SophiaZoe

Mar 122012
 

I’m not really a “prepper”, I’m just prepared.

I’ve always refused to call myself a “prepper”, finding it easier to be a nutjob than to admit to being a nutjob.   The term “prepper” just carries a lot of baggage, at least for me.  Always too closely connected with “survivalist”, and we all know those folks are just plain whacked.  

But while survivalists are whacked the unprepared are roof-sitters.  You know the archetype: disaster strikes and they scramble to their rooftops waiting to be plucked to safety by the government.  Apparently it’s popular in the prepper community to call non-preppers “zombies” (something I just learned the other day and confirmed with a quick buzz of the net).

There is a mini theme going on here:  Labels.  Less than flattering labels.  It was not something I planned but something that jumped out at me as I finished the paragraph above.  Ironic when you know the reason I started this post was the NY Times piece (here) by Neil Genzlinger whining about the quality of programming suffering on the National Geographic and Discovery channels due to the airing of two new series, “Doomsday Preppers” and “Doomsday Bunkers” respectively.

In fairness, and before I get completely wound up in what might develop into a snarkfest, I sat and physically cringed when I watched the first to episodes of “Doomsday Preppers”.   My husband heard more than a few mutterings of “what a nutjob…” or, “Ack!  Are you kidding me!?”   Even with that though I nearly spit my coffee all over my laptop when I read the second to last sentence in the NY Times piece:

Hmm. Apparently “inspiring people to prepare a personal fortress and pray for cataclysm so they can start blasting away at their neighbors”

 

Genzlinger made his disdain for firearms quite clear in the piece as a whole but that sentence left no doubt of his obvious ignorance of the “prepper” phenomenon in the US.   I suspect Genzlinger just needed to feel superior to those who think differently.  Yet another glaring example of the lack of tolerance and mean spiritedness so frequently seen from the “Enlightened” Left.

Or maybe Genzlinger is a “roofsitter” and just wants as much company as he can possibly have.  Perhaps his version of equality, everyone should be equally hungry, equally miserable, equally at risk, equally dependent.  Taken to the extreme one could even say he believes everyone should be equally dead which these lines go a long way to suggest:

More seriously, what is the attraction of continuing to live in a world that forces people to cower in an underground box and spend all their time fending off those who want their freeze-dried apricots?

Even more seriously, what is the attraction of continuing to live in a world that will almost certainly not have television or the Internet, depriving doomsday types of the shows and Web sites that fuel their paranoia and sell products exploiting it?

 

Would it be safe to assume that he believes we should all very meekly just roll over and die?  If anyone expresses a complete lack of respect for life it is Genzlinger.

For a neutral article on the Prepper movement quietly going on in the US, hidden from most, MSNBC had this piece in the fall of 2008: ”Hard times have some flirting with survivalism: Economic angst has Americans stockpiling ‘beans, bullets and Band-Aids’” [link]

 

As rational thinking human beings we should try – real hard – not to paint all with the paintbrush of any extreme subset.   An example I’m rather fond of using: All eco-terrorists are environmentalists but not all environmentalists are eco-terrorists.   Did a few of the people shown on the show exhibit behaviors that strongly suggest mental health issues?  I’m no psychologist or psychiatrist but I would hazard the opinion that a few did.  No different than any of the other reality shows I’ve happened to catch here or there.  They kinda make for interesting viewing so they are sought after by the show’s producers.

And “Doomsday Preppers” has made for “interesting” viewing.  Thus far it is the highest ranked show in their history based on viewership numbers [here, here]

 

Sadly Neil Genzlinger took the easy shots of the intellectually lazy but ultimately those that feel it’s their personal responsibility to prepare to face those extremely rare outlier disasters so as not to be a burden on over strained resources will prepare anyway, or more likely, continue to prepare quietly.  And those that had no intention of doing so will take comfort in Genlinger’s words, perhaps even feeling smugly superior in their choice.

And that’s the crux of it all – it’s a personal choice.    Something we are regularly reminded to be respectful of.

Mar 112012
 

One entire ocean and continent separate me from the events at Fukushima.  And now one entire year as well.

Spatial and temporal distance have not dulled the horror that was the Fukushima disaster.

Words still fail.

 

My thoughts respectfully pay honor to those that died, to those that survived, and to those that continue to struggle to rebuild.

Mar 102012
 

I had a truly genuine laugh Friday.  One of those laughs that at the end of it you are wiping tears from your eyes.

Aimlessly buzzing the net I stumbled into the story of Gloria Allred’s letter to Palm Beach County State Attorney Michael McAuliffe requesting that he investigate the possibilities of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh for his comments referencing Sandra Fluke.  I’m confident I have no need to rehash the actual incident since it’s been so thoroughly trod already that one would need to be a hermit in the Himalayans to not know what happened and what was said.  The Allred chapter of the circus can be found on Politico.

I’m not defending Mr. Limbaugh.  A) He doesn’t need my defense and B) He’s offered a very humble apology, quite publicly.  But what I found so hilarious was the fact that music enjoyed by the average person in Ms Fluke’s demographic celebrates using such terms for women and even girls.  And do I need to say, expressions fully protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

And then I had the brilliant thought that I hoped Mr. Limbaugh is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that

He needs to face the consequences of his conduct in every way that is meaningful. [Ms Allred]

Here are the parameters of the “crime” according to the Politico article:

The statute stipulates that anyone who “speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity” is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. [emphasis added].

If a female wishes to use birth control to prevent pregnancy and said woman is not married she is, by definition, not chaste.  Mr Limbaugh may meet the “malicious” requirement of the proof of committing this most heinous of crimes [please, do note the dripping sarcasm] but he does not meet the “falsely” component.

 

In actuality, I do hate the general lack of civility in public discourse.  I don’t listen to Mr Limbaugh’s program for just that reason.  But the general lack of civility in public discourse exists across the political spectrum.  However, we do have the First Amendment of the Constitution I referenced above.  Freedom of speech.  And yet again it is a Liberal that is demonstrating they only believe in the First Amendment when it protects speech they agree with.  Folks, that’s not “free speech”… that’s censorship.  Not only is it censorship but it’s censorship enforced at the end of a gun barrel.

Perhaps Ms Flukes should ring up Ms Palin for advice on how a public person (something Ms Flukes became with her public advocacy on the contraceptives and insurance coverage issue) might handle personal attacks from those that don’t agree with them.  I’m confident she would have a great deal of field tested advice to offer the aggrieved Ms Flukes.

 

 

 

© 2012 Mental Pluff Mud We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation. Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha