Counter-Friction Libertarian

Das schönes Land

2011-07-21T17:54:00.005-04:00

Bevor ich nach Deutschland flog, dachte ich, dass Deutschland mir gefällt würde - und ich sorgte mich, dass das nicht so wäre. Ich war aber richtig. Deutschland ist alles, das ich erwartet hatte. Ich weiß, dass ich viele Fragen antworten muss, wenn ich zurück in den USA bin, denn Leute wird über Deutschland fragen. Ich weiß auch, dass ich nicht wirklich meine Erfahrungen klarmachen kann.

Als ich am Anfang hier kam, wusste ich fast nichts. Meine Kurse in den USA waren nicht genug, das Leben in Deutschland zu verstehen. Man kann sehr viel im Kurs lernen, aber das ist nicht wirklich konkret. Man kann etwas wissen. Doch kennt man es wirklich nicht, wenn man es nur im Kurs lernt. Es ist nicht einem wahr. Ich lernte so viel einfach, wenn ich durch die Straßen ging oder, wenn ich ein Schild las. Diese Erfahrungen sind wert mindestens zehn Kurse oder eintausend Kurse. Ich lernte hier nicht wie man auf Deutsch redet sondern wie man auf Deutsch teilt mit. Es gibt Sachen, die man nicht im Kurs lernen kann.

Ich habe Angst, dass ich mein Deutsch verlieren werde. Es ist möglich. Ich will es nicht. Aber wie kann man in den USA wirklich auf Deutsch reden? Ich habe meine Musik, meine Bücher und Freunde, die auch Deutsch können, aber das ist wirklich nicht gleich. Ich kann immer in den USA auf Deutsch reden aber ich kann nicht da Deutsch erleben.

Aber es war nicht die Sprache, die mir wichtig war. Ich sprach auf Englisch hier sehr viel. Mein Deutsch ist unglaublich besser aber auch doch schlecht. Ich bereue es nicht. Was mir wichtiger war, war das Alltagsleben, die Kultur und die Erfahrungen. Wo kann man in den USA ein Schloss finden? Wo kann man in den USA an einer Universität studieren, die 650 Jahre alt ist? Nirgendwo. Es ist unmöglich. Die USA sind das besten Land der Welt. Aber sie hat nicht alles. Deutschland ist reicher und sauberer. Die Autos sind schöner, das Essen ist leckerer und die Leute sind seriöser.

Ich bin bereit, zurück in die USA zu fliegen. Ich weiß aber, dass ich Deutschland vermissen werde. Das ist normal. Es ist nicht so frustrierend. Was frustrierend ist, ist dass, man wirklich meine Erfahrungen nicht verstanden kann, wer nie in Deutschland lebte.

Ich habe Fotos. Ich habe Andenken. Ich habe Gedächtnisse. Aber diese sind nicht genug, Deutschland zu beschreiben. Deutschland ist eine Erfahrung, und jeder muss selbst es erfahren.

Independence

2011-07-04T19:23:00.000-04:00

Being out of country gives you perspective. To be honest, I only took German because I thought it would be easy (which in hindsight is hilarious). However, if I had to live in Europe, I'd live here. It's cleaner than America, the people are straightforward and friendly, value their property and build things to a standard of quality far beyond the shoddy, quick-consumption standards we hold in the United States. The food is better, the people are richer. It may be hard to imagine for us, but if you live in Germany, chances are that your standard of living is actually and literally superior to that of someone who lives in the United States.

It's funny then that a good portion of Germans want to live in America. Germans are simply obsessed with the United States. Granted American culture is pretty prevalent worldwide, but the Germans take it to a whole new level. My favorite band is German. I've never heard them on the radio here. Germans have some of the best food I've ever tasted. They love McDonalds. The Germans even have a special word for American friends (which, granted, used to be the term for enemy U.S. soldiers, then a term of derision, so that's kind of awkward, but still). The first time I overheard a German in the airport shout gleefully, "Mein Ami ist da!" I had to struggle not to laugh. I mean, it's not like we'd go around screaming, "Sweet! My Kraut pal just arrived!" And yet that was one of the few times I've seen a German visibly excited about something.

This fascination with the US is hilarious to me, and perplexing given that the Germans have a perfectly good country here that trounces anywhere else in Europe in terms of economy and lifestyle. And yet, I'll be honest, I won't exactly be being dragged home in three weeks, and to me that makes no sense. If you factor out the friends and family aspect, there's nothing that compelling about America. There are definitely things I'd miss if I lived here, but then, there are going to be things here that I will miss in the United States. It's a trade-off. So why don't I want to live in Germany, considering that if I did I'd have a better house, car, job, everything? Better question: why would a German want to live in the United States?

America has pretty much always had some kind of mystical appeal. People always want to go to the United States for a better life, even though there are times, such as the colonial period, or, frankly, right now, when life in Europe was simply better. But America is where things happen. They're not always good, but there's no denying that we are the cultural leader of the world. Our news, music and culture have infiltrated almost every corner of the Earth. There's a reason everyone speaks English, and it has nothing to do with Britain. We are simply the starting point for popular culture. Sure, India, China, Japan, Britain and mainland Europe make some definite and important contributions, but I think it's fair to say that, even though we aren't realistically the world's most powerful superpower anymore, our influence is very widespread.

America is a country that is very different from any other, and I had to get out to understand that. I was convinced, before I left, that we had no culture. I was wrong. Our culture is very pronounced and, especially in Germany, impossible to escape.

And it's unique. It's a source of entertainment to pick of a box of "American-style" snacks here, because invariably, no matter how good a job they did, something is just a little off. I bought some American-style cookies with my Pfand a few days ago. Everything seemed basically correct, and, in fact, if you did a blind taste test, I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference between these things and Chips Ahoy. But there was a difference. This was a full price box of cookies. It cost about 1,99 Euro, which in USD is somewhere around $2.75. And the whole package contained 16 cookies.

When I discovered this I actually laughed out loud. Even when they get the taste and appearance right, they miss a crucial aspect of American snacking: when I buy a pack of something American, I expect as much shit as could possibly have fit in the box. No exceptions. I thought there would be at least 30 cookies in this box. Minimum.

And that's the thing. Even though I'd be hard-pressed to define American culture, I know from a simple box of knock-off Chips Ahoy what it is. And I love it. There are going to be some things I can't stand about going back to America. For instance, the intolerable politeness of Americans is grating and obnoxious. If you ask an American what he thinks of your car, he'll find ten things he likes before pointing out, almost in passing, that, he means, you know, it's a little old and beat-up, but that's totally ok - he had an old car once, belonged to his uncle, ran great! If you ask a German what he thinks of your car he'll tell you what he thinks of your car. Because that's what you fucking asked him to do and he's not going to disrespect you by bullshitting you for twenty minutes.

But when you get right down to it, Americans are the best. We're friendly. We love freedom. We take a stand, but it's ok to disagree with us. We're helpful and polite and always ready to have a good time. Americans are positive people. There's something we have that Europeans don't. We're loud, intrusive, obnoxious. But that's mostly because we're sure that everyone wants to share this great experience that is our life. They don't of course. Every time I see an American chatting up a German ticket collector on the train, I cringe. You do that in America. Here, you give the guy the ticket and your credit card, he stamps it, you're done. If you want to stand out here, talk needlessly. But that's what Americans do, because we love to hear the sound of human voices, particularly our own.

And that's what I miss about America. We are a nation of vibrant, social people with a vibrant, social past, present and future, a future we look forward to, even while our economy crashes and our unemployment approaches ten percent. How can the future not be bright? This is America.

I never wanted to become German or anything, but I'm only too happy to act like one while I'm here. It's really really nice to not have people bother you with a story about their cat or some such bullshit on the bus. It's great that the waiter will let you enjoy your food until you tell him it's time to pay. But acting German also means loving America, so there's really no escaping that part of it.

It's funny. I think I really like America. I didn't really care one way or the other before I left. I assumed that liking America was stupid because really it's just some government defined borders. But that wasn't America - that was just the geographical country. America is about Americans. We step on toes with alarming frequency, and we are probably one of the most hated nations in the world. And yet we're also one of the most loved. It's strange to be in a foreign country, and to look at America not as what is normal, but as something foreign and distant. It's a land you know about, because it's home, but when it's not there, you notice what it means, even if you can't put it into words, because all the things that make it normal are missing and you're left instead with the images, the views other cultures have of it. An American flag printed on something is unusual and exciting - denoting a foreign and exotic culture, and suddenly you realize that America does have a culture, and that being American is something special, and a pack of cheap snacks becomes funny - and a sense of pride, because you know what real American food is, and it's part of your culture, a culture so powerful that other countries try to copy it - and somehow, they just can't.

If you've ever tried to understand another culture, and realized that you never will, that only a German can tell you what it means to be German, and that even he can't put it into words, you'll understand that you too have a culture. Being an American means something, and, frankly, it means a lot. We have now, and have had in the past, so many flaws. But we never had concentration camps. We never had kings.

Of course, we did have slavery and genocide, so there's that. But the point I'm trying to make is that I've learned something: not that America is better or worse than Europe, but that it is something. By spending time away from it, I've learned to define the United States, or rather, I've felt that which I've automatically defined my whole life by living there, but didn't know I was defining it. When you write "United States of America" on a postcard, because you're sending it out of country, you feel something. You're not sending a postcard to a country, you're sending it to an icon. And you know it.

America is very powerful, but not in the way we learn in classrooms. It's not some all-powerful god, to whom we must pledge allegiance every day. It's not the world's only superpower. But it is unique, in an indescribable and amazing way. And everyone knows it. There is only one America. Some people want to destroy us. Others want to be us. Some people have no opinion at all. But they all know about us, even if they don't quite understand us. We are, culturally, the most powerful nation on Earth, and we don't even know it.

I'm not saying being an American entitles you to superiority. I'm not saying other nations should be like us. Whenever I see an American in Europe acting like a stereotypical, well, American, I think to myself, "goddamn Americans..." before I even realize what I've just thought. We are possibly one of the most obnoxious people ever to grace this Earth. But we're also somehow one of the best. We're America. We're special. And we always will be. Deal with it.

Slavery: a Function of Thoughtlessness

2011-07-02T12:59:00.008-04:00

How often has this happened to you? Probably never, because chances are you're living in a society that outlaws the ownership of human beings. Chances are pretty high as well that that country has a capitalist economy. Did you know, however, that some people would argue that, because you live in a capitalist economy, you are a slave?

If you've studied slavery with anything even approaching depth, the above image isn't shocking. It's not shocking because you've seen worse - much worse. You've heard the stories. You'll never know what it was like, but you have a mental understanding at least of how bad it was. Images like this are nothing new to you, and you know you can dig up something ten times as bad, because, guess what? Slavery sucked. I realize African slavery in America is only one type of a long and continuing institution, but really, there's just no good way to enslave someone, plain and simple.

Even so, there are people out there who will tell you that if you're a factory worker in America, you're a slave. And the reason I picked the above photo to head this blog post was because those people are not the first to make such a claim. I'm sure Marx says it somewhere in his writings. I don't know for sure. What I do know is that there were definitely people making that claim in 19th century America: slaveowners.

See, even slaveowners understood that making someone work for nothing was pretty much one of the biggest dick moves ever. They tried to justify it in a variety of ways, and one of them was claiming that the lives of northern factory workers were just as shitty as those of southern slaves. The problem was that everyone, even back then, knew it was bullshit. Factory workers were poor, and their lives did pretty much suck, but they got to go home at the end of the day, have a family that could not be taken away from them on a whim, and, most importantly, they were paid for their labor. See, slavery is, very simply, when you are working for nothing against your will. Factory workers may not have had many opportunities, but they could, theoretically, walk away from their job whenever they wanted. Ok, they weren't going to and realistically they were tied economically to their job, but they had the option. They weren't "owned" by anyone. They were free men. And pretty much everyone in 19th century America was smart enough to draw that distinction, whether they admitted it or not.

Given that the lives of menial laborers have improved dramatically in America, and other civilized countries, anyone that would still compare unskilled workers to slaves pretty much has no idea what they're talking about.

It's really kind of offensive when you stop and think about it. I mean, there's really no one this comparison doesn't put down. It makes slavery seem like it was no big deal, which is untrue and a slap in the face to millions of men and women throughout history who had to legally "belong" to someone else. It insults menial laborers by telling them they have no control of their lives and that they're just tools of their employer. It obviously insults the employer who is, after all, paying the wages of his employees for their services. Comparing free labor to slavery is pretty much one of the most insulting and uninformed things you can do.

And what exactly is this "capitalism is slavery" argument anyway? If by slavery, people who compare the two mean work (as some do, trust me, I've heard this argument) then the "master" in this equation is essentially production. What they would consider "freedom" is to sit around all day and have food fall by magic into their mouths. Of course, that just isn't the way life works. You have to work to survive. That's a law of nature. You can't really call survival slavery unless to you freedom means death.

So given that if you value your life you have to put in some effort to maintain it, you are given options. You can obtain sustinence yourself through the grueling labor of hunting and gathering or (pre-modern) agriculture, or you can obtain it from others. To obtain it, you need to either take it by force, which is immoral and by which you risk death yourself, or you can exchange something for it. You could exchange goods and services as is, of course, but price-setting is difficult and variable. What would be really convenient would be to have a medium of exchange to use which acts as an objective value of effort.

So the best possible option, and the one which requires the least effort is free exchange of goods and services through the use of money, which is exactly what capitalism provides. If you don't want to do any work, you'll die. If you want to do the least amount of work possible to survive, and have the best quality of living besides, the logical way to do so is through capitalism.

People who say that work is slavery are essentially saying that life is slavery - and therefore that death is freedom. If you believe that, the solution is fairly obvious, though pretty inadvisable. If, on the other hand you like living, you should like working too.

Of course people will say, but I hate work. That's not really true, however. Just because you hate what you're doing know doesn't mean you don't like work. You just aren't doing work you like. Why do you think I'm doing history? It isn't slavery to work if you love what you do. It's profiting from doing something you enjoy anyway. Not exactly comparable a whip and hours of forced fieldwork when you get right down to it.

Of course, the argument then becomes that not everyone has that option. But that's not really the fault of capitalism. Capitalism is all about options. Why do you think there are at least five brands of bread in your average American supermarket?

I'm only too aware of the fact that my background has given me the options available to me. But that middle-class lifestyle didn't just magically appear. Even if I didn't work for it, someone did. Money is a symbol of productive ability. Even if I didn't create it, someone had to. If you're born poor, I will not argue that it is an unfair start in life. It sucks and it's bullshit to be born poor. The fact is, though, that wealth changes hands based on several factors. In capitalism, the driving factor is effort and ability. Yes, there are other factors, like luck and social structure, but those are factors which are interfering with the processes of capitalism. It's like blaming your computer for not working when you've just downloaded a large amount of questionable pornography. (Oh wait, people do that too.) The computer's not to blame - the user is. When we live in a society where a Ph.D. magically makes you better than someone with a BA, or where companies rely on the government to bail them out instead of relying on building quality products, what do we expect to happen?

Look, I won't pretend to understand being poor. I never have been poor and I don't know what it's like. But I do know that it's generally not the factory worker comparing his life to slavery - it's the well-off, comfortable armchair philosopher who didn't do his own thinking but relied on the books alone to decide what's right. Intelligence, philosophy and ideas are great things. They move the world. That's why we keep them and hold them on the same level as science or mathematics. But if you read something and don't think about it to see whether it makes any sense, you might as well not have read it at all, because now you're not using literature in the way it was meant to be used (as an idea-sharing medium to be critically appraised and understood), you're just believing everything you hear.

Think on this: working is a function of thought (I must survive. I cannot survive without working in some capacity. Ergo I must work.) and finding value in work is a function of thought (My life is worth living. Working allows me to live. Ergo my work is valuable.) and enjoying your work is a function of thought (Working gives me life. I enjoy life. Ergo I enjoy, on some level, that which allows me to live.). Is it surprising that those who compare work to slavery might, on occasion, be those who also do not want to think for themselves?

To bring the subject into the more practical world, I admit that there would be work I might have to do, if poor, that I would not enjoy. Working at Wal Mart, which I did once, and not for very long, is a great example. It sucks. It will always suck because of what it is. But I have skills, I have a brain, and eventually, I'd find a way to use to two to get the hell out. Most people have skills they like to use, and everyone is capable of thought. What separates people is mindset.

It is unbelievably difficult to rise from poverty, and despite what it may sound like, I do realize that. I appreciate every day the head start I've been given. But even though it is difficult, rising, even slightly, is possible - but you have to try, and capitalism, unlike any other system in existence, is about giving you the freedom to make that attempt. No, you may not succeed if you try, but what's going to happen if you don't try at all? And are you really going to try if you believe that work is slavery? Any chance is better than none, and if you advocate telling people that they have no control whatsoever over their lives, who's the bigger slavedriver? The capitalist system, or your fucked-up attitude that the poor should suffer without making any effort to free themselves from poverty? Effort and mindset are going to play a pretty big role in any attempt to better oneself. Telling people not to even try because they'll always be "slaves" is like cutting their legs off and telling them that life is about crawling. Anyone who believes work is simply a never ending cycle from which they have no escape is a slave - to himself and to other masters: those who told him that no matter what he did, he would simply never have a chance.

Things People need to Explain to Me #1: Harry Potter

2011-06-25T08:31:00.022-04:00

I can be a douche. Mostly, this happens accidentally. You see, there's certain things people love that I just don't get. And if I point out the flaws in these things, people get annoyed. The mid-season finale of South Park, a show I do get and love, pretty much summed up how I feel about popular culture today. (If you haven't seen it, I won't bore you with the details.)

So I've decided to just write about it and refer people to that. Today's topic is one that's been relevant lately. You see, I don't get the Potter craze. Don't get me wrong; I read them as a kid. I enjoyed them like any child would - until I grew out of them. The moment I picked up a book not meant for children, I started to notice the simplistic writing, the plot holes, the contrivances present in the Harry Potter series. It's just not well-written. This is perfectly fine - for a children's book, and, after all, that's all Harry Potter was ever supposed to be: a children's book, and it's painfully obvious that Rowling doesn't know how to write in any other style.

So my problem isn't really with the books themselves.Like I said, I used to read kids' books. In addition to Harry Potter, I devoured Redwall, Animorphs, all that fun stuff. But I grew out of them. What I don't understand is why most people haven't. Even people who have read classics like Catcher in the Rye or the Fountainhead (yes, even if you hate it, it is a classic and it is well-written; deal with it) love Harry Potter. Of course, I'm not saying all classics are good. Some of them are downright awful. My point is that when a book is engaging, intelligent and well-written, it deserves recognition. When a book is contrived, simplistic, and contains enough archetypes to sink even the most well-written novel, it deserves criticism.

In the interest of anyone who has legitimately not understood what is wrong with the Harry Potter series, I'll give a brief explanation. (And yes, I've read all of them.)

The books are essentially simplistic and clumsy. You have to really search to find any imaginative diction in a Harry Potter novel. Rowling writes like a decently-talented eight-grader: there's nothing wrong with her diction and style, but there's nothing particularly good about it either. It's all technically correct, but there's no complexity. This can be fine if you're trying to make a statement, and, in fact, too much complexity done badly can murder a novel. However, if you're going to write that way, you need to stick to it. It's obvious from reading Rowling's works that she's trying to create a complex universe. She's not being simple to say anything, or to keep the story focused; she just literally isn't capable of writing in an intelligently complex manner. The fact that she is trying, and failing, is awkward and embarrassing to any intelligent reader that picks up one of her novels.

In addition, Rowling often has trouble controlling her own plot and characters. Her plot is full of holes, and she's horribly clumsy about the development and growth of her characters. I won't go into plot holes, because even the most hardcore Harry Potter fan knows about the biggest one: as soon as Rowling introduced the time-turner in the third novel, she took an easy way out that ruined her book. We all know why time-travel doesn't work in this series and why it killed any worth the novel had. If you don't understand why, ask anyone who even remotely grasps the concept of plot and suspense.

Instead, I would like to focus on Rowling's awkward character development through the lens of Neville Longbottom. Neville is the perfect illustration of Rowling's inability to fully develop her characters. In the first book, he's your archetypal socially-awkward kid who's not good at anything. He shows some character in the first novel, when he tries to stop the main characters from retrieving the Sorcerer's Stone, or in the second, when he displays an aptitude for herbology. In fact, other than being a bit of a cliche, there was nothing really wrong with him until the fifth book, in which he suddenly and inexplicably becomes a badass.

Harry Potter fans love this reversal. However, it's one of the best examples of just how poorly written the series is. There's no buildup, no development of the Neville character prior to his sudden transformation. We learn that his parents were tortured by Death Eaters, but when we do, his reaction is what we'd expect from him: he's visibly upset by the implementation of the Cruciatus Curse on a spider. There's no indication that the fate of his parents has made him in some way stronger or more determined. In fact, there's no explanation at all as to why Neville switches from cringing, socially-awkward nerd into a gritty magical powerhouse. It's just sort of mentioned a few times that he's surprisingly good at some of the spells and then, magically (no pun intended) he becomes one of the best.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with role-reversal in a novel. In fact, the growth of a particular character is part of what keeps us interested. Rowling, however, doesn't develop characters; she just sort of changes them. Neville becoming a super-powerful wizard would have been an awesome sub-plot to follow if we had learned that he had worked hard to perfect his spells, because he wanted to avenge his parents, or that he had some secret skill or trait that allowed him to finally grasp the concept of magic and make it into a powerful tool. But we don't get any explanation whatsoever. All we get is a nerd who becomes a force to be reckoned with, with some token background thrown in. This is the same mistake M. Night Shyamalan makes with his movies: a twist or sudden reversal is no substitute for plot and character development.

