Do It For The Children

Is there anybody that doesn't understand that the future of any country lies in its younger generation? You don't have to like kids to recognize that when you get older and retire someone has to pay to support you. You don't have to have kids to accept that other people's children are vulnerable and should be protected to a greater degree than that of an adult who is capable of taking care of themselves. None of this comes as a surprise. You were a kid once, after all.

None of that justifies the long-standing trend of someone proposing something and claiming they are doing it "for the children". Everything that comes down the pike these days is for the care and protection of our most precious resource, meaningless tripe that is intended to pull at our heartstrings in order to obtain our consent. Your failure to consent therefore demonstrates what a monster you are, how you don't have any feelings within you, how callous you are in the face of the poor, suffering kids.

Let's face it, folks: you're being used.

Is there really a need to pass laws that provide more funding "for the future of our children"? School funding has vastly outpaced inflation for decades now. Even with the recession-driven cuts in school funding the inflation-adjusted dollars per student still far exceed the dollars spent on education for previous generations. Is it really so monstrous to say that we are throwing money at schools in a vain hope for improvement? It's abundantly clear that it doesn't work, but to say so is the epitome of cruelty.

Is there really a need to increase penalties on child molesters, kidnappers, and other violent crimes committed against children? "Getting tough on crime" is all well and good, and there's no doubt that it plays well in Peoria, but in the end it deters nothing. People still kill other people even when they know that if they are caught they will have a date with the needle. But to oppose such measures for pragmatic reasons simply shows everybody how little you care about the beautiful, innocent little angels.

E-cigarettes could conceivably be the salvation for millions of smokers, a way to stop inhaling burning plant matter that causes cancer, but because of the possibility that a child might one day pick up an e-cigarette they should be banned. Gun bans are pushed by people who parade their dead children in front of us. Every single day a politician gets in front of the camera and tells us we should support their pet proposal "for the children".

Few among us wish to hurt children. If you do, if that's your thing, if you have an overwhelming desire to hurt a child, you're a psychopath. It's that simple. The people who use this tactic know it, yet imply in the most cynical manner that you will be counted among them if you dare to reject their maudlin appeals.

The irony of this is that for all of our appeals, for all of our solicitousness toward children, we don't really care about them. We prove it every day with our failure to raise taxes, cut spending and fund infrastructure, when we overfund and stuff people into prison for the pettiest of crimes, when we turn police forces into paramilitary units, when we make arbitrary determinations that fetuses are nothing but clumps of cells, when we turn children into prizes to be won by squabbling parents in courtrooms. Where is our concern for the welfare of our children then? If they are of such paramount importance, none of those things should be in question.

I despise being manipulated. Most people do. So fight back. Reject these appeals to emotion. Tell these hucksters that they can't use you anymore by tugging at your heartstrings. Examine their proposals with calm, clear rationality and judge them accordingly. If you won't do it for yourself, at least do it for the children.

I Still Have No Idea What I Want To Be

Every child dreams of being something special. When you ask a child what they want to be, you invariably get a litany of things, each one more absurd than the next. At some point I wanted to be a doctor, lawyer, professional baseball player, celebrity, actor, and general man-about-town. It didn't matter what it was, just as long as I had piles of money and didn't really have to work. The dreams of youth are amusing indeed, every parent has a little chuckle at the things their child aspires to. The important thing is that they have some sort of aspiration.

My aspirations ran headlong into paralyzing fear. I'm not sure when that happened, exactly, but somewhere along the way I realized a few things about myself. First, I couldn't hit a baseball. When the adults were pitching to me I was Babe Ruth reincarnated. Unfortunately for me, there came a time when I had to start facing other kids, some of whom were bigger than I was. My first at-bat in the "big leagues", as it were, I took a pitch to the ribs, instantly freezing the bat on my shoulder. On the few occasions I mustered the courage to swing I missed the ball by a mile because I bailed out so dramatically I was halfway down the baseline by the time the pitch arrived. I would have needed a telephone pole to get a hit. So much for the fame and fortune of professional baseball.

I could have been a doctor. Without a doubt I have the intelligence and work ethic to be a doctor. Then the fear once more got in the way. I blanch at the sight of blood, so much so that I invariably panic. I can't even hunt, simply because the act of field dressing the animal is something I am incapable of. Now, given the necessity, I'm sure I could overcome that. Alas, I would be destroyed the first time I lost a patient. It would be a failure that would shatter me like a piece of glass.

