What Is Patriotism?

It's the 4th of July, and as usual we have the patriotic displays, from the reading of the Declaration of Independence to the fireworks to the races complete with military men and women in attendance and flyovers from the local Air Force wing. It's enough to inspire you to think that the US is the greatest nation on Earth and its people are its backbone. That may very well be true, but it still leads me to wonder about it.

It used to be easy for me. Patriotism to me was love for my country and a willingness to do anything for it. I never thought to question its leaders. Why would I? After all, they were elected, thus representative of the will of the people, a perfectly logical conclusion to come to. I did my duty over the course of 12 years, was a constant volunteer, and answered the call every time I was asked to. I thought we were doing the right thing when we invaded Afghanistan, and I believed it when we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. When they failed to materialize I started to have my doubts, and they have not left me since.

That was the catalyst for my questioning of what patriotism really is. Is it unthinking deference to our government and its policies? I simply cannot do that anymore, not with the revelations regarding the NSA, not with the continued existence of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, not with the economic recession, and certainly not with the polarized state of our legislatures and an understanding of how it came to be that way. It's not so much my education that caused me to change my mind as it is my ability to think. It is an uncritical mind indeed that looks at the state of our country and thinks that everything is OK. I'm not blaming anybody for this, there's enough blame to go around, but in the end we still have people who wave the flag, talk about supporting the troops, and hurl jingoistic epithets while claiming that the United States is the best country in the world, a spurious claim in 2014.

None of that really answers the question, though. I now consider it my duty to question my government and its actions, which brings us full circle on this Independence Day as that is precisely what the Declaration of Independence was, a statement of reasons defining the political separation from England. I suppose that makes me as patriotic as the America: Love It Or Leave It crowd, but somehow it doesn't feel that way.

I suspect I'll never really get a satisfactory answer, but until I do I will always have trouble understanding what it means to be a patriot even as I do my best to fulfill the oath I took when I enlisted (even as I am no longer legally bound by it), to defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. While I may not do that in a military capacity anymore, I can advocate for causes, I can vote, and I can work for change. In the end that will have to be good enough.

What Difference Can One Man Make?

Tomorrow is the 100th anniversary of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, archduke of the Austria-Hungarian Empire, and his wife. Sure, there was a genuine conspiracy to kill him, but in the end it came down to one man, Gavrilo Princip.

When he shot Archduke Ferdinand, it set into motion the deaths of untold millions. World War I was just the beginning of it. Trench warfare, chemical weapons, tanks, machine guns, all created to fight a war which need never have happened. Men were mowed down by the numbers trying to fight an old-style war with modern weapons. Empires fell, revolutions changed countries, borders were altered. When it was all over everybody said it was the war to end all wars and set to ensuring it would never happen again. To that end they wrote the Treaty of Versailles, putting the screws to Germany. Had they but known what they were doing they would have done anything else.

Thanks to that treaty, Germans spent the next 15 years simmering in resentment, culminating with the rise of a former Austrian corporal who was always mindful of what came to be known as the stab-in-the-back legend, the idea that Germany didn't lose, their politicians simply quit. Yes, World War I was instrumental in the coming of Adolf Hitler. Perhaps you've heard of him.

So now we have World War II and more untold millions killed, finally ridding ourselves of the future potential for disaster by totally destroying Europe and dividing Germany for the next 45 years. Except that we didn't rid ourselves of anything, because World War I was also instrumental in the ascension of the Bolsheviks and the formation of the Soviet Union. They also killed millions, as did we through the proxy wars of Korea and Vietnam, along with several other skirmishes through proxy states and the like.

So, what can one man do? Gavrilo Princip might not have been the person that created the political environment that ultimately precipitated vast death and destruction lasting to the present day, but he was the catalyst for it. Don't ever underestimate your potential. You too can change the world. Only in your case, try not to kill the wrong guy.