I could go on and on about the clumsiness of the Harry Potter series' plot. Why does Bill marry Fleur? Is that really necessarily? Both of them are basically just support characters. Why does Fred die? It adds some tragedy I guess, but again, Rowling didn't know what she wanted with that character. He changes from support to comic relief and back again so quickly that by then his death isn't really necessary. Rowling's attempt at tragedy is to kill her drama's intelligent clown. It's clearly thrown in there so Rowling can point out that hey, guys, this shit's getting serious, which is really the same thing she already pulled in the fourth book with the death of Cedric Diggory.

But adding an occasional death or torture scene doesn't give the book depth. In fact, it just serves to reveal Rowling's incapability to write in a sufficiently complex manner. For example, we don't really get an understanding of why Voldemort is so evil. He kills and tortures people, and he's a bigot, therefore he's evil. And while that's perfectly acceptable logic, it doesn't really make the character unique or especially hateful. He's your stereotypical bad guy, not a well-developed character. You're glad when he dies, you feel a sense of relief perhaps, but you don't really feel like you know who it is that's been killed. The reader is left wanting to know why Voldemort is so evil, what made him this way. If you're going to create a magical Hitler, you really need to explain what created him. Sure, there's some attempt at character development in the second book, but it doesn't really go beyond the yawn-inducing cliche that Riddle's parents never loved him, or that he's an orphan or whatever it was. Frankly, I don't even remember, because it was so expected, and the second book was one of the best.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Rowling's books are perfectly acceptable if you're at an age or reading level that does not demand a large amount of thought or analysis, and there's nothing wrong with this type of book. I read John Grisham, for example. They're not very well-written, they're clumsily and obviously political. I read them for fun, not because I expect anything out of them. I certainly don't count them as good literature.

My problem with fans of Rowling's series is not at all that they enjoy Harry Potter, but that they hold it up as an example of an excellent book series, when, objectively, Harry Potter isn't anything special. The books are entertaining. They're fun. But they aren't classics. They don't say anything new, they don't really go beyond a surface level of meaning or plot. They're a childrens' adventure story. If you want to read them, go ahead. But don't tell me it's one of the best things you've ever read. Because if you do, I have a long list of books that are better. Enjoy Harry Potter, but please don't demean well-written books by elevating J.K. Rowling to the level of J.D. Salinger. There's a line to be drawn, and recognizing what is good and what isn't is an important part of keeping literature relevant. Harry Potter is ok, but it's just that: ok. It's not a classic, it's not the best book ever written. It's a children's book, and for all the money it makes and all the fans it has, its writing ensures that's all it can reasonably remain.

Star Wars is Dead

2011-05-04T09:45:00.005-04:00

Yes. Yes I am going to blog about this. Half the hits I get on this site are from Google searches of "maple leaf looks like pot" anyway apparently, so I can afford to.

I have loved Star Wars since I was a child. Most people born after the 1970s can say that. However, very recently I've started watching Star Trek as well, and frankly, Star Wars no longer measures up.

Why would I say such a thing about such an American institution? Well mostly because Star Trek is better. Way better. As long as we're discussing the Original Series or even TNG, it basically kicks the crap out of Star Wars. The characters have more depth, the aliens are more realistic (yes, they are; I'll get to that) and the message is far less cliche and far more applicable.

The original Star Wars trilogy was a damn good set of movies, despite George Lucas having written them. However, it cannot be avoided: they're essentially similar to every other classic story in history. It's a good versus evil thing where the lines are very clearly cut and very simple. The simplicity is good, and in fact, is what makes the old trilogy so much better, but complexity and clarity can be accomplished together without confusion and without having to rely on the same old story told throughout history.

Star Trek is really a good example of this. Each episode is designed to set up, and occasionally answer, a simple moral question. However, finding that answer is often very difficult. Often the crew members disagree with one another about what the right thing to do is. It's far more complex than the simple "rebels good, Empire bad" scenario seen in Star Wars. The United Federation of Planets far more accurately reflects a large organization, in which intercene conflicts, disagreements and questionable authority are as common as good commanders and loyal officers. It is far more complex, yet also far more realistic.

Witness, however, George Lucas' attempt at complexity: the second trilogy in the Star Wars series. It is unrealistic, it's difficult to relate to the characters, nothing really makes sense if you stop and think about it for more than a minute or two. When Lucas attempts complexity, he just confuses himself and his viewers. (There's a really really good review I'm sure most Star Wars fans have seen which addresses this as well as being hilarious. Youtube search RedLetterMedia if you're interested.)

Take, for example, the Anakin and Padme relationship. It in no way mirrors a real relationship and really it's difficult to see why the two even love each other. It's even worse when the actors try to show emotion of any kind. Anakin acts like he has serious psychological problems when he shows emotion, and Padme shows no emotion whatsoever. These actors have been in other movies, and one of them, V for Vendetta, is one of my favorites. Natalie Portman is not stellar in in, but she shows far more emotion than she does in Star Wars. One can only assume the direction is to blame.

What makes this more inexplicable is the fact that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fischer did an absolutely amazing job portraying a relationship, but then again, Lucas had less control over those movies, and Ford in particular is famous for ad-libbing brilliantly. (One of his most famous lines in Star Wars is completely ad-libbed, as is one of his most famous scenes in Raiders of the Lost Ark.)

William Shatner, William Shatner of all people, does a far superior job of emoting than the actors in the new Star Wars trilogy. I sat through three movies of Star Wars without giving two shits about Padme and Anakin's relationship. Yet in one hour I was at least slightly moved by Captain Kirk being betrayed by a woman he actually seemed to care about. That's essentially because while Anakin constantly professes his love for Padme, it doesn't seem genuine or realistic. If anything it is over the top and creepy. When the time came in the movie for him to lose her, Hayden Christensen essentially delivered a performance which most fans openly laughed at in the theater. Compare this to Kirk's reaction when asked about the woman he loved, by whom he was betrayed: he simply orders the ship forward brusquely. He doesn't want to talk about it, or think about it, but is still visibly upset. That's far more understandable and believable than having James Earl Jones screaming a long-drawn out "no!" while you look up at the camera.

This realism is something that Star Trek delivers time and again, while Star Wars botches it worse than a 19th century Russian romance. I mentioned aliens earlier. Most people would tend to think that the aliens in Star Wars are more realistic because they're weird-looking. But when you get right down to it, that's all they have going for them. What do we ever really learn about the aliens in Star Wars? We see their physical differences, but we barely ever learn about their culture, their government or their way of life. They're just support for the human characters. In Star Trek the Vulcans may only be actors with putty on their ears, but we know about their planet, their mindset, their rituals, their government, everything that actually makes them truly alien. It's not some cheap costume or CGI that makes us think of the Vulcans as truly another race. It's their lack of visible emotion, their bizarre mating ritual and their hostile and uninviting planet that make us unable to truly think of them as human.

And yet somehow we feel like we do understand them, and can identify with them to an extent, because characters like Spock aren't crutches for the main characters to lean on; they're fully devoloped characters themselves who play foils to other characters and who create their own story alongside the rest of the cast. This ability of Rodenberry's to create a race which is at once more alien than anything in Star Wars, yet also more identifiable far outstrips anything Lucas has come up with. (If you're still unconvinced: Jar Jar Binks. Enough said.)

What it comes down to is that Gene Rodenberry was a writer whereas George Lucas' imaginative skills could be outstripped by an eighth grader doodling on his history notes. George Lucas likes CGI, explosions, laser-swords and battle stations that blow up planets. Gene Rodenberry was more likely to take some time and make sure what he was saying was actually applicable to his audience. The special effects in his series were tools to the plot, instead of the other way around.

And what a plot! And what a difference from Star Wars. There is virtually nothing brave or new about Star Wars. The characters are all white, except Lando who doesn't really do that much. Yeah I knew he blew up the second Death Star - using the white guy's ship. It's like he's the token black guy, as opposed to Sulu or Uhura who you don't even think of as being other races because it's just taken into stride. They're not "the black chick" or "the Asian guy" - they're the comm and navigation officers.

I'm not accusing Lucas of racism or anything, but again, it's totally unrealistic to think that that many people in an interplanetary universe would be white. I mean are they all from planets whose weather exactly matches that of certain latitudes of the Earth? In Star Trek it makes sense that there are so many minorities on board, because in the 23rd century no one really cares about race and all the world's countries are developed.

Which brings be to my final point: Star Wars is a reflection of the future (and I know it's the past; I'll get to it) without meaning; Star Trek is a reflection of the future that not only makes sense, but that you want to be in. I know Star Wars is set in the past, but to us it's a futuristic society. And that future sucks. Everyone's poor, an evil entity is ruling the galaxy. Is that possible? Totally. But it doesn't touch us. It's not what we all want and ultimately would strive to work for. Even the rebels are introduced without real background, and Episodes I through III did nothing to answer how the Rebel Alliance came about, what it actually stands for apart from stopping the Empire, or anything like that. There is an evil Empire and we must simply take it as fact that there is a sizable rebellion which was formed at some point to combat it. But why exactly should we care?

Star Trek, on the other hand, is a future that makes sense. It's organized, technology can solve any problem - though its flaws still exist and are readily apparent - the world is harmonious and peaceful. This is the future we want. It's a future you can identify with, that you would find yourself working towards. It's a bright ideal, a future with endless possibilities, a future where technology can solve any problem but in which questions still exist to be answered, in which people still strive to be better. It is the only possible fate humanity can have, other than extinction. It's great and noble and you want to be part of it somehow. It makes the Star Wars galaxy look bland and dead by comparison.

Today the entire Star Wars saga was released on Blu-Ray and there was a countdown website which crashed when it reached zero. I don't know if it was supposed to or if the site itself had no other goal. So it was either flawed on one hand or unimaginative on the other. Like Star Wars. Lucas has failed me for the last time.

I still love the original Star Wars and always will. But it's dead. This happened to Star Trek too, when Voyager came along (and I have a friend who will kill me for saying that, but nothing lives up to TOS; only TNG comes close). It's sad, but it's just the way it is. Star Wars is dead and no matter what Lucas does in the future, he will never revive it. He has no one to blame but himself.

The Second Best Mayday in History

2011-05-02T08:25:00.008-04:00

May 1, 1945 was better. In any case, I received the news of Osama's death late, being in Germany. The time difference is six hours. When I did, it was not through NBC or CNN (and it sure as hell wasn't through FOX); it was through Facebook.

Joyful statuses about the event were the majority of my News Feed, and why not? It's kind of a big deal. Amid these, however, were, and are, statuses condemning celebrations of Osama's death, calling it unjust or uncalled for.

I feel like I should agree. I don't. Say what you want about death being a terrible thing. Some people deserve it.

I could understand if we were speaking of executing Osama. But what people seem to forget is that he wasn't unarmed and surrendering when he got his 5.56 x 45 millimeter reward. The only reason he didn't add more lives to his 3,000 plus headcount was because he wasn't a good enough shot.

And exactly what part of being happy that this man will never kill again am I supposed to regret? He got a better deal than some of his victims that's for damn sure. If it were up to me, yes, I would have captured him, but hey, either way works and honestly, I don't really care. I'm against the death penalty. I'm anti-abortion. But I also believe in self-defense. If someone shoots at you, especially someone who is known to be responsible for the deaths of many others, you have every right to pull that trigger.

But all of that is beside the point. The question doesn't even seem to be whether or not it was right to kill Osama, but whether or not it's right to be happy about it. It seems to me that not only is the first question far more important, but also that people seem to be completely unaware of the context in which these events occurred.

Let's get one thing straight. Osama bin Laden targeted and killed civilians. It didn't matter that they might not have agreed with America's policy on bases in the Middle East, it didn't matter that they had nothing to do with the grievances Osama had against the US. He killed them anyway, because that's how his organization operates. Logically, and morally, if you want a foreign invader out of your country, you target his troops or installations. Even his government. But civilians? Individuals whose opinions on and involvement in the matter you don't even know? Whose work isn't even related to the people causing you harm? Osama's actions were no better than those of the Japanese at Nanking, or the Americans who bombed Dresden. It was purposeless wanton destruction of human life and it was wrong.

Am I supposed to now not be happy that this man will never kill again? That the pointless, stupid war we've been fighting without success at least accomplished something? It doesn't make the war right, worthwhile or smart, but even though we should condemn the tragic error that is the War on Terror, there is nothing wrong with our joy that a murderer has been stopped permanently.

The sanctimonious defenders of bin Laden's dignity lack perspective. They say killing is wrong, without stopping to consider whether there are circumstances where this might not be true. Certainly murder is wrong. Killing someone in cold blood when you know they can't hurt anyone anymore is wrong and evil. Killing someone to protect yourself and others from someone who is attacking you is not. They say that it is wrong to feel joy at someone's death, without stopping to consider what that death actually means. To arbitrarily celebrate someone's death, is depraved and neurotic. To celebrate the fact that a man who murders and destroys has been stopped is natural.

We should be tolerant of many things, but evil is not one of them. He who uses evil as a weapon should not be surprised to find that it has rebounded on him, and finding joy in the prevention of evil does not make he who experiences that joy himself evil. Osama bin Laden was a murderer whose methods brought nothing but pain and destruction. May he rest where he belongs, and may his bones be eaten by the fishes.

99 Bottles of Beer

2011-05-01T08:45:00.007-04:00

I will be the first to admit that I don't fully understand drinking. At my school in Pennsylvania there is a currently an event going on called Springfest. The point of this event, if the behavior of the participants is to be believed, it to become astoundingly drunk; American students really like to be drunk and it doesn't stop when they leave the country either. There are a few people in the study abroad group I'm in who don't seem go places to see things as much as they go places to drink, so that at the end of this trip they won't have learned about the culture and social life of Mainz or Wissembourg, they'll just have been drunk in Mainz or Wissembourg. Why even go then? You can get drunk alone in your room. (Hell maybe they do that too; I don't know.)

It's not people getting drunk that bothers me though. It's the pride. It's like a badge of honor. "My mind was so chemically altered last night that I urinated somewhere I wouldn't normally. Fucking awesome man!" Yeah, you're cool. But take pride in not ingesting a drug in order to act like an idiot and see how far that gets you socially.

And then there's the reasons for drinking. "I loosen up and become more social when I drink." (I'm boring and awkward so I need a drug to help me interact with others.) "It's fun to be out of control." (I'm afraid and incapable of making decisions in my life.) "I drink because other people do it." (I have no personality, or I'm too afraid or too uncomfortable with it to express it.)

However, while I don't get drinking, I don't mind that people do it, because the best reason I've heard is just that it's fun, and well, ok. I don't personally think it would be, but I really can't argue with that. Which brings me to the point of this post.

I personally have never been drunk. That being said, do I like alcoholic beverages? Yes. Have I had them before I was 21? Well that would be a dumb thing to admit to in a public blog if I had, wouldn't it? So I'll let the reader guess. And the fact that I know exactly what that reader will guess is exactly why drinking laws don't work.

Being in Germany really widens your perspective on alcohol. It's everywhere and kids can buy it. Sure, they card, but if you're 16 you can buy beer, and if you're 18 you can buy vodka. Do people get drunk? Certainly. Are they annoying in public? Yes. Do they commit alcohol related crimes or vandalism? Well I'm sure it happens, but I sure haven't seen it yet. Now step foot on any US college campus on a Friday night, at, say, three in the morning. It is out of control. Completely and utterly out of control. Yes, it's safe. But you still watch yourself, especially if you're a female student. (I'm not trying to be sexist to either gender; I'm just explaining the prevailing attitude on campuses.)

There are a million cultural differences that could explain this, but one of the more important is that Germans are brought up with the view of alcohol, not as something shady, but as a part of life, and as such, are far more aware and familiar with it. A very similar argument could be made for firearms: if they were treated as a tool, a part of life, instead of something sinister, people would be be more familiar with them, and fewer accidents would occur.

Alcohol, like a firearm, cannot hurt you unless you choose to use it irresponsibly. If you decided to drink to the point of danger, or use a loaded weapon like a toy, you and those around you will pay the consequences. If you are familiar with them, you will understand why you must not misuse them.

Kids drink in America all the time. The law isn't even effective because if it was enforced it would lead to more crime as it did in the 20s, and as drug regulation does today. Kids drink all the time in Europe too. The difference is that, even while drunk, they generally have a greater understanding of what's going on because they grew up with alcohol. Kids in the US on the other hand, are told from an early age that alcohol is bad and that they shouldn't drink it. They're given horrific stories designed to deter underage drinking which they then find out aren't true, and if adults lied to them about that, kids figure, they probably lied about everything else too. Then people wonder why kids become alcoholics or drink to excess on a regular basis.

Kids shouldn't be lied to to scare them into not drinking or not doing drugs. Part of the thrill many people derive from drinking underage is based on the discovery that their parents lied to them about what it would do and the fact that they're doing something taboo to rebel against their elders. In Germany where everyone gives you a beer as a teenager, you probably don't find anything particularly exciting about it, and you'll probably learn exactly how it affects you as you grow up. Kids in the US don't get that education. The only "education" kids in the US get is a stern warning that drinking will turn you into an alcoholic, kill you and set the devil loose on the world, and they're told when they're smart enough to know it's not true, but dumb enough to go overboard when they find out, so they have their first drink, like it, and continue to drink to the point where they're completely wasted, because they were never told there's a middle ground, and they continue to do it because they think that's how alcohol in a social setting works.

Our drinking age is set so high that we, as Americans, can legally drive, own a long gun and join the military before we can legally taste alcohol. It doesn't make sense and it doesn't work. Kids obtain and drink alcohol long before they're 21. Making it illegal doesn't change that and, in fact, makes it worse. Most kids even know that, like speeding limits and marijuana prohibition, drinking laws will hardly ever be enforced. There is no point to such a high drinking age in a country such as ours and certainly no point to the way we treat drinking. When we make drinking taboo, we encourage what we are trying to stop: excessive and harmful drunkenness. Take the fun out of drinking, and fewer people will do it to excess. It's as simple as that.

Royal Pain in the Butt

2011-04-29T11:19:00.010-04:00

If there's one thing I will never particularly understand, it's celebrities, or rather, the fascination with them. It almost seems as though people care more about the life of some actor or other famous figure than they do about their own. I personally feel that my life is far more interesting than any Hollywood personality's. No, I don't have a Ferrari, a house in Beverley Hills or whatever is is that celebrities have these days, but it's still my life, and I think that's a little more exciting than someone else's, since I do have a stake in it and all.

Still, at least celebrities in America are known for having done something. They're actors, or singers or make sex-tapes. Stuff like that. And while they might think they're better than you because they have more money, a bigger house and an expensive cocaine habit, at least they have some very small measure of logic driving that. However, what if some people were more famous than you, just because they were born that way?

I am surprised and a little disgusted by the enthusiasm America has shown for the Royal Wedding. Think about this: the American people care more about a wedding in Europe than do the Germans. That's right. German media hasn't been big on the whole affair. Probably because Germans have better things to worry about, like upholding the continental economy. But we, who fought an entire war against royalty, a war which in one seven-year stroke began the process of wiping royal influence from the entirety of the Western Hemisphere and created the best, most powerful republic the world has ever seen, are more fascinated by a charade without meaning which is hundreds of years out of date than countries in Europe.

The American Revolution is something a lot of Americans take for granted, and spend their lives not understanding the importance of. There are so many things about it that are unique. However, the one that applies to this situation is that it rejected the concept of monarchy, not only in government but in the social sphere as well.

As someone who studies American history, and in the name of honesty, I should disclose that a social structure based on class and the concept of "the gentleman" persisted for some time. However, the American Revolution was a major step towards the concept, as it was stated, "that all men are created equal."

One might say that all this is long in the past, and that it is, after all, just a wedding. But that's exactly the point. It's just a wedding. Those people, who are only famous because the British decided to keep them around for the sake of tradition, like animals in a zoo, are no better than you or I, and as an American, a real American, not the type who eats at McDonald's every day and can't read, but as a classical, liberal-minded American, who believes in the sovereignty of the individual and the concept that no man is born in a higher position than any other, who believes that no one deserves better treatment or respect because of a self-appointed title, that he must first earn his title and respect will follow, I am disgusted that so many of my so-called countrymen are fawning over this disgusting ceremony.

There are some who argue that it isn't about the royalty; it's just such a beautiful wedding. Is it? Weddings are supposed to be special, and shared with only those whom the people involved love and want to share it with. I realize that isn't always the case, but what kind of social prostitutes share their wedding with the entire world?

And think about this: what if the people involved don't want the entire world to see their marriage? What if they want privacy, but they can't have it, can't have what they want because - they're the royal couple! Is it so beautiful now? Or is it a little sad?

Americans were some of the first people in the modern age to realize that royalty in all its forms is bad. That's why we didn't just castrate its power like the British; we got rid of it completely. A man may make himself better, may improve himself by honest work and achievement. He may not, can not, be born that way. We were the first to realize this in the modern age, and by doing so, ushered in a new age - the age of modern republicanism, which, for all its flaws is still the best system in use today. Getting gushy over the royal wedding doesn't really have any political impact, but, as an American, I can't help but feel a little disgusted with the whole thing. It's an outdated symbol of a dark time, and no matter how we dress it up, it will always remain so. We don't put flowers on a swastika and call it a symbol of freedom, and we shouldn't glorify royal affairs and call them pretty, because in the end, no matter how harmless, royalty is still a concept which is repugnant to lovers of freedom and it will always bother those who understand what our nation was truly meant to be about.

Republicans: Striving to Lose in 2012

2011-04-28T19:07:00.008-04:00

Election season is a lot like James Cameron's films. They're awful, contrived and no matter how much they suck, they just keep happening every so often. As the 2012 election season grows near, we can look forward to more pointless drama, absurd accusations, stupid arguments and the same charade the candidates go through every year to convince the voters that they're somehow different from each other.

