Not by fire, nor by ice, nor by zombies
Walking Dead image source: AMC
I’ve been indulging my late-night craving for schlock by watching the entire series of “Walking Dead” episodes that aired over the last two years.
It’s fairly highbrow stuff for a soap opera about survivors of a zombie apocalypse, which means that it’s the perfect lens for looking at the state of American culture.
We have just emerged from a vitriolic fiscal cliff debate and are about to descend into a debt ceiling debate.
On the one hand, we have activists declaring the end times because of climate change and the mass extinction of wildlife species.
On the other hand, we have zealots preoccupied by the notion that Iran or North Korea could threaten world peace, or the notion that creeping socialism and national debt could trigger a massive societal meltdown.
Whether you listen to “Democracy Now” or read “Atlas Shrugged” or subscribe to the latest interpretation of the Mayan calendar, it’s hard to avoid the idea that we’re living in the end times.
And yes, being Americans, a lot of us are cashing in.
Gun manufacturers are getting filthy stinking rich by selling sleek assault rifles to suburbanites, worried that Barack Obama may just be a tyrant-in-waiting, or the Anti-Christ.
And Hollywood is getting filthy stinking rich by pumping out a constant stream of doom-fare. The last couple of years, there have even been a spate of end-of-world comedies.
Mass human extinction. What a chuckle.
This is the culture that politicians in Washington are pandering to — particularly, politicians on the right, who have boxed themselves into corner after corner by pretending that this vote, this decision, this stand will make or break America.
Tune in to conservative talk radio and you’ll find the Glenn Becks of the world selling survival kits, gold, and fear. (Did I mention gold? Lots and lots of gold.)
Lurking just behind the alarmist headlines and loudspeaker klaxons are some home truths that are often lost because they are, well, sort of boring.
The truth is that we live in the most peaceful, safe, fair, prosperous, and upward trending world ever witnessed in the long, sordid history of Mankind. Our golden age makes the Pax Romana look trivial by contrast.
And just at present, there is no evidence that any of the problems we face are large or thorny enough that we can’t sort through them.
The national debt? I’ll take that over Nazis or Spanish flu pandemics or the imminent threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union any day.
Climate change? Dangerous and real, but also incremental and hardly likely to be civilization busting.
North Korea? Please.
Set against these very real challenges are the many, many points of astonishing progress. Humans are living far longer, with far more quality of life. War has faded sharply, and beautifully, as a significant force in our lives.
Democracies are spreading with remarkable speed throughout the world and many of them are proving to be highly nimble, tough and enduring.
Yes, much of the Islamic world is still trapped in something of an ugly feedback loop. But the remarkable thing isn’t that those countries are still backward in their political and social structures.
No, the remarkable thing is that so many countries have moved forward so rapidly, leaving nations like Saudi Arabia and Syria behind. From South America to eastern Europe to Asia, a vast human renaissance is underway.
So why do we do it? Why do we inflate a picayune political dispute in Washington DC — or the 2012 elections, for that matter — to the level of DefCon 3?
And why do we look for our entertainment to programs like the “Walking Dead” or Glenn Beck’s histrionics?
It’s not very original, but I suspect it has something to do with how we’re wired. Humans evolved as a species that lived right on the border between predator and prey.
We feel good — or at least, we think we’ll feel good — when problems are immediate, simple and subject to “fight or flight” solutions. We also enjoy narratives where more traditional roles and social structures are re-enforced.
In times of conflict, the complex choices, freedoms and uncertainties of modern life are replaced by a narrowing band of rules and options. For many people, that’s comforting. That feels “normal.”
The worry, of course, is that this kind of yearning for cataclysm can be self-fulfilling.
In the years before World War I, a largely peaceful and stable European civilization scrambled eagerly toward devastating conflict with a kind of suicidal zeal, which in hindsight smacks of sheer boredom and ennui.
The intellectuals of the day were intrigued by the idea that their “soft” and “effeminate” culture would be tested by fire and iron.
What they got, of course, was mud and death and disease. It wasn’t romantic or heroic at all.
