....

Thanks.

Normandie says: "If only the rest of America understood any of it...."

Well here is some good news: This past week I have been orchestrating discussions with various groups of students (around 57 people in total) and they have been attentive and actually listening. I plan to expand on this strategy by arranging some meetings with local group leaders i.e. political, churches, activists, etc. Basically anyone I can get to listen to me. So far it hasn't been a hard message to sell. Most people seem in agreement as long as you angle the discussion to how it will benefit them personally. Of course I don't mean the greasy double-speak politicians use. What I'm saying is I consider my audience before before ever meeting with them and device good topics to cover based on my listener. By doing so I am almost sure to get some bullseyes.
Anyway, it seems that though most people are not as informed they are willing to be if you just figure out the right way to break it to them. :-)

alwayssimon, Thanks, that was a great read!

However, there is one bit of Lincoln history that was left out, which you most likely already know. But for the sake of those who don’t, I would like to inject it for them.

The Southern States had already declared their succession from the Union. The War Between the States was already well underway. Lincoln was very fearful about the outcome of the war, and rightfully so. His fear was England, so He made banning slavery the ‘War Issue’ BUT only AFTER the war was underway.

His decision to do so was primarily a ‘Strategic Military Move’ on his part, and little more. It is important to remember that even the North had slave states at the time.

Lincoln’s ‘War on Slavery’ was conceived out of fear the Southern States would engage England to stand along side them in their struggle for independence from the Northern States. To put it simply, He was afraid England would support the South as a way of giving back to the Northern Colonies (now States) the same black eye Britain endured when loosing their prized possession known as the British American Colonies.

Lincoln also knew England went through it’s own slavery issues, and under considerable political pressure had already outlawed all slavery through out the British Empire. Lincoln surmised by making ‘slavery’ the ‘War Issue’, England would effectively bar itself from interring the war because Britain’s own Law banned slavery.

hjschaapman

The Winds of Change!

Very nice post!

I tend to end up making huge posts so I was doing my best not to go extremely far into discussing the war. But I thank you for adding to my post.
:-)

Wolf in sheep's clothing?

Don't get too excited too quickly! Yes, the idea that states are re-declaring their independence, and the proper role of their dependence, is a good thing. It's nice to see that (mostly) republicans are leading this charge, and that plenty of democrats are joining in. But is it all for show? Just because the some in the country’s minority party make a gesture to re-invoke State Authority doesn't mean anything will come of it. The republicans took us to the dance 15 years ago with the Contract with America, and left us just moments after that. Now, all of the sudden, they're "finding their roots again?" Give me a break! The 10th amendment has been law for 220 years or so, so just reminding each other, "oh by the way, it's still there," doesn't do anyone a lick of good. I'll be happy when I see real coalitions of people/states actually nullifying acts of congress. I'll be satisfied when I see states rejecting unlawful taxes, repealing their own tyrannical laws, and calling home their citizens who serving in state national guard overseas (go figure). Yes, this is a victory. It's step one. But we've got a country to travel.

On a second note, given the ridiculous theft going through Congress right now, and given this State's Authority stuff going on, I think now would be a good time to talk about the 17th Amendment (popular election of Senators, rather than appointed by the state legislatures). Anyone agree with me that it ought to be repealed? At this moment we have the Senate debating, negotiating, and scheming whether they should put billions more in liabilities on our children and grandchildren's back. Of course, the people are against this 100:1, but they're voting for it anyway. If the State legislatures had the power to appoint the US Senators, rather than their being popularly elected, would there be this much rubber stamping?? If twenty States are saying, "back off, Washington," wouldn't that translate into 40 US Senators voting this bill down? The Founding Father's intended the Senate to be the voice of the States, and the more "intellectual" (crazy, right?) house in Congress, comparable to the House of Lords in UK. Would we benefit by going back to this system? As the Constitution is a compact between the People, the States, and the interaction of the Several States, shouldn’t the State’s get to select their representatives? After all, this is why we have the Electoral College, which elects the President of the States, rather than a popular vote for president, which would elect a President of the People.

Thought maybe some discussion on federalism might be in order to go along with the (hopeful) reassertion of State Power.

Excellent

part of this is what I am voicing and the rest is food for thought and exasperation!

I think our best chance for peaceful resolution to the globalist agenda is by state action-drastic action-not just placard.

