I was in Cache Mountain Traders in Sisters last week to interview Steve Wilson about the new focus of his store.
He’s gone from a consignment store to a depot for “preppers.”
What is a prepper? I didn’t know either. Hadn’t heard the term.
Turns out prepper is a new term for what we used to call “survivalists” before that term got loaded up with bad connotations and images of potbellied guys in camo fatigues running (waddling?) around in the woods playing soldier.
It’s a good idea to try to lose that image. ’Cause being a prepper is not a bad idea; not at all.
We live in a wondrous era of abundant supply, literally at our finger tips. the local store carries every kind of everything or can get it for you in a couple of days. Actually, you don’t even need to leave the house. You can order up most anything you need or desire from the Internet.
But as Steve points out, it’s all as complex — and as fragile — as a spider web. We don’t like to think about how easily it could all break down.
And what do you do then?
That’s what being a prepper is all about. Being prepared. Like a good Boy Scout.
Do you have enough clean water and food to last you a while if things get hairy? How about an alternative heat source and a means of cooking food if the electric stove is out?
These are good things to think about, especially in a place like Sisters, which is, in truth, relatively isolated.
A lot of preppers are concerned about major socioeconomic collapse and that turns some people off from the whole subculture. It’s almost as if they are hopeful that the worst happens so they can put all their preparation into action. Remember all the doomsday preaching about Y2K?
Total socioeconomic collapse is a remote possibility, but it’s not completely implausible. And preparing for the worst gives you a lot of head space to deal with less catastrophic but still dangerous scenarios.
Hurricane Katrina provided searing images of people helpless in the face of natural disaster, without supplies, without a plan. Why be one of those people?
Here in Sisters, a major winter storm, a wildfire, could easily create the need to activate an emergency plan. A stockpile of food and water makes sense; so does some emergency communication device like a crank-up radio.
And, yes, some means of protecting what you have is always a good idea. Doesn’t have to be an AR-15; a good shotgun will do and your hunting rifle or even your .22 plinker will serve.
This doesn’t have to be a huge dollar investment and most everything you need can be readily found at surplus stores, hardware stores or places like Cache Mountain.
Most gear that you might put up as a prepper can double as camping/backpacking/hunting gear anyway, so it’s insurance you can actually use for fun.
The library is full of good books and there’s all kinds of interesting “prepper” Web sites out there. Many of them are full of recipes and homesteading advice — not what you associate with “survivalism.”
It’s really about self-reliance and in my book that’s always a good thing. I’ve been looking at my stuff and getting set to fill in gaps (mostly an insufficient supply of imperishable foodstuffs). It’s been an interesting exercise, one that has reminded me to think “what would we do if?”
If you’re not a prepper, maybe you oughta be.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Monday, August 24, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Civil War isn’t over
I recently re-ignited my interest in the American Civil War, which had lain dormant for about 15 years.
In that intervening decade-and-a-half, the landscape of Civil War study changed radically — because of the Internet. There are scores and scores of Civil War sites and blogs, from scholars’ pages to reenactor group sites to partisan blogs.
Oh, yes, partisan blogs.
You see, the Civil War isn’t over; the past isn’t past.
The origins and causes of the great conflict are argued in the blogosphere as vigorously, if not (quite) as violently as they were argued in the middle of the 19th Century.
This is no mere academic debate. It remains at the center of our identity as a nation.
Southern Partisans, neo-Confederates, argue that the war was a second War of Independence, a defense of liberty against an overreaching Federal government. Sound familiar? Not surprisingly, the blogs of Southern Partisans tend to be arch-conservative and antigovernment. They’re consistent, too.
While their attention right now is on battling health care reform as conceived by the current administration, many blog archives reveal a strong anti-Iraq War tendency — a rejection of what they regard as an imperialist U.S. that violates the original spirit of the Republic.
Where they go off the rails is in their minimization of slavery as a causal factor. Most reject slavery as a cause of war at all. That’s twaddle. You only have to look at the declaration of secession of South Carolina or the Constitution of the Confederate States of America to see that defense of the institution of slavery was fundamental to the Southern cause, even if it was not a paramount motive of many of the men who fought bravely and skillfully in the defense of hearth and home.