The point, really, is that the morning after the fiscal cliff deal — or after the late-night zombie-pocalypse marathon — we all have to brush ourselves off and get back to the mundane work of making things a little bitter day by day.
Most of us will contribute in small, incremental ways to the remarkable progress that Mankind is making. The chances are very strong that none of us will ever get to be the heroes in a last stand against anything. (Sorry, Glenn Beck.)
The good news is that there’s also very little chance that any of us will be turned into zombies.
.png)
I almost cannot remember when Republicans/Conservatives have not been angry. Whatever happened to Reagan’s “America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”? I guess it only applies when there is a Republican president.
Peter, I will endeavor greater brevity in the future.
We are still the richest country in the world. To say we can’t afford it is factually incorrect.
Right! Worth emphasizing!
I think it depends on how you count “richest” in the world? We are certainly a wealthy country in comparison to many I do not believe factually however we are the richest anymore.
Yeah PNE is on to something about how Republicans are perceived. Who wants to be part of something that is always angry? People are drawn to a leaders who project a positive future, when I see some of these tea party guys within the GOP, they don’t seem like they have any positive vision of this country.
We have some great things going for us, starting with our physical beauty and the environmental diversity we have. I have done some traveling, not extensive but enough to realize how great North America and particularly the US is. Right in our own backyard to start, but also the deserts, the plains the swamps, the western mountains; a LOT of the US is still empty and undeveloped. We still have opportunity to protect vast stretches of wild country, these opportunities are long gone in many other developed western nations.
I do think we have to maintain our uniqueness, Europe is NOT our model we should be proud of our system that protects free speech, that protects religious faith, and yes protects the right to freely own private property and to freely conduct business. There is no real security in this life, the government can’t provide it and it is a mistake to believe that it ever will. Certainly we should look to the government to even out poverty, to help the destitute etc, but our strength is not based on our great government and never will be.
“The folks with money have this entire government by the short-hairs. It’s an exclusive club that’s bent on getting smaller and richer. When they become rich enough, they won’t care at all how the rest of us get around, educate our kids, or feed ourselves.”
This paranoid notion that there’s some evil rich folks conspiracy against poor people going on is total nonsense, all though that doesn’t stop some from repeating it as if it were true. Who, for example, do you think does most of the charitable giving in this country? Not poor people. We already know who pays most of the taxes and creates most of the jobs in this country. Sure as hell isn’t poor people. Who uses the most government benefits and services? Not “rich folks”. If people with money really controlled the government, do you think they would have elected Obama? Hardly. Keep blaming people for things they aren’t doing and see if that makes them more sympathetic to “poor people”.
“We are certainly a wealthy country in comparison to many I do not believe factually however we are the richest anymore.”
Well if you go by GDP, we’re double the wealth of China, which is in second place. We trail the EU only if you count the EU as a single nation. (List of countries by GDP (nominal))
We also have the largest gold reserves, more than double the reserves of number two, Germany.
So for us to be anything other than number one, you have to pretend the EU is a country.
“Who, for example, do you think does most of the charitable giving in this country?”
How much of that charitable giving goes to already wealthy art museums, colleges and universities and outright scams like many “charitable remainder trusts” which allows rich folk to live off of the income of the investments in the trust while paying no tax on it, but which can be carefully structured to produce almost no dispersal to the named charity.
And of course they pay all the taxes– they take all the income. I am not impressed! And it is certainly not true that the poor are the chief beneficiaries of government. You think we went to war in Iraq for the benefit of the nation’s poor? And all those corporate subsidies– to whose benefit do you think they accrue? You’re drinking too much tea, Larry.
Lots to think about here, both posts and responses. It reminds me of Curt Stager’s book “Deep Future”, which thinks about the future of the planet and of humans after anthropogenic climate change. People will still be around. The question in my mind is how many people and how will they live. Does the comfortable way we live survive the changes that are coming in our climate and our energy sources?