A very nice post and I agree.....

A very nice post! I agree that reasserting would only be a step in the right direction, but if done properly, it would be a HUGE step. The determining factor will depend on how many of us fall by the wayside afterward. If we rally afterward-- recruiting those who came on board-- we can push even further than just reasserting sovereignty.
When I talk to someone I generally try to explain that reasserting sovereignty will be how we pry open the gates, not how we take the castle. The key will be to remain vigilant, practically forcing our representatives to wield the 10th amendment-- as they should. It will also be of necessity to form large coalitions of people which will push to stand against the Supreme Court. It sounds like a lot to do, but I believe it can be done. Luckily the growing economic crisis will only spur the peoples willingness to stand together ever further.

I also believe that removing the 17th amendment will become a necessary topic to discuss in the future. However in order to easily get people on board, I suggest we go after reasserting sovereignty first. Then once that is achieved we will have to move quick as to not to let the fire burn down-- the 17th amendment might just be the second batch of kindling we will need. :-)

139 diggs

at 3:00 PM Eastern, Sat. Feb.7, 2009...

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!

Digg it

130!

126 DIGGS

126 DIGGS

Wonder why

C4L hasn't posted anything about it?

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

Repeat of 1860

This is turning into a repeat of 1860.

Same characters, just different names.

Arkansas progress

Does anyone know anything specific about progress made on this issue in Arkansas? I have looked online and can't seem to find much. Thanks.

To LaughLoveLearn: Not really.

Because then you might have a bunch of isolated, uncoordinated, competing and, possibly conflicting, individuals and/or groups.

One idea, not so new but not often remembered and openly discussed... is the idea of numerous sovereigns (states, just like individuals), agreed upon each other's sovereignty, and yet ironically, greatly empowered by a shared agreement. I known, it sounds crazy, but hear me out.

One could think of it as individuals and their unique states, but united when if the time may call for them to work together. Individually Sovereign, yet agreed before-hand to act as a kind of "United States" when threatened by an outside, OR even an inside, entity un-agreed to the more complete idea. A "United States of Americans", if you will. Each formed and forming different (with different needs and wants), yet agreed upon among all of them that the individual, his/he state of being, has minimum rights that must be recognized and deeply respected, lest stepping upon such rights greatly increases a loss of tranquility for all.

One's constitution of their individual state, and thus the state of those closest to them, could rather easily enumerate a quick and basic list of such minimum rights... and seeing as a complete list would not only be impractically lengthy, probably impossible to compile... an intelligent short list might end with a "right" reminding future readers that might consider 'over-reaching', that They do not retain such a right to overreach... and to cool their engines before tranquility is threatened.

The first part could be called something like a declaration of independence, independence from jackasses tempted by greed and dominance.

The second part might be thought of in line with an individual's personal internal constitution, defining the constitution of any other larger "collective" governing-body operating solely upon the original constitution of a lawful individual.

That last part outlining a simplified example listing of rights, a bill of sale, if you will... could more easily be shared with others one might wish to sell such an outlandish idea to, if only just the example list is put down on paper.

These are just some quick thoughts I'm throwing out here in a blog, they are not ALL my own ideas, some I seem to recall hearing and reading elsewhere, but thought them good enough to warrant my own consideration and worthy of sharing with others.

Signed,
The state of Erin, also living with others in the larger "state" we call, Virginia.

Erin, thanks,

The states all have their constitutions already. All they are doing now is saying, hey, fed govt., back off and stop trouncing on me. That is all they are saying. Right?

Well, the fed. govt. ain't gonna' do it. They will proceed as if nothing has transpired regarding sovereignty by 20 states. They are going to trounce all they want, just as they are. If the states don't say, "We are pulling our fed tax from the existance here in whatever state," then nothing changes. They have to do more than say, "Hey, remember we have sovereignty, you big bullies."

What am I missing?

Agreed...

... what is happening now, is largely an act in words only. Yet to voice it further, such words, which are (thankfully) only words so far, are still backed by something more than just toothless words. For example, at no other time and place, have such words been backed by so many other's voicing of such words, and second, armed in agreement.

But please remember: This is, thankfully, the subtle difference in nuance, between "succession from the Union" a al 1860 vs. a reminder of sovereignty a la 2009 where ethnic "race" no longer defines those commonly waring the now mental-chains of human slavery.