As someone who used to be Republican (we all make mistakes) I tend to follow the Republican candidates more closely than the Democratic ones. I don't actually know why. I think it's a combination of nostalgia and the fact that the Republicans are just so entertaining. Say what you will about the Republican Party, but no one knows how to be flamboyant like a right-winger with political aspirations. Democratic debates are like fencing matches. Republican debates are brawls.

And Republicans are so, well, I won't say honest. They are, after all, just like their colleagues on the left; they want one thing and one thing only: power. And they will lie as often as they have to to get it. However, Republican candidates are so brazen and open about their stupidity. Liberals try to act like they can get along with anyone. It plays to their base. Republicans also play to their base: the no-compromise hardliners. This means that the candidate with the most hard-charging, arrogant, over-the-top attitude is going to connect with the voters.

I should clarify, at this point, that I'm speaking of candidates and hardcore voters. Real-life Republicans and Democrats, the ones who aren't part of the show, who just do their thing every day and are registered with their party because they think it represents them, are very nice, for the most part.

So, that out of the way, I can safely express that, despite everything I've just said, I hate Republican politics. Republicans, it can't be helped, are super-annoying. Whether you're talking about Mitt Romney, the right-wing version of John Kerry, or John "my mommy thinks you should totally vote for me (and did I mention I was in Vietnam?)" McCain, Republicans just never understand why their tactics turn off a large portion of the American people.

There is one Republican candidate, however, who is worse than all the others, and has a special place reserved in wherever it is that politicians go when they die (I'm thinking Camden, NJ).

This is Mike Huckabee, and he wants you to believe in the same God he does, and if you don't, he'll make you. According to Fox News (though usually when I deal with them I also get a voodoo Shaman priest to give a second, more credible, opinion), the top contenders for 2012 are this guy and Mitt Romney. (You know, the guy whose public works project killed a woman?)

I think we can safely assume that if this is what the Republican Party has to offer, they deserve to be beaten, as they will be. Can we reflect, for just a moment, on the absurdity, the sheer, utter ridiculousness of a man whose views are to a large degree theocratic being one of the front-runners of a national party? It's way past the time in our history when we should be trying to elect anyone, anyone who advocates religious statutes. I don't know who's running things at the RNC these days, but they need to get it through their head that it is bad for their image to put forth a candidate who has more in common with the monarchs of 14th century Europe than with the average American voter. I cannot express how much I personally disrespect anyone who tries to tell me that their religion is so superior that they have to force people to follow it. And I would hazard a very strong guess that I am not the only one who feels that way.

The Republican Party these days is a gasping, dying animal, and the only way for it to recover is to bring forth reasonable, likable candidates. That's exactly why Obama won in the first place: he was likable. (Also because he was running against John McCain, but no one is supposed to mention that because it makes Obama's victory look so much less impressive and much more like what it actually was: a pretty standard political outcome given the candidates involved.) And it's why he's going to win again.

In 2012, Obama will take the White House, and once again it will be hailed as a great victory when, in reality, the Republicans will have, like last time, shot themselves in the foot because they ran Romney or Huckabee or dead-animal hairpiece man. They will have lost. They will have been beaten. They will have deserved it.

Ihre Geburtsschein bitte

2011-04-27T18:35:00.010-04:00

I haven't paid attention to the news much lately. I've been in Germany. It's a practical country filled with generally practical people who care very much about the state of the world, Europe, the economy and politics. The Germans are actually a very political people, as befits a very serious people. I generalize, of course, but it seems to me with my albeit limited knowledge of Europe, that the Germans are the adults of the continent, building an economy on which the Euro is, at this point, essentially based, and silently and thanklessly keeping Europe afloat while the French turn over cars because their five-hour workday is too long.

I like the Germans. I like them because they don't screw around (unless they're partying, of course, and even that can be pretty organized). I like them because while their politics can be brutal, they wouldn't be stupid enough, as some countries are, about trying to claim that their chief executive has no legitimate right to his position because he was born outside the country.

I'm almost glad I haven't been following news in the United States, because it's pathetic. Donald Trump is a candidate for president? And he's bitching over Obama's birth certificate? Seriously? I admit my grip on this story isn't terribly strong (I only skimmed the CNN article) but Obama is the president. He has been the president since 2008. If he ceased to be president, all that would happen is that Joe Biden would be president. Donald Trump (why is he a potential candidate again?) is not actually concerned with any of this of course, because he's looking for one thing: attention.

What exactly is wrong with us as a country? We are in the middle of a pointless war that the current president has only half-heartedly ended in a shamefully cowardly, middle-of-the-road kind of way, our economy is crashing around us (did I mention that I was in Germany? The money in my account is in USD and it is worth less here every day due to the increasingly bad rate of exchange) and we're concerned with this circus?

Obama produced the certificate of course. Is anyone surprised he was born here? Did anyone actually care? If he had been some kind of foreigner it wouldn't really have made a whole hell of a difference. He still would have been raised here and his policies would remain essentially unchanged.

Or have we forgotten about his policies? Obama has helped to institute a crappy healthcare plan which callously disregards doctors and private companies, has arguably made the economy worse (though he is not responsible for its crash as some would claim) and has no connection with the average American. And we're beating up on him on the question of a scrap of paper, which, it has been proven, he actually possesses, making the whole "issue" a moot point?

I don't want to say we should be more German, because frankly everyone staring at each other all the time and hiding in their rooms like vampires is not something I'm prepared to live with my entire life, but weird as Germans are, they are a damn sight more serious about their political atmosphere and maybe we can take a lesson from them there. Let's stop screwing around about whether our president, who will remain so for the next two years and, given the Republican candidates offered so far, the next four after that, is a citizen - because he is, and let's start paying attention to what we can do to put the nation back on track. Media circuses are fun and all, but they won't solve our problems and if we continue to be distracted with whether or not someone was born on this bit of land or that, those problems will only grow. Get serious America. Stop paying attention to people's birth credentials and start paying attention to their politics. If we do, we have a small chance of fixing our problems. If we don't, we have no chance at all.

A News Report from the Future

2011-04-25T21:40:00.004-04:00

The world is still in a state of chaos since last week when gay couples were finally allowed the right to marry. Since then the stock market has crashed, banks nationwide have all failed and the US dollar is at an all time low.

People the world over are now consistently and frequently having sex with animals in the street. Pedophilia and bigamy are at an all-time high. As we now know, these activities had been desirable to most people prior to last week, and the only thing stopping them was the prohibition on gay marriage.

This comes on the heels of major natural disasters occurring around the globe. Tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, lightning storms, all caused simply by allowing two men or two women to legally marry one another, have ravaged Asia, Europe and large areas of Middle America.

The war in Europe that broke out upon the news of last week’s decision is still claiming many lives. It is the largest war ever to occur, eclipsing at once both World Wars, Vietnam, and the conflict in the Middle East. The French have reportedly surrendered, though to whom is still uncertain.

Extraterrestrials have landed in Washington D.C., Berlin, Beijing, and Canberra, Australia. They wield new energy-based weapons which completely and totally outclass anything we have yet developed, and are demanding control of the planet and the submission of all humans. Their motivation, they claim, was the decision on gay marriage made last week.

It remains to be seen whether the aliens will be able to successfully wrest control of the Earth from Satan, Prince of Darkness, who arose last week in response to the decision and engulfed the world in eternal darkness. Already reports are coming in of boiling lakes of fire and brimstone appearing in every nation of the world with the exception of Switzerland. Whether or not they are related to the appearance of the Dark Lord is still unconfirmed.

The future of humanity is still uncertain. FOX News will continue to keep its readers informed throughout the crisis. Until then, please visit our online store and purchase our reasonably-priced Gaypocalypse 2023 gear to show your support for continuing to deny homosexuals the same rights as straight people. We appreciate your business.

Gain can do Gooder

2011-01-19T22:42:00.011-05:00

deer gain,
recently I seed you're commercial for new gain with freshlock and thunk it were very good. i no sum peoples said it were ~~agreegis~~ ~~egreejus~~ bad cause it's grammar werent no good but i dont care. i think its funny. especially the part with the fat housewife. (you must have had a hard time coming up with some thing that funny but i sure are glad you seceded.)
sin searly,

dumb people

National Buy a Gun Month

2011-01-18T20:17:00.008-05:00

Every time there's a high profile shooting, the anti-gun crowd attempts once again to steal the property of millions of Americans or restrict their economic rights to own a legitimate consumer product. Of course, attempts to make a product less dangerous by restricting its access have met with failure already in the form of outlawing drugs and age restrictions on alcohol, often leading to more accidents or violence than would normally exist if the product was legal. But, hey, I'm sure it'll work with guns. It's not like people commit crimes with stolen or illegally obtained guns right? Where does that happen? (Except, of course, for pretty much every major American city, where gun control is strictest.)

But I've found that reason doesn't tend to sit well with the anti-gun crowd. For instance, a reasonable human being would not be pissed off by another human being owning a commercially sold consumer product. (Though this rule could reasonably exclude iPads, books in the Twilight series, and any article of casualwear costing over sixty dollars.) However, just owning a gun is enough for some anti-gun activists to consider you a hateful, violent, Bambi-killing redneck, and, simply because owning guns seems to annoy these people so much, I propose National Buy a Gun Month.

This month could be any month of the year, and could have a different recommended gun each day. For instance, July 9th (to pick a random date) could be Benelli M4 day, the 10th, Remington 700 day, the 11th, S&W 686 day, and so on.

This adorable little Heckler and Koch SL8-6 needs a home.

For only $2,500, you could make a difference.

I think July would be best because it's the same month as July 4, and that would REALLY annoy the anti-gun crowd.

So in July, if anyone still reads this blog, which I doubt, look out for the separate blog I'll be starting, the National Buy a Gun Month blog, which will feature a different firearm each day. But remember, you don't have to wait until July. Anytime is a good time to buy a gun. They're fun, functional, and useful. And they annoy liberals, which, I believe, is as good a reason as any.

Life, The Universe, and Everything: Turns Out the Answer is Actually Simpler than 42

2010-01-06T03:53:00.007-05:00

In Counter-Friction Libertarian's proud tradition of insomnia-fueled-pissing-virtually-everyone-the-fuck-off (and that little "f" word probably did it for half of you), let's dive into the subject of the existence of God.

Like many people in the West, I used to be Christian. It was expected, traditional, and something to do on Sundays. I would have considered myself a good Christian; I even went so far as to read the Bible, something most Christians don't actually do.

When I say that, I'm not dissing Christians; I'm being honest. I love Christians, but it seems like every time I have a Biblical discussion with one they have no clue what I'm talking about. One of my best friends, a wonderful girl and extremely devoted Christian, probably knows roughly a quarter of what I do in regards to that particular script.

Ironically, I think it was my familiarity with the Bible that turned me off to Christianity. I've always been slightly uncomfortable with certain tenants, like original sin, self-denial, and stoning homosexuals (to name but a few).

After the Christian phase, I read a lot of Thoreau, and fancied myself a Transcendentalist. Thoreau remains, to this day, one of my favorite authors. His writing style is beautifully poetic, yet sturdy and practical, original in a way no other author has, to my knowledge, successfully replicated. However, Transcendentalism is, it must be admitted, a little sketchy. Heavily influenced by Hinduism, American Transcendentalism differentiates itself by its tenants, or rather, by not really having any tenants which can be concretely expressed.

After exhausting the works of Thoreau, I picked up another author whose works have influenced my philosophy rather heavily: Ayn Rand. Her views on life, economically, socially, and spiritually, are closest to what I believe; however, Rand is an atheist, and I cannot be classified as such. Whereas atheists believe very strongly in the non-existence of God, I simply don't know nor care whether or not God exists.

Let's be honest, you can say you know that God exists, but you can't actually prove it. The fact is, you don't know if He does or not. Frankly, this doesn't bother me.

My view of the world is that life is awesome; actually it's my favorite activity. Ever. So if God exists and we all get to go to heaven, that's cool. If he doesn't, and we die and get put in the ground and this is all we get, I'm okay with it, because I can't say as I'd want anything else really.

The thing is though, trying to figure out what happens when you die is a relatively gigantic waste of time if the possibility exists that life is all we get. I prefer to hedge my bets and live life to the fullest making my happiness the sole aim of the thing and hope God's okay with that if it turns out He's real.

And what if He isn't? Okay with it I mean. What if, as many religions claim, God wants us to suffer here so we get eternal glory in Heaven?

Here, the question becomes academic. If God is all He's cracked up to be, He's not the kind of asshole who would ask that sort of thing of his subjects, and if He is that kind of asshole, then I say, fuck God.

Go ahead, be shocked. I'm not the first one to say it, and I'm sure not going to rescind it. The fact of the matter is that I have ideas, and I think those ideas are right. If you believe in something, don't you believe in it? Isn't it true to you?

Where belief is concerned I respect conviction. I hate Nazis. With a passion. I think that if all Nazis were to suffer massive cardiac arrest, the world would be a far better place. But I respect even a Nazi, who believes with all his heart the sick teachings of the man who caused massive damage to two of my favorite countries and butchered millions of people, more than I respect a man who claims he believes nothing. Because it's the man who believes nothing that allows people like Hitler to come to power, and allows the butchery to occur.

To return to the point, however, I believe things. And one of the things I believe is that life is to be enjoyed, and may the glory go to those brave enough to enjoy it to the fullest. If God exists, and He disagrees, then, divine being and creator of the universe or no, He's dead wrong. I'm going to do what I want, as long as it's morally in order, no matter who disagrees with me.

This being the case, the existence of God has zero significance to my life. If God doesn't exist, it's better to enjoy life as much as possible, because it's all we've got. If God does exist, He's probably not the kind of person who'd want His people to suffer in this life, and if He does, what kind of God is that to follow?

In short, my life is mine to live, and I'm really too busy with that to care about trivial issues over which I have no control. The existence of God falls into this category, and, I'm willing to take any risks associated with agnosticism rather than the risk of wasting my life worrying about what happens if I die, especially if the answer, as it may be, is, in fact, nothing.

Frohe Weihnachten von Ostberlin!

2009-12-24T20:22:00.008-05:00

So it's a tradition in my household and social circle to watch Rankin Bass claymations. One of my favorites is Santa Claus is Coming to Town, a 1970 animation which depicts the early years of the Santa character. It can also, without much effort, be seen as a social commentary about communism in East Germany.

What surprises me is not the glaring propaganda built into a Cold War era children's cartoon, but the fact that apparently no one else seems to notice it. The internet has no information on the comparison, and only one person I've talked to has ever realized what the cartoon is actually about.

Well internet, I'm here to help.

First, let's examine the setting. There's Sombertown, a dull, gray village where everyone works and no one is allowed to have any toys or fun, whose Burghermeister (mayor) is the aptly named "Burghermeister Meisterburgher," the antagonist of the story. Sombertown is separated from the next town over by a tall mountain.

Tell me this isn't about Germany.
Look at this guy's helmet!

Given the clearly German setting (Santa calls his aunt "Tante" for Christ's sake), Sombertown's separation by a mountain becomes an analog for the separation of Berlin by the wall which stood in that city from 1961 to 1989.

The composition of the animation supports this view. Sombertown is flat and gray; all the children look the same. The town over the mountain is inhabited by Santa's family, and is bright, cheerful, and industrious.

However, what really makes the film suspect is the continuation of the plot, which involves Santa flying over the mountain into Sombertown delivering toys. I mean, really...

Berliner Luftbrücke anyone?

Santa's flight over the mountain to deliver toys can easily be looked at as a reference to the Berlin Airlift, but even disregarding that, the film has already made its intentions obvious. However, I'm okay with that, because I'm a dirty capitalist pig.

In any case, I could probably write this post better, but I won't right now, because Year Without a Santa Claus is on. Either way, now that the idea's out there on the internet, other people might pick up on it eventually. Until then, keep the commie bastards at bay, and Frohe Weihnachten!

More Shooting the .357 Magnum

2009-07-18T19:14:00.008-04:00

So last time I was at the range a bunch of guys with a ridiculous amount of assault weapons randomly gave me this target, which I decided to use to test my .357's sights. Excepting the headshot (which was from five yards and strictly for fun), here are the results from 25 yards. I've never really done this before, so feedback is appreciated.

To me, it looks like either my stance or my weapon's sights cause the impact points to fall mostly to the right, but as I hit the blue torso every time from a distance much longer than any home defense situation would normally require, I feel pretty safe with the magnum as a home defense gun.

Some other cool things: here's a Pringles can I shot execution style. You can see either the burned powder or a crapton of salt all around the hole. I think it's the first, because it's one the outside of the can and all. Taste tests were inconclusive...

After shooting the can, I found the bullet nearby. I thought it was an old bullet someone else had fired until I picked it up and burned my fingers.

As an added bonus, I found six WWII era 7.92 mm Mauser shells and two stripper clips lying on the ground. The shells are marked 7.9 FS 1944 TC, indicating, to the best of my knowledge, that they are Turkish-made surplus rounds from 1944.

Shooting the .357 Magnum

2009-07-04T15:58:00.011-04:00

That's my new toy. It's a S&W 686P, a seven-shot revolver chambered in .357 Magnum. I fired it for the first time today, putting 50 magnum rounds through the weapon.

The pistol is a 6" Combat model, which helps keep the felt recoil down considerably; it is almost comparable to a 4" automatic firing .40 S&W. The muzzle blast and noise, however, are considerably higher than .40, and, if one may say so, far more satisfying. This can be seen in the following video, in which I fire my last six cartridges, three in single action, three in double.

This was my first cartridge revolver, and I am quite satisfied with the results. The 686P has the option to fire in either single or double-action mode. In double action the trigger pull is relatively heavy, but not unmanageable, and in single-action mode pull is negligible. Loading is easy and quicker than might be expected. Ejection is extremely satisfying. A light push of the ejector rod drops seven empty magnum cases. This rain of brass is far more enjoyable, in my experience than the shell-per-shot ejection of automatics.

The revolver fired 50 rounds in a row with no misfires; it is a revolver, so this is to be expected. There was fair amount of lead buildup in and around the cylinder and barrel, and I have not, at this time, purchased a .357 caliber bore brush. After today, it is most definitely on my list of items to purchase.

The best aspect of the 686 is the power of the .357 Magnum cartridge. I fired it from a concrete platform into the ground downrange, causing chunks of dirt to fly literally ten feet into the air. During another fun test, the .357 completely destroyed a water bottle. (The camera jumps at first, as my brother was startled by the initial blast. I apologize on his behalf.)

All-in-all, the .357 is easily my new favorite firearm. That doesn't mean, however there wasn't time to experiment with old favorites, like the Remington 1858, a .44 caliber blackpowder revolver; a bullet fired from this weapon lodged in a block of wood, resulting in this interesting photo.

The only downside to the .357 is the cost. I fired 50 rounds at a cost of $22, and that ammo was difficult to find, with the recent ammo shortage in full effect. Together with the cost of the gun, the total cost was almost $800. This was unfortunate, but, I feel, with a government as devoted to the taking of property, particularly firearms, as ours, an expenditure worth every penny.

Who is John Galt?

2009-06-01T13:30:00.007-04:00

Today, the government nationalized a major U.S. automaker. CNN covered it, and on that channel, a commercial was featured which urged voters to vote for universal healthcare and "blow away the competition."

I am reminded of Ayn Rand's classic novel, Atlas Shrugged. The novel depicts a United States in which the government slowly eliminates competition, to the delight of big business, and eventually nationalizes those businesses, when the lack of competition has caused them to fail. As a result, the economy crashes, a process quickened by the capitalist industrialists, who withhold their gift of production from the world, thereby hastening the inevitable end.

The results of the economic crash, of course, are violence and terror in the streets. CNN reported today, in addition to the bankruptcy of GM, three people killed. One, a late-term abortion activist, the others two recruitment officers. These events, seemingly unrelated, are the inevitable result of a people losing faith in their government to solve social problems, and seek to solve the problems themselves.

Atlas Shrugged, written in the 1950s, is happening now, but with one exception. We have no John Galt. We have no Ellis Wyatt, Dagny Taggart, Henry Rearden.

I am a capitalist, a position I never dreamed I would have to defend. However, with General Motors turning into Government Motors, and blatant commercials calling for the abolition of competition, it seems I must take the unnecessary action of defending what amounts to the perfect system of economics.

Capitalism is, first and foremost, the absence of force. It is a system in which people are free to enter into voluntary exchange with others for their mutual benefit. Put simply, everyone is free, and everyone wins.

It is said that capitalism is at fault for our economic problem. It is said that the current situation is a "failure of capitalism." But, have you ever examined what it is that has failed?

Under capitalism, bad companies are allowed to fail, without aid from the government. Is is capitalism that has failed when the government bailouts do not save a company?

Under capitalism, a company belongs to an individual, or individuals, not the government. When auto parts from a certain company, recently nationalized, are expected to become less accessible, and those cars are expected to devalue faster than if they had remained private, is it a failure of capitalism?

Under capitalism, force or fraud is prohibited by the nature of the system. Companies who attempt to use force or fraud in their endeavors will fail, as customers will not stand to be treated in this manner, and will withhold the lifeblood of any business: money. When a company uses an entity which states that your wealth is subject to confiscation to fund failing businesses, is it a failure of capitalism?

Or is it capitalism at all?

In one sense, of course, it is the failure of capitalism, or, more accurately, the failure of the capitalists by conceding, negotiating or compromising with government force. Capitalism failed because it strayed away from itself.

Democrats are at fault for the so-called failure of capitalism, by their naive belief in "good government," as if any entity whose sole function is theft could ever be good, no matter what its intentions. Republicans are at fault for the so-called failure of capitalism, by their refusal to buy the best product at the lowest price, instead embracing the mantra, "buy American," as if the fact that a product was made within the borders of a certain state made it an objectively better deal.

