Senator McCain passed away over the weekend. Most folks (Republican and Democrat) have an opinion over the guy.....some extremely positive....some extremely negative. I tend to look over the guy, and would suggest that there are at least eight versions of McCain:
1. There is the marginal Navy pilot version. This is the guy who probably should have been let go from flight activity but he was the admiral's son.
2. There is the POW version. Over this episode, spending five years as a prisoner, he deserves some credit.
3. There is the husband-McCain version who came back from the prisoner situation....having various affairs over the next five years and he ends up divorcing wife number one.
4. There is the Senator version where he marries Cindy, and leaves the military, to get into politics.
5. There is the Keating-Five version where McCain took roughly $120k in campaign contributions, and attempted to halt the government take-over of a savings-and-loan. It was never enough to get jail-time but it demonstrated a fairly poor choice of judgement.
6. There is the two-time presidential candidate version of McCain, who just plain failed to connect to Republicans in general.
7. There is the McCain version who got cozy for unknown reasons with ISIS thugs in 2013, and had at least one meeting to work out details in the Syria civil war.
8. And then there is the McCain version that opposed anything that Donald Trump attempted as President.
The problem is that you can find a couple of reasons to respect the guy, but poor judgement decisions continually caused you to disrespect the guy.
Sunday, 26 August 2018
South Africa and the Land 'Chatter'
Over the past week, President Trump talked about South Africa and this seizure of land deal. A lot of journalists are stumbling over the topic and generally....people are missing the big picture. So I'll offer this insight.
First, South Africa is about the size of California, Oregon, Washington State, Nevada, and Arizona. Population? Just about 56-million. It might surprise folks.....but the bulk of the population lives on the eastern end of the nation.....go figure around two-thirds of the nation there. The western half is sparse, and less populated. You can also say that most of the population on the western end lives around five or six major urban areas.
Second, there's a lot of chatter about farm-land and seizure. The government has written up a new law where farms or land can be seized, without compensation (it's been on the books for a total of four years now). The one and only case to be up at this point....involves a non-farm (it was a game preserve of a private individual). The guy put up a fence, and appears to have done some improvement to the property over the past twenty years. The local tribe did the paperwork, and the court approved their acquisition. That's the ONLY case that has occurred so far.
Third, more acquisitions likely? No one says for sure. There is this one odd factor. When you look at the map and so much open territory.....the fact is that only around 10-to-15 percent of the land is farm productive. The massive bulk of land is NOT productive....nor will ever be. When you go and chat over real productive land (worth something)....most suggest that it won't be more than three to four percent of the total land of South Africa.
Fourth, back in 2014....there was a plan established by the government to take 30-percent of productive land and hand it to 'disadvantaged' blacks. It's not exactly clear who the advantaged 'disadvantaged' blacks are, or the disadvantaged 'disadvantaged' blacks (the ones who won't get property when the big deal finally occurs). Some folks believe that insiders will manipulate the system, and friends of the big party members will walk away with big chunks of property. Earlier this year, the government wrote additional rules to the concept (making it easier to acquire the property), and to firmly say that no compensation will occur.
Fifth, adding to this whole redistribution idea.....the water supply on the western side of South Africa is in question. This is the side which produces a great deal wine which is sold around the world, and brings a neat income into South Africa. There are some predictions that long-term (suggesting fifty years)....the water supply will only get worse and worse. So taking this property might not be in anyone's interest.
Sixth, no one from either side wants a repeat of the mess in Zimbabwe. There, they broke up the large farm production centers and just about every single farm in the country became marginalized. A good example would be version one.....one white farmer running 500 acres of land, and producing a fair amount of crop. Version two....after the break-up....was two-hundred-and-fifty farmers managing two acres each. They basically produced enough for their gardens, but could not produce enough to sell.....so the one variable farm could not return anything of value.
The image in twenty years in South Africa? Unknown. They might limit themselves to the 30-percent deal going from the white farmers to the black farmers. They might go and push the number of acquisitions to 75-percent of the farm land. The drought might challenge the system and make this a non-issue.
The Trump chatter about farmers killed? There's a BBC report in 2017 that was produced and they went back to look at data over a 22-year period. There were 361,000 murdered folks in that period (a fairly healthy 'chunk'). Around 1,500 of these folks murdered....were killed on farms, and out of that....only 15-percent of them were blacks (meaning the bulk were white).