No, this is not on the evening television news. No this is not likely to appear on the front page of popular news papers tomorrow morning. No, I do not expect the powers that be to change their hopes for the course they've set upon.

However, the voicing of such words, even if largely drowned out by the cacophony of other more idea-less words... serves two VERY important functions:

First, through it all, such words still DO ring in the ears of those who are listening through it all, and further warms them to the justness of our cause at hand.

Second, if only ceremonial (but arguably much more than that), it serves lawful notice upon those who MUST be informed of their apparent quickening trend toward further violation of right, be it State or individual, and that serving such notice is the proper thing to do BEFORE one does in fact act in necessary, and genuine, defense of self. (That other, "Anticipatory Self-Defense" shit from this Government is such crap it almost made me barf for its oxymoronic logical void)

For years now... ever more people have been observing the trend of over-reach by Power. Particularly, "power" which can only rationalize itself via ill-logical contortion of facts, nature, right, and power itself. Try as many have, such Power is by its own ill-logic, imperviously immune to sound logic of mind and heart.

That said, should We, those who've submitted to honesty, choose to circumvent decent means searching for a tranquil being or end, and physically lash without verbal warning, or even the outward baring of arms... and try to explain ourselves if to bitter exhaustion... unlike those who commit the originating offense[s] (such as the current State of many previous and current federal administrations)... we instantly become NO BETTER than They who've wronged us, and thus we are losers all together.

I second the motion to declaring sovereignty, by my geographical "State" next if possible too, or even my personal individuality if need be.

THAT is where I'm willing to take this civil debate should we be so pushed... or personally bite and scratch to my last breath, if/when my pea-shooter jambs or runs dry.

THAT sounds like lawful sovereignty to me.
THAT sounds like what a lawful human seems worthy of striving for.

THAT is why I think of myself as a lawful, human, sovereign... with every single right there could be found, in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Thank you for asking.

Well I agree

that it is a good step. No doubt. But there needs to be a next step if a line is crossed. That seems to be the missing piece. Just like when we sent all those petitions of redress to congress and every single congressman ignored it. I thought the group had back up legal council ready if that happened. But, nope, the group who did it just fell flat. Silent. WHAT was that for? Ridiculous. Hopefully the states are not that weak. Hopefully the states have a plan. But I am not so sure since Oklahoma stated this over a year ago, I think, and much has happened to trounce on them since then and they have done nothing. Nothing.

What is the next step when the government says, "Go ____ ________.

Crap, this is going to be a long one.

(btw: alwayssimon's write up on the historical differences between today and 1860, and distinctions between the words secession and sovereignty being profound, is fantastic. Don't miss it)

Again LLL, I agree with your summation.

As for your question about "what then?"... here's my thought on that:

I think we are dealing with a problem of fellow people and/or collective power (still made up of individual people), who are, or have become... may I use the word, "corrupt"? Yes, corrupted, be that the corruption of ill-intent or the more insidious form of corruption, incompetence, as good intention then matters not and we're dealing with "true believers" yet with bad, unworkable, ideas... is a very serious problem indeed.

Recently, I've been studying game theory, not because I think of life as a "game" but because I have found great tools along the way in understanding and describing large swaths of the world around me. Game Theory 'simple' has been credited with aiding the systematic logical breakdown of otherwise seemingly complex systems, economic dynamics, biological responses, and many levels of human interaction. I bring it up not because I think the complete answer is there, but because I want to use some of its terminology here, and the particular definitions pertaining to game theory are readily accessible to many people.

As a starting point for this conversation, although for my kind of game play I don't give a hoot where we start save for my own first move (and seeing as this is not a game but rather life, I can have many many "first" moves)... that is deciding what kind of game I'M going to be playing, for example; a nonzero-sum in the context of a constantly-threatening non-cooperative (no genuine or lasting coalitions) and dynamically asymmetrical. Yet, with the only Nash Equilibrium point being one where all parties end "up" at least one point... oh ya... no Umpire either (the only possible one here would be someone like Mother Nature, and she's not known for saying much before she flies off the handle and back-hands us all, equally, with a lightning quickness. So honest "means" must be adhered to, no trying to cheat with some bullshit claim of visioning "The Glorious Ends". Get it?)