I agree with Brian that we are indeed the luckiest people who have ever lived. It’s all luck, being born in the USA during the cusp of the era of cheap, abundant energy and accelerating technological change.
We just spent some time outdoors clearing off most of our brand-new made-in-the-USA solar photovoltaic system. 14 inches of snow fell on it the day after it went online, and our snow equipment all decided to break down at the same time, so we are just catching up. It will be a year before our production matches our demand. Still, I don’t know why everyone with a suitable site doesn’t put one of these up. The incentives are insanely wonderful. Simply using the amount we pay for electricity, we’ll be able to pay off the system in 8-9 years, a rate of return far better than most investments these days. And the bank pretty much threw the money at us to finance the system – very low interest rate and no closing costs. It’s a big win-win-win; more clean electricity in the grid, lower energy costs for us in the long run, and we are buying products from American manufacturers, helping a new industry grow.
Someone questioned why conservatives are always angry. Walker, your attitude is a good place to start. All we hear is gimmee, gimmee, gimme and then, after we’ve paid up yet again: blame, blame, blame. It’s tiresome and people won’t put up with it forever. You don’t think CRTs are fair? Get rid of them and we’ll see what the former beneficiaries think then. Keep biting the hands that feed you and see how it works out.
Nobody’s hand is feeding me, thank you very much!
(Well, except for the hands of farmers of course.)
You honestly believe that all liberals are on the dole? Wake up, Larry! You think George Sorros is on the dole Larry? There are plenty of liberals who don’t need handouts, but who do believe in what Christ taught about taking care of the poor.
Jesus, Walker, stop putting words in my mouth! I never said anything about liberals being on the dole at all! I also said nothing against taking care of the poor. If you read what I wrote and understood it you would know that my objection is to the constant demonization of the rich and the unrelenting demands that they “pay more” when it is my belief that “the rich” have been paying their share all along and supporting charitable causes as well. Is that plain enough for you?
I don’t demonize the rich. The rich are just like the poor except they have much more money, which makes their lives very different from the lives of the poor.
There has been some research that show that the poor actually are more charitable than the rich if you look at donations and in-kind donations as a percentage of their wealth. But there is no doubt that on the basis of how much charitable giving is done the rich give lots of money. Thank you rich people!!!!
Larry, you may believe that the rich have been paying enough. Many people agree with you. Many people disagree with you. What is enough? Many rich people themselves believe that the rich should be paying more. The rich get much more out of society than the poor. Will it make much difference to a homeless person if Canada invades us and takes everyones stuff? No, the homeless person has very little to lose. Does the homeless guy have much need of an interstate transit system to move the goods that his business produces? Doe the homeless person need a system or airports, or a legal system to regulate patent infringement? Probably not.
But those sorts of things that the government does benefit the rich guy a lot. Police and fire protection benefit the rich guy to a much greater proportion than the homeless guy. International trade deals? who do they help?
Uh-oh, I’m running on again. Sorry Peter!
Anita, God bless you and your solar PV system. You are a hero to future generations!
But let’s be real here. In the deep future we will all just be big brains with robot bodies that draw energy directly from Dark Matter, and we wont have to worry about climate or even the Earth itself. We can live in a virtual world that we shape within our own mind. Hey, wait! that part of it is already happening among Conservatives! They beat us to the future. Now all they need is the robot bodies.
Couldn’t they just use Roombas?
That would be a start, and imagine how much more useful Rush or Glenn would be if they could clean your carpets. But I’m afraid that running a powerful vacuum motor would draw too much current leaving little battery power for necessary fluid pumps to circulate blood to their brains. There would need to be a system to filter the blood too but the built in HEPA might be just the ticket as long as the housing were carefully sealed to be water-tight.
Perhaps Obama would invest some of our tax dollars, maybe $7.4 billion or so, in companies that could develop advanced batteries and life support systems to fit on a Roomba.
The question in my mind is how many people and how will they live. Does the comfortable way we live survive the changes that are coming in our climate and our energy sources?
I have no words.
Actually, I do.
Talk about gloom and doom coming from the conservative camp!