Under times such as these, when capitalism is failing not from any inherent flaw, but from not being capitalism any longer, the divide must not be between Democrats and Republicans, but between capitalists and socialists. There are those that think a compromise between these ideals is possible. They are wrong. What we are now witnessing is the result of a compromise. Socialism, being an inferior system, benefits most from such a compromise, tainting the purity of capitalism and slowly leeching its health and vitality, like a parasite on an otherwise healthy human being.

The economy will not reverse itself through any means but unbridled capitalism. Unfortunately, the intellectual leaders of today are not willing to adhere to those ideals. The flaw in Ayn Rand's classic is that it fails to take into account a situation in which there are no John Galts. In order to combat socialism and the failure of American society, it is up to us, the capitalists, to be John Galts.

In these times, when the perfect system of economics is being corrupted, and denounced as a failure by those who have corrupted it, some must stand in defense of our economic system. We, who believe in freedom and wealth for all who are willing to pursue it by their own means, and not on the backs of their neighbors, cannot compromise. We must support capitalism as it should be, or not at all.

Capitalism is the perfect economic system. It is the system of economic and civil freedom. Forces which seek to destroy it are parasites, and like, parasites, must be dealt with before they become too dangerous. I do not know by what means these parasites must be destroyed; I know only that they must, before it becomes impossible to buy a quality product, before it becomes impossible to earn a living, before there is violence in the streets, before it becomes impossible to speak out against government oppression, before it becomes illegal to say what I am now saying.

It can happen. It happened in Russia, in Cuba, in North Korea, in China. It happened in a novel once, a novel whose content is quickly becoming true. If we do not wish to see the plot carried any further, we must reverse the trend we see in America today, by defending capitalism to our last breath, a figure of speech which, if we do not do so, might become literally necessary.

Who among you will stand in defense of capitalism? Who is John Galt?

Gun Control: Legalized Theft

2009-05-14T13:40:00.004-04:00

I'm doing something unusual today in that I'm linking to another post, specifically, A 3 Percenter Tells It Like It Is, by the Conservative UAW Guy.

Said post, in turn, links to a letter to the Attorney General of the United States government, which you can read at your leisure.

It's an interesting letter, with some controversial points. In today's world, the sender could probably be, and probably already is, labeled a domestic terrorist.

So, do I agree with it? Well, yeah. Why not?

I own a gun, and I'm saving up for two more. If you think I feel even a little bit creepy, ashamed, or socially unacceptable saying that you are completely, 100% wrong.

Let me be clear here. I love guns. I love firing guns. Firearms are precise, accurate, well-designed machines, and when I have one in my hands I feel competent, comfortable, and self-assured, not because of the gun, but because of my own skill with it.

I'm capable of hitting a stationary target with relative ease, and am familiar with the operation of a variety of firearms, including revolvers, muzzle-loaders, bolt actions, pump-actions, break-actions, semi-automatics, machine guns, and assault weapons.

In terms of practical knowledge I've fired a bolt-action .22 rifle, a .45 blackpowder revolver, a .22 semi-automatic rifle, and three semi-automatic handguns in .22, .40, and 9mm, and I intend to buy a 20 gauge double-barreled blackpowder pistol and a .52 Sharps blackpowder rifle in the near future.

I've also never hunted, or, in fact, shot at any living thing whatsoever. I don't believe in the use of force except defensive force, and I've never had a gun-related accident.

Once again, if you think I feel even a little bit creepy or socially unacceptable relating that, think again. I know guns, so I know how safe they are, and how responsible gun owners act. The ones that clamor loudest for gun control are often those who have never fired a gun, and have never learned, and yet, they're the ones that think they know best for my safety when it comes to firearms.

Let us examine exactly what gun control is. It is the use of force by a group through a more powerful entity to take the property of another group. Ironically, the entity used for this purpose, the government, uses a variety of the world's most advanced firearms, from high-quality Italian pistols to advanced German submachine guns. Unlike their victims, however, the government uses the threat of these weapons aggressively, to take weapons from those who use them only defensively. Simplified, gun control activists believe that guns should be solely in the hands of those who use firearms aggressively, instead of those who use them in defense only.

Such a concept cannot possibly be conducive with a free country. The government, however, has a weakness, which is simply that it operates on the fear of its citizens. Therefore, the government is helpless against those, such as the author of this letter, who refuse to be afraid of it.

Gun control is legalized theft, and I admire and support those who refuse to pretend it is anything else. For this reason, I see little fault with the letter mentioned here, and, if anything, feel as if such a response to government force was a long time in coming.

Back in the PRC

2009-05-07T21:19:00.009-04:00

What if I told you I no longer saw a difference between this flag:

and this one?

Fact is, I don't. Not after today. And here's the reason why.

Shortly before the Beijing Olympics in 2008, the government of the "People's" Republic of China decided they needed more buildings for the coming games. Unfortunately for the Chinese government, the land they wanted to build it on happened to belong to citizens of the "People's" Republic.

The government, however, decided that it needed the land more. It was for the glory of China that that land be used not for housing, but as a stadium. To achieve the greater good of the nation, the "People's" Republic, therefore, took over the land, forced those who owned it out, and built a stadium over their homes.

To the Chinese government, the property rights of its citizens held no value, because it was in the interest of the nation that the stadium be built. The Chinese government refused to acknowledge the property rights of its citizens, and took their land against their will, forcefully and without remorse, because their purpose was, in their eyes, great enough to do so.

Such is the nature of the communist Chinese government. And such also is the nature of the government of the United States.

If you, reader, think such a travesty cannot happen here, think, as they say, again. The Federal government of this country, the United States of America, is planning to "condemn" the land of private landowners, and build a memorial to the passengers of Flight 93. It does not matter to "our" government, government of, by and for the "people" that that land happens to belong to someone else. The greater good of the memorial, according to the people's republic of the United States, overshadows the property rights of its citizens.

"We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things," said park service spokesman Phil Sheridan.

In this, of course, Mr. Sheridan is perfectly correct. Sometimes, you just can't agree on certain things. (Like when one is being mugged, for instance. The mugger would, of course, prefer to get the money from a willing donor, but sometimes the mugger and the man being mugged just can't come to an agreement.) Of course, what Mr. Sheridan chooses to omit is that when the government and the owner of a property can't agree, the government chooses to take the land by force.

I'm almost certain it was difficult for the citizens of China to come to an agreement when their government wanted their land as well. However, the decision was made there the same way it is being made here - at the barrel of a gun.

The Chinese government, however, was at least direct. They simply kicked the citizens off their land without any kind of a trial. Why bother? The government of the PRC viewed this as a simple matter. They wanted the land, others owned the land, so the government forcibly took the land away from its rightful owners.

The government of the PRUSA, however, is a bit squeamish about this kind of thing. It is not yet so desensitized to the evil it is committing that it simply commits it. Instead, it must appease itself, and convince itself that what it does is just and proper - though its knows full well the nature of its action. To achieve this goal, to achieve an uneasy guiltlessness for itself, the government of this country files a "complaint," against the landowners, in its own courts of course, and then forcibly removes the land.

The government files a complaint. A complaint! About what is it complaining? About someone daring to own land it wants? About someone daring to own personal property where it wishes to build? When a government is allowed to use its own systems to file a complaint about its citizens owning their rightful property under what kind of system do those citizens actually live?

Not a free one.

No free system on Earth could ever deny the right of a citizen to his land, any more than it could deny him a right to his life, or his freedom. No free system does this - but ours does.

It is for this reason that I see no difference between the Chinese flag and the American flag. They are symbols of a despotic and oppressive government, basically the same in nature. Government is force legitimized, and I do not believe that force used not in defense of one's rights can ever be legitimized, no matter what name we give it.

I write this now using my laptop, sitting on my bed. I write it with my hands, transposing the thoughts of my mind. Is there a difference between my laptop, my bed, my hands or my mind? When a government takes one's physical property, the taking of one's body and mind are surely the next to go.

The government draws no distinction between what it wants, and what is mine. But I do. My property belongs to me, no matter who wants it how badly or for what reason. One thing which is not mine, however, and never will be, is that government which seeks to take what is mine, the government of the People's Republic of the United States of America.

Now That It's Too Late...

2009-05-06T12:19:00.008-04:00

I'd like to thank Republicans for picking up on the economic wisdom of Ron Paul.

But why now? I've noticed that spending and taxes have become real issues only recently, even though they've been problems for the last eight years. I wonder why that might be...

I'll take a wild guess here and say it just might have something to do with the fact that the current president is an ass - as compared to an elephant. But the thing is, the last president was an ass too, and I think it's time someone sat down with the Republicans and had a little talk.

See, the only thing that apparently stirs you people to action is the party to which one belongs. Bush spent needlessly, on a variety of unnecessary expenditures. The war, of course, is the main offender, but even if you're pro-war, we could discuss the millions of dollars he sent to Africa, spending which often aids no one, or the economic bailouts which, as I recall, many Republicans supported initially.

Oddly enough, however, the outcry over spending and taxes came in recent months, when Obama was in office. It surprised me, to say the least, to see Republicans throwing modern day tea parties (an idea originally conceived by Ron Paul supporters), flying the Gadsden flag (a symbol used early in the 2008 election by Ron Paul supporters) and suddenly talking about lowering taxes and curbing spending (an issue brought up primarily, in the 2008 campaign, by Ron Paul supporters).

These actions were, a few short months ago, considered wacky, outrageous, insane and unnecessary. Also naive, and unimportant. Suddenly, there's a Democrat in office, and the issue becomes immediately noteworthy?

Wouldn't it have been a good idea to curb spending before Obama took office, by say, demonstrating against the Bush bailouts, or, I don't know, electing a certain someone who ran on this issue, among others?

Of course, Republicans will generally argue that the reason they didn't support Paul was because he didn't support Bush's "security" policies.

Like this one.

You should be so proud. Arresting 16 year old kids. I feel so much safer now.

I sincerely hope the child in this report learned his lesson about patriotism, and the mother hers about not believing in guns. Seems to me if we had a lot more skepticism of our country's actions and a lot more guns, the government would be the one fearing us, not the other way around.

So now that we've made the United States less safe by allowing our government to arrest us whenever they feel like, are you finally going to reverse yourselves on that one? That'd be great, because, even if you trusted Bush, do you really want Obama to have this kind of power?

So good work trying to undo what you've created. It's a good start. But it would really help if you'd stay consistent and take an anti-government position on everything all the time, not just when a Democrat is in office. If you did, I could actually be persuaded to vote for your candidates. But, because they care only for party affiliation and votes, not about resolving issues, I don't honestly see that happening.

You'll be Working on the Railroad

2009-04-17T19:30:00.009-04:00

Due to massive spending on unnecessary wars and social programs and the inflationary practices of the Federal Reserve, the United States government is now approximately $10 trillion in debt. Give or take a few billion. I wouldn't actually care, as the government of the United States has nothing to do with me, except that it, for some reason, thinks that stealing my money is an appropriate way to pay the interest of said debt and spend more money it doesn't have on the very things that got it into such deep debt in the first place.

Of course, the newly elected Democratic regime will "change" nothing. Democrats and Republicans are both avid believers in the spending of other people's money, and there is no reason to believe that the debt will shrink over the next four years. In fact, Obama has just unveiled a brilliant plan to waste your hard-earned dollars.

Trains.

That's right, trains. Specifically, high-speed trains that will cost $8 billion. To start.

Obama, of course, makes the move look peachy. A high speed rail system will "lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come," said Obama.

Wait. Really? We're spending $8 billion dollars to make the environment cleaner? While we're in the middle of a reckless war and an economic crisis? Don't we have better things to worry about?

Proponents of a national high-speed rail system will argue that such a system will save commuters money, as they will not have to drive, and will so save money on gas. Such an argument is foolish and naive, not to mention immoral.

Dealing strictly with the practicalities of such a system, let's take a minute to remember that the United States already has a national rail service, Amtrak, which has been losing money for a number of years. The reason for this is simple. Mass passenger rail service is not profitable anymore. If it was, more lines would exist, as entrepreneurs would have built such lines to make money. It seems irrational to replace, or augment, the current national rail service, which is already a drain on taxpayers, with a new one, which, given the government's track record (no pun intended) is sure to lose money as well.

This, of course, raises an interesting question. If Amtrak has been losing money for years, why is it still solvent? The answer is obvious. The government, unlike private industry, does not have to provide a superior service, or run it responsibly. After all, if they lose money, all they need to do is steal more from the taxpayers.

Which brings us to the morality, or lack thereof, of a national rail service, or, in fact, national "service" of any kind.

Imagine for a moment that an organization explained to you that they intended to built a railroad, and that you were going to work on it, whether you would use it or not. If you refused, they would kidnap you and keep you imprisoned until you cooperated.

This, of course, would be slavery, which, though outlawed in 1865, still exists in the United States in the form of taxation. You work, and your money is taken from you. If you resist, you are imprisoned. Call it taxation. It's still slavery and theft.

I will probably never use this railroad. The government does not see this as a reason why I should not pay for it. Proponents of a national railroad, or any other "public" expenditure, would, I expect, be slower to embrace it if given the gun themselves and told to extort money from others for "the common good."

Be that as it may, don't expect anyone to condemn the railroad for what it is: the latest in a long line of wasteful acts of theft. No politician in Washington would be politically stupid enough, or morally strong enough, to oppose it. (No politician but one; but no one wanted to elect him.) Obama has pulled a brilliant move (stolen from the Lincoln platform incidentally) in that he has proposed a populist plan which would be politically unwise to oppose, and appears, to the majority of Americans, to be beneficial.

The real cost of the railroad, while much less than the wasteful expenditures we already make, and will continue to make, is much more, as government expenditures always are, than the majority of people are smart enough to comprehend.

The Charade of Inauguration

2009-01-20T13:33:00.021-05:00

Most of these people are idiots.

It's a bit sad really, to see so many people turn out for something so silly as a presidential inauguration, but this is America, and we really like to feel as if we're part of something important, even if nothing important has actually taken place.

I would, of course, be a hypocrite if I proposed that today's presidential inauguration was not historical. I will admit that while I hold nothing but contempt for Obama, I arrived late to Servo (our school's dining hall) because I was busy watching his anti-climactic swearing-in in my dorm room. And they were serving tacos today.

I did this because the moment was historically important. However, in terms of my life philosophy, tacos are of vastly more value. I enjoy eating tacos; I don't really care who the president is, because in the world of my political philosophy, they don't have presidents.

But anarchism aside, I found the inauguration silly and overrated. If nothing else, it demonstrated the ignorance of the American people of truth and reality. The prime example of this was the swearing-in of the first black president on the Bible of the same man who once wrote, "Negro equality? Fudge!!"

Yes, the Great Emancipator, was, in fact, a racist. Don't believe it? The above quote is found in James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, which, for those of you out of the Civil War loop, is the book to read on the American Civil War, and is highly, highly reputable. It goes on to describe Lincoln's early days of campaigning, and how he repeatedly denied that he believed in making black men equal to white men.

Good choice Barack.

And before we get ahead of ourselves and bring up the Emancipation Proclamation, I'd like to point out that CNN mentioned it already, which is silly, seeing as it actually did nothing for slaves. Lincoln essentially says, in the Proclamation, the slaves are freed, but only in the areas where I currently have no practical jurisdiction. (i.e. the Confederate States of America.)

One can argue that the Proclamation was symbolic, tactical, and allowed for the freeing of slaves in captured CSA territory, which is more or less true, and this is all well and good. However, it would have been nice for Lincoln to free the slaves in, say, Kentucky. He didn't, however, because he didn't want border states to join the CSA. As a result, many blacks in border states remained in servitude until 1865, when slavery was abolished nationwide - and after Lincoln was dead.

So comparing Obama to Lincoln is actually a bit insulting, and historically inaccurate. I'm betting that Obama knows this. He's well-educated, after all, and most well-educated people are aware of Lincoln's serious flaws on the issue of race. If Obama wanted to swear on the Bible of a real advocate of black equality, he could have used a Bible belonging to John Brown (if one still exists), who was probably the least racist person in American history.

So why Lincoln's Bible? Especially if Obama knew better (which, let's face it, he probably did)? Well, I'm betting that he swore on Lincoln's Bible for the same reason that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation: politics. Just because you and I and the president know that Lincoln was a racist, doesn't mean all those people watching did. It doesn't actually matter that Obama swore on the Bible of a man who denied in speech and writing that he was for the equality of blacks; it only matters that Obama swore on the Bible of a man who is known, in legend, if not in reality, as 'the man who freed the slaves.'

Disgusting isn't it?

Speaking of disgusting, what was Aretha Franklin doing at the inauguration? And, I'm really not being racist here, why the focus on skin color? Yeah, I get it, Obama is the first black president. Big deal. Does that mean he's only the president of black people? I think not.

In fact, I think it's highly insulting to the president that we continue to celebrate his skin color. He was not voted in on the color of his skin, or at least, I hope he wasn't. After all, we theoretically choose our presidents based on their merits, not their skin color. So Obama was elected, theoretically, because he was the best speaker with the best ideals. (In actuality, he was elected because John McCain was an idiot.) He was not, I would hope, elected because his skin is darker than a white man's. To say that he was is denying any merits those who support him think he might have.

Furthermore, Obama is the President of the United States. Not the president of the black population. I honestly don't care how much melanin is in a person's skin; I care that people are essentially good, and worthy of my respect (no pun intended), so hiring Aretha Franklin and making a big deal about race is in incredibly poor taste. It accentuates the color, not the man, and a race, rather than a nation.

Consider the inauguration as two strange events which reflect on the American people: the swearing-in of the first black president on the Bible of a racist, and the highlighting of a man's skin color as evidence that Americans aren't racist anymore. This is why I prefer the company of tacos to the company of those in the National Mall today. The tacos, at least, are reasonably intelligent. And damn tasty to boot.

My First Custom-Painted Nerf Gun: Blue 4

2009-01-09T15:33:00.020-05:00

For those of you who still visit this page, thank you most sincerely. I haven't posted in a long, long time, and you deserve a serious, thoughtful, and judiciously well-written post.

Unfortunately, you're not going to get it.

What I offer instead is this epic paint job I did on a Nerf Maverick Rev-6.

We aren't allowed to have any weapons at school, but Nerf guns are generally overlooked, as it's pretty much impossible to injure someone with them, short of striking someone over the head. (Of course, since Gettysburg College reads my blog, or used to, and on the off chance Nerf guns aren't allowed, let me just say that I totally won't have this gun in my dorm room when I come back.)

Anyway, I wanted to put it up here because I want to show people, but I can't put it on Facebook, because I'm saving it as a surprise for a certain subset of my friends who I get to see in a few days. (Not my college friends of course. I would never bring a Nerf gun to college if it's against the rules, now would I?)

So basically this is how I'm going to show people without my friends seeing it before I bring it back to... where my friends are.

I decided on an urban blue camouflage color pattern, occasionally, though very rarely, used by the military in real life, but far more prominent in popular culture. I painted the gun using gray Testors paint and two custom blues I mixed, one dark, one light. I used q-tips to hand-paint the gun and a toothpick to paint green sighting dots on the iron sights the gun comes with. I also used a toothpick to paint the gun's name on the cylinder: Blue 4. It comes not from the color of the "weapon," but from Call of Duty 4, a first-person shooter from Activision, in which the player's M16A4 rifle has the designation "Blue 4" chalked onto the receiver (regardless of the user's camouflage pattern; I just put the "blue tiger" pattern on the one in this screenshot because it fits the theme).

Shown here is a comparison of a normal Maverick and my custom-painted Maverick.

It still needs touch up work on some areas where yellow shows through, but for all intents and purposes it's done. I guess I wanted to show people because I had a lot of fun painting the gun, and this was my first attempt at it, and, in fact, at any kind of camo. I'd like to know what people think. Is it done well, or is it not convincing? Yeah, it's not really important, but I like feedback.

All in all, I think I'll have a lot of fun with "Blue 4," and I'm certain it will be the only custom-painted Nerf gun in the hall. Not, of course, that I mean a dorm hall. No, not a chance.

Democracy, For Ages 3 and Up

2008-11-05T11:18:00.047-05:00

As is commonly known, the results of the national presidential election are in. Unsurprisingly, my election prediction was verified, and Democrats, at least on campus, are very pleased with the one-party rule America finds itself under. The total lack of opposition, and the knowledge that they are free to pass laws without those pesky restrictions so ordinary prevalent in a democratic society have caused many students to come down with a very bad case of false superiority, the likes of which are rarely seen outside of Macintosh television commercials. Only an half-hour ago one student had to go to the health center, as her head had swollen to dangerously high levels, poor thing.

In all seriousness, the attitude of the victorious Democrats is irritating primarily because of its relative unimportance, despite all claims to the contrary. Every reason the Democrats have to be proud is as much an achievement as that of a child who has beaten his parent at some game or another, because the parent has let him.

Let's honestly examine the list. Obama won the election. Well congratulations for that. However, do the Democrats seriously believe it was because they ran a good campaign? Let's face it, they could have run a mediocre campaign and beaten McCain. Hell, a mildly intelligent dolphin could have beaten McCain, one of the weakest candidates the Republican Party has ever fielded

And let's not forget Palin. She-who-can-see-Russia-from-her-house probably did more to end the Republicans' hopes for 2008 than Obama could ever have dreamed of. Really Democrats. Are you proud of that? At least challenge yourselves next time and beat up a toddler or something.

So, determining that the Democrats could have won the election not only with their hands tied behind their back, as the saying goes, but also while locked inside the trunk of a motor vehicle, what's left for the left? What else can they be proud of?

America did elect a black man. Isn't that great? Well, not really, not when you look at it objectively. I mean, if you actually aren't racist, you don't even take skin color into account. You just judge a person on his actions and ideas. Saying that electing a black man is a milestone is just celebrating the fact that now we judge people for the color of their skin, instead of judging them poorly for the color of their skin.