It's a fancy idea, because not only do zero-sum sociopaths hate it (because there is no domination "Win" for them if that is their personal kick), but imbeciles don't get to kill us all either (even if only with their "benevolent" incompetence). This makes for a tricky game, but it's one of the best ones I've found so far. Life IS grand.

Dynamically asymmetrical with no lasting "Nash Equilibrium", because for the sociopath who would likely enjoy modifying his/her game-play in order to "Win" at my expense... even reading this simple blog post is of little lasting gain, and no loss for me. Even removing me from the playing field (death) is again no consequence to me, yet actually carries with it larger and more problematic consequences and "questions" for the sociopath as either I would be missed (by someone, I hope), and falling that I suspect the sociopath, being what they are, is chased by their own logical curiosity wondering where I've hid my "secrets" with no one else to illicit my personal ones from, even if by torture. One of the more likely probabilities the sociopath might be hoping for, or even working toward, is to MAKE me talk, or "go crazy" and do something stupid. Too late, I've beat'm to both. I talk, and write, and read, and blog all the time. And "crazy", even attempted assassination-by-"suicide", is soooo passe. Please.

No, so far... the sociopath is proving to be a rather easy target to trip up... but remember, I'm a non-zero sum player, so "Winning" at the expense of the sick and twisted (such as deservedly ripping their fucking heads off), is just not my game.

Now on the other hand, the benevolent-true-believer-in-dumb-ideas... is quite a different animal. Not only can they come up with their own bad ideas, but being slow and simple minded, they are dangerously susceptible to the crafty-ness and good selling skills of the sociopath. So we've got something much worse to deal with here. A nitwit unbound, true-believing in their own brilliance, or worse, compounded by sociopathic hijacking, the honest nitwit can then tell a lie, believably AND do the incompetent thing, unbound.

Now add game pieces like "Government", bombs, bullets, and a counterfeiter's printing press... and... [rapidly move vertically forefinger held horizontally between slightly gaped lips while humming off-key tone.]

I'm not one much for praying, but don't let me stop you. That said, I do have some modicum of adult faith. Not "faith" in the Easter Fairy or the Tooth Bunny... but rather faith in profound, immutable, unforgiving nature, and simple math like 2+2=4. Now I have tempted thoughts of things not-of-this world... but for the sake of shortening this blog allow me to call that a kind of Joker's Wild Card... all bets should be off, unless one wishes to play with Galactic Karma points, because I don't think this House can cover it all without going bust.

But "What then?" you asked, when the Government says _________. What if it says: "go fuck yourself"? If it were to say as much out-loud, as in actual spoken words, it shrivels and dies almost instantly is what happens. If it were to put up a fight, it would all be over rather quickly for even the sociopaths would hide among our ranks, not wanting to be on the loosing side of such a "one-sided" contest. What if it says, "jump on in, the water's fine." Again, it shrivels and dies because the water is actually poison. You know, all that toxic paper 'n all.

However, I wouldn't call this a "waiting" game, because there is no waiting about it. This rock is not going to stop turning, with or without us, and the finish is quite nigh for both the current crop of sociopaths, and even the nitwits. They sealed their own fates, either by over-reach (not a good idea in the "information age"), or by learning next to nothing in math class, even IF they have a fancy diploma drafted in fine calligraphy hanging on the wall.

No, there is no waiting about it. I say clickity-clack away on this here inter-tube of web-nets sharing (or pirating, arrrrgh!), all the ones and zeros you wish. That cat's out of the bag, as they say. I think it's great, and infinitely re-invent-able with or without "NN v.2.0".

Plant a garden. I really have a hard time thinking of anything that would be better for one's health. I did my first 3/4 acer of winter wheat this last fall, looking forward to home-grown bread this spring.

Take some friends to a movie, and discuss. Write a book, and discuss. Tell a beautiful woman (or man, if you're into that sort of thing), they're ugly as sin... then apologize for lying to their face, and ask them out on a date. Shit, that's my idea... I want to try that one first before I recommend it as a workable pick-up line. I'll let you know how it goes.

Win-Win. Keep your head straight as you can, starring in the face of a lunatic, or long-legged mac-daddy. Don't lose your cool, this close to Win-Win, and lose it for us all. Embrace the dirt, she'll love you in return. If you must send you kids to the Loving-State run skool before we can burn them all down (just kidding, kinda), make sure you find a little time to check up on there'rs learn'n yu'r self... and augment with a little extra love-instruction of your own.

Peace.

e