In general, crime has gone up and down (urban and rural) and there are roving gangs around South Africa which look for easy 'prey (rural farms without any nearby police protection are precisely that). If you go dig around the trend analysis business.....a lot of this crime peaked in 2001, and it's gone down drastically in the past five years.
Even if the land is turned over to black farmers, that doesn't really mean that the gang or crime issue goes away. I would suggest that the trend will likely just continue on, with more black farmers killed simply because they took over the role of wealthy farmer (probably a non-existent term, but people would think that).
There's nothing to say here....the land will be redistributed, and I would generally expect less production numbers to be seen over the next decade. The murders will continue....although they won't compare to the 2001-period. Fairness? Maybe if there was some compensation going on, it might be less of a topic, but the national government simply doesn't have the money. And in the long term, I would expect the folks who get the farms over the next ten years.....to find themselves in twenty years....forced to hand it to the next group. This will repeat over, and over. Don't expect otherwise.
So if you were looking for a fairly safe and dependable place to farm....South Africa is probably not the place for you.
First, South Africa is about the size of California, Oregon, Washington State, Nevada, and Arizona. Population? Just about 56-million. It might surprise folks.....but the bulk of the population lives on the eastern end of the nation.....go figure around two-thirds of the nation there. The western half is sparse, and less populated. You can also say that most of the population on the western end lives around five or six major urban areas.
Second, there's a lot of chatter about farm-land and seizure. The government has written up a new law where farms or land can be seized, without compensation (it's been on the books for a total of four years now). The one and only case to be up at this point....involves a non-farm (it was a game preserve of a private individual). The guy put up a fence, and appears to have done some improvement to the property over the past twenty years. The local tribe did the paperwork, and the court approved their acquisition. That's the ONLY case that has occurred so far.
Third, more acquisitions likely? No one says for sure. There is this one odd factor. When you look at the map and so much open territory.....the fact is that only around 10-to-15 percent of the land is farm productive. The massive bulk of land is NOT productive....nor will ever be. When you go and chat over real productive land (worth something)....most suggest that it won't be more than three to four percent of the total land of South Africa.
Fourth, back in 2014....there was a plan established by the government to take 30-percent of productive land and hand it to 'disadvantaged' blacks. It's not exactly clear who the advantaged 'disadvantaged' blacks are, or the disadvantaged 'disadvantaged' blacks (the ones who won't get property when the big deal finally occurs). Some folks believe that insiders will manipulate the system, and friends of the big party members will walk away with big chunks of property. Earlier this year, the government wrote additional rules to the concept (making it easier to acquire the property), and to firmly say that no compensation will occur.
Fifth, adding to this whole redistribution idea.....the water supply on the western side of South Africa is in question. This is the side which produces a great deal wine which is sold around the world, and brings a neat income into South Africa. There are some predictions that long-term (suggesting fifty years)....the water supply will only get worse and worse. So taking this property might not be in anyone's interest.
Sixth, no one from either side wants a repeat of the mess in Zimbabwe. There, they broke up the large farm production centers and just about every single farm in the country became marginalized. A good example would be version one.....one white farmer running 500 acres of land, and producing a fair amount of crop. Version two....after the break-up....was two-hundred-and-fifty farmers managing two acres each. They basically produced enough for their gardens, but could not produce enough to sell.....so the one variable farm could not return anything of value.
The image in twenty years in South Africa? Unknown. They might limit themselves to the 30-percent deal going from the white farmers to the black farmers. They might go and push the number of acquisitions to 75-percent of the farm land. The drought might challenge the system and make this a non-issue.
The Trump chatter about farmers killed? There's a BBC report in 2017 that was produced and they went back to look at data over a 22-year period. There were 361,000 murdered folks in that period (a fairly healthy 'chunk'). Around 1,500 of these folks murdered....were killed on farms, and out of that....only 15-percent of them were blacks (meaning the bulk were white).
In general, crime has gone up and down (urban and rural) and there are roving gangs around South Africa which look for easy 'prey (rural farms without any nearby police protection are precisely that). If you go dig around the trend analysis business.....a lot of this crime peaked in 2001, and it's gone down drastically in the past five years.
Even if the land is turned over to black farmers, that doesn't really mean that the gang or crime issue goes away. I would suggest that the trend will likely just continue on, with more black farmers killed simply because they took over the role of wealthy farmer (probably a non-existent term, but people would think that).
