Erratic Blogging
My ISP and I are engaged in a dreadful battle, and I appear to be losing. My blogging will be light to non-existent for the forseeable future.
History's End
History will end only when Man does
- Why I haven't been blogging lately...
- The Blues
- The Gift that Keeps on Giving...
- Tremors
- Thoughts for the Day...
- Earthquake
- Second Dawn
- As the saying goes...
- Not Surprised, but Saddened
- The Great Battle of Our Time
Links
- 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
- 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
- 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- Current Posts
Monday, June 21, 2004
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
|Saturday, June 12, 2004
|I remember and Therefore I will Resist
Wretchard at the Belmont Club has a new post up, and it is a good one.
Kim by Edward Said
Go read it immediately.
Kim by Edward Said
Go read it immediately.
The Other Side of the Coin
In my last post I examined how a possible crisis might emerge, with conflict between the Orthodox and the Progressives. In that case the Progressives were the instigators of the civil unrest. The blog The Pryhills gives us a glimpse of some possible trouble-makers from the Orthodox Camp, Christian Separatists.
Sound familiar? It should. These extremists are essentially following much the same steps that the original secessionists took one hundred and forty years ago. The results will almost certainly be the same. Some people just don't learn. How will this turnout? Tough to say, but I doubt that they will succeed in getting a majority in a State like South Carolina. Too many people. However, they could possibly get one of the least populated states, like Wyoming. I don't know how many of these Christian Separatists there are, probably less than 100,000, but it is possible they could take over a sparsely populated state. What would happen then? Well, when they tried to secede the Federal Government would likely intervene. The Feds wouldn't beat around the bush like Lincoln did, there is precedent, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the State Capital "occupied." Now, there would be plenty of people in the state would not be CSers, so they would likely have to be protected. What would happen when troops moved in? Tough to say. Some of the separatists wouldn't fight, but some would. I suspect that it would look a bit like Waco, writ large. The fighting probably wouldn't go on for very long, although some places may be laid siege to, in order to minimize casualties. A constriction method of bringing the rebels to their knees would likely be employed. The separatists would probably lose members, either through defection or death, and their numbers will dwindle. Eventually only the hard core members will remain. I wouldn't be surprised if some, many in fact, pulled a Masada.
Would this end the conflict between Progressives and Orthodox? No. But it would delay it. And weaken the Orthodox cause considerably.
Christians have actively tried to return the United States to their moral foundations for more than 20 years. We now have a "Christian" president, a "Christian" attorney general, and a Republican Congress and Supreme Court. Yet consider this:
-Abortion continues unabated
-Sodomite marriage is now legal in Massachusetts (and coming soon to a neighborhood near you) (ACE ADDS: It's about damn time!)
-Children still may not pray in our schools (ACE ADDS: I beg to differ; there's plenty of prayer in schools)
-Our schools continue to teach the clearly discredited theory of Darwinian evolution
-The Bible is still not welcome in schools except under unconstitutional strict FEDERAL guidelines
-The 10 Commandments remain banned from public display
-Sodomy is now legal AND celebrated as "diversity" rather than perversion
-Preaching Christianity will soon be outlawed as "hate speech"
Attempts at reform have proven futile. Future elections will not stop the above atrocities, but rather will exacerbate them and lead us down an even more deadly path.
So what can be done? ChristianExodus offers the opportunity to try a strategy not yet employed by Bible-believing Christians. Rather than spend resources in continued efforts to redirect the entire nation, we will redeem States one at a time. Millions of Christian conservatives are geographically spread out and diluted at the national level. Therefore, we must concentrate our numbers in a geographical region with a sovereign government we can control through the electoral process.
ChristianExodus is orchestrating the move of thousands of Christians to South Carolina for the express purpose of dissolving that State's bond with the union.
Sound familiar? It should. These extremists are essentially following much the same steps that the original secessionists took one hundred and forty years ago. The results will almost certainly be the same. Some people just don't learn. How will this turnout? Tough to say, but I doubt that they will succeed in getting a majority in a State like South Carolina. Too many people. However, they could possibly get one of the least populated states, like Wyoming. I don't know how many of these Christian Separatists there are, probably less than 100,000, but it is possible they could take over a sparsely populated state. What would happen then? Well, when they tried to secede the Federal Government would likely intervene. The Feds wouldn't beat around the bush like Lincoln did, there is precedent, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the State Capital "occupied." Now, there would be plenty of people in the state would not be CSers, so they would likely have to be protected. What would happen when troops moved in? Tough to say. Some of the separatists wouldn't fight, but some would. I suspect that it would look a bit like Waco, writ large. The fighting probably wouldn't go on for very long, although some places may be laid siege to, in order to minimize casualties. A constriction method of bringing the rebels to their knees would likely be employed. The separatists would probably lose members, either through defection or death, and their numbers will dwindle. Eventually only the hard core members will remain. I wouldn't be surprised if some, many in fact, pulled a Masada.
Would this end the conflict between Progressives and Orthodox? No. But it would delay it. And weaken the Orthodox cause considerably.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
A Historical Inevitability
A conflict between the Orthodox and Progressive Camps is inevitable. Let there be no doubt about it. However, I am just not sure when it will happen and what that conflict will be, exactly. The more I think about it, the more resigned I am to a serious crisis occurring in the future, when compromises will no longer be possible. The Civil War that wrecked the nation from 1861 to 1865 occurred when there were no longer any compromises to be made. The South knew that while it was in the Union it would be unable to defend its institutions in the long run. No "Great Compromiser" can solve this problem in the long run, he can only delay it. We see in the recent Anti-War/Bush protests a sign of things to come, a glimpse of a possible future. In those protests we observe the feelings, emotions, desires of the Progressive camp. The Orthodox tend to "love their country" more than the Progressives do, in fact many of the Progressives hate their country. And they tend to be the most outspoken and active members of that camp.
The riots that erupt at WTO meetings show how things could start. Massive protests by the Progressives, thousands, millions perhaps, in the streets across the country. At first peaceful, but then rabble rousers will start to rile the crowds up. At first it will be bottles, rocks thrown at the police. But then will come Molotov cocktails. The police, fearing for their safety, will have to crack down and try and restore order. It will not come easy. This could last a long time, and there could be so many that the police will be overwhelmed with numbers. The National Guard will have to come into play. Pipe bombs and firearms will replace the rocks and Molotov cocktails. People will start to die in larger numbers, and this will only enrage the mobs. Small groups of police may start to be swarmed, and beaten to a pulp. Once enough of them die in this fashion, and from the occasional bomb and sniper, the police and National Guard will start to replace the rubber bullets with real ones. "Resistance Cells" will start to form, and a form of quasi-guerrilla warfare may ensue. The middle, those who are cultural agnostics or not decisively in either camp, will likely support restoring order. Non-Violent methods will probably rule the day in the beginning, but soon they will be replaced with attacks on centers of authority. This could last weeks, months. Eventually most of the rebels will be arrested or killed, as many of the Progressives will not participate, either out of fear, or a genuine distaste for violence (which I suspect is less common than would be supposed). The economy would suffer, and the "rebels" would receive most of the blame.
In certain regions of the country, counties and cities might support the "resistance", openly and covertly. They will likely not experience unrest at first, as the Orthodox would be in the minority, and probably look to keep their own property and lives secure. Small fights may break out, but will soon be overcome by events. It is entirely possible some cities or even counties might secede from the Union, parts of the North-East or North-West coast, for example. Troops would be sent in to restore authority, and then you could have civil unrest emerge there as well. A civil war, quite unlike the previous one, would result, and would look much more like other civil wars across the globe (Ours was rather unique in how it turned out). All of this is a possible preview of how things might turnout if the Progressives were the ones to "start it." What started it? Tough to tell. Perhaps a reversal of Roe, or maybe the ratification of a Constitutional ban on Same Sex Marriage. Either way, this is just one among many possible visions of the future.
The riots that erupt at WTO meetings show how things could start. Massive protests by the Progressives, thousands, millions perhaps, in the streets across the country. At first peaceful, but then rabble rousers will start to rile the crowds up. At first it will be bottles, rocks thrown at the police. But then will come Molotov cocktails. The police, fearing for their safety, will have to crack down and try and restore order. It will not come easy. This could last a long time, and there could be so many that the police will be overwhelmed with numbers. The National Guard will have to come into play. Pipe bombs and firearms will replace the rocks and Molotov cocktails. People will start to die in larger numbers, and this will only enrage the mobs. Small groups of police may start to be swarmed, and beaten to a pulp. Once enough of them die in this fashion, and from the occasional bomb and sniper, the police and National Guard will start to replace the rubber bullets with real ones. "Resistance Cells" will start to form, and a form of quasi-guerrilla warfare may ensue. The middle, those who are cultural agnostics or not decisively in either camp, will likely support restoring order. Non-Violent methods will probably rule the day in the beginning, but soon they will be replaced with attacks on centers of authority. This could last weeks, months. Eventually most of the rebels will be arrested or killed, as many of the Progressives will not participate, either out of fear, or a genuine distaste for violence (which I suspect is less common than would be supposed). The economy would suffer, and the "rebels" would receive most of the blame.
In certain regions of the country, counties and cities might support the "resistance", openly and covertly. They will likely not experience unrest at first, as the Orthodox would be in the minority, and probably look to keep their own property and lives secure. Small fights may break out, but will soon be overcome by events. It is entirely possible some cities or even counties might secede from the Union, parts of the North-East or North-West coast, for example. Troops would be sent in to restore authority, and then you could have civil unrest emerge there as well. A civil war, quite unlike the previous one, would result, and would look much more like other civil wars across the globe (Ours was rather unique in how it turned out). All of this is a possible preview of how things might turnout if the Progressives were the ones to "start it." What started it? Tough to tell. Perhaps a reversal of Roe, or maybe the ratification of a Constitutional ban on Same Sex Marriage. Either way, this is just one among many possible visions of the future.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
|Sorry for the lack of posting...
but things have been pretty hectic around here. Hopefully I will have more time to blog in the coming days and weeks.
Saturday, June 05, 2004
|Friday, June 04, 2004
The Second American Civil War-Part Three
In part one of this series I examined the causes behind the American Civil War, while in part two of the series I examined what the two sides in a second American Civil War would be. In part three of the series I will try and cover some aspects on what would make a second Civil War special, and/or different from the first one.
As some commentators have already noted, the Orthodox possesses a gun culture that the Progressives lack. An overwhelming majority of the guns and firearms skills in the United States are in the hands of the Orthodox. Should actual fighting and shooting break out, the Orthodox would have an immense immediate advantage against other civilian Progressives. Indeed, the advantage is so great that it would likely take actual military units on the side of the Progressives to give them an advantage. And that takes me to my second point: The Orthodox represent a majority in the Armed Forces, indeed, it is likely an overwhelming majority, and many of those who aren't Orthodox would perhaps fall in the "third" category of "cultural agnostics" rather than Progressive camp. The Progressives can't count on the military doing what they want, even if they have control of the White House. And if the Orthodox control the White House, or no one does (two Presidents, like say Gore hadn't accepted his defeat in 2000), then the military will likely go to the Orthodox camp. Thus if it comes to serious fighting, the Progressives will lose many, most, perhaps all, of the fights.
A Second American Civil War would also be different in that it wouldn't be as regional as the previous conflict. There will be no vast North-South divide. The Midwest and the South do contain more Orthodox than Progressives, and the West Coast and North-East the most Progressives, but it won't be as big a regional divide before. In fact, the divide is not so much regional as it is a urban/non-urban divide. Urban dwellers tend to fall into the Progressive camp, while sub-urban and rural Americans tend to be in the Orthodox camp. So instead of fighting going on between North and South, the fighting would more likely be in cities, perhaps on the boundaries between sub-urbs and the more densely urban parts of the cities. This is hard to predict, however, so don't hold me to it if this should actually come about.
There is a lot more to consider, and I would appreciate hints and ideas from any readers.
Update:
Rob of Crushing Dissent has a post up where he gives his take on the situation. He includes a map that gives a fairly accurate impression of where the zones of Orthodox/Progressive support are. However, it should be noted that a few of them aren't accurate, as some Democrat controlled areas tend to be populist, and not necessarily Progressive. Some Republican zones are also not Orthodox, and would fit better into the third category. I am still not sure how this will start, or what it will look like though. Any event is still fairly far in the future, although the upcoming Presidential election does represent a chance for us to get a better view of the two sides. It is entirely possible that some elements of the Progressives will violently resist a Bush re-election, should it occur.
As some commentators have already noted, the Orthodox possesses a gun culture that the Progressives lack. An overwhelming majority of the guns and firearms skills in the United States are in the hands of the Orthodox. Should actual fighting and shooting break out, the Orthodox would have an immense immediate advantage against other civilian Progressives. Indeed, the advantage is so great that it would likely take actual military units on the side of the Progressives to give them an advantage. And that takes me to my second point: The Orthodox represent a majority in the Armed Forces, indeed, it is likely an overwhelming majority, and many of those who aren't Orthodox would perhaps fall in the "third" category of "cultural agnostics" rather than Progressive camp. The Progressives can't count on the military doing what they want, even if they have control of the White House. And if the Orthodox control the White House, or no one does (two Presidents, like say Gore hadn't accepted his defeat in 2000), then the military will likely go to the Orthodox camp. Thus if it comes to serious fighting, the Progressives will lose many, most, perhaps all, of the fights.
A Second American Civil War would also be different in that it wouldn't be as regional as the previous conflict. There will be no vast North-South divide. The Midwest and the South do contain more Orthodox than Progressives, and the West Coast and North-East the most Progressives, but it won't be as big a regional divide before. In fact, the divide is not so much regional as it is a urban/non-urban divide. Urban dwellers tend to fall into the Progressive camp, while sub-urban and rural Americans tend to be in the Orthodox camp. So instead of fighting going on between North and South, the fighting would more likely be in cities, perhaps on the boundaries between sub-urbs and the more densely urban parts of the cities. This is hard to predict, however, so don't hold me to it if this should actually come about.
There is a lot more to consider, and I would appreciate hints and ideas from any readers.
Update:
Rob of Crushing Dissent has a post up where he gives his take on the situation. He includes a map that gives a fairly accurate impression of where the zones of Orthodox/Progressive support are. However, it should be noted that a few of them aren't accurate, as some Democrat controlled areas tend to be populist, and not necessarily Progressive. Some Republican zones are also not Orthodox, and would fit better into the third category. I am still not sure how this will start, or what it will look like though. Any event is still fairly far in the future, although the upcoming Presidential election does represent a chance for us to get a better view of the two sides. It is entirely possible that some elements of the Progressives will violently resist a Bush re-election, should it occur.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
The Second American Civil War-Part Two
In the first part of this series I explained a bit about how the (first) American Civil War came about. To sum it up quickly again, it occurred when the cost of peace to the Southern Aristocracy and leadership was greater than the cost of war. When they felt that they had more to gain from war than peace, war was what they chose. At least by fighting they had a chance to change the dynamics of the equation. Fortunately for the Union, the South acted too late. It should have seceded ten to twenty years before, when the power disparity between North and South was far smaller. As it was, the South faced an increasingly industrialized North, a new political party that had no allegiances to the South and a history of anti-slavery sentiments in the Republicans, and finally they faced Abraham Lincoln, who proved to be one of the greatest leaders in human history.
This leads me to the true topic of this series: the possibility of a future Civil War in the United States. This is something that has been covered before, particularly by James Davidson Hunter, in his book Before the Shooting Begins. For a review of that book try this. So I am not broaching new ground here. However, I do feel that it is a subject that receives insufficient attention, and that is something that I intend to correct. I will try and determine what the chances of a new Civil War are, as well as its scope and potential for destruction. I will also try and determine who might be the two or more different sides in this conflict, as that is something that isn't necessarily clear at first sight.