There’s some far out thinking in the liberal camp, too!
Kathy what are you talking about, doom and gloom? We have a team at Clarkson already hard at work on your future body. You’re gonna love the way you feel when we slip you into a sharp and sexy fire engine red Roomba.
Peter, we do not subsidize milk so the poor can afford it. We limit the ability of farmers to get better pricing and pay them because of allowed monopolistic corps that pay less than it costs to produce the product. IN that specific case, if it weren’t for the supports we’d only have 2-3 dairy producing companies, mega giant factory farms if you will. So if you want to point fingers at illogical subsidies at least tell the whole story.
Good one KHL!
I’m sorry, other than touchy-feely “spread your legs lady, you’re going to get frisked” Joe Biden, what happy go lucky Dems do you guys see? Are you thinking of the 16 Democrat Senators that voted for Obamacare and now want waivers because “it’s a job killing tax”? They didn’t look real happy. Where are all these placid, happy, cheerful Dems you talk about?
Anita, that’s great that you were able to install a solar system. But I note you don’t give the total designed wattage and cost. People still have to have the disposable income to make the payment in the first place. I know in my case we’re working towards the day we can install a wood boiler. But that’s a good $12-15K away. I’m almost certain any solar power system with the controls and batteries is close to 3x that much. Could you clue me in on the costs please?
Walker, do you really think Soros is a good example of charity among the uber wealthy liberals?
“Kathy what are you talking about, doom and gloom? We have a team at Clarkson already hard at work on your future body. You’re gonna love the way you feel when we slip you into a sharp and sexy fire engine red Roomba.”
Okay, now that was funny!
I note the “return on investments” argument is largely based on the belief that intangibles will be produced. That’s a slippery argument that carries both gains and losses largely based on perception.
Government is not the leader nor can it be the leader in our economy. It will always form a supportive and very important role in setting the rules of the game, the boundaries for our economy, but it cannot and should not be in the business of deciding what should be produced and how much it should cost or how much people should make. This is what economic freedom is about and if you curtail economic freedom you curtail freedom in general.
There are some items that the government must produce, largely a national defense, court system, law enforcement, poverty alleviation including paying for health care for those who can’t afford it, and some infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, ports, rail, basic R&D in the sciences).
But even after all of that the core of what is happening in our economy is flowing from the private sector as it should be.
So I would be against subsidizing any energy companies, including oil and gas and including solar or wind. The markets will determine what is viable or not.
Mervel, this idea that government has no role to play in business is absurd. Granted, government should avoid excessive involvement in business. But if we’d been playing by the rules you’re advocating, we wouldn’t have built the transcontinental railroads. We wouldn’t have gone to the moon and reaped all of the advances that have come from our space program, … on and on. You’re ready to scrap all subsidies, across the board?
Markets may do a good job of determining what is viable eventually. But there are many, many worthwhile things that will never happen without some form of funding to get them off the ground, and private funding often lacks the vision (or the nerve) to make them happen.
Government’s role in the economy should not extend to artificially manipulating it, including funding projects that have no hope of commercial viability. “Having a role” and investing in public works are not the same as manipulating market forces.
“Government’s role in the economy should not extend to artificially manipulating it, including funding projects that have no hope of commercial viability.”
How does one know what will have commercial viability? Did anyone consider the possible commercial viability of the Internet when DARPA created it?
Commercial viability is the business of private capital investment. If there’s money to be made, there’s private investment. If the project is a loser or very risky the government finances it. Private investment does not ignore reasonable opportunities.
Walker,
As you may know, the D in DARPA stands for Defense, as in the Department of Defense. As such, its budget was part of the bloated Defense Establishment liberals are so fond of criticizing, unless, as in this case, it produces something they approve of. Then the criticism is muted and instead of runaway military spending it becomes a wise investment in our future. You guys do love having it both ways, don’t you?
Yeah! Government should have no role in anything that has no hope of succeeding. Like picking a fight with the British Empire!
RC, you gotta love that Joe Biden! You never know what is going to come out of his mouth. That’s entertainment.
