If you ever decided to leave the USA, where would you go?

[Brant Gaede]

What about Canada? We have really good universal health care here!

You didn't really think you could slip this by us, did you? You are talking about a state monopoly, socialism, doctor enslavement and the human capacity to adapt to something pretty bad if you are pretty sick.

--Brant

For the record, we are gradually getting a 2-tiered system in Canada whereby if you have the money you can pay for better service than is offered by the government run system. Also, I don't know many doctors I would refer to as 'slaves', that kind of rhetoric doesn't help your cause much, IMO.

Canada has had a two-tiered system for a long time--the second tier being the United States.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Canada has had a two-tiered system for a long time--the second tier being the United States.

--Brant

This is true, but I am referring to private clinics in Canada. Here for example.

[anthony]

Comparisons are odious, it's said, but my country, South Africa, is going down the crapper in a way Americans would find it hard to believe.

Against a background of advancing Statism (with a big 'S') the old racial issues are coming to the boil again. Just recently an up-and-coming rabble rouser -Julius Malema- has been making a name for himself with 'hate speech' against whites.

Then, last night, the retired, ex-leader of the small fascist group, the AWB, Eugene Terreblanche, was murdered on his farm, by two of his black farm hands. Completely unrelated, I'm sure; but his followers have promised vengeance - Malema the target. Reprisals for that would be horrendous.

Me, for years now, I've been considering Israel.

As a friend told me, he'd rather die for something worth defending, rather than this hopeless basket case of a nation.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

Canada has had a two-tiered system for a long time--the second tier being the United States.

--Brant

This is true, but I am referring to private clinics in Canada. Here for example.

Keep it up Canada. I'd rather go to Canada than India.

--Brant

[algernonsidney]

Plus, Israel is so vulnerable.

Israel rolls out the red carpet for you if you can prove that you are Jewish.

Since I don't have any Jewish ancestry that I know of, it's really not on my list.

[algernonsidney]

double post deleted

Edited April 4, 2010 by Chris Baker

[algernonsidney]

Can this country achieve a peaceful rebirth in the foreseeable future?

By all precedents, it is not likely. But America is an unprecedented phenomenon. In the past, American perseverance became, on occasion, too long-bearing a patience. But when Americans turned,

they turned.

What may happen to the Welfare State is what happened to the Prohibition Amendment. Is there enough of the American sense of life left in people—under the constant pressure of the cultural-political efforts to obliterate it? It is impossible to tell. But those of us who hold it, must fight for it. We have no alternative: we cannot surrender this country to a zero—to men whose battle cry is mindlessness. We cannot fight against collectivism, unless we fight against its moral base: altruism. We cannot fight against altruism, unless we fight against its epistemological base: irrationalism. We cannot fight

against

anything, unless we fight for something—and what we must fight for is the supremacy of reason, and a view of man as a rational being. These are philosophical issues. The philosophy we need is a conceptual equivalent of America's sense of life. To propagate it, would require the hardest intellectual battle. But isn't that a magnificent goal to fight for?

Bill, I should take the time to read that essay again. Rand herself admits that such a change is unlikely. Is it more likely now than it was back then?

What do you do when the country starts arresting people on phony charges such as what happened recently in Michigan?

What do you do when American citizens can be tortured and then convicted of crimes like Jose Padilla?

What do you do when a Canadian citizen like Peter Watts is harassed at the border by some American goons when he is trying to return to Canada?

What do you do when a guy '>can have his guns confiscated because he is "disgruntled"?

[algernonsidney]

I was beginning to think no one would notice my outrageous claim. Seriously though, there's one thing nobody is talking about in this whole healthcare fiasco - people have to start taking responsibility for their own health. Most of the stress on our healthcare systems is originating from unhealthy lifestyles and food.

Actually this is also what has motivated this to a certain degree. However, healthy food is not necessarily easy to come by either. Have you seen Food, Inc.?

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill, I should take the time to read that essay again. Rand herself admits that such a change is unlikely. Is it more likely now than it was back then?

What do you do when the country starts arresting people on phony charges such as what happened recently in Michigan?