There's nothing to say here....the land will be redistributed, and I would generally expect less production numbers to be seen over the next decade. The murders will continue....although they won't compare to the 2001-period. Fairness? Maybe if there was some compensation going on, it might be less of a topic, but the national government simply doesn't have the money. And in the long term, I would expect the folks who get the farms over the next ten years.....to find themselves in twenty years....forced to hand it to the next group. This will repeat over, and over. Don't expect otherwise.
So if you were looking for a fairly safe and dependable place to farm....South Africa is probably not the place for you.
Saturday, 25 August 2018
How Fishing and Impeachment Relate
I worked with a guy two decades ago who went back to the US on a vacation with his wife, to visit her relatives for a full two weeks. Upon returning to base, we got into a light discussion, and he described the woeful experience of fishing with his father-in-law. I should note that he'd never fished in his life.
This all-day fishing expedition had been discussed for three or four days in advance....hyped up to the maximum. They would arise at near 4:00....have a full-up breakfast, and be on the road by 5 AM. The boat would launch near 6 AM.
My associate went through the pre-plan, the loading of gear, and the various items which had to be fully prepared and placed upon the boat. This was one of those mid-range river fishing boats, with the bells and whistles.
Mid-summer, the heat reached near 95-degrees by noon. It was hot, humid and miserable.
The chatter on the boat went on and on....about past fishing trips....fishing with such-and-such lures....the best bait....personal habits of trout versus catfish, and long discussions about such-and-such friend who'd fallen into misfortune with his wife or girlfriend.
Around mid-afternoon, they returned to the dock....loaded the truck back up, and proceed home. Their entire take for the day were three measly fish.
It was referred to as a trip with high expectations, and in the end....it really wasn't worth discussing. I asked if he'd ever return for a second fishing trip, and the answer was an absolute 'no'.
In a way, this chatter and hyped-up sense about impeachment runs the same route. When you reach some stage where you think it might go into second-gear, I think reality will set in when people realize that there just won't be enough Senators to carry this 'limp fish expedition' to the dock.
Some folks will stand there and ask....how did they ever go and get so convinced of something of a marginal or non-existent quality.....then gaze back over to the journalists and realize that they were a bit fraudulent.
The ability of the news media to carry this any further in a negative way? No. At that point, the chatter basically ends, and everyone has a good laugh over the bias nature of things.
This all-day fishing expedition had been discussed for three or four days in advance....hyped up to the maximum. They would arise at near 4:00....have a full-up breakfast, and be on the road by 5 AM. The boat would launch near 6 AM.
My associate went through the pre-plan, the loading of gear, and the various items which had to be fully prepared and placed upon the boat. This was one of those mid-range river fishing boats, with the bells and whistles.
Mid-summer, the heat reached near 95-degrees by noon. It was hot, humid and miserable.
The chatter on the boat went on and on....about past fishing trips....fishing with such-and-such lures....the best bait....personal habits of trout versus catfish, and long discussions about such-and-such friend who'd fallen into misfortune with his wife or girlfriend.
Around mid-afternoon, they returned to the dock....loaded the truck back up, and proceed home. Their entire take for the day were three measly fish.
It was referred to as a trip with high expectations, and in the end....it really wasn't worth discussing. I asked if he'd ever return for a second fishing trip, and the answer was an absolute 'no'.
In a way, this chatter and hyped-up sense about impeachment runs the same route. When you reach some stage where you think it might go into second-gear, I think reality will set in when people realize that there just won't be enough Senators to carry this 'limp fish expedition' to the dock.
Some folks will stand there and ask....how did they ever go and get so convinced of something of a marginal or non-existent quality.....then gaze back over to the journalists and realize that they were a bit fraudulent.
The ability of the news media to carry this any further in a negative way? No. At that point, the chatter basically ends, and everyone has a good laugh over the bias nature of things.
Nine Weeks Until The Election
My ten observations:
1. There is NO blue wave coming. At best, I would suggest that three GOP House seats and one Senate seat are taken by the Democrats. But I would go and suggest at least one Democratic House seat to be taken, and maybe five Democratic Senate seats to be taken by the Republicans.
2. McCain will pass from this Earth within the next four weeks. The AZ governor, I suspect, will select himself to be the replacement. I know some folks are thinking McCain's wife will be picked, but I just don't see that happening.
3. I think the two big shocks will be: Missouri's McCaskill and Michigan's Stabenow. Both will be edged out. No one would have predicted that two years ago.
4. CNN and MSNBC will be sitting there on 7 November, and trying to explain how the GOP won the seats (potentially in the Senate, there might be ten Democratic seats won).
