The Hand That Rocks The Cradle
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009By Author Kristen Hall
If ever there was an doubt about the feeling of mainstream America in regard to the shakiness of our economy, one need only to look in the places where the average, middle-class lady may be found. One such place is in the crafts & hobbies market.
Having a bent toward being such a lady myself, I am a long-term member of one of the larger crafts related book clubs. Recently, I logged onto that website, looking for a book on building small backyard sheds, something which one can never have too many of.
While perusing the selection of landscaping & gardening books in the “outdoor section”, I came upon several books that shocked me with their presence. Here, the bosom of middle class America’s bookshelves were books on homesteading!
Raising chickens! Self-sufficiency! Keeping bees! Urban homesteading!
Do I detect a sense of uneasiness and/or dissatisfaction in the lives of my sisters? Or is the harsh reality of the future of our society and lives starting to reach even the most cheerful optimists? And rightly so, since our future no longer glistens like the morning dew. More like the hot, dry dust at the end of a parched summer day.
How appropriate to see the beginnings of change in a vehicle such as a crafts club. It will be the womenfolk (as our dear Bill Buppert once called us) with a penchant for “handiwork” who carry the bulk of the preparation and work involved in keeping our families (and possibly farms and small-holdings) alive. It will be the womenfolk who stock the pantries, learn to garden and can our produce, learn to cook from scratch and how to make do with a good bit less than we are used to having. It will be the womenfolk soothing the battered egos and easing the torment in the eyes and hearts of our men as they see so much of what they have worked for slowing dissolving into the sand of a past life.
It is telling that the larger publishing houses also recognize and capitalize on this trend. Is it so obvious even to the publishing houses that our country and society have changed, yet we cannot gain even a hint of recognition of this fact from our own government? When a solid 40% of our population is now owned, financially speaking, by the federal government, it seems plain that we have, in fact, experienced the beginnings of Obama’s “change”, though it certainly is not the change for which we’d hoped
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, creator of The 2008 Presidential Election map, shows the territory won by Republicans was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.”
Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase. The article continues, “If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.”
While I would certainly hesitate to generalize all of the pro-Obama voters as welfare or federal fund recipients, I do have to agree that the United States as we have known it is certainly on the downhill slide, and apparently the major publishing houses agree as well.
In a recent story on Yahoo news, it turns out that we, as a country, have a good deal less financial wherewithal that we’d been led to believe. The National Academy of Science uses a slightly different formula for calculating the poverty rate than the Census Bureau, in that the NAS factors in such frivolities as rising medical care, transportation, child care or geographical variations in living costs. Factoring in these items shows the poverty rate to be at 15.8 percent, or nearly 1 in 6 Americans, according to calculations released this week. That’s higher than the 13.2 percent, or 39.8 million, figure made available recently under the original government formula. Currently, a family of 4 making $22,050 is considered at poverty level, according to Federal guidelines. Shoot, that’s most of the folks in the county where we live, except the wealthy folks who have retired here, university professors and government officials. In fact, these days, $22,000 for a family of 4 in our area is GOOD money.
Everyday, despite the placid reassurances from Washington, D.C., we see another indication that homesteading might not be a bad idea. Articles abound telling us that it is perfectly moral and upright to walk away from your mortgage, forsake your car loan, default on the credit cards. We know in our hearts that this is just not true, but we know that it is a hard fact of life that difficult decisions must be made in difficult times. “Shall we buy groceries this week or chip away on the credit card balance?” is simply not a realistic question.
Prepare for a revolution, Friends. It will not come prefaced by the demolition of the Goldman-Sachs lobby, as predicted (hoped for?) by one prominent author. It will come quietly during the sleepless nights of those caught in the crux of the change.
It will come as decisions are made on the family level to abandon the McMansion, the car, the credit card bills, using that energy and money instead to simply stay alive and on our feet. It will come as more families realize that they have sold their souls to the devil in exchange for a pittance of mediocre care. Revolution will come when individuals and families, one at a time, make the decision to stand for themselves, out of desire or necessity, and to do whatever it takes to stay free or become free.