But clearly we are still racist; otherwise electing a black guy would, in fact, not be a big deal, and would not be any more impressive than electing a white guy. In fact, being glad of an election based on the elect's skin color shows that skin color does matter to you, in one way or the other. As for myself, I will be happy with regard to the issue the day a minority is elected and it is not considered unusual. Only then can it truly be said with any degree of accuracy that the racial issues of the country are over.

Another note of pride for the Democrats is that they are now the majority in the House and Senate, for all practical purposes instituting one-party rule. Many Democrats were very happy about this, one student coming to class with paper taped to her backpack, the words "Democratic nation" written on it.

The irony here is, I think, apparent. A nation controlled by Democrats only is anything but democratic. One-party rule is equivalent to dictatorship, as no opposition is offered to any bills that party might pass. The "Democratic nation" that particular party is referring to with pride, is actually closer to dictatorship than democracy. Strange thing to be proud of.

Perhaps the biggest false notion the Democrats have is that of "change," a word used by Obama during his speeches numerous times. This is a word now being trumpeted around campus by delirious Democrats; one student in my class felt that real change was now on the way, as the same administration had been in charge for - eight whole years!

Forgive me for laughing, but as an amateur historian, watching someone refer to a mere eight years with the sense of awe is highly amusing. Regardless of what Obama supporters may think, Obama's nothing special; he's just a Democrat, another Clinton or Carter. Not very exciting to those who actually have the ability to analyze events that happened before their own birth, but terribly exciting and new to those whose entire world is eighteen or nineteen years old.

Speaking of history, someone should make Obama re-take high-school social studies. Last night in a speech he mentioned a 106 year old woman, Ann Nixon Cooper, who was born "just a generation past slavery” and couldn't vote at first because "she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.”

Well one out of two isn't bad, I suppose, but while women weren't allowed to vote until 1920, blacks were given the right to vote in 1870, five years after slavery was abolished, so someone born "a generation past slavery" in the early 1900s could not, in fact be legally barred from the polls based on the color of their skin.

And yet, to be fair, a case could be made that Jim Crow laws and the like prevented this, so I suppose it's still better than Joe Biden, now VP-elect, and his idiotic and historically inaccurate announcement recently that not only was FDR president during the stock market crash of 1929, but also that he got on TV - which hadn't really been invented yet.

All in all, Democrats are doing what they do best: acting like children. They're gloating about an easy win, happy because of transitory undeserved power, and unable to see outside of their sphere of reality. Welcome to American politics. Remind me again why we take this seriously?

Of course, the Democrats didn't have a monopoly on childishness last night. I could go on about McCain's disgustingly nationalistic concession speech, and the way Obama was booed when McCain congratulated him, giving Republicans an even worse image than they already have, but why bother? This election was, as previously demonstrated, not the result of people being happy with Democrats; it was the result of people being extremely irritated and annoyed with Republicans, whose detrimental policies and attitudes, along with their unwillingness to understand the issues, virtually destroyed their chances of winning.

All in all, the election was exactly what it was designed to be: a game, a game for children in which all the players are the correct age group, mentally speaking. Unfortunately, the children who win this game are allowed more than a lollipop; their prize is to control the lives of an entire population. Ultimately, it is a game in which the disinterested and rational population of the country are certain to lose.

P.S. On a lighter note, check out this hologram CNN used last night to get an update from one of their field reporters. Nifty!

Why I'm (Still) Voting For Ron Paul

2008-11-04T10:02:00.017-05:00

Today is, of course, an important day for our nation. It is the day in which a small group of the population competes with another small group of the population for the power to coerce the majority of the population.

And who will you vote for? Who will be your choice to run this freedom-loving oligarchy of ours? Will you vote for international aggression, breaches of your personal privacy, and war? Or will you vote for theft and punishment of those whose only crime was to succeed?

Decisions, decisions.

Since I doubt the poll workers in Adams County read my blog, I feel safe is saying that I will be voting for Ron Paul, a choice I believe to be morally justifiable. Instead of voting for coercion, I will be voting for a candidate whose sole aim is to remove as much coercion, and as many as those institutions which perpetuate it, as possible during his term.

Many tell me that this is foolish. They insult my intelligence by pointing out that Ron Paul has no chance. Do they think I am unaware of that? Or worse, that I should think it a matter of great concern? This election would be a success for me if Paul gained one percent of the vote. But, I am not voting for Paul in the hopes that he will win, but because it is morally right.

There are those that tell me that voting my conscience is "a waste." Conservatives, who talk tough when voting to send other people's sons into battle, and who, rightly and, I believe, justly, declare that the only way their weapons will be taken from them is over their body, are yet so afraid of an Obama presidency that they would cast a vote to prevent it, by voting for a candidate who espouses their ideas but little, yet has a chance of winning. Liberals, for all their supposed open-mindedness and passion for justice, do not understand why someone would vote for the candidate he actually believes in, rather than the popular and well-spoken Barack Obama.

The man who votes out of fear, the man who votes based on popularity, or the man who votes on principle; whose vote is the least wasted?

I vote simply for that candidate which I wish to see elected, and there are those who suppose, because of this, that I do not understand politics! Well, perhaps this is true. But, above politics I value truth and morality. I think Ron Paul should be the president of the United States. Why then, should I lie, and vote for McCain or Obama? Why should I vote for "the lesser of two evils," when I would still be voting for evil?

When two candidates are offered as the only options, and both are bad candidates, I have three options. I may vote for a bad candidate, I may not vote, or I may vote for a third canidate of my own choosing. As I have found a third candidate I believe worthy of my choosing, I will take the third option and vote for Ron Paul. In this, I believe I am doing right. I refuse to vote for the violation of people's privacy, and I refuse to vote for an unjust war. I refuse to vote for subsidized robbery, and I refuse to vote for a socialist model of healthcare. I will not be responsible for tapping phones, punishing those who succeed, or the lives lost through war and inferior standards of medicine. I refuse to be a part of these injustices.

Therefore, I will vote for Ron Paul. While it may not do me any practical good, it will, at least, keep my conscience clean. That I'll take that over expediency any day.

It's Columbus Day!

2008-10-13T23:14:00.038-04:00

Woohoo! No class, let's go rape some Indians!

Obviously I'm being sarcastic. To those of you still left, happy Columbus Day, the most pointless federal holiday in existence!

I'll come clean, I wouldn't have had classes today anyway, because we have a form of fall break called "Reading Days." The main point, however, is that I personally find the whole idea of Columbus Day silly.

I don't find it silly enough to post on it, of course. What prompted this particular rant was the fact that some people still find Columbus socially acceptable.

While perusing the internet today, I came across a blog which defended Columbus Day as an important holiday, and denounced detractors as 'revisionists.' The argument was one I used to support, in a less advanced stage of my political evolution; Columbus helped discover the Americas and "civilize" the New World, and thus, in some convoluted way, is a sort of founding father of the wonderful nation of America.

That whole thing about cutting off the hands of natives and raping them (not necessarily in that order) was unfortunate, but not to be examined too closely, if at all. Sometimes, these people doubt whether that stuff ever happened.

Even amateur historians, and I include myself in this particular category, would take offense to this rather distorted view of the past. Naturally, that stuff did, in fact, happen. I remember reading about it in my APUSH class, and the teacher was no liberal, quite the opposite in fact. Columbus was quite a fan of cutting off body parts as punishment, and enslaving natives; he was eventually arrested for such actions. This is fairly easy stuff to look up. Modern cries of "revisionism" are so absurd as to be completely dismissed, and as such are actually somewhat amusing, rather than offensive.

What is offensive, however, is the argument that whatever happened in the past, no matter how horrible, was justified by modern America. This opinion is an unoriginal one, a simple rehash of the old maxim: "the end justifies the means."

Much could be written on the validity, or lack thereof, of this maxim, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not particularly important. While I sympathize with Amerindians, an argument as simplistic as 'Columbus helped found America, which makes everything okay' is in the same category as the argument that those who bring up unpleasant facts about Columbus are "revisionist;" it is so silly as not to elicit offense. What I object to primarily is the notion that America is better off due to European influence, when such a theory cannot be proven.

I should, at this point, make clear that political correctness holds no appeal for me. I am not saying that Amerindian and European culture are equal. I am saying that I refuse to draw a distinction between the two. I have many reasons for this, most of which have to do with my rather unique political philosophy. The one which might be compelling to even those that don't share my philosophy, however, is that the argument that America is better off for European influence is an argument based on alternate history. This,while entertaining material for novels, is not valid for political or social analysis. In this specific example, the proponents of what, for the sake of simplicity, I'll refer to as the "better America" argument are not using history to support their claims, but alternate history. They are not saying 'this continent is better off because...'; they are saying 'this continent is better off than it would be.' The problem is that there is no possible way to know what this continent 'would be,' because we can only objectively know what it is. It is this careless support of a holiday based solely on alternate history that bothers me personally.

All this being said, I disagree with liberals on this issue as much as I differ from conservatives. I have no"white guilt." I don't feel responsible for what was done to the natives of this country. To do so would require that I identify either with my country, my race, or my ancestry, rather than identifying with myself. I didn't steal from/torture/maim/rape/kill anyone. I didn't force anyone onto any reservations. I didn't keep anyone in a bizarre form of welfare-slavery. Most of it happened a long time ago. I can not possibly be made to bear any responsibility for it.

Yet, every Columbus Day, the issue is brought up somewhere. For this, I can see no valid reason. The problems don't come when we examine the past. They come when we try to change and distort it, to try and say what happened did not happen. They come also when we try and blame individuals for the actions of other individuals, especially in an anachronistic fashion. The whole problem with Columbus Day is that is does exactly these things. It brings up issues which, while important, aren't worth celebrating, and aren't worth protesting. To try and do either, and to sanction a day to do it, is pointless and bizarre.

So have a nice Columbus Day (though by the time I post, it will be Tuesday). Enjoy your day off, hang out with your friends, and please, don't give anyone smallpox. Your successors will either be defending it, or decrying it with inaccurate blanket statements (so to speak) for the rest of their natural lives.

American Democracy: A Foundation of Lies

2008-10-08T00:34:00.026-04:00

If ever my belief that democracy is a sham needed reinforcement, tonight was the night.

Yes, I've decided to write a post, and I suppose I owe some sort of apology for not writing one sooner. As an excuse, I offer the fact that in the past month I've been thrown into an entirely new environment. I moved 600 miles, knew no one, and nothing about the area. This is not to say I haven't adjusted. I have, with a large degree of success. That, of course is the problem.

To be honest, I haven't blogged in a while, because I've had better things to do. I've been playing ultimate pretty much every day, hanging out with my friends, going to classes, and sleeping.

I like sleeping. A lot.

That's not much of an apology, but it's the truth, which is far better. Take it or leave it.

In any case, in my apology I mentioned that I'd made friends. The great thing about this college is that, unlike high school, the majority of people here are extremely intelligent. As such, most have an interest, at least, in politics. Consequently, a friend of mine had the debate on, and a bunch of us watched it.

If you want my opinion (and you do, at some level, or you wouldn't be here), McCain and Obama are doing their jobs admirably. Their job, of course, is that of the professional politician, namely, to lie.

The politician is one whose employment depends primarily on the whims of the people. It follows logically, therefore, that his ideals, or stated ideals, will shift to match those of the majority, right, wrong, or neutral. Speaking in the moral sense, the politician's ideas are determined not by his own conscience, and, consequently, he either has no conscience of his own, or chooses to ignore it. In the former case he is amoral; in the later immoral.

A harsh accusation, but true nonetheless. Naturally some will take issue with such a statement. It is difficult to call any man immoral, or even amoral. Many will agree, however, that politicians are untrustworthy, and it would not be inaccurate, I believe, to state that the majority of the American people hold a general distrust of politicians.

For this, there is a good reason: politicians are liars. It's their job.

Both Obama and McCain spoke tonight on the evils of lobbying and special interests. Both were, in my opinion, correct in speaking negatively of each. Unfortunately, with each sentence, the candidates demonstrated the extent of their own hypocrisy.

Barack Obama, who claims to stand not only against lobbying and special interests, but against CEOs and big businesses, has some very corporate supporters, including Citigroup and Google. Most interestingly, Obama's biggest corporate supporter is Goldman Sachs.

McCain, of course, is not immune to special interests. His top five corporate supporters are Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan.

Interesting coincidence that so many companies, many in financial trouble, should show up on McCain and Obama's list of campaign donors. Especially before a large bailout bill.

Surprised? You shouldn't be. Welcome to American politics.

How many people watched the debates tonight? How many saw McCain and Obama, sincere, empathetic, and passionate, decrying the special interests in Washington? And how many bought it?

Politics is a show, and a very entertaining one. Who can blame us for watching it? But this isn't an episode of your favorite series, it's your life. We watch, we spend hours of our lives watching two characters on a stage, quite literally, and we award the one with the better performance the ability to rule over us. And this is taken seriously, and called freedom?

I maintain, and have maintained for a long while, that Obama will win the election. It is not because he has a better platform, or better ideas than McCain (though neither man's platform or ideas are particularly desirable). It is because he speaks well, and McCain does not. It is as simple as that. Obama is a better actor. He convinces voters he understands them, sympathizes with them. He blames corporate greed; and he takes money from corporations he condemns. He is a liar, like McCain, like most politicians.

Why do Americans love this game, which they call democracy? Why are they willing to fight, to die even, for this? For the freedom to choose between two men who will stand upon a stage and promise the world, who will sympathize, who will speak of great things, with the full knowledge that they are lying? Who have no intention of following their own stated ideals?

Obama and McCain were correct in condemning special interests. Perhaps they should start by refusing to participate in the special interests system. Their deceit and dishonesty is part of the reason political change is ineffective, is part of the reason I favor civil disobedience and disregard democracy as another failed system, albeit a very good failed system, as they go.

A wise man once said,

"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

Obama and McCain (shrewd, but hardly wise), love to speak, but say nothing, because they speak no truth. Their meaningless mouthings of courage and patriotism, of change and hope, and of democracy, are simply lies, lies to which we are all held captive.

Shooting, and the Revolver vs. Autoloader Debate

2008-08-20T15:05:00.013-04:00

Since the above picture has been my profile pic for a while, it would be inaccurate (i.e. a lie) to say it was taken today. But I did go shooting today, and, since I didn't bring my camera (stupid, stupid, stupid, as I'll explain later) I'm using this photo, because it's close enough.

The reason I'm practicing mental flagellation for not bringing my camera is because I didn't just fire my trusty .45 today. I also got to fire two of my grandfather's Beretta handguns, one in 9mm and another in .40 S&W! (As soon as I fired the .40, I really wished I had someone with a camera getting the recoil and the brass in the air.)

Now, I'm used to pretty small recoils, since all I'd fired before today was a .22 rifle and revolver, and my .45, which contrary to the expectations of such a caliber, has a small recoil, due to the weight and barrel length of the weapon, and the low powder charge recommended by the manufacturer (friggen' lawyers). The 9mm certainly packed more of a punch in the recoil department, and the .40 was nothing short of insane.

I like to think I did okay though. I didn't drop the gun, or hit myself in the face, and I even hit the target a bunch of times. After I got used to the recoil, I even hit what I was aiming at!

Here's a question for all you gun nuts, though. My brother and I have this ongoing debate about revolvers versus autoloading pistols.

Admittedly, I'd rather have a semi-automatic in a combat situation, but since I'm never joining the military, I'm only judging relative usefulness in personal defense situations. Given this, I'm on the revolver side of the debate, for three reasons; one, you can't put high-powered magnum cartridges in most autoloaders, and two, revolvers don't have feed issues. (Reason number three is the fact that revolvers are classier.)

I bring this up because the .40 failed to feed twice, and another gun my grandfather had, a .22 autoloading pistol, had so many feeding problems that eventually we decided to give up.

Revolvers don't have that problem.

In all fairness, I did have a couple of defective caps not go off, but I think that's moot because, let's face it, the New Army 1858 is not a modern revolver, and it's not using modern cartridges.

Anyone with guns, I'd like to know your preference, just for fun.

Massive Sarcasm, Episode One: All Hail Michael Phelps

2008-08-15T13:56:00.021-04:00

Ever since the elections kicked into high gear, I've been quite impressed with CNN. They were moderate, fair, made everything easy to understand, and even gave coverage to Ron Paul. Lately, however, even CNN is starting to get on my nerves.

This morning, the news on CNN included a woman trapped under a bus, the elections, Georgia, and even Bigfoot. However, those stories were all deemed secondary compared to...

a swimmer.

Is it just me, or is the hero-worship of Michael Phelps getting old? Today on CNN, they were going over what the guy had for breakfast, for Christ's sake.

Or maybe I should say "for Phelp's sake," because, as the above, my first serious venture into Photoshop art, indicates, I'm pretty sure the media thinks Phelps is some kind of deity. During the breakfast thing, CNN used a graphic to show Phelp's calorie intake compared with the average person. One side was labeled "Michael Phelps." And the other? "Mere mortals." I kid you not.

Well, excuse a mere mortal such as myself for being a little irritated at that sort of behavior from a major news outlet, but it seems to me that swimming fast, while impressive, does not qualify one for deification. He's an Olympic athlete, not an Olympic god.

And what's the big deal anyway? Did Phelps do anything of major international standing? In fact, he didn't. He... swam. Really quickly. But the way the media is treating him, you'd think he'd found the cure for AIDs or something.

I don't mean to demean Phelps himself. I personally don't have an opinion on him one way or the other, because I don't know anything about him. I do know, however, that there are more important things CNN could be covering. Even the discovery of Bigfoot (probably, scratch that, definitely, a hoax) is more interesting than a swimming contest.

"Bigfoot"

Of course, I know exactly why the media is doing what it's doing. Ratings. People want to know about Phelps. It's a simple reflection of the culture today. Instead of being informed and knowledgeable about our politicians, or our philosophers, we are knowledgeable about sports and entertainment. The average man-on-the-street can tell you who won the World Series or American Idol last year, but not who the secretary of state is, or who Emerson was. We worship the mindless while shunning the intellectual.

This is sort of why democracy doesn't work. (These people can vote you know.) The focus on the mindless is why people will vote for McCain because he likes God (an actually interesting story on CNN today), or for Obama because he makes pretty speeches. They don't know that, historically, religion in government, or pretty-speechmaking without substance is a sign of either a weak leader or a bad one. They don't know that because, instead of history, they've devoted their life to learning the statistics of their favorite baseball player.

Or swimmer.

It's just an observation. One which I feel is important. Unfortunately, to most Americans, it's not as important as winning small discs made out of precious metals. All I can say is that if Phelps ever does become a god, I hope he'll put in a good word for America to the other deities, because I think in the future, the way we're going, we're going to need all the help we can get.

Obama and McCain: Trading Constituents for the White House

2008-08-14T21:45:00.010-04:00

I don't watch a lot of TV. When I do, however, it's almost always the History Channel. Lately, however, the so-called "History" Channel has been almost unwatchable.

I don't know if it sells or not, but when I watch something called "The History Channel," I expect history. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. It's been a long time since I've seen any genuine history. So far, the programming seem to be about evolution (not history), dinosaurs (not history), fat people driving trucks on ice (not history), and people surviving horrible accidents on videotape (not history). And right now, I'm watching a show about people fishing in Alaska. (It's not history either; but at least I'm learning some interesting things. For instance, did you know that in 1918 someone invented a fish-gutting machine called "the Iron Chink?" It's true!)

So what's the deal? Money probably. Maybe history doesn't sell. But since the History Channel is now the "Prehistory, Science, and Cheap Entertainment Channel" what are genuine history geeks supposed to do?

It's probably just a matter of time until they sell themselves to the Discovery Channel.

Ugh.

Well, you probably don't care about that, or any of the other ideas I've been kicking around lately. (Why isn't ultimate an Olympic sport? Why hasn't anyone shot Subway's marketing directors yet?) But most likely you're on one side or another on a different topic, such as the presidential election.

If so, I pity you. Since I'm not on anyone's side (except Ron Paul's, which is virtually no one's at this point), I have the leisure of looking at the election objectively, which does nothing to change my current opinion: that both McCain and Obama are fundamentally the same.

The current example is the Georgian situation, in which both Obama and McCain display an alarming tendency to think they're already president, and, in doing so, totally forget they're representatives of their respective states.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for a candidate to be aware of a major global situation, in case he becomes president. However, both McCain and Obama spoke to Georgia's president directly, and, of course, each publicly offered his own opinion on the situation.

I realize, of course, this is all about politics, and in the comedic pageant of democracy, each candidate is supposed to take some kind of action regarding every single current event, from Russian imperialism to John Edwards' infidelity issues. But speaking directly to Georgia's president? That's a nice gesture, but I think both candidates would do well to remember that they are still senators, with no global responsibility whatsoever. It's almost as if when a politician becomes a president, his job is no longer to work for his constituency, it's to look good, and promote oneself.

Why am I getting so worked up about such a little thing? Because, to me, it reflects the foolishness of the entire system. The whole theory of government is that politicians are representatives of the people. But it seems as if Arizona and Illinois haven't had a senator for a long time now. In order to represent "everyone" as president, McCain and Obama have both abandoned their constituents, who will still vote for them most likely. (Of course, that makes sense; anyone naive enough to want Obama and McCain to represent him probably doesn't realize how little those two actually care about those who voted them in.

This is odd, that we would take someone who we have seen abondon their state for the entire country, and give them an even bigger job. Perhaps the only consolation is that there isn't a higher office for them to take!

Politicians, right or left, are almost always the same. They don't care about their constituencies; they care about power, and getting elected. It just goes to show the fundamental flaw in our system: that those who we give power to are often the ones who are least deserving.

