Nice. I have one or two counts of envy about this one.

I never really used the blue bird app. At least, I never really posted anything. I only opened the app to find news that I want finding otherwise.

Why didn't I post on Twitter? Because, while I have no problem being confrontational. For that matter, when I was younger, I often enjoyed being confrontation. However, I don't find confrontation for the sake of confrontation to be generally useful.

Twitter, in my experience, is a whole lot of confrontation for the sake of confrontation.

Now, on nostr, I find myself far more inclined to post. I've seen very little confrontational behavior here and even less confrontation for the sake of confrontation.

I don't need a safe space. I just don't feel all that inclined to waste my time and energy on a stupid space.

I'm not sure about Martin's history. But I grew up near the Bill Monroe Bluegrass park (where Bill Monroe lived and worked with all of the original Blugrass players) and Martins were everywhere.

My reference is to what happened when the President of Gibson Guitar Company donated to the Republican Party when Obama won the Presidency. The US Federal Government unleased regulators to attack Gibson. It reached the point in which the US government wad accusing Gibson of illegally using protected lumber from India while the Indian government was publicly and formally that Gibson was entirely legal in their purchase of that lumber.

At several points, it looked like Gibson was going to be forced out of business and, at points, had to shut down US production. For a couple of years it looked very much like Gibson was going to be forced out of business.

After the debacle with the US Government, political donations, and Gibson Guitar Company, I'm a little surprised it took this long for a iconic guitar company to take a bit of a stance.

That being said, I've never really wanted a Martin until now.

At the rate things are going, I'm not sure Warren and her ilkv will even need to go so far as to attempt to pass a bill through Congress.

While I'm not trying to be politically partisan, from what I'm seeing v the Biden Administration song through Executive Order and through the regulatory and enforcement agencies, it seems to me as though, at least for now, we, in the US, currently have one branch of government: the Executive.

I'm not saying any of this is new, just much, much faster than I've witnessed in my 30 years of following US politics. And the speed at which the Administration is moving is faster than either Congress or the Courts can keep up with.

Warren will likely get her way without a vote or even a public discussion simply because she has the ear of the Administration.

Morning coffee thoughts:

I think it's important to remember that we are a part of the network effect. By using nostr, we make it stronger and more useful. By being bitcoiners, we make it stronger and more useful.

However, if we cloister ourselves too much or for too long, we decrease the positive impact we, as individuals, can have. So, I think it's important that we remember to interact with other parts of the world.

So, when we're out in the world dealing with normies, I think it's important to bring something positive to as many interactions as as we can.

If we bring something positive in small, seemingly unimportant interactions with others, it's more likely that they'll be receptive if they find us talking about nostr or bitcoin or anything else.

If this is true, then we need not, in most cases, try to orange or purple pill people. We just need to be a positive memory, even a small one, when they discover that we are nostr users or bitcoiners.

And, rereading this before I post, I'm not sure if my coffee has taken effect yet. But, hey, I'll post it anyway in case it makes sense to some people.

Bodies with no surprises

I went over to the bird app and found the tweet. What I can't find is a link to the statement or the video.

Does anyone have anything to corroborate?

It's not that it would surpise me that she said this or that the White House is thinking this way. I would just very much like to see it for myself.

Hey, I made it on The Nostr Report! Neat.

#[0]

When I was young growing up in the American Midwest in the late 80's through early 90's, I would have begged my father for this.

Be would have laughed at me and told me to go get the chickens back in the coop.

https://youtu.be/dOwj_1K0Ug0

I think much of the mainstream is missing the mark by focusing on the Yuan displacing the Dollar.

No one currency needs to displace the Dollar for the Dollar to fail as the reserve currency. All that must happen is that trade be denominated in anything other than the Dollar. Trade can b be denominated in any number of currencies that aren't the Dollar and the effect will be the same.

It's not about the Dollar being replaced by something specific, it's just about the Dollar being dropped.

And it looks to me like that's happening very fast now. It's not a new thought, but, of course, "first gradually, then suddenly."

The fun part is that this is all incredibly bullish for bitcoin adoption.

Countries aren't known for their trust in one another. And while multi-currency international

trade could work fairly well in the short term, in the long term they'll seek out what bitcoin has to offer.

Well this is getting exciting. I mean, US hyperinflation will certainly be exciting. I'm not excited in a good way. More like, excited in a "holy shit my car is stalled in railroad tracks and I hear a cry loud train horn in the distance" kind of excited.

But, hey, I own bitcoin for a reason.