“[DARPA] was part of the bloated Defense Establishment liberals are so fond of criticizing, unless, as in this case, it produces something they approve of.”
Uh, Larry, I don’t think you can find any liberals that want to do away with the DoD. I could be wrong I guess, but that would be mighty radical.
And there’s plenty of wanting it both ways on both sides. You know– get your government hands off my Medicare, lets stop government from interfering in our freedoms (unless you’re gay), etc. etc.
Okay, point of order. The transcontinental railroads keep getting brought up, likely by people that enjoy “Hell on Wheels” as much as I do. News flash! The gov’t didn’t fund the whole shebang with tax payer dollars.
“Funding initially was primarily from the personal savings of the Big Four Sacramento merchants (Stanford, Crocker, Huntington, and Hopkins) and additional investors. These men each risked their entire life savings, as limited liability companies such as modern corporations were not yet available. The U.S. government provided funding with the Pacific Railroad Acts, starting in 1862, in the form of bonds sold to the public (issued only as construction proceeded and which had to be and were repaid in full with interest) and land grants. The government kept half of the land in alternating squares, giving the other half of the squares to the railroad, and the increase in value of the land due to building the railroad meant (as the U.S. Supreme Court later concluded) that the land grants were not really subsidies because the increase in value of the government’s land exceeded the value of the land granted to the railroads. The cities of San Francisco and Sacramento also provided bond funding.”
The gov’t funding was via BONDS, not taxpayer dollars. That is important. Now yes, Thos Durant did work to finangle every last dime he could out of it, but the guy also opened the Adirondacks to the general public too. He pretty much built Blue Mtn Lake. So take the good with the bad. At any rate, it was actual bonds financing the loans and the money was actually RE-PAID WITH INTEREST. I feel it’s important this be acknowledged. “HOW” is a great show but the historical accuracy is given a large dose of artistic license.
Knuckle, that Joe Biden, he’s no Dan Quayle! Does anyone else automatically think of Bob Uecker whenever Bidens name is mentioned? No insult to the Ueck intended.
Larry makes a good point- “Government’s role in the economy should not extend to artificially manipulating it, including funding projects that have no hope of commercial viability. “Having a role” and investing in public works are not the same as manipulating market forces.”
Our gov’t has a long history of attempting to manipulate market forces. FDR ring a bell? Nothing has changed much since then. Does anyone really, truly think that politicians handing out contracts as political payback or favors for future funding aren’t manipulating the markets? Anyone who was in the service can recall when the motor pools were full of AMCs and then Chryslers in an attempt to keep them afloat. So there’s no denying it’s common. The question is, is it right? I think it’s one thing to take a low bid contract from a struggling company in hopes the funding will provide the boost to help the company succeed as long as their is a need for the product and a reasonable assurance the company can actually do the job. Kaiser and his untried Liberty ships in WW2 might be an example. It’s another to hand out billions to start ups with zero record in a field that provides a questionable product with small assurance of payback. Some of us may remember the Dot.Com start ups that consisted of 3 geeks and a soldering gun. A lot of foolish private investors put money into anything that ended with “tech” and financed the BMWs, lavish homes and expense accounts that included hookers and drugs. Those were unwise, failed investments are only a bit different than some of the “bridges to nowhere”, the half million dollar “Sparta Tea Pot Museum”, the $14 BILLION “Big Dig”, the $3.4 million “Turtle Tunnel” under Hwy 27 on Florida (What? A culvert wouldn’t do?) or the $2,500,000,000.00 for 10 more C-17 airplanes that the DoD said they don”t need. Great for Boeing, I’m sure, not so great for the taxpayer. It’s all market manipulation and even if you don’t see it as wasteful tax dollars, you should at least wonder about the wisdom of “investing” in Tea Pot museums, or the quarter of a mill given to a St Louis art museum that had a $148 million fund balance! “Investment”, whether gov’t or private, still implies someone at the wheel is doing some thinking about return- returns other than votes, pay offs or a nice cushy 7 figure retirement job after this Senate gig is up!