5. A Democratic meeting will be held in the month after the election, and the realization that they've expended a tremendous amount of 'talk' and gotten nowhere.
6. Black votes will matter in this election, and a shift of 25-percent of the votes will go to the GOP. In some states, it won't matter. In states like Missouri and Michigan....it'll matter.
7. If the Republicans are in the 60-range of Senate seats in January, you can anticipate a long list of things to be laid out for goals in 2019.
8. Where are the Russians? Where is the meddling?
9. The 2020 effect? It's a race in the Senate with most of the races being Republican-held seats. The odds are heavily in favor of them holding those seats, and even competing heavily in seven-plus races where the Democrats hold the Senate seats. Doug Jones in Alabama, is likely to face a real candidate, and he can't show much on accomplishments to retain the seat.
10. The Democrats need a total rebuild, and I doubt if they have the bold leadership to accomplish that.
1. There is NO blue wave coming. At best, I would suggest that three GOP House seats and one Senate seat are taken by the Democrats. But I would go and suggest at least one Democratic House seat to be taken, and maybe five Democratic Senate seats to be taken by the Republicans.
2. McCain will pass from this Earth within the next four weeks. The AZ governor, I suspect, will select himself to be the replacement. I know some folks are thinking McCain's wife will be picked, but I just don't see that happening.
3. I think the two big shocks will be: Missouri's McCaskill and Michigan's Stabenow. Both will be edged out. No one would have predicted that two years ago.
4. CNN and MSNBC will be sitting there on 7 November, and trying to explain how the GOP won the seats (potentially in the Senate, there might be ten Democratic seats won).
5. A Democratic meeting will be held in the month after the election, and the realization that they've expended a tremendous amount of 'talk' and gotten nowhere.
6. Black votes will matter in this election, and a shift of 25-percent of the votes will go to the GOP. In some states, it won't matter. In states like Missouri and Michigan....it'll matter.
7. If the Republicans are in the 60-range of Senate seats in January, you can anticipate a long list of things to be laid out for goals in 2019.
8. Where are the Russians? Where is the meddling?
9. The 2020 effect? It's a race in the Senate with most of the races being Republican-held seats. The odds are heavily in favor of them holding those seats, and even competing heavily in seven-plus races where the Democrats hold the Senate seats. Doug Jones in Alabama, is likely to face a real candidate, and he can't show much on accomplishments to retain the seat.
10. The Democrats need a total rebuild, and I doubt if they have the bold leadership to accomplish that.
Friday, 24 August 2018
Selling Socialism
I had a political professor once (remember, I only attended night school where you got some of the unusual professors)....who got onto the topic of socialism and suggested there were three layers. There was absolute socialism (which never flourishes or exists in reality). Then you had hybrid-socialism (which was mostly capitalism, with enough taxation to gift out socialism things to people). And then you had fake hybrid-socialism where you taxed enough to gift out socialism things, but you corrupted the system enough that only special people got the gifts.
It was one of those evenings where you left class and spent an hour pondering over what was said.
I see a lot of salesmanship going on with socialism today, and folks trying hype up the 'gift-giving' business to the extent that everyone could be happy. It's like some newly blended ice cream that folks never ask about the ingredients, or the nutritional value.
Throughout the 1800s....on several occasions in America....plain and absolute socialism was attempted. In one case, tons of money was poured into the foundation to jump-start the system, and the belief was that once things got going....the money business could be halted and the system would sustain itself. Well....in each and every case (even the episode with tons of money).....each came to a clear end. Some took well over a decade, but none could sustain themselves.
The general failure? Generally, it was a human condition that we'd call 'expectations'. When people walk into a deal like this.....they have this idea in their head. It's like when you walk into a Hooters-joint. You expect booby-gals, fatty food, great taste to the food, and a particular cost level. If the food failed, or the beer was awful, or the bill added up to three times what you expected.....then Hooters would not work.
So the general method to making hybrid-socialism work? You have to allow capitalism to function for the most part, with a few controls to suggest that you are in charge or maintaining the 'system'. You tax virtually everything, and as the money flows back into the pot.....you have some 'Larry-guy' standing there with a list of things that make people happy. Naturally, you can't have free-beer, free-muffins, or free-vacations. But you can have money poured into poverty-projects, bridges, tram-lines that have zero return value, and fund spacious airports in the middle of nowhere.