What do you do when American citizens can be tortured and then convicted of crimes like Jose Padilla?

What do you do when a Canadian citizen like Peter Watts is harassed at the border by some American goons when he is trying to return to Canada?

What do you do when a guy can have his guns confiscated because he is "disgruntled"?

Chris -

Consider that Rand published that essay in the Ayn Rand Letter, published dated December 6, 1971. I think it's broadly speaking been downhill since, with some progress on some fronts during the Reagan administration.

Bill P

[tjohnson]

I was beginning to think no one would notice my outrageous claim. Seriously though, there's one thing nobody is talking about in this whole healthcare fiasco - people have to start taking responsibility for their own health. Most of the stress on our healthcare systems is originating from unhealthy lifestyles and food.

Actually this is also what has motivated this to a certain degree. However, healthy food is not necessarily easy to come by either. Have you seen Food, Inc.?

Yes I have and it was disturbing. I read an article about GM corn and how they have modified the corn so that it produces an insecticide so they don't have to spray it but some research is indicating that when you ingest the corn the gene can transfer to bacteria in your gut and then keep producing insecticide in your gut. Nice.

[jriggenbach]

Bill, I should take the time to read that essay again. Rand herself admits that such a change is unlikely. Is it more likely now than it was back then?

What do you do when the country starts arresting people on phony charges such as what happened recently in Michigan?

What do you do when American citizens can be tortured and then convicted of crimes like Jose Padilla?

What do you do when a Canadian citizen like Peter Watts is harassed at the border by some American goons when he is trying to return to Canada?

What do you do when a guy can have his guns confiscated because he is "disgruntled"?

Chris -

Consider that Rand published that essay in the Ayn Rand Letter, published dated December 6, 1971. I think it's broadly speaking been downhill since, with some progress on some fronts during the Reagan administration.

Bill P

Oh, yes, the wonderful "progress" during the Reagan administration: the tax bite went up, government spending went up, the federal deficit went up, the War on Drugs was boosted enormously, and millions of dollars were squandered on a task force that recommended a federal crackdown on "pornography" despite the fact that the information the task force itself gathered together made it clear that such a step would be both unnecessary and counter-productive. On the other hand, Reagan was able to claim credit for the airline, trucking, and FCC deregulation actually undertaken by figures like Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy. And he was also able to claim credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union that Ludwig von Mises had pointed out sixty years earlier was inescapable for purely economic reasons, irrespective of what any third rate blowhard "actor" might assert on behalf of his mindless military policies.

What a brilliant record of achievement! I am awestruck!

JR

[Brant Gaede]

Bill, I should take the time to read that essay again. Rand herself admits that such a change is unlikely. Is it more likely now than it was back then?

What do you do when the country starts arresting people on phony charges such as what happened recently in Michigan?

What do you do when American citizens can be tortured and then convicted of crimes like Jose Padilla?

What do you do when a Canadian citizen like Peter Watts is harassed at the border by some American goons when he is trying to return to Canada?

What do you do when a guy can have his guns confiscated because he is "disgruntled"?

Chris -

Consider that Rand published that essay in the Ayn Rand Letter, published dated December 6, 1971. I think it's broadly speaking been downhill since, with some progress on some fronts during the Reagan administration.

Bill P

Oh, yes, the wonderful "progress" during the Reagan administration: the tax bite went up, government spending went up, the federal deficit went up, the War on Drugs was boosted enormously, and millions of dollars were squandered on a task force that recommended a federal crackdown on "pornography" despite the fact that the information the task force itself gathered together made it clear that such a step would be both unnecessary and counter-productive. On the other hand, Reagan was able to claim credit for the airline, trucking, and FCC deregulation actually undertaken by figures like Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy. And he was also able to claim credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union that Ludwig von Mises had pointed out sixty years earlier was inescapable for purely economic reasons, irrespective of what any third rate blowhard "actor" might assert on behalf of his mindless military policies.

What a brilliant record of achievement! I am awestruck!