"My Country Beat Your Country!" Nationalism and the Olympic Games

2008-07-28T21:04:00.011-04:00

Okay, boring, I know. But stay with me here, I'm going on a totally different direction than you think. Unless you've read my blog for a while, and you're thinking, "crap, he's going to go off about how stupid the concept of organized nations are." Technically, it's more than that, and it's a different take on the Olympics than most people, liberal or conservative, so you might as well read it.

Actually, the whole Beijing thing is just "the last straw" as they say. I've hated the Olympics for years. I know, it's unusual. But, unlike the masses, who see the Olympic Games as some kind of wonderful world-peace, let's all just get along/sit around a campfire singing "Kum-By-Ah," I see it as a joke and a farce.

Let's face it, what do these little games accomplish? Do we really think because everyone gets together for a week and pretends to like each other things are going to change? Is there anyone who seriously thinks that a week after the games are over they won't be killing each other in the Sudan? That the Israelis and Palestinians won't continue to have periodic border wars? That North and South Korea won't be antagonistic enemies? Hey, I know, let's invite Al-Qaeda to the Olympics, and we'll just be one big happy family!

Of course, that's not going to happen, because wars are caused by various political and psychological factors, factors which can't be erased by a swimming competition.

As if this little pageant of false peace wasn't bad enough, the Olympics fosters an attitude of superiority of one's country over another based on irrational standards. Yes, America is a better country than most, politically, and, arguably, socially. Do the American people need to win a little gold disc to demonstrate that? What exactly does it prove that one's country beats another country in a game? I am reminded (metaphorically speaking, of course; I wasn't around) of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, where the hockey contest between the American and Soviet teams was seen, and is seen now, as some kind of higher contest between capitalism and communism.

Well it wasn't. I hate to burst everyone's patriotic bubble, but capitalism and communism, and the relative worth of each, should be determined by different standards than a hockey match. Okay, so we won a hockey match. What if we'd lost? Would something be different? (Keep in mind that America won the Cold War, an event anyone has yet to link to hockey.)

Capitalism is based on the ideals of freedom and free-market competition. Communism (or the practical version of it at any rate) is based on government mistrust of consumers and companies to be responsible, a pessimistic and inaccurate tenet that often leads to a loss of political freedoms. That isn't going to change as the result of a game.

Which brings us to China. For all the glorification of the Olympics, the facts are these: China's Marxist (or is it Maoist?) government has committed numerous atrocities and violated the political rights of its citizens, as well as the citizens of other countries. That isn't going to change because of the Olympics. In fact, the Olympics have caused people's homes to be destroyed, and a crackdown on free speech, free assembly, and free press.

This is not unprecedented, of course. The Olympics have been held in Nazi Germany, in 1936, and in the Soviet Union in 1980. Interesting choices, given the contempt we hold for both countries now, though neither is extant at this time.

But, on a larger scale, why should we be surprised? When the games are a farce, shouldn't it be natural that they are often held in countries where freedom is a farce?

All these problems have the same root, that is, the false concept of the organized nation. People want to feel warm and fuzzy about their country's contributions to world peace. Thus, the Olympics. Never mind the fact that, in the case of China, say, the nation is question is doing nothing for world peace, and has, at least once, directly impinged upon it. Even the United States is not immune to this. We like to pretend we are workers for world peace, by going to the Olympics, among other things. But if we really wanted world peace, would we be waging a so-called "war without borders"?

Organized nationalism also leads to the concept of the games as representative of worth. Americans feel they must beat an opposing nation, if that nation's view differ from theirs, or just because they need to think they're better. They hardly realize that America would be a better nation even if it failed to win a single medal.

And, of course, organized nationalism leads to the curbing of rights, whether it be in the case of a government thinking its citizens need to be some kind of "master race," a government thinking it needs to invade a country full of peaceful citizens in the name of communist nationalism, or a government thinking it needs to wiretap its citizens to protect its so-called borders.

Even if nationalism (which sometimes hides under the pseudonym "patriotism") wasn't fundamentally harmful, it would still be fundamentally inaccurate. Nationalism implies that, by living in a certain plot of land, under certain leaders, one has special characteristics unique from those who live within different borders, and under different leaders. This, of course, is false.

It can doubtless be said that individuals are unique, but not for reasons of nationality. The stereotypical American is either a hardworking, honest, upright citizen who values his freedoms, or a fat, rude, arrogant, cheeseburger-eating, son-of-a-bitch, depending on whose stereotype we are using. Neither view is accurate of each individual in the United States. Certainly, many Americans are hardworking, honest, upright citizens who value their freedoms. But hardly all, or even most. And many Americans are fat, rude, arrogant, cheeseburger-eating, sons-of-bitches too. But not all, and not most.

The fact is, stereotypes are inaccurate in the same way that groups, and by association, nations, are false; they attempt to label several individuals as the same. In reality, there is no such thing as an "American," and no such thing as a "Briton," a "Chinese," or a "Frenchman." We are all of us individuals. I am not the same as my neighbor, and my neighbor is not the same as I. There can be no true group, because a group implies similarity, and no two people are fundamentally similar. They may have similar attributes, or share similar views, but they are not the same by any means.

In some ways, the reality of voluntary groups may be argued. Granted, groups whose members have voluntarily joined may have many similarities, and come closest to living the fiction of "the group." But nations, as they are, are not voluntary. Two children may hypothetically be born a mile from each other and one may be "American," and the other "Mexican," or "Canadian." This seems strange to me, that each child is labeled thus by his location of birth, over which he has no control whatsoever. And we find fundamental differences in meaningless details such as these?

Nationalism, in any form, is unrealistic, because of its own nature. It stifles individualism, or individual thought, and, a fiction itself, it leads to other fictions. Like the Olympics. The Olympics are a simple manifestation of nationalism. This is the reason why, to some, they seem to be a joke, and why they are often held in countries with poor track records in terms of human rights.

Needless to say, I won't be watching the games this year, and have no desire to. The cheesy commercials and commercialism, the doping scandals, the close and controversial competitions (each subject of which is a post all its own) won't bother me, because I won't care, and because I belong to no country in particular, belonging solely to myself. Instead, I will focus, as I always try to, on having fun and living a good and honest life. That, I think, is a much more rewarding pursuit than trying to win a small disc of metal, and more obtainable at that! Any American who cares enough of the little games the world plays in its spare time is welcome to tell me all about it, providing they understand that, frankly, I couldn't care less.

McCain, Hypocrisy First

2008-07-21T21:57:00.008-04:00

Wait, I thought John McCain didn't like negative campaigning. Wasn't that what McCain-Feingold was about? And according to this article, McCain promised to run a "respectful campaign." What happened? When did John McCain change?

Oh, that's right, when negative campaigning became advantageous to him.

Let's not get the wrong impression here. I don't support Obama. I'm a die-hard Ron Paul fan. I was for Ron Paul before it was cool; I'm for Ron Paul even though he's no longer in the race. But let's face it, when it comes to making oneself a target, McCain just does a better job than Obama.

The problem, of course, is that McCain says stupid things, while Obama refuses to say anything. And while I respect McCain for actually having a platform (unlike Obama), maybe he should stick to it once in a while.

I realize conservatives get all sentimental about supporting the troops and whatnot, and I understand that. I even understand McCain tugging at people's soft spots (so to speak), and identifying himself with 'the troops.' If he wants to send people on a guilt trip about that kind of thing, he's welcome to, be my guest. (Plus, I'm sure McCain does support the troops, in his own way. Perhaps I disagree with his form of support, but no matter.)

However, if McCain's undying loyalty to the troops is as solid as his devotion to non-negative campaigning, I wouldn't exactly want to be in the Army if he becomes president. (Scratch that; I wouldn't want to be in the Army anyway.)

How about a little consistency Mr. McCain, especially in an ad where you claim to have some? If this is what you call "the straight-talk express," God help anyone who doesn't get off at the next exit.

I mentioned before that I'm a Ron Paul fan, not news to anyone who reads this blog with any regularity whatsoever. Part of that is because Ron Paul, unlike McCain, is a consistent, honest person, who never strays from his principles. That's why Ron Paul can secure votes even after he's not running, and it's why McCain, who is the exact opposite of Paul, is going to be looking for a job come November.

I don't want Obama to win. I really don't. Obama has no platform, and can therefore garner votes by looking pretty and sounding good. McCain, on the other hand, is unconvincing, inconsistent, and unpopular. I'm still voting for Ron Paul, but I know he won't win. What confuses me is those who not only support McCain, but think he's somehow going to run on the principles of the last eight years and gain some kind of major victory, or any victory at all!

The abrupt change in McCain from crusader against negative campaigning to negative campaigner is illustrative of the modern Republican Party. Whether it's going from 'no world-policing' to 'safe for democracy,' and from small government to CIA wiretaps, Republicans these days are 180 degrees from where they once were, and it will show in 2008, when Obama takes the White House. It is unfortunate, and not a little ironic, that a gun-grabbing, tax-and-spend liberal will be the result of eight years of so-called Republican administration, but that's why I left the Republicans, and it why the election will likely be the way I've predicted it.

John McCain. "Country first." Or is it, 'McCain first'? In the sense that he'll do whatever it takes to win, and by doing so, lose the election. All I know is that with a candidate like this, the country isn't going to be first in anything, except, perhaps, taxes, because in the fall, it will be squarely in Democratic hands.

Selfish Vacation Post #3 (Series Two)

2008-07-13T18:37:00.022-04:00

Don't worry; it's totally not what you think.

At the risk of sounding cliche (which I realize is a bit of a cliche itself), hello again. I haven't put up a post in a while because KOA internet connections are often iffy, and the server in the last one kept resetting itself, resulting in my being unable to put up pictures. Since the posts I've been doing rely rather heavily on pictures, I preferred not to put up any posts until I could upload pictures.

To make things even more fun, I had to write this part of this post in Notepad, because the internet connection at the Fredricksburg KOA was so bad that I couldn't even load Blogger, and because my shiny, new computer doesn't yet have Microsoft Word installed.

In any case, I suppose I should get on with the post, so everyone can stop wondering what's with the picture of the leaf that looks like pot.

And I hate to disappoint you, but it's not pot. More on that later.

So, Saturday found us at the American Helicopter Museum, in West Chester, Pennsylvania. This was more for the little kids, I think, as the museum had a sort of little kid feel to it. If there hadn't been military hardware involved, I probably would have gone nuts. Lucky for me, I found a friendly Bell AH-1 Cobra. That made it somewhat more interesting.

And guess what else I found? A Columbia Edition WJ! (Non-Jeep Officianados: The WJ was the Grand Cherokee from 1999 to 2004, generally inferior as an off-road vehicle compared to its predecessor, the ZJ. The Columbia Edition was offered in 2004 by Jeep and Columbia Sportswear.) Even though I don't like any Jeep built after 1994, finding a special edition Jeep was kind of fun.

But I digress.

Anyway, the Helicopter Museum was slightly interesting, but not that much. To begin with it was manned by two old guys who would trap you and talk your ear off. They were extremely knowledgeable about helicopters, but not so much about when people want you to stop talking. Nevertheless, enthusiastic guides are better than boring ones, and they helped make some exhibits interesting.

Speaking of exhibits, the Museum is quite small, and doesn't feature many. It has, among other exhibits, all the aircraft you'd expect. The aforementioned Cobra,

a UH-1 Huey,

and even a V-22 Osprey.

It also had this unusual addition.

The "Cheerful Chopper." I don't know what it's about, and I didn't ask.

Our next stop was the Good and Plenty, a Pennsylvania Dutch (German; Pennsylvania 101: 'Dutch' = Corruption of Deutsch = German) restaurant that serves huge portions of homecooked food. Basically, they bring you food until you tell them not to, because you're too full. Then it's time for dessert. It's like a buffet, but with the added benefit of really good food.

As I recall, I ate two fried chicken wings, four helpings of mashed potatoes, five slices of bread with butter, one helping of corn, two helpings of mixed vegetables, two helpings of noodles, one bowl of ice cream, one helping of gelatin, one helping of roast beef, one slice of shoo-fly pie (dumb name, great taste), and one slice of strawberry-rhubarb pie.

Give or take a helping of potatoes.

Or two.

The final event of the day was Longwood Gardens, which was a mixed bag. It's a garden, obviously, that belonged to some rich folks. Personally, I wasn't all that into it. I prefer nature to be, well, natural. I like wild nature better than cultivated nature.

That being said, the gardens could be amusing at times. There were several bizarre fountains,

strange topiary,

and odd plants.

Some plants were amusing on the basis of the name alone.

My brothers and I found other various ways to amuse ourselves. Some favorites included pretending we were famous historical dictators,

taking historically themed photographs,

and pretending the topiary was carnivorous.

Also amusing were the various types of plants whose leaves look like marijuana. For instance, this is a Japanese Maple Leaf:

And, I don't know what this one is actually. I'm pretty sure Longwood didn't have any weed though...

So that explains the image at the top. Sorry to disappoint you, but I've actually never seen a real marijuana leaf in my life.

At the end of the night there was a large lighted fountain display. I couldn't really get a shot of that; the camera wasn't good enough. It was interesting, but only for about two minutes. And it was an hour and a half long. The fountains use something like 10,000 gallons of water a minute, which is kind of obscene, and it's all set to classical music. I don't know about you, but I can't take classical music and lighted fountains for an hour and a half.

I think my principal problem with the whole thing was how utterly pointless it was. What does it mean exactly? A jet of water shooting a hundred feet in the air, colored red, using enough water to alleviate thirst in Nigeria for a year is nice I guess, but isn't it kind of pointless? I mean, is there any philosophical merit to it, or are you doing anything by watching it? Even things I do for fun have meaning to me. I'm not sure how a colored fountain connects to anyone, but to each his own I suppose.

Luckily, we went to some places with real meaning the next day.

Before that, however, let me tell you about the wonderful campsite neighbors we had that night.

Remember how in one of my previous posts I told you that those tourists in Philadelphia were stupid? Well, I've revised my opinion. After dealing with our campsite neighbors for a while, I only think people who don't know when the Declaration of Independence was signed are only mildly unintelligent.

I know I'm often unfairly mean to people in these posts, but really, I'm very accepting of people, even if they may not be too bright. But, these neighbors were like something out of a horror movie. In three short stories, I'll let you decide for yourself.

The first story goes like this. I was sitting at a picnic table, trying to read a book and eat a cheeseburger. Suddenly, a hissing noise at the next site over made me look up. The hissing noise was the result of a can of Axe body spray, being sprayed on a piece of wood by an enterprising young pyromaniac. He promptly threw the wood into the fire, and...

nothing.

Let me set this up for you. Not only is this kid trying to create towering pillars of flame, but he's too dumb to do it correctly. Personally, I've never done the whole Axe-flamethrower thing, but the fundamentals are fairly basic. You have to apply the spray to the fire, not the fire to the spray. If the spray is on something, it won't combust. It has to be airborne and hit the flame. Pretty simple concept, and intuitively easy.

Despite this, he had to try three more times with this highly inadvisable stunt before he figured it out.

That's not the dumb part by the way. The dumb part is that his mother was watching the whole thing and smiling!

Story two is even better. Same kid, different circumstances. His sister (I guess), comments that they're running out of wood. So this kid decides to split an entire log. With a hatchet. A small hatchet.

For those of you who have never cut wood before, that doesn't work. You might get the log split, in a couple of days. If you're very lucky. Generally, to achieve the desired effect, one uses a splitting maul, or, in a pinch, an ax. Unless, of course, one is depressingly ignorant.

By the way, if you've never cut wood before, but you're still fairly intelligent, you'd still be able to figure it out after a hatchet stroke only goes a half-inch into the wood. Unless, as I say, you're an idiot. It took this kid a good five minutes to give up.

So, on to story three, in which our hero grabs a long, but relatively thin, vine hanging from a tree and attempts to use it a swing, with predictable results. This was after being warned by his sister (whom I suspect is about as smart as her brother) that it was poison oak (which it wasn't). His response was, as I recall: "vines ain't poison!"

Well actually, some of them are. Makes me wish it had been poison oak really.

I should point out that the child in question was at least fourteen years old, and should have known better in all instances.

The rest of the family was just as intellectually challenged. They were up until two in the morning every night bashing gays, Jews, and, for some reason, redheads. They all smoked, of course, and several were often inebriated.

There was one little kid who was pretty friendly, and who I felt sorry for. He kept coming over to our campsite to talk to us. The subjects usually were interesting, though extremely awkward. (I mean what do you say to, 'my dad gets drunk a lot. Not as drunk as my uncle, but still pretty drunk.'?)

Needless to say, we were usually glad to be somewhere other than the campsite.

One of those places, to which we went the following day, was Brandywine Battlefield, site of a Revolutionary War battle in 1777. There wasn't much left of it when we went there, though the volunteers were quite good, and showed us through Washington's and Layfette's headquarters.

(The first picture is Layfette's Headquarters, the second, Washington's.)

There was also a huge tree, that was there at the time of the battle.

Actually, the best part of the battlefield was the museum. I couldn't take any pictures because it wasn't allowed, but they had a pretty good collection of Revolutionary artifacts, including a reproduction Ferguson breechloading rifle, a British weapon which more than doubled the fire rate of the standard smoothbore musket and was far more accurate. Luckily for the Americans, the man who invented it was shot in the arm, and couldn't really demonstrate it anymore, leading to a loss of interest in the weapon.

The battlefield itself didn't take that much time, so we went to Valley Forge next, where Washington and the army spent the winter of '77.

Valley Forge is much better preserved. The visitors' center was interesting, featuring an exhibit which I like to call Wall of Minorities.

I thought that was a little too politically correct, but it probably attracts more visitors.

The site itself has the usual features. There were large equestrian statues,

and cannons.

Valley Forge, of course, wasn't an actually battlefield. It was an encampment. The cannons were a precaution, just in case the British did decide to attack. These were stored in an area called, appropriately enough, Artillery Park. The idea was that the cannons could be moved around quickly from a central location, depending on where the attack came from.

One part I liked was the parade ground, where we met once again with our friend Baron Von Stueben.

The next day, however, was a regretably dull one. My parents are very into Wyeth art, so we had to go to an exposition at the Farnsworth Museum.

Now, I wouldn't want anyone getting the idea that I don't like art. It's just that I don't like the type of art we saw. It was basically your typical painting themes: fields and naked people. Personally, I'm more of a fan of surrealism (because it's generally original, to say the least), and photography (because, on the flip side, it's as real as it can get, mostly). Paintings of real things seem to me boring, because it's neither "real" like a photograph, nor strange and original, like surrealist paintings. It seems wishy-washy to me.

Luckily, after being dragged around the art museum for an hour, we took a walking trail by a river, and got to see nature, which is far more interesting, because it's actually there, and able to be experienced.

In between the museum and our next stop, we ate in Delaware, at a place called "The Charcoal Pit." I ate an 8 oz burger, fries, and nearly six scoops of ice cream. Just to prove I could. I wouldn't recommend it if you can help it, however, especcilly if you have to walk around a lot afterward, which, of course, I did.

The final attraction that day was Hagely, a DuPont estate where gunpowder was made. It was more interesting than the Farnsworth Museum; barely.

It wasn't that it was totally boring. There were some interesting things. Like this overcomplicated hammer.

And these propaganda posters.

It was also amusing when we saw this sign, which made us realize we were definitely in Delaware.

That's right, "corporate appreciation month."

The rest of the place, however, was basically old houses and waterwheels. The houses weren't great because we'd been in so many old houses already.

As for the waterwheels, they're intriguing, but there's really only so long you can watch this:

(It's sideways. If anyone knows how to flip it, let me know.)

So Saturday and Sunday were kind of unexciting in my opinion. Luckily, Monday more than made up for it, because Monday was the day we went to Aberdeen Proving Grounds, home of the Army Ordinance Museum.

We went there last year; between that and the poor lighting conditions, I didn't take many pictures. I did take pictures of my favorite weapons: the Sharps Rifle, the M14, and the H&K G3 and MP5.

There was also a replica of a Remington 1858, by Pietta, the same company my replica '58 is made by.

In addition, there were several tanks, tank destroyers, howitzers, and artillery pieces such as this odd double-barreled cannon.

Of course, Aberdeen can get confusing, particularly because whoever wrote the plaques can't spell, or use correct grammar. I picked up several (errors that is, not plaques), from "its" being used where "it's" was needed, all the way up to the word encumbrance spelled "incumbrance." Or something of the sort.

There was also this plaque, which I have no explanation for.

It reads, "[The T-34] gave the German Panzer divisions a spanking."

I don't know; it just seems like an odd choice of words.

The Museum did have one flaw, which was that it didn't have enough Jeeps. It did have a Willys MB.

This was set in the back with a whole wall about the Willys MB/Ford GPW, which included this highly accurate quote regarding the Jeep legacy.

While I commend Aberdeen for rating the Jeep so highly, some other military Jeeps might be in order, particularly the M-38, which was used in both Korea and Vietnam.

Speaking of Jeeps, I found a modification on a Grizzly mine-clearing tank that I totally want on my ZJ.

That would certainly help when stuck behind drivers going five under.

The best part was, perhaps, the bathrooms. The men's room was themed, for some reason, with German WWII desert camouflage. I really don't know why.

I used the, um, latrine, and visited the gift shop, where I bought a book cataloging most 20th century military firearms, and a small model MB, before leaving for the Fredricksburg KOA.

The Fredricksburg KOA was infinitely better than the one with the neighbors from hell. I was most impressed with the bathrooms. (It's not the first thing that comes to mind unless one has been away from a clean bathroom for too long.) The bathrooms at this KOA were clean, spacious, inside a bug-proof building, and, as an added bonus, had the radio tuned to the local country music station. (Yeah, a lot of KOAs have radios in the bathroom, go figure.)

Unfortunately, we only stayed there one night (though if we hadn't, I wouldn't have been able to post this!), as the next two will be spent in the Gettysburg KOA. The reason we were in the Fredricksburg area was because we were seeing a battlefield we hadn't seen before: Manassas, or, as we in the north call it, Bull Run.

It was almost 90 degrees when we got to Manassas, Virginia, and it got hotter as the day wore on. To make matters worse, we'd eaten a large breakfast at some restaurant on the way. We knew we were in the south because the food was excellent, and because only in the south would you find a candle that smelled of "crisp cotton."

Between this and time constraints, we didn't see much of it, which is unfortunate, because it's an interesting battlefield, and the site of two separate battles.

Both battles, called First and Second Manassas by the south, and First and Second Bull Run by the north, resulted in Confederate victories, most likely due to the incompetence of the northern commanders, and the relative skill of the southern ones.

Today, the battlefield is generally southern oriented, but evenly covered by Union and Confederate plaques and monuments, and is fairly well marked.

The battlefield does have its absurdities, which one has to take into account when visiting Confederate territory. Take this statue of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson for instance.

Note the highly exaggerated muscle tone. Seems unlikely, considering how undernourished even the commanders were back then, even at the start of the war. It's also slightly childish. I mean, was Jackson not good enough as a human? Do they have to make him some kind of comic-book superhero? What's the deal?

There was also this "monument" to General Bee, who was shot and killed in the first battle.

Note that the majority of the text isn't about Bee at all; it's about how he gave Jackson his famous nickname. I mean, who is it really meant to commemorate?

If you think I'm exaggerating how much the people who make these monuments worship Jackson, keep in mind there actually is a Stonewall Jackson shrine, and it's called that. The Stonewall Jackson Shrine. I was there last year.

The government, however, does not keep ordinary plaques as well as the Jackson-themed monuments, or any other monument for that instance. Consider the following examples.

Nice.

There was a museum here too, which was pretty good. It featured a general overview of the battles using a map and several LED lights, which, strange as it sounds, works pretty well, and a large collection of guns, always a winner with me.

There was also a display about uniforms, and how similar Union and Confederate uniforms were in the early days, leading to massive confusion.

All in all, it was a good experience, but more time would be needed to see the battlefield further.

Well, we've got two days in Gettysburg and then we go home. If you've read these, thanks. I may do another one in a few days, but since it's only going to be Gettysburg, it would be relatively short. After all, I'll have the next four years to check the place out.

I've had fun this vacation, and I hope you enjoyed some part of reading about it.

See you all when I get back to normal blogging!

Selfish Vacation Post #2 (Series 2)

2008-07-10T21:14:00.040-04:00

Go ahead ask. You know you want to.

We'll get to that later. As promised, here is my continuing report on my vacation. Last time I wrote a post on this, I expressed the wish that the following days would not suck. Luckily, they haven't so far. The past two days have been winners for a variety of reasons, including two haunted forts with vast historical significance, good Mid-Atlantic food, and a visit to scenic Delaware.

We'll begin with Delaware, because that's where I went first.

Now, Delaware is not exactly known for its tourist attractions, or anything else for that matter. (One may remember that famous scene from the movie Wayne's World: "Hi, I'm in... Delaware...") But, in fact, Delaware is quite scenic. Note the lovely industrial wastelands, and silos of chemicals in the following pictures.

Beautiful. But, we weren't there to see that stuff. We were there to see Fort Delaware, a Civil War fort which also happens to be haunted. Now, don't get the wrong idea, I'm not one of those people who thinks everything is paranormal; quite the opposite in fact. (That being said, there are some things can't be explained, and yes, I believe in ghosts.) The only reason I mention it is because Fort Delaware, and the second fort we went to, Fort Mifflin, were both featured on the SciFi Channel's Ghost Hunters, which is kind of where we got the idea to visit them.

However, we were, of course, genuinely interested, more interested in fact, in the forts' histories. Fort Delaware is a Civil War era fort, and the staff are dressed, and act, as if it was 1864, which I found quite hokey, actually. I don't mind people dressing up in reenactment clothes; in fact, it's kind of interesting. But, I hate when they have to pretend as if it's literally 1864. It's not, we all know it's not, and it gets in the way, I feel, of teaching legitimate history.

Anyway, before I go on, I'd better explain "Crabby Dick's." See, in the parking lot for the ferry which takes visitors to the island fort, there was an eating establishment named (and I swear this is true) Crabby Dick's. I imagine they get a lot of business from the name, as there were several different signs on the building which sported its rather unusual name.

The second picture is the best. The brown sign, if you can't read it says, "see host fer service." Yes. "Fer."

Anyway, we didn't eat at Crabby Dick's, which I'm kind of relieved about, not so much because I was particularly concerned with catching a certain type of parasite, (I'm sure Crabby Dick's is very clean) but more because I hate seafood. Instead, we caught the ferry to Fort Delaware, as described above, and got down to checking out the place.

Oh, but first, one more thing. And I promise this is the last before Fort Delaware. Did you know Delaware has an anti-terrorism tip line? It's true! Check out this sticker on the window of the office where we bought the tickets.

That's pretty paranoid, to say the least. Not only is it pathetic to have an anti-terrorism tip line, but seriously, who's going to attack Delaware?

Okay, so, Fort Delaware. Not a bad place really, but as I said, a little hokey and touristy. Besides the actors, there was a snack bar, and little kid programs.

I don't really have anything against little kids, as long as they're fairly intelligent. However, kids who are genuinely interested in the American Civil War are, let's face it, rare. Why would you, as a parent, drag your kid to a place like that? Unless, of course, you were trying to help educate them about their history, which I guess is understandable. But then, the typical little kids' programs aren't all that educational. Fort Delaware's was as typical as they come. First there was a musket demonstration, which was interesting, as it involved blackpowder weapons being fired.

The guns featured were the Revolutionary era "Brown Bess" and the Civil War era 1863 Springfield Rifled Musket. These are basically the typical, bread-and-butter guns of those wars. To history geeks they are as commonly heard of and recognized as the AK-47 or the M16 are today. Still, as typical as it was, it was still fun, because, hey, guns never get old. Yeah, I still had to deal with the whole "cover your ears, it's loud!" and "rifled muskets were more accurate than smoothbores!" thing (which gets really, really old when you're a history/blackpowder geek; first of all, my revolver is twice as loud, and second of all, no crap) but they were still guns. And guns are a whole lot of fun any way you cut it.

After the muskets though, things got to the little kid program, which, despite my irritation was probably quite good for the little... tykes.

I admit, though I did know all the information given, it was pretty informative. Basically, the actor playing the Sargent ended up "recruiting" a bunch of little kids, and demonstrating the recruitment process of the Civil War. (The point, by the way, for you you non-Civil War geeks, being that by 1864, it didn't take much to get into the army, since the government really didn't care where the men came from, as long as they could fire a musket.)

So, okay, that wasn't so bad. I admit it. I just like grouching about touristy history, and I like to think I know more than the other visitors. (Actually, at Fort Delaware I probably did...)

In any case, the rest of the visit was basically exploration. We saw may cannons (proud staple of almost all Civil War sites),

as well as the armory.

We also got to see the Fort's latrine.

Lovely.

There was also a kitchen, an officer's quarter's, a prisoner shack (complete with Confederate actor referring to Lincoln as a tyrant and despot, which was interesting) and a Spanish-American War era stone hallway thingy (don't know what else to call it really).

The last event was a cannon drill, which we assumed was an actual cannon firing. After getting there just in time, we learned that it was only a drilling situation, though a cannon primer was set off, which was satisfyingly loud.

The only part I found obnoxious was the actors, or one of them. I took the following picture of smoke from the primer still inside the cannon.

As I took this, one of the actors asked if I was from New Jersey, then, upon hearing the negative response, told be that if the cannon went off while my head was there, I would be from New Jersey. (The cannon was pointed at that state from across the river in Delaware.)

Ha. Ha Ha. Hilarious.

I don't know if that was his way of telling me not to do that or what, but if it was, I should point out that 1.) there was no powder or ball in the cannon, and no primer 2.) the cannon requires, like, six people to fire, and there were only two, neither of whom is actually qualified to fire the cannon with actual powder, and 3.) I've never fired a cannon, but I know my way around muzzleloaders and other firearms, so even I'm not stupid enough to stick my head, or any other body part, in front of a loaded weapon.

On top of this I was starving, and the snack bar was out of good food.

And I didn't get to see a ghost.

So Fort Delaware was good and all, but I was perfectly happy to leave.

The only other event that day was eating at a place called "The Dog House" in Delaware. They had great cheesesteaks, which I don't get a lot of in Maine.

The next day, we got up to go to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia is the only major city in the United States I've visited that I actually like, (Boston sucks, same for D.C.) and home to several places we visited that day.

Our first stop was Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed. Of course, in order to see it we had to deal with several annoyances. First, there was the idiotic "security zone" we had to go through. Several potential terrorists had to have their bags checked. (Most of the potential terrorists were young to middle-aged women with sinister looking handbags.) When they were done taking away people's Fourth Amendment rights, they let us into Independence Hall, where the Constitution was drafted.

Isn't that ironic?

The second annoyance was the incredibly stupid tourists.

As much as I've called people idiots before, I really think most people are intelligent enough, and are totally capable of independent thought, and want to learn. Most of the time, I'm highlighting individual cases of stupidity because they're remarkable. Most of the time, I don't think the people involved are that stupid.

These people though? They were stupid.

The first question put to us was what had happened in that building in 1787. Frankly, I wouldn't expect most people to know the answer. That would have been okay. What wasn't okay was the answer several people shouted out. "The Declaration of Independence!"

Um... no. That was 1776. Common knowledge. And these weren't kids either. These people were like, eighty.

1787 was the Constitution. I guess I wouldn't hold the average citizen to the standard of knowing that. But I would hold the average citizen to knowing what year the Declaration of Independence was signed, and therefore when it was not signed. There's really no excuse for believing any year with 1 and 7 as the first two digits automatically equals the year the Declaration of Independence was signed.

That being said, many people did know what happened in '87, and indignantly said, "No! The Constitution!" That was kind of a relief.

The tour of the hall included the rooms where founding fathers met to write, sign, and ratify these crucial documents, now famous in art and history.

It was cool to see those rooms, even if it meant all the stupid people and laws. Upstairs, there was even an old map of Maine!

It was, of course, part of Massachusetts at the time. Which is embarrassing, since people from Maine hate Massachusetts...

The tour was fairly short, and, afterward, we saw the Liberty Bell, another artifact which has been taken over by tourists and anti-terror measures.

Actually, though I use the whole 'from Maine' thing quite liberally, I was born in Pennsylvania, and lived in New Jersey for several years before moving here, so I've seen the bell once before, when I was little. I don't remember much, but I do know that it was in a simple glass case. That's all. My parents remember when you could go up to it and touch it. No appointment, no security. It was just the bell.

Now, of course, there's a whole building with armed guards, and you have to wait in a huge line. Plus, everyone wants their kids next to it like it's a giant mascot at Disneyland, and not a historical artifact. Still, it was pretty cool to see, and I got pictures of it as best I could.

Our Revolutionary history excursion being over, it was now time to eat real Chinese food. (Chinese food in Maine is a joke, much like cheeseteaks and subs.) To this end we went to Chinatown, Philadelphia.

The restaurant we went to had something called Dim Sum (I don't know if that's spelled right; whatever) where they bring carts of weird Chinese food to you and you eat it. Then they tally up the total and you pay. It's great because you don't really know what you're eating sometimes, and tend to try new things. And it's actually cheaper, believe it or not.

My personal favorite was this pork dumpling thingy. It was basically barbecue pork, but in a really soft pastry. Steamed, I think. Anyway, it was great, whatever it was called.

After leaving Philadelphia, we went to Fort Mifflin, another Civil War fort, whose history actually extended back to the Revolution. In fact, the Revolutionary history is more famous. Basically, it held the British at bay for a long while, until it ran out of ammo. Then it held them at bay for a while by firing back British cannonballs which fell in the fort. Then it ran out of powder, and its garrison set it on fire and abondoned it. (They did leave the flag there though, because, you know, God forbid the British think they surrendered. They didn't surrender. They burned down the fort and retreated. So take that King George!)

All joking aside, the actions the soldiers took were pretty amazing. And what was more amazing was that Fort Mifflin wasn't a total tourist trap! The only guide there actually cared about history, didn't give us really obvious information, and seemed to actually know what he was talking about.

There was a guided tour, which included the barracks, casemates (underground rooms used for storing such items as: ammo, powder, and captured Confederate prisoners), and the only open-air artillery storage shed in the United States.

One interesting location was "Casemate Eleven" where William Howe, a prisioner charged with desertation and murder (a Union soldier actually) was held and escaped from. He was later captured and hanged.

Mr. Howe was kind enough to leave his initials on the wall as proof he'd been held there,

(lower left hand corner, "W.H.H.")

as well as this lovely message, which reads, in gentlemany handwriting, "Go to hell."

Mr. Howe clearly was not pleased with his imprisonment.

Interestingly enough, a lot of people think Mr. Howe still isn't happy with his imprisonment. I didn't see anything, but occasionally people see a face peeking out around the casemate wall. And voices have, in fact, been recorded inside the casemate. Disembodied ones.

Personally, I don't believe all the stories surronding the place. A lot of them are ridicolous. One was about a dead soldier who gives people tours. Yeah right. From what I understand, that would pretty much never happen. But the face thing wouldn't surprise me, and actually, I have heard the recording of the voice. It was on the show I mentioned earlier.

That all makes the fort very interesting, but a historical tour wouldn't be complete without a musket demonstration. Luckily we got to see that too.

That reminds me, I solved the ramrod mystery. (If you don't know what I mean, see last post. About the whole, one ram versus ramming multiple times.) I asked, and, apparently, you only have to ram several times if the paper cartridge gets stuck. Otherwise, it's one ram, then you're done. So that solves that problem.

If there was one bad thing about the fort, it's that it's situated near an airport, resulting in this anachronistic photo.

I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said 35 planes flew over while we were there. And that's a conservative estimate. They weren't flying very high either, and they weren't very quiet.

Well, that's it for now. The last two days didn't suck, which is good, and hopefully, the rest will be as pleasant. I'll let you know. Until then.

Selfish Vacation Post # 1 (Series Two!)

2008-07-08T22:02:00.000-04:00

I have once again embarked on my annual vacation. People, for one reason or another, seem to be interested in these things when I record them on my blog. At least I like to think so. Therefore, I will write a series of posts detailing my vacation, as I did last year in my series of "Selfish Vacation Posts." I don't know what the interest level will be, and I can't promise that it will be quite as in-depth.

I say so because, for some reason, I haven't found this vacation quite as interesting as the last. I don't know whether this is because this vacation's subject matter is less interesting personally, or because I'll be going to college in two months, and am finding the routine fairly old in anticipation of new experience, but if anything looks to be of interest, feel free to read on.

So, to begin.

Our first stop this vacation was Concord, Massachusetts. I'd been there before, and, in fact, anyone interested in this subject should refer to my previous post on the subject. In any case, Concord is an excellent town for historical tourism. Not only was it the center of America's first religion, American Transcendentalism, but the first real battle of the American Revolution took place there. It is essentially the center of historical American libertarianism.

Our first stop in Concord was Walden Pond, made famous in Henry David Thoreau's classic work Walden. It attracts people with interesting philosophies from all over the world. While I was there, I saw several hippies and a Buddhist, as well as this bathroom graffiti, which kind of says it all.

I had to put this through Photoshop to make it visible. It was written in brown (I decided not to touch it), and doesn't show up well. In any case, if you can't read it, it says "Fuck Civilization".

Quaint.

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I'd already been there, so I didn't bother to take many pictures. I got these two of the lake,

as well as this one.

The latter is interesting to those who have studied Thoreau. The railroad tracks which ran behind his house are mentioned many times in his journal, as are the telegraph wires, (which I suspect are now telephone or electric wires). Thoreau particularly liked the sound the wind made when it blew through the wire, and mentions it extensively.

One interesting part of the train tracks, was this piece of broken fence, as viewed from the trail.

My brothers and I had some questions as to what caused the hole in the fence that close to a railroad track. Naturally, we had several morbid opinions, almost all involving derailed locomotives.

After Walden Pond, we visited the Emerson House, which was fairly interesting. Personally, I'm not terribly fond of Emerson. Emerson preached Transcendentalism, but he never really practiced it. His house is large and impressive, and features many comforts not found in the sparse hut Thoreau built, as seen here.

That, of course, is a replica, but it's accurate. Emerson's house was much nicer, and even featured a bust of himself, which I found incredibly tacky. Apparently, it was done while he was still living, which speaks volumes.

One interesting story we learned, which involved the Transcendentalists was that of Emerson using the excuse that he could not find his gloves, and as a result, being frequently late to church. Thoreau, who worked for Emerson for a number of years, therefore built a drawer into a chair in the household for the purpose of holding the gloves in question. Emerson used the chair, but was still late to church.

Thoreau, of course, was more honest. When he didn't want to go to church, he just didn't.

It was around this time that I found something about Massachusetts I actually liked. In the area of Maine where I live, your best bet for any kind of quality product is the internet, because you won't find anything better than Wal-Mart for general needs. So when I wanted to buy an ultimate grade disc ("Frisbee") to supplement the one I got at Gettysburg College during a visit (it's starting to get old, and has been liberally chewed on by a dog), I couldn't. All Wal-Mart carries in my area are Wham-o Frisbees, which suck. Luckily, in Massachusetts, you can get quality goods. Walking back to the car, I saw, through a sporting goods store window, a 175-gram Discraft Ultra-Star, which is not only what my friends and I tend to play with, but is also the official UPA disc, and the disc most college-level ultimate teams play with.

Naturally, I bought this one, and we continued on our way.

After this happy discovery, we visited a house which was owned by Emerson grandfather at the time of the American Revolution, and, later, by Nathanial Hawthorne. The official name of the house is and was "The Old Manse," but since I find that name personally irritating (certain words irritate me for no reason at all, go figure), I'll probably refer to it as just, "the house."

Actually, if anything was irritating about the house, it was the people who ran it. The tour required, for preservation purposes, that we put "booties" (another word that annoys me) over our shoes. It seemed like a joke at first, and I found it distasteful. I mean, I'm all for preservation, but how about buying some rugs instead? Narrow ones you can throw down as a sort of path. I've seen that before, and it's a lot easier and less annoying than asking visitors to put medical scrubs over their shoes.

The tour guide wasn't much better. She was a ditzy wort of woman who enthusiastically, and without any sort of historical background, called the house "the most famous in America, next to the White House." Maybe it's just me, but I can think of at least five houses more famous than "the Old Manse." Besides the White House, Monticello, Mount Vernon, the Winchester house, and the Lizzie Borden house all come to mind. And if the clueless tour guide wasn't bad enough, there was also this little kid who was continually trying to appear intelligent, without actually having to be so. Her primary tactic was to ask questions, even if they made no sense, or weren't relevant to the tour. I guess she thought it gave here a good image or something. But, let's face it, "what's that painting for?" doesn't inspire others to think you're the most brilliant first-grader in the world. As we were ending the tour, completely out of the blue, she mentioned that she knew what a nearby butter churn was for, and explained it to everyone. Even though everyone else knew what it was too, which is probably why the tour guide didn't mention it.

Thankfully, we left the house and headed to the Concord battleground. Mostly this consists of what is known as "the Old North Bridge." It was near this bridge that the first intentional shots of the Revolution were fired. Again, I'd been here before, so I didn't take many pictures. The post linked in this one has some of the bridge, as well as the famous Minuteman monument.

(One annoyance at this attraction, if anyone wants to know, was a little eighth grade couple carving their initials into the bridge. Vandalism. How cute.)

Our campsite for the night was a state park, which, true to form for government establishments, sucked. It didn't have any running water or electricity, which was fine, since that's typical of state parks. However, this park had two things which made it worse than many I've been to. One was the so-called "Environmental Police." These were rangers in pickups who patrolled the camp doing... well, I don't actually know. Environmental policing I guess. I'm not even sure what that entails. Slapping people who burn garbage I guess. (I would have littered to find out what would happen, but I'm not that type of person.) And of course, the vehicle of choice for the "Environmental Police" was a comparatively inefficient Ford F-150. (I guess Priuses just don't get the job done back in the woods.) Therefore, the Environmental Police were doubly irritating. Not only were they police with an environmental twist, they also drove Fords.

One would think, however, that a park with such amenities as Environmental Police would also have a janitor. But this was either not the case, or he was one lazy bum, because the bathrooms were disgusting.

I'm not saying I can't deal with a little grime, I'm just saying that when there's part of a beer box and a coffee lid in the shower for two days straight, and the men's room isn't restocked with toilet paper, there might be a problem. Instead of spending money on Environmental Police, the camp could look into spending money on an industrial sized bottle of 409. And some toilet paper.

Real showers would have been nice too. Instead, probably to save water and help "mother earth" (who frequently nurtures ungrateful mortals as we with such motherly comforts as tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, thunderstorms, snowstorms, sandstorms, firestorms, etc. etc.). Basically, you push a button and get semi-hot water, for a minute. Literally. I counted. Naturally, you have to push the button fifteen times to take a decent shower, and it gets old fast.

The next day, after sleep and a "shower," the destination was Concord again, and some of Lexington.

As was the case in Concord, I didn't take many pictures in Lexington. There really wasn't that much I felt was important to photograph.

At first, we headed to the visitors' center of the Lexington battlefield, where we planned to meet my cousin, who lives in Massachusetts, and her boyfriend. While waiting, we heard about a live musket demonstration, and decided to meet at that event instead.

Speaking of my cousin, who is in college to be an electrical engineer, and is a complete tech geek, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce you to my new computer, which she helped me pick out, and in fact, is extremely jealous of.