The fake-hybrid-socialism system? The chief place today where you see it is Venezuela. The problem in this case is that you micromanaged the capitalistic system so much....that you can't even rely upon the local grocery to have toilet paper, ketchup, or watermelons. So when people come to you, and kinda expect your fake system to deploy to full capability, your response is that it's on full-turbo power, and it won't get much better.
As for the college kids who hyped-up and enthusiastic about socialism? They seem to be stuck on some fantasy-world that professor so-and-so describes but no one has actually been there or seen that. It's like that Star Trek series where people talk about Kilo-9 or the dark-planet (a fictional place), but they talking like it's potentially there.
In their mind, socialism is kind of an image of Disneyland, and it's all wonderful, free, and abundant in nature.
It was one of those evenings where you left class and spent an hour pondering over what was said.
I see a lot of salesmanship going on with socialism today, and folks trying hype up the 'gift-giving' business to the extent that everyone could be happy. It's like some newly blended ice cream that folks never ask about the ingredients, or the nutritional value.
Throughout the 1800s....on several occasions in America....plain and absolute socialism was attempted. In one case, tons of money was poured into the foundation to jump-start the system, and the belief was that once things got going....the money business could be halted and the system would sustain itself. Well....in each and every case (even the episode with tons of money).....each came to a clear end. Some took well over a decade, but none could sustain themselves.
The general failure? Generally, it was a human condition that we'd call 'expectations'. When people walk into a deal like this.....they have this idea in their head. It's like when you walk into a Hooters-joint. You expect booby-gals, fatty food, great taste to the food, and a particular cost level. If the food failed, or the beer was awful, or the bill added up to three times what you expected.....then Hooters would not work.
So the general method to making hybrid-socialism work? You have to allow capitalism to function for the most part, with a few controls to suggest that you are in charge or maintaining the 'system'. You tax virtually everything, and as the money flows back into the pot.....you have some 'Larry-guy' standing there with a list of things that make people happy. Naturally, you can't have free-beer, free-muffins, or free-vacations. But you can have money poured into poverty-projects, bridges, tram-lines that have zero return value, and fund spacious airports in the middle of nowhere.
The fake-hybrid-socialism system? The chief place today where you see it is Venezuela. The problem in this case is that you micromanaged the capitalistic system so much....that you can't even rely upon the local grocery to have toilet paper, ketchup, or watermelons. So when people come to you, and kinda expect your fake system to deploy to full capability, your response is that it's on full-turbo power, and it won't get much better.
As for the college kids who hyped-up and enthusiastic about socialism? They seem to be stuck on some fantasy-world that professor so-and-so describes but no one has actually been there or seen that. It's like that Star Trek series where people talk about Kilo-9 or the dark-planet (a fictional place), but they talking like it's potentially there.
In their mind, socialism is kind of an image of Disneyland, and it's all wonderful, free, and abundant in nature.
The 'Poop' Job
There's a piece off 'Hotair' that I read today....discussing San Francisco and the 'crap' on the streets. Someone did the research and found that the city funds a fairly large group of street cleaners with a special mission to do the 'poop' clean-up business of the homeless crowd.
The pay-level? That's what interested me.
They actually pay near $72,000 a year, for each person on the patrol. Then you get medical benefits, retirement, etc. All total? The city says near $185,000 per person.
It's an amazing amount of money. Course, you have to wear the bio-hazard gear.....tote around various hoses all day (it's probably sweaty work), and you have the potential to get into some stinky business. But here's the thing....you can probably retire by age fifty and collect at least $40,000 a year. Off that, in Tennessee.....you could live a pretty decent retirement.....having cleaned up 'crap' your entire life.
The pay-level? That's what interested me.
They actually pay near $72,000 a year, for each person on the patrol. Then you get medical benefits, retirement, etc. All total? The city says near $185,000 per person.
It's an amazing amount of money. Course, you have to wear the bio-hazard gear.....tote around various hoses all day (it's probably sweaty work), and you have the potential to get into some stinky business. But here's the thing....you can probably retire by age fifty and collect at least $40,000 a year. Off that, in Tennessee.....you could live a pretty decent retirement.....having cleaned up 'crap' your entire life.
Thursday, 23 August 2018
KKK, Then and Now
I'm often amused how journalists get wrapped up on the KKK-topic and they want you to put this topic in your top hundred things to worry about. So this is one of those historical essays I write....to establish some true basis of understanding.