JR

I could forgive Reagan a lot, but not for making Bush the elder his VP instead of Jack Kemp. I'm not claiming Kemp would have become or made a great President, but the Bushes were one disaster after another with the second making Obama possible and the coming US smashup inevitable. Maybe that will turn out for the best, but I doubt I'll live long enough to see it.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill, I should take the time to read that essay again. Rand herself admits that such a change is unlikely. Is it more likely now than it was back then?

What do you do when the country starts arresting people on phony charges such as what happened recently in Michigan?

What do you do when American citizens can be tortured and then convicted of crimes like Jose Padilla?

What do you do when a Canadian citizen like Peter Watts is harassed at the border by some American goons when he is trying to return to Canada?

What do you do when a guy can have his guns confiscated because he is "disgruntled"?

Chris -

Consider that Rand published that essay in the Ayn Rand Letter, published dated December 6, 1971. I think it's broadly speaking been downhill since, with some progress on some fronts during the Reagan administration.

Bill P

Oh, yes, the wonderful "progress" during the Reagan administration: the tax bite went up, government spending went up, the federal deficit went up, the War on Drugs was boosted enormously, and millions of dollars were squandered on a task force that recommended a federal crackdown on "pornography" despite the fact that the information the task force itself gathered together made it clear that such a step would be both unnecessary and counter-productive. On the other hand, Reagan was able to claim credit for the airline, trucking, and FCC deregulation actually undertaken by figures like Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy. And he was also able to claim credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union that Ludwig von Mises had pointed out sixty years earlier was inescapable for purely economic reasons, irrespective of what any third rate blowhard "actor" might assert on behalf of his mindless military policies.

What a brilliant record of achievement! I am awestruck!

JR

JR -

I fear you responded before carefully reading what I wrote.

I said "some progress on some fronts." I did not say or imply anything like "a brilliant record of achievement."

Bill P

[9thdoctor]

I said "some progress on some fronts." I did not say or imply anything like "a brilliant record of achievement."

I’ll never forgive Reagan for denying us four more years of Carter. And we could have had eight of Mondale, to boot. Damn you Gipper!

[jriggenbach]

Bill, I should take the time to read that essay again. Rand herself admits that such a change is unlikely. Is it more likely now than it was back then?

What do you do when the country starts arresting people on phony charges such as what happened recently in Michigan?

What do you do when American citizens can be tortured and then convicted of crimes like Jose Padilla?

What do you do when a Canadian citizen like Peter Watts is harassed at the border by some American goons when he is trying to return to Canada?

What do you do when a guy can have his guns confiscated because he is "disgruntled"?

Chris -

Consider that Rand published that essay in the Ayn Rand Letter, published dated December 6, 1971. I think it's broadly speaking been downhill since, with some progress on some fronts during the Reagan administration.

Bill P

Oh, yes, the wonderful "progress" during the Reagan administration: the tax bite went up, government spending went up, the federal deficit went up, the War on Drugs was boosted enormously, and millions of dollars were squandered on a task force that recommended a federal crackdown on "pornography" despite the fact that the information the task force itself gathered together made it clear that such a step would be both unnecessary and counter-productive. On the other hand, Reagan was able to claim credit for the airline, trucking, and FCC deregulation actually undertaken by figures like Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy. And he was also able to claim credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union that Ludwig von Mises had pointed out sixty years earlier was inescapable for purely economic reasons, irrespective of what any third rate blowhard "actor" might assert on behalf of his mindless military policies.

What a brilliant record of achievement! I am awestruck!

JR

JR -

I fear you responded before carefully reading what I wrote.

I said "some progress on some fronts." I did not say or imply anything like "a brilliant record of achievement."

Bill P

Calm your fears, Bill. I understood what you wrote perfectly. Where I do seem to have gone wrong is in supposing that heavy sarcasm would be an effective way of conveying to you my reaction to what you wrote. I'll try to make it a little plainer. I regard Ronald Reagan as the worst U.S. president since Abraham Lincoln, with the possible exceptions of George W. Bush, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Richard Milhous Nixon. I can think of nothing - absolutely nothing - he did as constituting "progress," if, by "progress" in this context, we mean discernible steps in the direction of smaller, less intrusive government and greater individual liberty.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry JR, but Hoover was the worst. I've long wondered what would have happened if Coolidge's son hadn't died of that blood infection and he'd run and gotten a second term, but that begs the question of how big and powerful a country should be considering that it will usually be governed by idiots and incompetents inclined to spend the public purse on war and votes.