Other bloggers see the meaning of the war very differently.
Some bloggers are deeply committed to the understanding that the war that began over the preservation of the Union ended up being about the extension of the promise of American society — one where all men are created equal.
This exalted view of the meaning of the war can lead to some real hostility toward those who see that interpretation as a gloss. And some smearing with a broad brush.
In another post I referred to a Civil War blogger — very hostile to the outlook of the neo-Confederates — who slagged off the entire homeschool movement because he sees so many homeschoolers in Virginia getting a positive spin on the Confederacy in their history study.
The pieties of teh Southern Partisans can get a little thick — and their denial of the centrality of slavery doesn't pass any kind of historical muster. On the other hand, many of the “anti-Confederate” bloggers can be incredibly snarky, lending credence to the Southron’s belief that the “Yankees” have an incurably holier-than-thou outlook that must impose its worldview on others who don’t want it.
To those who don’t know much about the Civil War (and maybe don’t care) this may all seem vaguely ridiculous. But it’s as serious as a charge of grapeshot.
Interpretations of the meaning of the Civil War matter a great deal to many people as a way of defining who they are culturally and politically. Recently, a large group of scholars (including the notorious William Ayers) called upon President Obama to forego the long-standing tradition of laying a wreath at the memorial to the Confederate dead at Arlington.
Obama upheld the tradition and laid the wreath.
This stuff matters. In many ways, fundamental issues of the War continue to gnaw at us today, whether we recognize where they come from or not. What is the definition of liberty? Is the federal government a guarantor of liberty, extending the torch of freedom, or is it in itself a threat to liberty?
Are we defined as Americans by our race? Is the original sin of slavery an indelible stain or was it washed out by the blood of 640,000 Americans and the passage of 140 years?
These questions remain unanswered — and maybe unanswerable. If the war didn’t decide them, what could?
When we see the passion the rage, the alienation between Americans and (dare I say it) the hatred that marks the bleeding edge of the partisan divide in this country, it is plain to see that the Civil War is not over.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
In that intervening decade-and-a-half, the landscape of Civil War study changed radically — because of the Internet. There are scores and scores of Civil War sites and blogs, from scholars’ pages to reenactor group sites to partisan blogs.
Oh, yes, partisan blogs.
You see, the Civil War isn’t over; the past isn’t past.
The origins and causes of the great conflict are argued in the blogosphere as vigorously, if not (quite) as violently as they were argued in the middle of the 19th Century.
This is no mere academic debate. It remains at the center of our identity as a nation.
Southern Partisans, neo-Confederates, argue that the war was a second War of Independence, a defense of liberty against an overreaching Federal government. Sound familiar? Not surprisingly, the blogs of Southern Partisans tend to be arch-conservative and antigovernment. They’re consistent, too.
While their attention right now is on battling health care reform as conceived by the current administration, many blog archives reveal a strong anti-Iraq War tendency — a rejection of what they regard as an imperialist U.S. that violates the original spirit of the Republic.
Where they go off the rails is in their minimization of slavery as a causal factor. Most reject slavery as a cause of war at all. That’s twaddle. You only have to look at the declaration of secession of South Carolina or the Constitution of the Confederate States of America to see that defense of the institution of slavery was fundamental to the Southern cause, even if it was not a paramount motive of many of the men who fought bravely and skillfully in the defense of hearth and home.
Other bloggers see the meaning of the war very differently.
Some bloggers are deeply committed to the understanding that the war that began over the preservation of the Union ended up being about the extension of the promise of American society — one where all men are created equal.
This exalted view of the meaning of the war can lead to some real hostility toward those who see that interpretation as a gloss. And some smearing with a broad brush.
In another post I referred to a Civil War blogger — very hostile to the outlook of the neo-Confederates — who slagged off the entire homeschool movement because he sees so many homeschoolers in Virginia getting a positive spin on the Confederacy in their history study.
The pieties of teh Southern Partisans can get a little thick — and their denial of the centrality of slavery doesn't pass any kind of historical muster. On the other hand, many of the “anti-Confederate” bloggers can be incredibly snarky, lending credence to the Southron’s belief that the “Yankees” have an incurably holier-than-thou outlook that must impose its worldview on others who don’t want it.