I happen to think, and Hunter has argued this as well, that a future Civil War will be an evolution of the current "Culture War." As I have demonstrated before, the Civil War was in fact another, earlier "Culture War" that become a full blown conflict. Hunter argues that there are two major opposing "camps" in the "Culture War" today, the Orthodox and the Progressive. He tends to shy away from the terms "conservative" and "liberal" as there are some who don't fit in those two political categories that do in fact fit in the two culture war categories. There is also a quasi-category, sometimes called the "secular" category, which I prefer to call the "cultural agnostic" category, composed of people who don't really have stake in the culture war or who just don't fit into the two other categories for some reason.
The Orthodox and the Progressives are fighting over the future of America, and only one side can win. Hunter believes that the Progressives will likely win, as they control the media and educational establishments. However, he wrote that in 1992, before the Internet had taken off, and before there were alternative news sources. So now one of those elements is less powerful than before. The Progressives still control the education system though, and that is something that gives them an edge. Only a fraction of the population as a whole can home school or go to private school, so that isn't going to make a huge difference. Anyways, the Progressive still have an edge, though not as big as a decade ago.
The question is, what will one side or the other do if it senses defeat? Will they accept this, or will they consider the cost of war to be less than the cost of peace. The future of America, and the world is at stake here. So a further refinement of the question is, is enough at stake to give one of the sides the impetus to choose war as a means of changing the equation? I think that is something that we can't tell at this point. Both camps are far more decentralized than the pre-Civil War camps were, there is no central authority, or anything providing serious organizational centralization. Not yet, anyways. The Southern Aristocracy was a clearly defined group, and they had control over the political apparati of the South. They had various government bodies (mostly State bodies) to use to communicate with each other, and most importantly, there was one single issue that really dominated the culture war at that time, slavery. Nothing comes close to that issue today, although same-sex marriage and abortion are probably the closest approximates. Without that burning issue, what could provide the impetus to organize like was done for the South during the Civil War? I suspect that it will be something similar to what happened last time: A Supreme Court Decision. Dredd Scott really riled the abolitionists up, and helped fuel the Republican Party. It certainly helped lay the seeds for the Civil War. Another major Supreme Court decision could possibly do so as well. Of the two issues already mentioned, Same Sex Marriage is likely to represent a larger impact on existing practices when one considers what is going to come before the Court. A reversal of Roe v Wade is certainly not on the horizon, at least not until a new Justice or two steps to the Bench. That leaves SSM. The most likely situation is where the Defense of Marriage Act is challenged as un-Constitutional some point in the future. I think that the larger impact would come if it was ruled un-constitutional, and States were forced to recognized marriage licenses for homosexual unions that were granted in another state. This would cause a massive outcry from the Orthodox Camp. How massive? Difficult to tell. I wouldn't be surprised if some States decided to simply ignore the court on that, the South and Mid-West as the primary regions in mind. Depending on who the President is, and who controls Congress, we could have an interesting dilemma. If Bush is still in office, then he will have to face the option of enforcing something that he is utterly against. And Congress would have to make some tough decisions as well.
To be continued...
Update:
I should mention that while the Progressives are "winning" right now, that may change at some point in the future. President Bush, if he is re-elected, will have a chance to appoint several Supreme Court Justices, probably at least two, and maybe more. If he and a successor manage to alter the balance of the Court things can change for the Orthodox. The Court was one of the prime supports of the Progressive movement for a while, and it wasn't until Reagan that its support was checked, and it has only slightly supported the Progressives since. It is possible that Bush could appoint several Justices, and if he replaces Sandra Day O'Connor with a justice with more conservative social views then it wouldn't be out of the question for Roe to be overturned or significantly weakened some point in the future. I am not entirely sure how the Progressives would react to this...
This leads me to the true topic of this series: the possibility of a future Civil War in the United States. This is something that has been covered before, particularly by James Davidson Hunter, in his book Before the Shooting Begins. For a review of that book try this. So I am not broaching new ground here. However, I do feel that it is a subject that receives insufficient attention, and that is something that I intend to correct. I will try and determine what the chances of a new Civil War are, as well as its scope and potential for destruction. I will also try and determine who might be the two or more different sides in this conflict, as that is something that isn't necessarily clear at first sight.