Anyone under the age of 60 is pretty opposed to it. Those over the age of 60 seem to be mixed about it.

Small and mid-sized businesses are heavily opposed to it. Big tech seems to have written most of the Restrict Act.

The problem is that our legislators are all very old and subservient to their lobbyists with the most money. So, we're in a position much like cannabis laws: what the people overwhelmingly want is of no concern to legislators. And the Biden Administration is overtly taking the approach of "we're in charge and you'll do what you're told."

So, if the Restrict Act can make it through Congress (our combined legislative bodies) then the President will sign it. And if Congress rejects it, there's still a reasonable chance that Biden will attempt to institute it through Executive Order or under The Patriot Act. Of course the Supreme Court could overrule that, however that would take considerable time to do and, even then, the Administration is showing that it will openly defy Supreme Court rulings through the ATF (specific to gun laws) and by reinstating Operation Chokepoint.

So, I would say that the realities of the Restrict Act or some other form of draconian controls are likely regardless of America public sentiment.

But, I've been wrong before. I hope that I am in this case.

I've been thinking about the percentage of international trade moving to a bitcoin standard or would take to force most nations to stay formally holding bitcoin on their balance sheets. At the moment, I'm just guessing and running through scenarios. Obviously, if one of the largest economies made the shift, others wold have to move in that direction. But how many mid-sized or smaller economies would it take?

(I'm wording this awkwardly because I haven't throughly thought the problem through yet. My apologies.)

Does anyone have any ideas on how I could come up with a general number? Does anyone have any links to any good articles on the subject?

Thanks, friends.

This is really no different from any other civil asset forfeiture (for anyone not familiar with US law, civil asset forfeiture, the government can any asset deemed to have been used in the commission of a crime... or not... there's a ton of corruption in these laws... and either use those assets for law enforcement purposes or sell them to fund law enforcement agencies and courts).

Since the US government doesn't formally recognize bitcoin as currency, they have to sell it or use it for investigations. In this case, it looks like they're selling it to raise fiat for government agencies. It could be more nefarious, but, honestly, they are more likely just trying to get more dollars.

Depending on the jurisdiction that formally holds this bitcoin, they may even be legally required to sell this bitcoin.

Now, do they have other motives? Maybe. I wouldn't put it passed them. But, in my experience, the US Federal Government is incredibly incompetent most of the time. Even the intelligent people who work in the government struggle to do anything due to layer on top of layer of rules and statutes. They often find themselves confused about how to change or overrule their own rules that they created for themselves.

When I first bought bitcoin, I was really only concerned with supporting the idea.

Later, I loved watching the price because I still denominated my life in dollars.

Then, I stopped caring about the price again because I saw bitcoin working.

Now, I watch the price because it tells me a lot of information about the world.

If they turned FRED off the entire financial system would go into a full, no holds barred panic. They won't turn it off... they'll just falsify it.

Oh, now I need to knop l know what he said! I need to prepare for the opposite.

Would uniformed agents of the State turn on their own people?

The answer is undoubtedly yes.

Would all of them?

The answer is undoubtedly no.

However, it's the State's ability to control the machines and the currency that are key here.

The uniformed agents of the State that refuse the orders of the State quickly lose their positions as agents. At that point, they lose access to the weapons and capital of the State. And those agents are simply replaced by others who will follow orders and enforce tyranny gleefully.

I think it's the wrong approach to view any agent of the state as an individual but rather a position. Sure, it's individuals who hold those positions of authority, but it's not the individual that is important but the position itself.

So, will friendly Officer Joe be willing to inact tyranny? Let's say no to this one. But, as soon as friendly Officer Joe refuses the order, he becomes just regular old Joe and is replaced by Bob who will do anything and everything ordered no matter how depraved.

Now, not only is Joe no longer in a position of authority to harm or help, but depending on how desperate the State becomes, he and his family might find themselves as the focus of State tyranny.

So, I believe that it's a mistake to look to anyone acting as an agent of the State as either a problem or a solution. It's the existence of the position and the mechanisms of enforcement that can be either a solution or a problem.

And as long as the State has ill intentions, someone will be happy to fill that role.

The exception would be if the State can't get ahead of potential insubordination ahead of ordering tyrannical actions. If the mechanisms of forced subordination come before a change in personal can occur, then the State may have a problem controlling its own forces.

Just my thoughts. I could easily be wrong.

Give yourself a gift. Every day. Don't plan for it. Don't wait on it. Just let it happen. Like a piping hot cup of black coffee or a slice of delicious pie.

(It's been years and I can't quite remember the exect quote...)