How many times have you heard the people described as “livestock on the global plantation”? We tend to dismiss such descriptions as metaphorical–but maybe there’s more truth to them than most would suspect.
Monthly Archives: March 2010
Passing the Obama health care bill was almost impossible. In fact, the bill wouldn’t have been enacted except for prior passage of the “Slaughter Rule” (reportedly named after Congresswoman “Louise Slaughter” rather than a congressional desire to “slaughter” the American people). The Slaughter Rule was passed in early March in order to allow Congressmen (who are all up for reelection this November) to vote to enact the health care bill without actually voting on that health care bill itself.
It’s interesting that for most of my lifetime (and probably long before I was conceived), our government felt obligated to provide “national security”. “National security” was not only an object, it was a pretext. In the name of “national security,” great violence was sometimes committed against foreign individuals and foreign nations. Under the pretext that “national security” meant “government security,” great violence was (and is) sometimes even committed against Americans.
Nevertheless, most people consented to abuses under the pretext of “national security” because most people thought they knew what the term “national security” meant: security of our nation.
So, it’s curious that circa A.D. 2003, our purported government birthed a new-and-improved security agency called “Homeland Security”. Why “homeland” security? Why not “national” security?
What’s in a name, hmm? What difference, if any, exists between our “homeland” and our “nation”?
What follows is not an “article” per se, but rather a collection of research notes on the meaning and likely definition of “homeland”. I’ll summarize most of my conclusions up front, and then present my research. You won’t get absolute conclusions so much as “suspicions,” but there are observations here that you might find insightful.
Simply download the PDF file at this link: 100321 Findlaw Search HOMELAND
Forbes Magazine recently published an article entitled, “Delinquencies, foreclosures likely to put a damper on 2010 recovery.” I’d like to ask which “recovery” is that? Evidence of the alleged “recovery” is about as scarce as unicorn scat.
Still, while evidence of a “recovery” is hard to find, evidence of continuing US foreclosure problems is hard to ignore. The Forbes article declared:
In A.D. 2008, the small, sovereign nation of Iceland garnered global attention when it could no longer pay its debts. Iceland had lived on credit and beyond its means for years, and they were finally being called to pay the piper. Iceland’s financial problems were deemed interesting and even amusing to much of the world, but of little relevance to economic goliaths like the European Union (EU) or the United States. Surely, the problems of country smaller than some U.S. counties could not threaten or instruct the mighty US of A.
Most of my articles are conjectural. My lines of conjecture are often curious, sometimes confusing, occasionally fantastic and, at times, even mind-numbing. I try not to publish those articles that are mind-numbing. The following article is an exception. I hate to publish it because it seems “half-baked”. The article contains an insight below that I deem valuable but incomplete. Nevertheless, the insight (while a little “mind-numbing”) seems too intriguing to abandon until I can grab a little more clarity.