Sarah J. says:
October 20th, 2009
6:02 pm
Wives and mothers notice these things first. We do the shopping and know how much prices go up. The government is good with making up figures and explanations that don’t work. They could wipe out poverty tomorrow if they just lowered the income needed to five dollars a year which only shows that statistics don’t buy steaks. What is scary is that every widow on social security is in poverty unless she has some other income.
oldmanriver says:
October 23rd, 2009
12:54 pm
Joseph Olson is a real Professor at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul Minnesota but he did not write this, according to his faculty bio page on the university site. Olson called it “bogus” in his disclaimer and said that the eRumor dates back to 2000 and originally was a commentary about the Bush/Gore election which quoted an 1800’s Scottish philosopher Alexander Tyler.
admin says:
October 23rd, 2009
1:23 pm
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will edit the corresponding citation to ensure the data is correct.
While the citation may be incorrect the data supporting Kristen’s taxpayer to land ratio compared to poverty land ration is correct according to http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp which talks about the citation in 2000
“The population of the counties and square miles of areas each won by Bush and Gore appear to be accurate.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm
To reiterate the point:
This also compares with the 2008 map by Newsmax.
http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg
oldmanriver says:
October 23rd, 2009
2:19 pm
Admin,
I looked at the map, it appears that urban areas voted mostly for Obama and Rural areas voted for McCain. Thats about all you can say about it. To classify city dwellers as all living in government run housing is a little stretch of the truth. How do you classify rural areas as not recieving Gov assistance? The entire corn belt depends on agricultural subsidies. Cotton farms in the South depend on gov subsidies. Rural land owners are probably the most subsidized people in the country. Most people who live in urban areas rarely get checks from the Government. Yet every farmer I know (I was a farmer and recieved many of those said checks) recieves quite a tidy sum from the government each year. Not to mention the fact that the subsidies for corn in turn subsidise the cattle, hog and chicken feeders with cheap corn (at least until the ethanol fad). I usually recieved a lot more from the government than what I paid them. Most farmers net more from the Government than they pay in taxes. Its a completely false premise that rural people are somehow independant of the government. Rural areas would not have anyone living in them if it were not for the government. Who gave the land away in the first place? The government did. Who ran the wildly successful University Extension Programs that taught people how to be successful and not to let all the soil erode. The Government did. Who sent troops to fight the indians so that settlers could live in remote areas? The Government. Who bought most of that land in the first place? The government. Im sorry but the premise that rural areas are some how free from the tainting hand of the government is completely false.
admin says:
October 23rd, 2009
7:48 pm
OMR
“I looked at the map, it appears that urban areas voted mostly for Obama and Rural areas voted for McCain. Thats about all you can say about it.”
KH
The 2008 Presidential Election map, shows the territory won by Republicans was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
OMR
“To classify city dwellers as ALL living in government run housing is a little stretch of the truth. How do you classify rural areas as not recieving Gov assistance?”
KH
Democrat territory MOSTLY ENCOMPASSES those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.”
OMR
“Most people who live in urban areas RARELY get checks from the Government.”
KH
Currently, a family of 4 making $22,050 is considered at poverty level, according to Federal guidelines. Shoot, that’s most of the folks in the county where we live, except the wealthy folks who have retired here, university professors and government officials.
OMR
Yet every farmer I know (I was a farmer and recieved many of those said checks) recieves quite a tidy sum from the government each year. Not to mention the fact that the subsidies for corn in turn subsidise the cattle, hog and chicken feeders with cheap corn (at least until the ethanol fad). I usually recieved a lot more from the government than what I paid them. Most farmers net more from the Government than they pay in taxes. Its a completely false premise that rural people are somehow independant of the government. Rural areas would not have anyone living in them if it were not for the government. Who gave the land away in the first place? The government did. Who ran the wildly successful University Extension Programs that taught people how to be successful and not to let all the soil erode. The Government did. Who sent troops to fight the indians so that settlers could live in remote areas? The Government. Who bought most of that land in the first place? The government. Im sorry but the premise that rural areas are some how free from the tainting hand of the government is completely false.
ADMIN:
I totally agree with you on the subsidies issue. You are totally on the mark. On one hand the government hinders the ability of the farmer to plant crops and on the other subsidizes them for their loss. It makes no sense.
If you would be willing to expand on your thoughts about farm subsidies I would be interested in posting it as an article.
Linda Brady Traynham says:
October 29th, 2009
11:57 pm
Old Man River! Long time, no hear from. You promised me an article months ago, and here’s a great place to see it. As for subsidies for farmers and ranchers, quick! How do I get some? All I see is out-go. And be sweet to our Kristen. She’s a love, and very, very bright, and she only writes about things she knows about. Hugs to all, Linda