Resolved: The Civil War Was About Slavery

Today I came across the commonly-offered argument that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but "states rights", a term that has regained currency in recent years. I consider this to be extraordinarily disingenuous, an attempt to whitewash history. And whitewash is definitely the term to use in this case.

The reason, of course, is because the war was about states rights. Unfortunately for the people who argue that, they never finish the thought. The end of that is "to own slaves". That's right, the Civil War was about the southern states' right to retain the "peculiar institution" of slavery. To argue otherwise ignores the known history of the abolitionist movement and everything leading up to the Civil War. Should we ignore the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision? Should we ignore the aftermath of the war, when the South fought Reconstruction tooth and nail until it was ended as a result of the compromise that installed Rutherford B. Hayes as the President? How about Jim Crow, Plessy v. Ferguson, separate but equal, the "Lost Year" in Little Rock, and the necessity to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Shall I go on? I didn't even scratch the surface of the virulent racism in this country, both before and after the Civil War. But we are expected to believe that the Civil War was about non-specific states' rights that were being abridged by the northern states, ones that have never been named? Sure, we ought to just take their word for it in this case.

The Big Lie: it works everywhere it's tried. Goebbels had nothing on the good ol' boys. Only in this case, it's a lie that doesn't go away. It didn't die with a Confederate defeat, it didn't die with integration, it didn't die with legislation. And it's still passed around as absolute truth.

There is only one bit of good news: anybody who says it identifies themselves as a racist and an idiot. And that's no lie. Thank God for small favors.

Just Put The Gun In Your Mouth And Kill Yourself Already

I have had about all I can stomach with regard to the recent spate of mass shootings. What motivates these people to kill a bunch of other people? In Elliot Rodger's case, he hated women. He couldn't get a date, he couldn't find someone to have sex with him, in Southern California, not even trolling around in an expensive BMW that daddy bought for him, something that (according to legend) absolutely melts panties. Guys, I just had my 12th wedding anniversary and I still occasionally get women that hit on me, and I am not exactly a superior specimen. I'm overweight, I have plaque psoriasis, I'm a confessed alcoholic, and my job isn't what you would call high-paying. I was a solitary person growing up, I didn't relate well with people, and I suffered from a fairly moderate case of depression. Somehow I managed to impress a woman or two.

I only mention this because the person in question this time lacked something that I have. For all my faults, I am a caring individual, almost to a fault. It shows in the dedication I have at my job, the mannerisms I display, and my interactions with others. In other words, I am not a raving lunatic. This guy was, and the most obvious explanation for why he couldn't get laid is because he scared the living hell out of every woman he encountered. There's an old axiom about this: if you think that everyone around you is crazy, you're the one that's crazy. Instead of recognizing this fact for what it was, he decided to become the American Marc Lepine and take it out on a bunch of innocent women.

This is just the most recent incidence of loons going crazy and seeking some sort of revenge, closure, I don't even know what to call it. Suffice it to say that it simply doesn't make any sense to the rest of us. So I humbly submit a proposal: rather than killing a bunch of other people, stick the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. It would save us all a lot of handwringing, it would spare the families of those killed a never-ending feeling of loss, and it would solve your problem, all in one fell swoop. It's what you want anyway, so do it and get it over with. Some people simply cannot be saved. Let's save our time, resources, and sympathy for those we can and give the rest the way out they so clearly desire.

One thing we should not do, even as I do it myself, is let these people occupy any part of our time or our thoughts. We should reinstate the old Roman policy of damnatio memoriae. Don't name the person, don't put his picture up, don't pay any mind to lunatic "manifestos" that are nothing of the sort. Treat the killer as an object rather than a person. When they do these things they are of no more value than the half-ounce piece of lead they put through their deranged brains. Maybe then we can eliminate these idiots, these attention-whoring nutjobs that shoot people up because they have no other way to become famous.

In any case, stop shooting people. Do yourself and let the rest of us live in peace.

E-Cigarettes: A Public Health Solution Beset By Politics And Vengeance

Cigarette smoking is a scourge. Over the last century millions of people have destroyed their lungs, wasted away to nothing, and died horrible deaths. Those who do not die of lung cancer or related diseases suffer from emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, loss of lung function, heart disease... the maladies are myriad and well known. I could raise the point that nobody could reasonably believe that inhaling burning plant matter could ever be good for you, and I may at a later time, but the simple fact is that lung cancer is almost exclusively a smoker's disease that causes people to die by the numbers. Anything that reduces the consumption of cigarettes is therefore a good thing.

Unfortunately for us, there is a groundswell of opposition to e-cigarettes. An e-cigarette in its simplest incarnation consists of a battery, an atomizer, and a fluid. The fluid is heated, reduced to a vapor, and the result is inhaled. There is no burning organic plant matter, no smoke is produced, no overtly offensive odors are created. So what's the problem?

The problems are threefold. The first issue is that the e-liquid typically contains nicotine, a highly addictive substance, and the one thing that smokers have the hardest time kicking. Second, the basic e-cigarette that you get from the corner mini-mart looks and functions like a traditional cigarette. Third, non-smokers hold the whip hand. After years of having to endure smokers acting like jerks, lighting up wherever they feel like it and causing their clothes, cars, and everything else to stink, the tables have turned. Now they get to exact revenge on their tormentors.

What they either don't realize, fail to realize, or don't care about is that e-cigarettes are clearly better for everybody involved. The smoker that switches to an e-cigarette no longer inhales 4000 different chemicals. They no longer exhale carcinogenic smoke. They can breathe easier, they don't suffer from smoker's cough, and they regain the ability to exercise for more than a few minutes without passing out from exhaustion due to reduced lung capacity. The ingredients in the e-liquid are vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol, nicotine, and flavoring. Aside from the nicotine, every ingredient is on the FDA's Generally Recognized As Safe list. In the end, what is exhaled is little more than water vapor, a far cry from the bad old days of carcinogenic secondhand smoke.

There are legitimate issues, to be sure. The biggest issue is the availability to children. E-cigarette and e-liquid manufacturers are being accused of marketing to children by creating flavors like Cotton Candy and the like. As I said in a previous blog entry, we put too much stock in doing things "for the children", but in this case it's a good idea. There is no need to create a new generation of drug addicts. This is easily remedied (though not so easily applied) by simply passing a law regulating e-cigarettes as devices for adults only. Second, while nicotine isn't a carcinogen it is still toxic at fairly modest levels, which means that it should be stored and handled with care. In the hands of adults that's not really a big deal.

Instead, we see blanket bans on usage that rival those of tobacco cigarettes. We see them classified as tobacco products, even though there is no tobacco and nothing is burning or emitting smoke. We hear complaints that the scents emitted are offensive, as if the perfume we smell and the car exhaust we breathe aren't just as offensive yet somehow more acceptable. Of course, bans will prevent people from switching, because the short-term effects of smoking aren't particularly dramatic, and so why switch when cigarettes are good enough? Worse yet is the inevitable taxation, which will undoubtedly be punitive in nature as befits a vice. God knows the government doesn't really want people to stop smoking, they're addicted to that sweet, sweet tax money raised on the backs of drug addicts.

We can save lives. We can do it today. If everybody switches tomorrow we can virtually end lung cancer in an instant. What a gift we have, right in our hands. This gift will be destroyed at the hands of politicians scrambling for money and overzealous prohibitionists smugly proving their control over you by having e-cigarettes banned. What a tragedy that will be. In the meantime, I will be enjoying the end of my second smoke-free year thanks to e-cigarettes. Were that everybody could enjoy the freedom from the devil weed as I do.

The Quandary Of Politics

Tomorrow is Pennsylvania's Democratic primary to select a candidate to face Tom Corbett in the upcoming Gubernatorial election. There have been numerous debates, the money has been spent, the ads have been run, all that is left is to determine who it will be. The overwhelming favorite is Tom Wolf, a prominent businessman and former PA Revenue Secretary. With Governor Corbett having a truly miserable first term he is perhaps the most vulnerable Governor up for re-election this year, so the choice is not merely one of who to throw to the wolves. The winner tomorrow will have the rare opportunity to unseat an incumbent.

The candidates, however, have not exactly covered themselves with glory. There is little to distinguish one from another. Inevitably, with nothing to disagree on, they have turned on each other. Mr. Wolf has "loaned" himself $6 million for his campaign, which in politics is red meat. He has been accused of trying to buy the office, an accusation that on the face of it seems to be true but for the fact that all of the other candidates have been trying to do the same. As money is the mother's milk of politics, the winner typically ends up being the biggest spender, and if the other candidates had the means to toss that kind of money around they would certainly be doing so.

The other big accusation thrown out came courtesy of Rob McCord, current Pennsylvania Treasurer. He accused Wolf of supporting Charlie Robertson, disgraced former mayor of York. Several years ago Robertson was chased from office when his role in the York race riot of 1969 was exposed. He incited people to riot with chants of "White Power!" and told police officers to "kill all the n_____ you can!", something made even more egregious by the fact that he was a police officer himself. He was later arraigned for the murder of Lillie Belle Allen and ultimately acquitted. As a result of these revelations he did not stand for re-election. Wolf claimed that he counseled Robertson not to stand for re-election and to leave quietly. That this would come out during the Democratic primary isn't surprising, because Democrats, being the party that champions minorities and minority issues, are absurdly sensitive to any accusation of racism. Mr. Wolf surely lost some votes on that issue.

The last accusation is a minor one, again against Mr. Wolf. U.S. Representative Allyson Schwartz has asserted that she has the experience in government and that he is unqualified to be Governor because he lacks her level of expertise. I suppose we could look at the current Congressional approval ratings to gain insight into her experience and ability to get things done, but ultimately this is a somewhat petty complaint. Surely Rep. Schwartz wasn't the expert she now claims to be when she was first elected, and rather than condemning Wolf it actually undermines her own campaign as she is being dominated by a political neophyte.

You will note that each of these accusations were hurled at the front-runner. I suppose it makes sense that it would be this way, as the only way to win is to knock the top dog off his perch, and picking on backmarkers like Katie McGinty won't accomplish anything. Still, the nature of the accusations go a long way to demonstrating something I have long observed, as follows:

The candidates that we are given to choose from are self-selecting. Nobody is compelled to run for office, every one of them run of their own accord. Virtually all of them come from money and/or successful careers, most have professional degrees, and most of them are outwardly nice people. Yet they think they know what we need and are willing to spend untold millions in their quest for elected office. They put their families through the wringer, they expose their children to criticism, their every action is put out for everyone to see.

These are not actions of normal people. These are actions of people with massive egos that need to be fed. They attack each other, they claim that they have the answers, and by the way, won't you please vote for me? If I came to you and told you that you are doing everything wrong and that you should not only give me a hearing but obey my wishes you'd look at me like I was crazy. Yet isn't that exactly what politicians do? These are people you wouldn't willingly invite into your home under any other circumstances, but you would seat them into positions of power and allow them to influence your lives.

Additionally, we decry money in politics, yet were I to run for office the only votes I would get are my own and (maybe) my wife's. We measure suitability by success, and we measure success by money. We can't understand why rich people with no understanding of our plight are the only people that run for office. The simple fact is that the average person wishes to live a modest, quiet life, wanting for little more than security and perhaps a modest amount of comfort. They have no desire to expose themselves to endless humiliation. The rich have no such aversion, simply because if it all goes wrong they're still rich. They have less to lose. They are shameless.

Remember when you vote that the person you're voting for doesn't know you, doesn't care about you, and would sell you out if it would net them two other voters. What do you matter? You won't vote for them anyway! Yet you vote, because the other party's candidate would really stick it to you if you didn't. So you vote for the lesser of the two evils because there's simply no other choice.

What a quandary we find ourselves in.

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.