To those who don’t know much about the Civil War (and maybe don’t care) this may all seem vaguely ridiculous. But it’s as serious as a charge of grapeshot.
Interpretations of the meaning of the Civil War matter a great deal to many people as a way of defining who they are culturally and politically. Recently, a large group of scholars (including the notorious William Ayers) called upon President Obama to forego the long-standing tradition of laying a wreath at the memorial to the Confederate dead at Arlington.
Obama upheld the tradition and laid the wreath.
This stuff matters. In many ways, fundamental issues of the War continue to gnaw at us today, whether we recognize where they come from or not. What is the definition of liberty? Is the federal government a guarantor of liberty, extending the torch of freedom, or is it in itself a threat to liberty?
Are we defined as Americans by our race? Is the original sin of slavery an indelible stain or was it washed out by the blood of 640,000 Americans and the passage of 140 years?
These questions remain unanswered — and maybe unanswerable. If the war didn’t decide them, what could?
When we see the passion the rage, the alienation between Americans and (dare I say it) the hatred that marks the bleeding edge of the partisan divide in this country, it is plain to see that the Civil War is not over.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Getting back on track with health care reform
The current proposals for health care reform are probably dead.
That doesn’t mean health care reform isn’t possible. It sure is necessary. I know of at least one Sisters business that just eliminate its insurance benefits for employees because they can’t afford it. That’s going to become a common litany over the next few years if something isn’t done.
Don’t like the current House bill or the plans being bandied about in the Senate? Let’s hear some alternatives.
A Steve Lopez column in the L.A. Times a couple of days ago outlined a California surgeon’s ideas. They won’t “fix” health care, but they sure make sense and it seems like perhaps some common sense changes might do some good.
Above all, they might be politically achievable, assuming that our legislators are not completely in thrall to the insurance companies. Perhaps a foolish assumption, but let’s pretend they aren’t just for the sake of argument.
Read the whole column here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez12-2009aug12,1,2117780.column
The gist is this:
• Dump the "50-state patchwork" of private insurance programs that can't cross state borders and switch to competing national plans that would be required to take all comers, with no exemptions for preexisting conditions.
• Reinstate federal regulations abandoned in the 1980s that limited insurance companies’ fees.
• Move away from employment-based healthcare, with companies paying higher salaries, instead, so employees can shop for a suitable plan and carry it with them from one job to the next.
• Cap malpractice suits.
Obviously this would require more government regulation, but it would not be a “government takeover of health care” as feared by activists opposing so-called “Obama care.” It would also require tort reform, so often resisted by the Democrats who are too influenced by lawyers’ lobbies.
These ideas make sense and seem like they are in the realm of the possible, even in a climate now poisoned by deep rancor.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
That doesn’t mean health care reform isn’t possible. It sure is necessary. I know of at least one Sisters business that just eliminate its insurance benefits for employees because they can’t afford it. That’s going to become a common litany over the next few years if something isn’t done.
Don’t like the current House bill or the plans being bandied about in the Senate? Let’s hear some alternatives.
A Steve Lopez column in the L.A. Times a couple of days ago outlined a California surgeon’s ideas. They won’t “fix” health care, but they sure make sense and it seems like perhaps some common sense changes might do some good.
Above all, they might be politically achievable, assuming that our legislators are not completely in thrall to the insurance companies. Perhaps a foolish assumption, but let’s pretend they aren’t just for the sake of argument.
Read the whole column here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez12-2009aug12,1,2117780.column
The gist is this:
• Dump the "50-state patchwork" of private insurance programs that can't cross state borders and switch to competing national plans that would be required to take all comers, with no exemptions for preexisting conditions.
• Reinstate federal regulations abandoned in the 1980s that limited insurance companies’ fees.
• Move away from employment-based healthcare, with companies paying higher salaries, instead, so employees can shop for a suitable plan and carry it with them from one job to the next.
• Cap malpractice suits.
Obviously this would require more government regulation, but it would not be a “government takeover of health care” as feared by activists opposing so-called “Obama care.” It would also require tort reform, so often resisted by the Democrats who are too influenced by lawyers’ lobbies.
These ideas make sense and seem like they are in the realm of the possible, even in a climate now poisoned by deep rancor.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