Very small and rather weak, except there's a sub-machine gun or assault rifle behind every door.

--Brant

[Greybird]

[...] I read an article about [genetically modified] corn and how they have modified the corn so that it produces an insecticide so they don't have to spray it. But some research is indicating that when you ingest the corn the gene can transfer to bacteria in your gut and then keep producing insecticide in your gut. Nice.

Entirely inaccurate. Some genetically modified plants are reworked to resist the effects of particular externally applied insecticides or herbicides. This is to allow those chemicals to have a broader and deeper set of effects on insect pests or weeds. Monsanto is well-known for promoting its strains that are "Roundup-ready," resisting its broad-spectrum herbicide.

Genetic engineering is also being done to make strains of corn, soybeans, and other cash crops that are particularly resistant to certain pests, to the point of interfering with their reproduction. That isn't "an insecticide" in the strict sense, either, and these added effects are targeted toward specific perils. Genetic transfer of those, or any, traits from such plants to animals — even bacteria — does not happen in a casual, non-engineered manner.

[tjohnson]

[...] I read an article about [genetically modified] corn and how they have modified the corn so that it produces an insecticide so they don't have to spray it. But some research is indicating that when you ingest the corn the gene can transfer to bacteria in your gut and then keep producing insecticide in your gut. Nice.

Entirely inaccurate. Some genetically modified plants are reworked to resist the effects of particular externally applied insecticides or herbicides. This is to allow those chemicals to have a broader and deeper set of effects on insect pests or weeds. Monsanto is well-known for promoting its strains that are "Roundup-ready," resisting its broad-spectrum herbicide.

Genetic engineering is also being done to make strains of corn, soybeans, and other cash crops that are particularly resistant to certain pests, to the point of interfering with their reproduction. That isn't "an insecticide" in the strict sense, either, and these added effects are targeted toward specific perils. Genetic transfer of those, or any, traits from such plants to animals — even bacteria — does not happen in a casual, non-engineered manner.

I don't know who's "entirely inaccurate" (is that even possible?) but I was only repeating what I read. I certainly don't trust anything Monsanto says. See article here.

In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate so-called Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide.

In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy!

There are serious medical implications to this finding. However, the GM-friendly UK government, who funded the study, chose not to fund any follow up research to see if GM corn -- which are engineered to produce an insecticide called BT toxin -- might also transfer and continue to create insecticide inside your intestines.

These kinds of studies are sorely needed, and fast, because as of right now, about 85 percent of the corn grown in the US is genetically engineered to either produce an insecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. And about 91-93 percent of all soybeans are genetically engineered to survive massive doses of Roundup herbicide.

Edited April 5, 2010 by general semanticist

[Aaron]

I regard Ronald Reagan as the worst U.S. president since Abraham Lincoln, with the possible exceptions of George W. Bush, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Richard Milhous Nixon.

I agree with the specific criticisms you pointed out concerning Reagan; he also had a terrible record of making deals with terrorists, arming evil regimes, etc. that helped make the middle east such a mess. However, RR was still merely on the slowride to hell in a handbasket compared to the others you mention, as well as Hoover or the big one, FDR.

Aaron

[dan2100]

Oh, yes, the wonderful "progress" during the Reagan administration: the tax bite went up, government spending went up, the federal deficit went up, the War on Drugs was boosted enormously, and millions of dollars were squandered on a task force that recommended a federal crackdown on "pornography" despite the fact that the information the task force itself gathered together made it clear that such a step would be both unnecessary and counter-productive. On the other hand, Reagan was able to claim credit for the airline, trucking, and FCC deregulation actually undertaken by figures like Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy. And he was also able to claim credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union that Ludwig von Mises had pointed out sixty years earlier was inescapable for purely economic reasons, irrespective of what any third rate blowhard "actor" might assert on behalf of his mindless military policies.

