It improves your life to pay little attention to the "News," but not for the reason usually offered: that it is too negative. At the moment there are Baja-hurricane-related flash flood warnings in southern Arizona. That's certainly negative, but it is worth knowing about if you live near an arroyo down there.
A better reason for ignoring news is that most of it is trivial entertainment, spin, and government propaganda. But I certainly admit that some of it has been interesting lately.
Consider the Scottish Independence vote. Incredible news actually. Isn't there an old proverb on Wall Street that a stock market adviser can give the price of a stock OR a date, but should never give both. In defiance of that I am here to make a fool of myself, on the day of the Scottish vote, and predict that they will vote 'No' to independence.
Perhaps it will be close, but the whole thing is redolent of Quebec versus the rest of Canada. Threatening to secede is just a bargaining chip that gives the minority more power than mere numbers give it. It makes sense that the majority of the country would get sick of the extortion eventually and tell the secession-threateners to put up or shut up. There must be many 'undecideds' who get cold feet about disrupting their lives with independence.
In the case of Scotland, the issue must be oil in the North Sea. It is too easy for the majority of a country to cave in on something and give the secessionists more autonomy or more free goodies, and keep them in the country.
But I hope I'm wrong. The world would benefit from more secession, be it Basque, Catalunya, Venice, eastern Ukraine, Kurdistan, etc. The USA should split into at least two or three countries.
Isn't it strange how we are all brainwashed with the holiness of democracy, but it seems dangerous or extreme to talk of secession. Consider how Thomas Jefferson put it: 'government derives its powers from the consent of the governed.' And that means of course that the governed can withdraw that consent, and secede.
There have been worrisome but still peaceful secessions. One of them was the Norwegian secession from Sweden in 1905. It helped send my grandfather to the USA. If he had stayed in Sweden he wouldn't have been sent as cannon fodder to fight Germany 12 years later.
The country that mismanaged secession worst of all was the last country that should have. The USA completely failed as a nation when it used the secession of the southern states as grounds for an invasion. Americans still think there is something evil about secession, even though their whole over-rated country owes its existence to a secession from the UK in 1776.
If Scotland votes 'Yes' to independence, what would happen if things proceed relatively smoothly, and it all works out rather well? Would anyone even point out how ridiculous it makes the USA look for the disaster of 1861? Perhaps the Brits aren't as civilized as they look. Maybe they only offered the Scots a vote because they thought that the vote would be against independence. That lesson will be learned from the "mother" countries elsewhere, who won't even offer a vote to Catalunya, Basque, Flanders, Venice, etc.
I wonder if it will be 1861 all over again if any European country tries to withdraw from the suffocating bureaucracy of the European "Union."
A better reason for ignoring news is that most of it is trivial entertainment, spin, and government propaganda. But I certainly admit that some of it has been interesting lately.
Consider the Scottish Independence vote. Incredible news actually. Isn't there an old proverb on Wall Street that a stock market adviser can give the price of a stock OR a date, but should never give both. In defiance of that I am here to make a fool of myself, on the day of the Scottish vote, and predict that they will vote 'No' to independence.
Perhaps it will be close, but the whole thing is redolent of Quebec versus the rest of Canada. Threatening to secede is just a bargaining chip that gives the minority more power than mere numbers give it. It makes sense that the majority of the country would get sick of the extortion eventually and tell the secession-threateners to put up or shut up. There must be many 'undecideds' who get cold feet about disrupting their lives with independence.
In the case of Scotland, the issue must be oil in the North Sea. It is too easy for the majority of a country to cave in on something and give the secessionists more autonomy or more free goodies, and keep them in the country.
But I hope I'm wrong. The world would benefit from more secession, be it Basque, Catalunya, Venice, eastern Ukraine, Kurdistan, etc. The USA should split into at least two or three countries.
Isn't it strange how we are all brainwashed with the holiness of democracy, but it seems dangerous or extreme to talk of secession. Consider how Thomas Jefferson put it: 'government derives its powers from the consent of the governed.' And that means of course that the governed can withdraw that consent, and secede.
There have been worrisome but still peaceful secessions. One of them was the Norwegian secession from Sweden in 1905. It helped send my grandfather to the USA. If he had stayed in Sweden he wouldn't have been sent as cannon fodder to fight Germany 12 years later.
The country that mismanaged secession worst of all was the last country that should have. The USA completely failed as a nation when it used the secession of the southern states as grounds for an invasion. Americans still think there is something evil about secession, even though their whole over-rated country owes its existence to a secession from the UK in 1776.
If Scotland votes 'Yes' to independence, what would happen if things proceed relatively smoothly, and it all works out rather well? Would anyone even point out how ridiculous it makes the USA look for the disaster of 1861? Perhaps the Brits aren't as civilized as they look. Maybe they only offered the Scots a vote because they thought that the vote would be against independence. That lesson will be learned from the "mother" countries elsewhere, who won't even offer a vote to Catalunya, Basque, Flanders, Venice, etc.
I wonder if it will be 1861 all over again if any European country tries to withdraw from the suffocating bureaucracy of the European "Union."
Comments
Scotland and England have a long history of distrust. It goes way back into history and began with the differences in terrain. Scotland was never part of the Roman Empire. I think they were first combined when James I became King of both after the death of Queen Elizabeth I but it's been painful all along.
Slavery aside, I believe the South had every right constitutionally to secede. Our federal government has been overextending its powers ever since and look where that has gotten us.
Scotland's vote has more to do than with the oil although I imagine that boosts their confidence because it provides an income. I've been watching this as well and I hope your prediction is wrong. The break up of these large power states is a phenomena to watch.
But Russia seems to be going the other way.........
Their map was ridiculous. Why would Eastern WA want to be politically united with Western WA? Eastern WA should join Idaho.
South Jersey voted to succeed from New Jersey. Didn't work.
The movement in California is a bunch of noise to hide the real agenda, Silicon Valley and San Fran getting away from the poorer folks.
Jim