Oh Rancid, you are making me long for the days of AMC, sigh.
Sure they were ridiculed in their day but they were ahead of their time. They had the AMC Eagle, the 4 wheel drive passenger sedan – the forerunner of today’s cross-over SUV. And they had the Pacer – the car that half of all Subaru models aspire to look like. And the Gremlin, the prototype for all of the hatchbacks that were to follow.
The 70’s. America at the height of mediocrity/schlock/genius. Polyester Rayon Disco goodness. Gas lines and government cheese. Retread tires. Remember how we used to laugh at products that were made in Japan, hah! Glory days.
You could put a 6 foot long submarine sandwich in the back of a Pacer SIDEWAYS!!!!! Try doing that in any of today’s supposed high quality vehicles.
I didn’t say the government had no role in our economy. It plays a very important role in setting the rules of the game, without good government you don’t have much of an economy, go to countries with fractured or non-existent central governments and you see the very bad results for business. In addition I think there is a role for R&D and basic research, particularly in areas of medicine and the basic sciences.
The problem comes when government decides what types of products and services at what prices should be offered and tries to either subsidize these things or make them. I am also against subsidizing the oil and gas industry as much as I am subsidizing wind or solar companies.
Now basic research on very advanced materials could have huge impacts in the solar or wind field, that is different from investing directly in companies.
An ironic aside to the issue is that the government is slapping tarrifs on solar panels from China which raises the price of solar technology in the US making it less competitive with oil and gas; but protects particular solar businesses in the US. So what is the point of the intervention? Is the point to help these particular companies make more money or is the point to expand the viability of solar power in the US?
It would look to be the former.
Mervel, your solar panel post is good example of the limits and supports I’ve spoken of in farming and other areas. Tariffs and price supports and tax breaks and subsidies and low interests loans and extended depreciation rates and guaranteed minimum payments for green wattage even if it’s at a loss. Doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense does it?
Knuckle, amazing that we can look back at poorly made, hideously ugly cars with a nostalgic affection, eh? I had a Pacer believe it or not. What a piece of junk! I would love to get my 74 Duster with the slant 6 back though. 20-22 mpg no matter what, comfortable, handled well, big trunk. Rust did the old girl in.
I think your 6 foot sub would cost just about what the monthly payment on the Pacer was these days!
Yup, “it’s all good”.
http://northcountrynow.com/news/st-lawrence-county-chamber-supports-plan-raise-sales-tax-lower-property-tax-075628
But we can fund 501(c)3s and let our schools go bankrupt.
Kathy, our schools are partially responsible for the condition they find themselves in.
I’m not an economist and I’ve always had trouble with math.
But I do have common sense and I don’t understand the facade of optimism when common sense tells me we’re in trouble.
President Obama wanted change and I agree we need to change how we’re doing something if it’s not working. But there are common sense methods being ignored – because in my opinion, this is more of a culture war than anything.
You have the progressives who want a living constitution, pulling up the anchor as our nation moves forward, forming itself around anything we can come up with that pleases our personal satisfaction – and call it good.
Then you have the conservatives who want an original constitution, which anchors into the bedrock of foundational principles, allowing it to rein in any contrived idea man can come up with.
I am hopeful. But you can’t keep driving a car with a leak in the tire “hoping” it will get you where you want to go. Sometimes you have to plug the leak and sometimes you just have to put a new tire on. But you put the tire on that fits the make and model of the vehicle.
We cannot compartmentalize who we are. Our world view shapes us and how we govern.
I agree Rancid.
Waste is everywhere.
Time to tighten the belt but no one wants to. That’s because we have evolved into something we shouldn’t be.
Our leaders should lead by example. People can talk all day but actions speak louder. They talk the talk but no one is seeing them step down and take a pay cut or sacrifice a vacation, etc. It’s business as usual and it promotes a false security.
The cards must fall so we can build again – and hopefully the right way. Schools go bankrupt – so be it. We can’t keep bailing everything out.