First, the original KKK-concept occurred in the Pulaski, Tenn area, and probably was more tied to a local group of guys (six total), who wanted to make up a Greek 'club' like organization after the Civil War. In some ways, it was like lodge-group....with secrecy tied to it, and some likey hardcore drinking. The first group could be regarded as a weird collection of folks who had a dislike of the Democratic-style politics going on, and influences perceived in 'change'. Their chief problem in that original couple of years, was no central authority and no ability to kick out the rift-raft. Most tend to agree...evolution 1.0 of the KKK ended by 1870.
For the next forty years....KKK-like groups come and go, but none use the name. In some ways, they resemble more the Brown Shirts of Germany or the Black Shirts of Italy, in that period.
So you come to 1915, and version 2 of the KKK, which centered itself around Stone Mountain, Georgia. This group went back to the Greek-like club thrills, the secrecy, and this time....had a central authority.
This second group last for almost thirty years and probably reached near 6-million members toward the end. But their enthusiasm and problems, led onto KKK evolution number three.
For the third era, I tend to argue that this core group went through a massive recruitment spiral, and probably peaked out by the early 1970s. There might have been 10k to 20k members in that era.
So you come to today. You can review various estimations and people put the real number of 'paying members' (with membership) at 3,000 to 8,000 nationally. Proof? There simply isn't a reliable way to suggest the numbers.
Some might still be attracted to the anti-black theme or anti-Jew message. Some might simply see it as some mysterious Greek-like club (especially those who didn't do the college club membership deal).
If you went and tried to get full-up members to show up for some march? I doubt if you'd get more than a quarter of folks to go that far. They like the secrecy, but beyond that.....they don't want the extra thrills.
I think if you went into various communities today, and offered up a modern-day version of the 'Sons of Malta' (another secrecy group but not really into the KKK-type themes), then you'd have a fair number of folks interested and pursuing something like that. People just have a fascination with secret stuff (like the Freemasons).
Fake KKK thugs around? Last week, I was reading a piece of news and the news item seemed to have some suggestion of a fake KKK group. I would take a guess that maybe several fraudulent and fake groups exist....purely for political gathering purposes.
A threat to the nation? The 1915 group might have been a threat. But the original crew and the current existing crew are just not much of a threat.
First, the original KKK-concept occurred in the Pulaski, Tenn area, and probably was more tied to a local group of guys (six total), who wanted to make up a Greek 'club' like organization after the Civil War. In some ways, it was like lodge-group....with secrecy tied to it, and some likey hardcore drinking. The first group could be regarded as a weird collection of folks who had a dislike of the Democratic-style politics going on, and influences perceived in 'change'. Their chief problem in that original couple of years, was no central authority and no ability to kick out the rift-raft. Most tend to agree...evolution 1.0 of the KKK ended by 1870.
For the next forty years....KKK-like groups come and go, but none use the name. In some ways, they resemble more the Brown Shirts of Germany or the Black Shirts of Italy, in that period.
So you come to 1915, and version 2 of the KKK, which centered itself around Stone Mountain, Georgia. This group went back to the Greek-like club thrills, the secrecy, and this time....had a central authority.
This second group last for almost thirty years and probably reached near 6-million members toward the end. But their enthusiasm and problems, led onto KKK evolution number three.
For the third era, I tend to argue that this core group went through a massive recruitment spiral, and probably peaked out by the early 1970s. There might have been 10k to 20k members in that era.
So you come to today. You can review various estimations and people put the real number of 'paying members' (with membership) at 3,000 to 8,000 nationally. Proof? There simply isn't a reliable way to suggest the numbers.
Some might still be attracted to the anti-black theme or anti-Jew message. Some might simply see it as some mysterious Greek-like club (especially those who didn't do the college club membership deal).
If you went and tried to get full-up members to show up for some march? I doubt if you'd get more than a quarter of folks to go that far. They like the secrecy, but beyond that.....they don't want the extra thrills.
I think if you went into various communities today, and offered up a modern-day version of the 'Sons of Malta' (another secrecy group but not really into the KKK-type themes), then you'd have a fair number of folks interested and pursuing something like that. People just have a fascination with secret stuff (like the Freemasons).
Fake KKK thugs around? Last week, I was reading a piece of news and the news item seemed to have some suggestion of a fake KKK group. I would take a guess that maybe several fraudulent and fake groups exist....purely for political gathering purposes.
A threat to the nation? The 1915 group might have been a threat. But the original crew and the current existing crew are just not much of a threat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)