Hoarding Regulations in America(?)

This morning I woke to an e-mail from my oldest friend in the world, Sam, entitled, "Hoarding Regulations in America(?)" She had attached some links to the subject of whether or not the government, fed or state, can take our personal stored food, and how much we can legally store in the first place. Interesting subject.

My first thought was, "Obscure law or conspiracy theory?" It seems there is a little bit of both going on.

If you go here: http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/Exec.Orders/EOs.html, you can read about executive orders and a bit of the history surrounding the particular EOs that point to regulation of hoarding and fears of having our stores taken by the government. Here is my response, after reading this little piece, to Sam:

"As the author specifies in bold type, 11051--Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis. (FEMA will be in control in case of 'National Emergency').

"I believe there is a typo here and that this should read "international tension or economic or financial crisis." The original EO was instituted by FDR in 1939, during the Depression, which was worldwide in scope at that moment. During this time was also the rise of Hitler and the advent of WWII. Both were the case, international tensions and economic crisis, in fact, the economic crisis on a global scale (at least among the industrialized countries, which was instrumental in the war coming so quickly on the heels of WWI, and at all.)

"Now, here is where confusion and panic is allowed to arise, in the manner of conspiracy theory: Later on in the same passage, the author notes that... Who will determine how much food we can have in our house? FEMA. And the amount depends on the needs of all...not your needs or my needs...but the "welfare" of the needy.

"This statement is inaccurate. I mean it is inaccurate in the sense that nowhere do I see how an emergency such as attack by outside forces instigated by international tensions, or financial crash within the country can be or has been reduced, by Executive Order or otherwise, to mean 'welfare of the needy' in the sense that it is portrayed in this second boldface statement. 'Welfare of the needy,' when we are discussing the EOs, or the single EO under which Clinton, for reasons which elude me but that I will certainly research, out of historical and political curiosity, placed those EOs released by FDR, as far as I can glean from the language of the orders would refer to the fact that in such dire times, the entire nation's citizenry would be deemed "needy" to a higher degree than normal, because of a military or financial threat to everyone.

"So, what is implied in the author's statement, that the President could allow FEMA to come take your canned goods away from your cellar to feed someone else, is misleading. The orders, and the order as compiled into one, specify the seizure of people's goods for the purpose of ensuring that everyone has food, medical supplies, water, whatever... during a time of crisis- like rationing during wartime, except that we have to give our stuff up to the common pile. That is the reference of all this business.

"Now, I think it is still within our own individual power to decide whether or not we would 'hoard' our food and hide it so no one else could have it. Crap, I've read those apocalypse books, seen the movies, and I figure, being an anarchist, better to take responsibility upon myself to throw what I have into the pile and then help distribute it, than to be eaten by starving creeps or zombies down the road."

If my interpretation thus far is incorrect, someone let me know, because Sam shared my reply with a lot of people, and I ought to stand corrected if I am wrong.

On further investigation, it appears that Clinton's placement of all those EOs released in 1939 under one EO in 1994 was in direct response to threat of proliferation of WMD. So it says right in the order. What I cannot find, despite several bloggers out there claiming this, evidence that there is carte blanche executive authority to define the national emergency that would give FEMA the go ahead to come knocking at our doors and take away our Rice Krispies. In fact, the panel convened explicitly noted the extension of a National State of Emergency "as defined under United States Code, Title 50" as a resulting point of Clinton's order, and Clinton specifies laws within that code in EO #12919.

For those of you who are still worried, because essentially Clinton's EO gives FEMA, of all previously-proven-to-be-dangerously-ineffective agencies, the power to take control of you and your stuff in whatever time is deemed a National State of Emergency, or because the Bush Administration has lied to the people, and King George himself has time and again taken extreme liberties with his position, I am here to allay your fears! Don't forget that in just a matter of a few months, he will be gone, first of all. And FEMA has been transformed, too, remember? After Katrina? And there is hope for the future:

Peepscapes, John McCain could very well be elected our next President. And he is not getting any younger. Sarah Palin could become, by default, President of the United States of America. And then you'll have a mommy to take care of you and tell you what to do.

But, before I go to work, the best thing about all this? Title 50 of the United States Code, which outlines the role of war and national defense for this country once contained a chapter devoted entirely to Interference with Homing Pigeons Owned by the United States. Of course, it was repealed in 1948.

Karmic Pirates

The other night I had a dream about pirates. It was like one of the Future First Man's dreams, just continued, like a movie, for what seemed like hours. A lot happened in the dream. I told him when I woke up, that I was a pirate in the dream, and we the pirates were doing things to get through the waters at the head of my hometown of Norway, Maine, and in and around Norway Lake. What were we doing?

Well, one of our actions was to pick through some roasted chickens that appeared from somewhere and to decide whether or not they had enough meat on the bones to be given to foreign students who needed stuff to get by here in the States: food, clothing, furniture... So, a bunch of pirates, complete with pirate do-rags and eye patches and knives held between their teeth, were picking through these chickens, opening them up, looking inside to be sure they had meat on them and weren't just shells that had been picked over and consumed, so we could give some food to these foreign students. (When I was growing up in Norway, there weren't many foreign students kicking around, and I suspect that hasn't changed much to this day.)

Orlando told me that didn't sound much like piracy. What were we stealing? Had we stolen the chickens? (I don't know.) Why were pirates giving good meaty chickens away? I explained I must be living out, in the dream world, an instance of karmic piracy, something like Robin Hood would have done back in Sherwood Forest, only right there on the Little Androscoggin River and Lake Pennesseewassee.

I've done my share of taking things, and I've done some giving. I suspect I haven't given as much as I have received, or blatantly stolen, so maybe this dream was a reminder. Aside from the humorous images that stick with me now, the whole concept reminds me of my political-philosophical convictions, which I recognize are not feasibly realistic at this point in human existence.

Saturday evening we were sitting on the back deck at Joy's house enjoying a beer and the late spring weather, and she mentioned a discussion that had cropped up at work about tragedy of commons. Her overwhelming impression of the concept is that it applies outside of land use management, and I agreed with her in an exchange this morning, that this is true. Tragedy of commons, for those of you who don't know, can be found with a simple "google" search; try it out. Before you do that, think about what the words together imply; common sense will get you through the rest of this blog entry.

"I know, the tragedy of commons thing is really interesting, not just from a land use perspective but from a philosophical one as well. It's a crucial piece of anarchist thought, in my book, and it bugs me that so many people think of anarchy as a chaotic bunch of people running around in black berets with bombs, wanting to annihilate everyone around them, and forget, or don't even know about or consider, the symbol and therefore the entire course of the philosophy, which is 'out of chaos, order.' Anarchy is the ultimate people taking responsibility for themselves and their community, and for some reason people, really smart people, seem afraid of that concept. My own personal theory is that we are so reliant on our ability to pass things off as someone else's responsibility, pass blame, even to the government, that taking responsibility for our own actions is a distasteful thought- too much work, not just physically and mentally, but morally as well. There. You just heard my political rant for the day."

Karmic pirates would not overfish the waters. And they would share any roast chicken they "found."

Be a Good Boy Scout?

OK, here is my rant for today: Please do not come to the Anarchy Conversation unprepared. Remember that we are all schooled in this Fine Country to conform, maybe not to the same level as in, say, Japan, but face it: you are not prepared if you let things rip like: "...you contradict yourself greatly by proclaiming the virtues of anarchy and "the goodness" of people......the second an anarchist starts thinking about the well-being of another 'folk' ...anarchy goes right out of that proverbial window.... ...so you really are not proclaiming anarchy at all but something else..." (Smile, Pe, you're on Candid Blogger.) I will respond with something like, "I do not contradict myself. Here is a fine definition of anarchy for your perusal: 'a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.'" (Which I did. JK Rowling, that is a definition ripped off directly from Dictionary.com.)

I don't want to make this a primer of some sort so will just finish up with a little tip from Paul Eltzbacher, author of "The Great Anarchists: Ideas and Teachings of Seven Major Thinkers." Yeah, I'm not in there. "...be equally at home in jurisprudence, in economics, and in philosophy."

And read your Proudhon.

I'm done ranting! Some things have been going on that warrant complimentary attention, or at least attention of some sort not derogatory, so I'm finished.

For those of you who think Michelle Obama's hairdo makes her look scarily like Condy Rice, I have a new stylist who could work wonders with his German technique, for far less than a John Edwards 400, about whom we perhaps ought to tell her. He used to be a semi-driver. By this I mean he used to drive big trucks, not that he used to half-drive. Ain't life grand? (See conversations with Tim and Susan, below.)

The past couple days I've been making friends on Facebook. I mean, making friends with people I knew from my Summit days. Or from after mine and during theirs. Weird. But good. It's interesting to watch people move around. I started to say "on," but what does that mean, people move "on?" "On" where?

I also have had a Very Important Discussion with one of my oldest friends, Tim. I sent him a little Happy Birthday message and received a discouraged reply, so I struck up a conversation. One of Tim's greatest assets is his ability and willingness to speak from both head and heart simultaneously, which makes our occasional verbal encounters very rich and, it seems, cathartic for both of us. In this case, the discussion was, roughly, about missed opportunity. As is often the case when we get in touch, Tim has been mulling thoughts similar to my own on certain personal subjects I won't list on a blog post because these are things only he and I discuss, and are meant to remain that way.

I had a conversation with my friend Susan while hiking Saturday late afternoon, too, that was similar in message, a reminder that I'm a hopeless optimist, but I believe it's right to be thankful for the opportunities and challenges we have in front of us and not to spend too much time dwelling on what's been lost or what we've never had, or what bad thing might happen to us. If I were to collapse on the floor like my cousin-sister Cheri did at fifteen and learned I had cancer and was going to die, maybe I would think and feel differently, but I hope not. I have been with people close, friends and family, who have dealt with that very condition; some have lived longer than others. And if it were me, I'd want to be grouped with Susan and Monica and Cheri and those who've found a quality of life as long as they've had it, rather than cowering in fear, waiting for the next shoe to drop. What if it never does? How miserable... And talk about missed opportunity...

Hey! Who shapeshifted me into Oprah... or whatever other Inspirational Woman comes to mind? (Obviously I'm not well-versed in this realm. I'll just hang it up now. Where did that come from? Yuck. Just vote for me.)

Speaking of cancer, too bad about Ted Kennedy.