Celebrity? Actor? Not a chance. It's only been a few years since I learned to speak in public without feeling like I was about to pass out (which has actually happened to me). So that's out.

Lawyer? Yeah, that's exactly what the world needs, another lawyer. The academics? No problem. Preparation and ethical representation? With a moral compass like mine, I couldn't do it any other way. Crushing debt? Killer. I still mull it over from time to time, but I simply can't find a way to justify the cost, especially with my eternally-tenuous finances and responsibilities. Maybe if I win the lottery I'll go that route. Of course, if I win the lottery I will have no need to become a lawyer. Catch-22.

I did 12 years in the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, achieving the rank of Technical Sergeant and reputation for being technically proficient, and I really thought that was it. I was on track for a good shot at a full-time job, but that went away with my alcoholism. What a weird lesson I learned from that: no matter how hard you work, no matter how much you want something, you can lose it overnight. Naturally, that fed into my already crippling fear.

For virtually my entire adult life I have worked in a restaurant. I make good coin for restaurant work, and I'd like to think that I am exceptional at my job, but in the end there is nowhere to go. The boss is also the owner, and so I have peaked. I suppose I could continue on indefinitely, and in fact I probably will in some capacity because I still very much enjoy my job, but I find myself restless.

So here I am, 38 years old, a veteran of two wars, holder of a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, and I have no idea what I want to be. As an adult I find myself having much the same imagination as I did when I was a child. I'd love to open a gun shop, learn how to fix cars professionally, open my own restaurant, a few other things. Then I think about what it would take and the fear engulfs me again. I am many things, but the one thing I fear the most is failure. I don't want to be a failure. But I don't want to take chances, either.

Sooner or later I'll have to take a leap. It's either that or I content myself with being a Renaissance Man, all the knowledge in the world and nothing to show for it. Maybe on the day I do finally decide I'll do it with the optimistic exuberance of the child I once was and can remember being, but cannot emulate.

Why GM, Ford, Toyota And Audi Didn't Do Anything Wrong

By now you're all aware of the GM ignition switch controversy. If you haven't been watching, here's a quick recap: In certain GM models, notably the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion, the installed ignition switches are prone to failure when too much weight is applied to them (read:too many keys hanging from the keyring). This failure results in engine shutdown, loss of power steering, and failure of the airbags to deploy.

I am cognizant of the grief that the families of the victims are feeling (13 deaths reported to this point), but when you think about it, it's not a number of any significance. About 1.4 million cars have been subjected to the recall, a large number of which have already been wrecked or scrapped. As the Cobalt, Ion, HHR, and Pontiac G5s are all inexpensive compact cars, they have all put on a ton of mileage. When the incidents are calculated as a function of miles driven, they are statistically insignificant. Additionally, around 45,000 people die on US highways every year. 13 deaths isn't even a blip on the radar.

Except it is. The reason why is easy to see: since Ralph Nader made a name for himself taking a run at GM in 1966 with his book Unsafe At Any Speed, it's almost become a sport to attack automobile manufacturers. You could say that it was well-earned, what with Detroit's long-ago reluctance to engineer any sort of safety into the cars (seat belts were once an option in cars) and their focus on power and styling at the expense of the passenger. That said, we have had some famous incidents that didn't merit the level of anger they received. Some examples:

Chevrolet Corvair: The first and perhaps most famous thanks to the aforementioned Nader book. It was an air-cooled rear-engined car, which naturally increases the weight bias to the rear of the car. With the original swing-axle independent suspension, it had a tendency to oversteer, much like the original Beetle and Porsche 911. Nader's book took aim at the design, declaring it to be unsafe. Later testing determined that it was no more unsafe than any other car of its era, but the damage had already been done.

Ford Pinto: The old joke was that the Pinto was "the barbecue that seats four". A few incidents of the sort happened, but they were high-impact events. That said, Ford made the mistake of committing a cost/benefit analysis to paper in cold, corporate language. Mother Jones magazine came into possession of a copy and printed it. Just like that, the Pinto got a reputation as an unsafe car, which it really wasn't.

Chevrolet C/K Pickup Trucks: Dateline NBC did a straight-arm piece in 1993 where they rigged Chevrolet trucks to blow up on demand, set up by a for-hire witness against GM. The apology was loud and public, but GM still had to offer $1000 toward the purchase of a new truck to any C/K owner to stem the bleeding.

Audi 5000: Audi was an up-and-coming luxury marque in the US when 60 Minutes did a piece on unintended acceleration issues. The report caused Audi's business to decline by about 80%, which took Audi 15 years to regain. It also destroyed the resale value of the cars. As a result, Audis were about as welcome to US consumers as plague rats. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a report that vindicated Audi, declaring that almost every case of unintended acceleration was user error.

Ford Explorer: The Explorer was the best-selling SUV in America for a long time. All of that changed when they started to roll with alarming frequency. The Firestone tires that came with the vehicle were delaminating and/or rupturing, resulting in loss of control of the vehicle and potential rollover. In the end the blame was placed on the tire's construction combined with the natural tendency of an SUV (with a high center of gravity) to roll to a greater degree than a car. There was nothing inherently wrong with the vehicle, just bad tires and people ill-equipped to deal with the characteristics of an SUV at critical times.

Toyota Prius: Again, unintended acceleration. The blame was placed on Toyota's "fly-by-wire" program and shifting floormats. Again, vindication, though the damage had once more been done. Toyota went from being the number one automaker by sales to number three, and has yet to regain the top spot.

All of these things had one thing in common: a hostile press. Reporters have long had a mantra: if it bleeds, it leads. What could be more bloody than people dying in accidents that could be attributed to a greedy, penurious automobile company that only thought about profits? It doesn't matter if it's true or not. With few exceptions the retraction has been a few column inches buried in the middle of the paper or a few muttered words at the end of a broadcast. Everybody remembers the accusation, few remember the retraction.

As for the recent GM "crisis", my mother and my Driver's Education teacher taught me long ago not to put a ton of keys on the keyring. Why? Because it would damage the ignition switch. This advice came more than 20 years ago. Who would have thought that people could be so insightful? Furthermore, there are still many thousands of these vehicles on the roads, and until now they were deemed perfectly safe. Yet almost daily there are people coming out of the woodwork wringing their hands about their now-unsafe cars. Nothing has changed but the attitudes of the people, and the press has been aggravating the situation.

Is that the function of a free press, to act as rabblerousers? I thought the function of a free press was to act as informers, not inciters. The car companies didn't do anything wrong, but you'd never know that, because the people you trust to inform you have been negligent in deference to sensationalism for, well, ever. Even when it's important, like with Watergate, Vietnam, 9/11, whatever, it has been sensationalist in nature. I suppose it's to be expected that the people they "serve" would take their cues from that and act the same.

The Best Free Speech Money Can Buy

When it comes to politics, money is power. If there were ever any doubt of that, ponder this: Let's say you gave $50 to Barack Obama's campaign in 2008, maybe again in 2012, and what did you get in return? If you were lucky you may have received a form letter thanking you for your donation, printed on plain paper and sent out via bulk mail. Now, let's say someone gave the maximum to Obama's campaign, as well as donations from 10 other members of their family with their money. You can be certain that such a donor does not receive a form letter in the mail. No, that donor receives a personal phone call, because to do otherwise constitutes a grave insult. It's the political equivalent of calling your grandmother to thank her for her fine Christmas gift, a personal touch is sometimes required lest you seem ungrateful.

With that donation, therefore, comes access. They now have the ear of the potential President, for however fleeting a time that may be. They can use that time to raise an issue that they find important, which will be duly noted and assigned for research and future action to a staffer, who will from time to time offer a reminder. As every politician wishes to be re-elected, that issue will carry significant weight, because with it comes further donations that cannot be ignored.

In the meantime, our $50 donor writes letters, sends e-mails, and has serious and sincere concerns that they would like to see addressed. In the grand scheme of things, though, such a paltry donation isn't particularly meaningful. Now-President Obama only has so much time, and someone who offers such a pro-forma donation simply doesn't rate. This person may become upset and refrain from voting for Obama again in the future, but what's one voter when 125 million turn out to vote and Obama's re-election is not in doubt?

Last week the Supreme Court decided McCutcheon v. FEC in a 5-4 decision, with the Justices splitting as they often do and Kennedy providing the deciding vote as he often does. Prior to this decision, the maximum donation of $2,600 per election cycle could only be given to 9 candidates, limiting the type of access described above. Following the decision, a sufficiently wealthy donor can give the maximum to as many candidates as he wants to. Said donor can now gain access to every single member of Congress at their leisure. Naturally, a Democratic donor will not be giving to Republicans, but if they hit every Democratic candidate the donor will have the ability to influence all of those candidates, thus having the ability to not only influence lawmaking but also to essentially write the laws themselves. Rare indeed is the Congressman who has the fortitude to defy his largest donors, and with so few donors capable of doing something like this, more power is concentrated into the hands of a select few whose interests rarely coincide with those of the average citizen.

And yet, the decision by the Supreme Court was the right one. Free speech is free speech. We would not tolerate any limits on our speech, or our right of association, yet we would impose those limits on others. Even if the reason is well-intentioned and ultimately beneficial to society as a whole, it is still impermissible.

So now we are left with an untenable situation. As citizens we have a right to expect that the people we elect will represent us honorably even as we know that not only can they be bought but the buyers are not likely to have our interests in mind. It has always been that way, just not so blatantly. Perhaps it is time to amend the Constitution to limit campaign contributions. The obvious problem is that amending the Constitution typically requires a Congressional supermajority, and what Congressman wants to kill the golden goose? For that matter, national offices aren't the only ones that require money to win, and state Congressmen aren't any more likely to vote to ratify such an amendment.

For the average person, their free speech costs them nothing, and as such is valued as nothing. Speech is only as valued as that which accompanies it, and when it comes with loads of money it has significant value indeed. It is the best free speech money can buy.

Here We Are Now, Entertain Us

20 years ago today the voice of my generation was silenced by his own hand. I remember it like it was yesterday, like my parents remember where they were when they heard that Kennedy had been assassinated, Lennon had been murdered, and from earlier in my generation the Challenger disaster. I was sitting in the lunch room at Boiling Springs High School in my usual seat with my usual guys, not having any idea that Kurt Cobain had just killed himself on the other side of the continent. When I found out a few days later that he had died, sitting in exactly the same place doing exactly the same thing, I managed to ask myself through the shock and pain one simple question that I still can't answer:

How could a man so beloved, so revered by every alienated young man in the country, the man who gave voice to everything we felt, have gone three days before anybody found his body?

When one speaks of music, you often hear about integrity, that they were what they wrote about. In that context Kurt Cobain had more integrity than any musician of all time. Every alienated rock star writes about depression, anger and sadness, it's their milieu. Not everybody writes a song titled "I Hate Myself And Want To Die" and follows through with it. It came through in his performances, every one of his songs were delivered by someone who sounded like they were breathing their last. Every lick on the guitar sounded like it came from a guy who was trying to destroy the instrument with his bare hands. When I heard this it was a revelation, someone who was as angry and alienated as I was. People like that didn't exist, did they?

And so Nirvana became my favorite band, remaining in the upper echelon to this day. The music still has the same impact every time I hear it. And yet, even as I listened to what amounted to album-length suicide notes, it never occurred to me that he would do it. All the signs were there, why didn't we see it? He was a dopesick, depressed man, and in the end, after all the cries for help he committed to record, he died alone, feeling unloved. He escaped from a rehab and nobody thought to check his home? Nobody?

He and I had more in common than I ever imagined. The difference is that he couldn't listen to himself and find solace in his music, whereas I and everybody like me did. His music affected an entire generation. It changed music forever, took us from the vacuousness of the '80s and set the tone for the '90s. Everybody since has been trying to capture the same lightning in a bottle and can't do it because they lack sincerity, something manifest in Nirvana songs. Who believes a rap star talking about poverty while rolling in a Bentley with half-million dollar earrings and a designer suit?

So, here we are, 20 years later. His death still affects me profoundly. And the lesson he taught me still lingers: there is always someone who cares about you, you need only extend your hand and someone will grab it. The tragedy is that he never learned that, and the world has been a poorer place for it. He was the voice of my generation, and nothing has ever been the same since he died. In a world saturated with Katy Perry/Lady Gaga/boy band vacuousness and hip-hop poseurs, we need someone like him to save us, again put a voice to what we are thinking. We're here, Kurt. We wish you were, too.