The chick whose boyfriend is prepared to shoot their cats will be a bit unnerving to a non-prepper who stumbles upon the channel. As will be the "tail-gunner" in the bug-out school bus.
I find that woman unnerving. No, I'm not troubled by the thought of long-term preparation, but by the fear that drives her efforts, and by the somewhat self-deluding, almost fun-like attitude she has. It almost seems to be some sort of fantasy game.
Having a tail gunner doesn't bother me. But that does make me wonder what they're going to do when someone with a .50BMG shoots out their engine block like in the movies.
(On a more serious note, it's not clear where the tail gunner is located in the caravan. One would think at the end of the convoy, but the video clip seems to suggest the tail gunner is in the first vehicle. This doesn't seem like a good idea to me, but perhaps those with military experience can speak to this with more authority.)
While I'm at it (and procrastinating from real work), let me go on a bit. I like the man in LA who forages in an urban environment. A knowledge of botany is a good thing, and when combined with an appetite and a desire for hiking, results in something delicious. (The "landscape" he hikes in is less than appetizing.) Herbal medicine isn't a bad thing, either, but... "knife fights"? Really? Weapons is about oneupmanship, and the knife is pretty low on the totem pole. I really hope this was just a bad example.
As for the Arizona man fearing coronal mass ejection in 2012, we are having one right now:
http://www.mobilemag.com/2012/01/24/mass...arth-right-now/Should we tell him?
On another note:
I don't know a whole lot about National Geographic, but it stands to reason that, like much of journalism, it is dropping its standard to cater to the lowest common denominator. I am confused by the almost "nationalist" sentiments that pop up twice in the article. The author seems to suggest that National Geographic during the Cold War refused to cover areas held by our enemies (and that's taken as a good thing), and now it is an international publication and has to address an international audience (and that's regarded as a bad thing). I don't see that this change necessarily implies a decline. Moreover, from the little I've seen (such as this program we're talking about), National Geographic's decline is more American than anything else. Some of the programs it puts out are in line with the unique, terrible American invention of the reality show.
Previous Topic
Index