I happen to think, and Hunter has argued this as well, that a future Civil War will be an evolution of the current "Culture War." As I have demonstrated before, the Civil War was in fact another, earlier "Culture War" that become a full blown conflict. Hunter argues that there are two major opposing "camps" in the "Culture War" today, the Orthodox and the Progressive. He tends to shy away from the terms "conservative" and "liberal" as there are some who don't fit in those two political categories that do in fact fit in the two culture war categories. There is also a quasi-category, sometimes called the "secular" category, which I prefer to call the "cultural agnostic" category, composed of people who don't really have stake in the culture war or who just don't fit into the two other categories for some reason.
The Orthodox and the Progressives are fighting over the future of America, and only one side can win. Hunter believes that the Progressives will likely win, as they control the media and educational establishments. However, he wrote that in 1992, before the Internet had taken off, and before there were alternative news sources. So now one of those elements is less powerful than before. The Progressives still control the education system though, and that is something that gives them an edge. Only a fraction of the population as a whole can home school or go to private school, so that isn't going to make a huge difference. Anyways, the Progressive still have an edge, though not as big as a decade ago.
The question is, what will one side or the other do if it senses defeat? Will they accept this, or will they consider the cost of war to be less than the cost of peace. The future of America, and the world is at stake here. So a further refinement of the question is, is enough at stake to give one of the sides the impetus to choose war as a means of changing the equation? I think that is something that we can't tell at this point. Both camps are far more decentralized than the pre-Civil War camps were, there is no central authority, or anything providing serious organizational centralization. Not yet, anyways. The Southern Aristocracy was a clearly defined group, and they had control over the political apparati of the South. They had various government bodies (mostly State bodies) to use to communicate with each other, and most importantly, there was one single issue that really dominated the culture war at that time, slavery. Nothing comes close to that issue today, although same-sex marriage and abortion are probably the closest approximates. Without that burning issue, what could provide the impetus to organize like was done for the South during the Civil War? I suspect that it will be something similar to what happened last time: A Supreme Court Decision. Dredd Scott really riled the abolitionists up, and helped fuel the Republican Party. It certainly helped lay the seeds for the Civil War. Another major Supreme Court decision could possibly do so as well. Of the two issues already mentioned, Same Sex Marriage is likely to represent a larger impact on existing practices when one considers what is going to come before the Court. A reversal of Roe v Wade is certainly not on the horizon, at least not until a new Justice or two steps to the Bench. That leaves SSM. The most likely situation is where the Defense of Marriage Act is challenged as un-Constitutional some point in the future. I think that the larger impact would come if it was ruled un-constitutional, and States were forced to recognized marriage licenses for homosexual unions that were granted in another state. This would cause a massive outcry from the Orthodox Camp. How massive? Difficult to tell. I wouldn't be surprised if some States decided to simply ignore the court on that, the South and Mid-West as the primary regions in mind. Depending on who the President is, and who controls Congress, we could have an interesting dilemma. If Bush is still in office, then he will have to face the option of enforcing something that he is utterly against. And Congress would have to make some tough decisions as well.
To be continued...
Update:
I should mention that while the Progressives are "winning" right now, that may change at some point in the future. President Bush, if he is re-elected, will have a chance to appoint several Supreme Court Justices, probably at least two, and maybe more. If he and a successor manage to alter the balance of the Court things can change for the Orthodox. The Court was one of the prime supports of the Progressive movement for a while, and it wasn't until Reagan that its support was checked, and it has only slightly supported the Progressives since. It is possible that Bush could appoint several Justices, and if he replaces Sandra Day O'Connor with a justice with more conservative social views then it wouldn't be out of the question for Roe to be overturned or significantly weakened some point in the future. I am not entirely sure how the Progressives would react to this...
Busy, Busy, Busy
I suspect that I won't be able to post much over the next week or so. Things have finally hit the saturation point for me, work has to be attended to, and blogging must suffer.