What a brilliant record of achievement! I am awestruck!

JR

I could forgive Reagan a lot, but not for making Bush the elder his VP instead of Jack Kemp. I'm not claiming Kemp would have become or made a great President, but the Bushes were one disaster after another with the second making Obama possible and the coming US smashup inevitable. Maybe that will turn out for the best, but I doubt I'll live long enough to see it.

I find it hard to forgive Reagan or any of these politicians, especially since many of their victims would likely not forgive them.

[jriggenbach]

I regard Ronald Reagan as the worst U.S. president since Abraham Lincoln, with the possible exceptions of George W. Bush, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Richard Milhous Nixon.

I agree with the specific criticisms you pointed out concerning Reagan; he also had a terrible record of making deals with terrorists, arming evil regimes, etc. that helped make the middle east such a mess. However, RR was still merely on the slowride to hell in a handbasket compared to the others you mention, as well as Hoover or the big one, FDR.

Aaron

Reagan was much worse than FDR because he loudly proclaimed his devotion to the principles of individual liberty and the free market while pursuing the policies of a business-as-usual statist - thus persuading countless millions of unthinking Americans that his policies were libertarian, free-market policies. He (and his mindless cheerleaders in the libertarian community) did more damage to the movement for individual liberty and free markets in the process than Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ put together.

JR

Edited April 5, 2010 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Aaron]

Reagan was much worse than FDR because he loudly proclaimed his devotion to the principles of individual liberty and the free market while pursuing the policies of a business-as-usual statist - thus persuading countless millions of unthinking Americans that his policies were libertarian, free-market policies. He (and his mindless cheerleaders in the libertarian community) did more damage to the movement for individual liberty and free markets in the process than Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ put together.

Understood. While I don't go that far on the weight of rhetoric/legacy vs. solely policies, my ranking of him based just on his actions in office - e.g. bills signed or vetoed, treaties negotiated, military actions commanded, bills suggested to congress - is certainly higher than when also considering his legacy given his rhetoric and the result of people invalidly considering him a representative of free-market capitalism.

Aaron

[jeffrey smith]

This is the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party:

The Republican Party likes to pretend that there are speed limits on the highway to hell.

Jeffrey S.

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill, I should take the time to read that essay again. Rand herself admits that such a change is unlikely. Is it more likely now than it was back then?

What do you do when the country starts arresting people on phony charges such as what happened recently in Michigan?

What do you do when American citizens can be tortured and then convicted of crimes like Jose Padilla?

What do you do when a Canadian citizen like Peter Watts is harassed at the border by some American goons when he is trying to return to Canada?

What do you do when a guy can have his guns confiscated because he is "disgruntled"?

Chris -

Consider that Rand published that essay in the Ayn Rand Letter, published dated December 6, 1971. I think it's broadly speaking been downhill since, with some progress on some fronts during the Reagan administration.

Bill P

Oh, yes, the wonderful "progress" during the Reagan administration: the tax bite went up, government spending went up, the federal deficit went up, the War on Drugs was boosted enormously, and millions of dollars were squandered on a task force that recommended a federal crackdown on "pornography" despite the fact that the information the task force itself gathered together made it clear that such a step would be both unnecessary and counter-productive. On the other hand, Reagan was able to claim credit for the airline, trucking, and FCC deregulation actually undertaken by figures like Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy. And he was also able to claim credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union that Ludwig von Mises had pointed out sixty years earlier was inescapable for purely economic reasons, irrespective of what any third rate blowhard "actor" might assert on behalf of his mindless military policies.

What a brilliant record of achievement! I am awestruck!

JR

JR -

I fear you responded before carefully reading what I wrote.

I said "some progress on some fronts." I did not say or imply anything like "a brilliant record of achievement."

Bill P

Calm your fears, Bill. I understood what you wrote perfectly. Where I do seem to have gone wrong is in supposing that heavy sarcasm would be an effective way of conveying to you my reaction to what you wrote. I'll try to make it a little plainer. I regard Ronald Reagan as the worst U.S. president since Abraham Lincoln, with the possible exceptions of George W. Bush, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Richard Milhous Nixon. I can think of nothing - absolutely nothing - he did as constituting "progress," if, by "progress" in this context, we mean discernible steps in the direction of smaller, less intrusive government and greater individual liberty.

JR

So, I will assume you are now writing what you mean. You regard Reagan, and all of those listed, as being each being clearly worse than:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Barack Hussein Obama

That's clear enough, though I certainly disagree with finding Reagan worse than FDR or BHO.

Bill P

Edited April 6, 2010 by Bill P

[Roger Bissell]

Bill, I should take the time to read that essay again. Rand herself admits that such a change is unlikely. Is it more likely now than it was back then?

What do you do when the country starts arresting people on phony charges such as what happened recently in Michigan?

What do you do when American citizens can be tortured and then convicted of crimes like Jose Padilla?

What do you do when a Canadian citizen like Peter Watts is harassed at the border by some American goons when he is trying to return to Canada?

What do you do when a guy can have his guns confiscated because he is "disgruntled"?

Chris -

Consider that Rand published that essay in the Ayn Rand Letter, published dated December 6, 1971. I think it's broadly speaking been downhill since, with some progress on some fronts during the Reagan administration.

Bill P

Oh, yes, the wonderful "progress" during the Reagan administration: the tax bite went up, government spending went up, the federal deficit went up, the War on Drugs was boosted enormously, and millions of dollars were squandered on a task force that recommended a federal crackdown on "pornography" despite the fact that the information the task force itself gathered together made it clear that such a step would be both unnecessary and counter-productive. On the other hand, Reagan was able to claim credit for the airline, trucking, and FCC deregulation actually undertaken by figures like Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy. And he was also able to claim credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union that Ludwig von Mises had pointed out sixty years earlier was inescapable for purely economic reasons, irrespective of what any third rate blowhard "actor" might assert on behalf of his mindless military policies.

What a brilliant record of achievement! I am awestruck!

JR

JR -

I fear you responded before carefully reading what I wrote.

I said "some progress on some fronts." I did not say or imply anything like "a brilliant record of achievement."

Bill P

Calm your fears, Bill. I understood what you wrote perfectly. Where I do seem to have gone wrong is in supposing that heavy sarcasm would be an effective way of conveying to you my reaction to what you wrote. I'll try to make it a little plainer. I regard Ronald Reagan as the worst U.S. president since Abraham Lincoln, with the possible exceptions of George W. Bush, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Richard Milhous Nixon. I can think of nothing - absolutely nothing - he did as constituting "progress," if, by "progress" in this context, we mean discernible steps in the direction of smaller, less intrusive government and greater individual liberty.

JR

So, I will assume you are now writing what you mean. You regard Reagan, and all of those listed, as being each being clearly worse than:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Barack Hussein Obama

That's clear enough, though I certainly disagree finding Reagan worse than FDR or BHO.

Bill P

Perhaps JR is suggesting, in his own roundabout way, that BHO's blatant, over-the-top power grabs and dissing of free enterprise are actually going to be better for the cause of liberty (by provoking people to become consistent, radical advocates of freedom) than were Reagan's lip service to freedom combined with essentially status quo statist policies.

I hope JR still thinks so this fall, when BO's "Ready Reserve Corps" (ACORN reconstituted as "preservers of the peace," courtesy of the healthcare Obamanation) swing into action against "violent, radical" Tea Party folks at polling places in districts and states where incumbent liberals risk losing their seats. Not only will they be armed with tasers and other "peace-keeping" paraphernalia, but they also will probably confiscate (for "sake-keeping" aka alteration) electronic records in precincts where the heaviest anti-liberal vote is likely to take place.

I also hope I'm being acutely paranoid and that nothing remotely resembling this is being planned as we speak. But if you don't hear from me again after this(do you hear me, Rahm Emanuel?), please honor my memory by covering your asses and moving somewhere safe like Chile or Costa Rica.

REB