This is my Toshiba Satellite X205 SLi-5. Toshiba is actually a very morally irresponsible company. They sold secrets to the Soviets during the Cold War. Despite that, they make extremely dependable and powerful computers, so I decided to forgive them, especially seeing as I can run Call of Duty 4 and Oblivion on the highest graphics settings without any lag. This is due to the SLi cabability. Basically, the laptop hooks up two Nvidia GeForce 8600 graphics cards and runs them in sync. Add that to 320 gigabytes of memory and 2.4 GHz processor, to say nothing of a 17" widescreen and four high definition speakers, and you have a pretty sweet gaming platform.

I did need a computer for college after all.

Anyway, back to the musket demo. Unlike many of the people we'd seen before, the musket guy was interesting and knowledgeable. He was a little too patriotic, but not to the point of being offensive, and he actually described the circumstances leading up to the battle and the battle itself. Then, of course, came the fun part.

The ranger also had some experience firing muskets it seems. What impressed me most was the fact that he didn't shove the ramrod in multiple times, like in the movies. From what I understand, you're not supposed to do that; it can mess up the barrel. I've also seen it done by actual people before, even on the History Channel, and it's sort of painful to watch.

One thing that struck me was how comparatively quiet the shot was. I was holding the camera, so I couldn't plug my ears, which isn't exactly wise. I was expecting a fairly loud blast. Actually, it was pretty loud, and several of the tourists jumped back when they heard it. However, I'm used to shooting a blackpowder pistol, which seems to be quite a bit louder. Even with ear protection, my revolver is extremely noisy, so the muffled musket shot was actually anticlimactic for me where noise was concerned.

After the musket demonstration, we went to the site where Paul Revere was captured, which was basically a monument by the road. It wasn't terribly impressive, but it wasn't bad either I suppose.

At this point, we went back into town for lunch. We ate at a good restaurant which was relatively cheap, and, as an added bonus, there was a candy store nearby. I bought nearly a pound of Jelly Bellies, and my cousin's friend bought candy cigarettes which he handed out.

This brought up a discussion about that particular product, and how you don't see them very often anymore, probably because they have a negative image, and might influence kids to use real cigarettes. That's ridiculous, though. Just for fun, I shortened mine and made it a candy joint; yet I don't smoke either cigarettes or marijuana.

The next event was Lexington Green, where the first actual shots of the Revolution were fired, albeit most probably accidentally. There was a person there who explained the events to us, and I suppose it was alright. I did note that she repeated the historical inaccuracy about the whole "if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!" quote John Parker, leader of the Lexington militiamen, is supposed to have said. As far as I knew, Parker never actually said that; it was added on later as part of the story, as so many historical quotes often are.

Later, we took a tour of the tavern the militia waited in while the British marched towards the town. It was okay, but not great. There were some interesting bits of information. Apparently, the term "post," meaning to put up (i.e. posting on a blog), came from when innkeepers put interesting articles up on the posts of the tavern, sometimes including your personal correspondences, if you hadn't paid your innkeeper, and he also happened to be the postal worker of the town.

The last stop of the day was Dorchester Heights, in Boston, where Henry Knox dragged cannons, after having moved all of them from Fort Ticonderoga, near Lake Champlain in Vermont. In the middle of winter. On giant sleds.

Needless to say, people found that fairly impressive, especially since the maneuver drove the British out of Boston, and this monument was put up.

After that, my cousin and her friend left, and, the next day, we headed to White Plains, New York. I was kind of glad to get out of New England. I don't follow baseball, so I don't know if the Red Sox had just won something or what, but everyone in Massachusetts seemed to have some kind of stupid Red Sox paraphernalia on their truck, car, or home. We stopped at a Dunkin' Donuts, and, lo and behold, they were using none other than the Red Sox as a promotional tool.

Not to rag on what so many people seem to be obsessed with, but what is the big deal? I mean, okay, they hit a ball. With a stick. Good for them. Great. And that takes a lot of skill and all, and I'm sure they have fun doing it, especially since they earn large sums of money in the process, but it's not something that deserves worship for God's sake (no pun intended). I have some bumper stickers on my car, but they promote people and ideas that try to make a difference for the most part. The only one that doesn't is my off-roading sticker, but even that's something I personally enjoy doing. I mean, the people with Red Sox stickers aren't even playing. They're just watching. How is that fun?

In any case, I was glad to get into New York, where they hate the Red Sox, just so I didn't have to see any more of their merchandise. However, White Plains turned out to be a total disaster.

I don't know that much about the details of the Revolution; I'm a Civil War kind of guy. However, I gathered that White Plains was a at least a fairly important event, since, apparently, two battles happened there. One would think that New York would take the time to preserve parts of it. And, of course, they have. Here is a photo of the White Plains battlefield park.

Oh, did you think I meant like, a historical park or something? Haha, no. No, see, now the White Plains battlefield is a children's park in a suburban neighborhood. They do have interpretive plaques though. Barely.

That's the most informative one they have. The others go along the lines of:

'General George Washington: Commander of the Continental Army, had wooden teeth'.

Something like that anyway.

So, basically, we drove four hours to see a children's park, and wasted an entire day. The only thing that made it even marginally okay was the KOA we stayed at in Newburgh, New York.

The KOA was where we saw this behemoth, which is a huge bus full of Germans that, apperently shows up every year. Big things appear to be quite common in Newburgh, as was evidenced by the town's Wal-Mart.

My dad, seen here, was clearly shocked by the size of the place...

Maybe a huge Wal-Mart shouldn't be that impressive. But, I live in Maine; this Wal-Mart is bigger than some towns in that state. It seemed to go on forever! Despite this, however, they didn't have bathing suits in the men's section, so I had to buy one from the kid's section, which was rather embarrassing.

Speaking of embarrassing, we also saw some wierd stuff in that Wal-Mart, like this Ritz guy.

I'm not sure what he's doing exactly, but whatever it is, it looks like he's really enjoying it.

After the White Plains fiasco, we headed for another destination: Monmouth, New Jersey, several hours away.

Monmouth was another large Revolutionary War battle, and another huge disappointment. Not that that should be surprising; almost anything found in New Jersey usually is. Apparently, the state won't give the battlefield any money, even though it would be extremely cheap to maintain, and New Jersey puts a huge, huge tax burden on its citizens. Actually, no one seems to be getting any of the tax money in New Jersey. Weird! Where does it all go? (Anyone who has ever lived in New Jersey should know the answer. Hint: it starts with a 'c' and rhymes with 'forruption'.) Any liberal who believes in taxation to help people should live in New Jersey for a year or two. It certainly does help people. Too bad it's always the corrupt politicians it helps, not the citizens. This example also shows why historical preservation shouldn't be in the hands of the government.

The upshot was that Monmouth Battlefield is maintained by about six people, who, of course, can't maintain it at all. It has few signs, no real trails, and no information worth looking at, really. It has to be leased to farmers to make any money, so it's not even close to what it looked like in the 18th century. But it does have lovely cornfields,

which obscure the view of the battlefield, but I'll bet the corn is darn tasty.

They had a cool statue of Baron Von Steuben, however, a Prussian, who trained and fought with the Americans, despite not speaking a word of English.

The only interesting part of the whole thing was a Revolutionary era graveyard at a nearby church, which was used as a field hospital.

Some gravestones were interesting, such as this one, to a British soldier, and another to a Scotsman.

None of them topped this one gravestone I saw in Boston on a field trip about a year ago, though.

It's a good, solid English name from what I understand...

So Monmouth was a write-off as well, which sucked. We salvaged the day by eating real sandwiches, with real sandwich materials (the ones you get in Maine are a joke), and I salvaged it by spotting what I believe to be a Jeep CJ-5 Renegade.

So, right now we're in another KOA, and tomorrow shouldn't suck as much. I'll write about that then; hopefully this time there's an actual battlefield involved. Until then.

$4.11 and Change

2008-06-17T10:32:00.016-04:00

We live in an age wherein our primary mode of transportation will soon become a luxury.

Hello, I'm back after a month. Sorry about that. I had AP tests, graduation, and hanging out with my friends. As proof to back up my excuse, here's me driving through a large puddle at the gravel pits near where I live.

(Since Gettysburg College reads my blog, I'd just like to say that this was totally legal. Really. I swear.)

As frequent readers know, that's my beloved Jeep ZJ (for non-Jeep officianados ZJ refers to the 1993 - 1998 Grand Cherokee; my Grand Cherokee is a 1994 model). As frequent readers also know, I talk about it way too much. But bear with me, it ties in this time.

I love this car. I love it more than some people. (Usually the ones I don't like to begin with, but still...) It's reliable, well-built, and easy to maintain. Unfortunately, it also has one of the best engines ever built.

I say unfortunately because "one of the best engines ever built" happens to be the Chrysler 318ci, 5.2 litre V8. The result of having one of these is that your vehicle will tow anything, go up hills without even trying, and go from 0 - 60 quite rapidly, even in a heavy SUV. The other result is 14 miles per gallon average fuel economy.

Let's take a step back here so I can stop talking about my car, and people can actually pay attention without falling asleep. Gas is currently $4.11 a gallon in my area. It isn't much better anywhere else as far as I know. I bring up my Jeep because I'm not the only kid with a decent vehicle who can't afford to drive it. In fact, now, it's not only kids who can't afford to drive large trucks and SUVs, it's everyone!

When I go to my camp, 40 minutes away, there's a 35 mile or so stretch of highway involved. Strung along this highway, as someone pointed out to me and I myself observed, last time my family and I went to the camp, are inordinate numbers of vehicles for sale. On the way to the camp, we pass perhaps 15 -20 such vehicles.

The reason for this phenomonon is obvious: no one can afford to drive. I'm lucky, I won't be driving much for the next four years. (In fact, I won't be driving at all next year, thanks to my college no longer allowing freshmen to have cars on campus. And, again, since Gettysburg reads this, I'm eternally grateful guys, for saving me all that gas. Really. I swear.) Gettysburg is a great town, and entirely traversable on foot. But for commuters, who have to travel to work each day by car, 14 mpg is not an option.

I know none of this is news; my question, however, is, why are we putting up with this? I won't make any friends here, since my readers are primarily Republicans, but has anyone noticed that gas started jumping dramatically in 2003 and hasn't stopped since? Maybe this is just me, but does anyone also notice that 2003 was the year we invaded Iraq?

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I know my history. The Mexican War was primary fought for profit and private interests. It was fought to grab land for the United States, which promoted the expansion of slavery, which, in turn promoted profits for slaveholders. That was the idea anyway. This is historically arguable, and strong evidence exists to back this very point up.

Why is it so difficult then to admit what's going on? The two most powerful men in Washington have interests in the oil industry, and every time something (or someone, not to put too fine a point on it) blows up in the Middle East, where we essentially started a war, gas jumps a nickel per gallon.

Meanwhile, liberals use the situation to pretend that the search for alternative fuels is a mass movement against so-called global warming, not the result of an economic crises, and we have to listen to Al Gore and his ilk. When they start legislating this stuff, it's just going to get worse.

Similarly, as people can't drive, they also can't vote. Ironically, while we live in an age where anyone of any color and sex can vote (and rightly so), we have voter turnout at a percentage less that of what it was in the nineteenth century, when primarily white men voted. Why? Because no one is offering anything good or new. Even Obama, while pretending to be the agent of change, says nothing, and means nothing, and is nothing. When he wins, as I think he shall, it won't be because he's any good; it will be because McCain is so bad.

My only question is, why aren't we doing anything about it? In the words of Henry David Thoreau,

"All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75."

This is one of my favorite Thoreau quotes primarily because it's so true to any time period. Our founding fathers were so angered by high taxes and government intervention, which today we still have, and arguably in more intolerable ways, that they took up arms and defied the British crown. Yet in Thoreau's time, when many were opposed to slavery and the Mexican War, no one cared, and today, when we have our own Mexican War in Iraq, and our leaders are not representatives, but tyrants, we do even less.

Am I advocating taking up arms against the government? Don't go out and buy a CAR-15 just yet. (Well actually, go ahead if you want. Get one for me too while you're at it.) I'm not saying we need to march to Washington and blow up the White House. What I'm saying is stop playing the game. At least stop voting for "the lesser of two evils."

Yeah, I know, I harp on that too much. But it's a big libertarian point you know. As long as you're voting for what you don't believe in, you're not helping anyone but the big players in the system we currently live under. If you vote for McCain because you hate Obama more, you're still voting for someone you don't really want as president. Why would you do that? If you're voting for Obama, because McCain is worse, you're doing the same thing. Why?

Imagine for a moment that the American government reorganized today and had its citizens vote for either a communist or fascist state. What would the reaction be? (I sincerely hope the shotshell manufacturing business would suddenly become a wise investment, but with today's spineless voters who knows?) Yet, that's what Americans do every four years to a lesser extent, and then complain the country is polarized!

Anyone who thinks Obama (or McCain) wants change is a few billion brain cells short. Real change has to be through a rejection of the two-party monarchy, and a move towards some kind of protest of the status quo. That's what change is. This election will not see that change. But if it doesn't show up soon, we are all, if I may use the term without irony, royally screwed.

Notes on the Maine Republican State Convention

2008-05-03T19:53:00.032-04:00

Guess what I'm doing tomorrow?

And it's a good thing I get to have a relaxing day shooting people in the face too, because Friday was what one might call... stressful.

On Friday, I attended the Republican state convention in Augusta, Maine. I'd liken it to the circus, except sometimes circuses are fun.

It was pretty easy to find the place. After that, nothing was easy. First, I had to get what are called "credentials." Basically, it's a name tag that gets you into the convention. It's on my right coat lapel in the photo above. In any case, before I even got in the room where they gave them out, some officious Republican guy was shouting for everyone to leave because they weren't ready yet. What took so long I can't imagine. Basically, they were handing out envelopes with names on them. Pretty simple, or it should be in any case.

Apparently it wasn't though, because even though they had my mother's (who was also a delegate), they didn't have mine. I had to go to the central office to pick it up, where I was subjected to the indignity of some loud guy trying to explain that those were only for delegates. We had to explain that I was a delegate. (I'm sure this had nothing to do with my age.)

Eventually I got them, which was good. (Funny though, having someone's credentials all ready, but not that person's son's. I'm not saying it was because I filled out a survey saying I was voting for Ron Paul, and my mother didn't; I'm just saying that it wouldn't be surprising, because there was definitely an anti-Ron Paul agenda there. More on that later.) Afterwards, I entered the convention and hung out near the Ron Paul booth.

There was, I have to admit, a bad blunder on the part of the Ron Paul booth. They'd actually let a guy wearing a Confederate States uniform into the booth, and they'd let him set up pictures of Lee, Jackson, and Davis near Ron Paul. Obviously, this isn't the best way to garner support for a candidate. My mother reasonably tried to explain the finer points of public relations to the kid while I looked around. Turns out he was a nice enough guy, just pro-Confederate. (My opinion on the matter, if one should wish to know, is that neither side was right. Taking sides on that particular war may be slightly like taking sides in modern American politics. Everyone involved seems to have had really bad ideas quite consistently.) It was kind of cool when he was insanely envious of my going to Gettysburg College in the fall. (He learned this through my mother, who likes to tell people such. Personally, I always feel like I'm bragging when I tell people that, and I'm not trying to, so I don't mention it.)

In any case, the convention eventually started, which was hilariously Republican. First we had to go through the Pledge of Allegiance, after the main lights dimmed and spotlights lit up the American flag. Then we had to go through the national anthem, with the same dramatic effects.

I do like America. But do I have to pledge allegiance to it? And what's this patriotism thing about anyway? If you don't prove you're okay with America, people may not believe you? It seemed silly to me to watch these solemn-faced people standing, in a darkened room, hand over their hearts, facing a flag, as if a piece of cloth commanded so much respect. Even the idea of America shouldn't command such respect. Again, I like the country, but what is the country but a mere concept, a fiction? I would rather pledge allegiance to a friend, or someone I respected, rather than a fiction. To pledge allegiance to the fiction, then, seems to me disrespectful to what, or who, I would pledge allegiance to.

But that's another post. Anyway, the anti-Ron Paul agenda became evident soon after the start of the convention. After the first order of business, someone from one county (don't ask me which one; the name is American Indian or some such, and rather hard to spell, even if I could remember) made a motion such that, since there were two candidates, and John McCain was represented, someone be allowed to speak on behalf of Ron Paul also. Well, that idea must have been too dangerous to vote on, because the chairwomen immediately called the motion "out of order" and proceeded without even considering the matter, or letting it come to a vote. (If you're reading this whole post, 1.) congratulations on having a lot of patience, and 2.) remember this incident because it comes in later.)

This wasn't the first thing that happened either. When we sat down, we heard some McCain people in front of us whispering about how "Ron Paul people" had "taken over" a convention in Nevada (i.e. won). They had to "stop that" here. That's why the police were here. They were quite serious, sadly, and quite paranoid.

I was amused by this. I thought to ask them, 'do you fear us so much? Is it threatening to you that we vote, merely?' But, of course, I did no such thing; talking to those people is similar to speaking to furniture, only, in some cases, certain pieces of furniture can be very good listeners, and usually, they aren't fascist.

After this censorship, a McCain ~~propaganda~~ campaign video was played, in which, after several seconds of letting us know McCain was a war prisoner (which is weird because that wouldn't necessarily make him a good president...) McCain outlined his (flimsy) platform. Basically it was fiscal responsibility (good) mixed with war-mongering (bad). Still, it wasn't a terrible video. I guess it was well done; I just would've liked to see a Ron Paul video. Equal coverage would have been nice.

There wasn't much worth talking about after this. We ended up eating at a pizza place, which was fun, (and in an added bonus, I saw an old Jeep XJ Wagoneer go by, which was pretty cool) then returned to the convention to witness the next act of censorship.

Apparently someone there wasn't a Republican, because along with the Republican ~~indoctrination papers~~ campaign materials, there was a paper written by James Carville, advocating voting Democratic. Now, obviously, anyone voting Democratic is truly acting the part of their party mascot. However, I think whoever left them there had a perfect right to do so. The Republicans disagreed. They sent pages to collect all of them before we found them. (I sincerely hope, by the way, that someone sent someone to collect the pages before Mark Foley finds them.)

Following this was yet another act of censorship. Remember the first anti-Ron Paul thing? Well, the excuse the chairwoman used to shut that guy down was that the schedule had already been adopted. But, it turns out that might have been inaccurate, because someone was attempting to talk to the chairwoman about how the schedule could be amended. He asked for a microphone, which they wouldn't give him. The chairwoman told him he wasn't a delegate. He then told her he was delegate, from Falmouth, Maine, and that several people would vouch for him. Instead of asking those people, the chairwoman hesitated, then said since he didn't have his credentials on him, he would be removed. The guy then tried to appeal to the audience. He protested he had a right to free speech and assembly, and was promptly physically ejected.

And in the space of five minutes, one man's rights to free speech were erased by the majority. Because, while some of us agreed with that man, the majority did not. Not that it came to a vote; that would be dangerous to the party. Had it, however, the party should not have feared for itself, because, though some of us respected the man, McCain Republicans shouted at him to be quiet, to "throw the bum out." We mentioned to one that it was free speech, only to be told that he could practice his natural rights elsewhere. That's right, 'practice his natural rights elsewhere.'

This is interesting, the idea that natural rights have some places where they can not be practiced.

But of course, we knew that about Republicans, and Democrats come to that. From anti-flag burning amendments to political correctness, censorship is the name of the game. And it didn't stop there. The overbearing patriotism of Republicans continued into the speeches. Candidates for state offices were amusing. I'll detail them here.

First there was the obnoxious patriotic guy. He had no platform whatsoever. All he talked about was how he saw an art display in which an American flag was put on the ground and people allowed to walk on it. While in bad taste, the display should, most would agree, be legal, due to the first amendment. Well, this guy didn't think so. In fact, he thought this should literally not be allowed, even though making it illegal would be against the first amendment of the Constitution of the country he proclaims to love so much.

Then there was the woman whose platform was money. Basically she was saying we should vote for her because she knew how to "work the system" and get money for the state. It was buying votes. (One of my mother's friends suggested that instead we keep the money out of the hands of the state in the first place, an excellent idea.)

The worst of all was the guy who wasn't even there. He was a soldier in Iraq, and that was his entire platform. Instead of speaking (as I say, he was in Iraq) he was represented by a light show while "Eye of the Tiger" played, and pictures of him blowing people away with a helicopter-mounted machine gun were projected on the curtains behind the speaker. (Okay, so he wasn't actually shooting anyone. I made that up, but the rest is true, even the helicopter-mounted machine gun.) Sadly, I heard people saying they were going to vote for him, which was pathetic because there was absolutely no platform. None. All that was said was that he was in Iraq. That was it.

Big deal. Lots of people are in Iraq. Should we have rule by the military? (Oops, I'm sorry I said that; it might give Republicans ideas...) Remember Andrew Jackson? He was a war hero. Also a crappy president. In short, voting for someone just because he's a soldier is idiotic, and the fact that people were willing to do this amazed me. (Though if that's the way you think, note that, even though I'm a civy, I do sometimes wear camo and I like to play with guns. I'm even shooting people tomorrow! Anyone wishing me to run their lives can reach me through my email address, provided in my profile.)

There were good candidates though. If you live in Maine, check out John Frary and Linda Bean (no website apparently). They're sympathetic to Ron Paul, and neither was afraid to say so. Frary was the best, I think, though he's actually voting for McCain. He actually said that "since no one is allowed to defend Ron Paul" he would, and that "when he [Paul] swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States, he means it." He doubted McCain would mean it. His speech was thought-provoking, witty, and enjoyable.

It was funny though. All these politicians, Frary and Bean, perhaps, excepted, were essentially begging for their jobs, right after they acted all high and mighty. They acted like big shots, like they had positions of power. Several talked as if they'd already been elected. But, without the people, without appealing to and begging the people to elect them, they'd be nothing.

"I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it."

The most "half-witted" moment, though, came last. The last speaker was the candidate for a national congressional speech. I found the man annoying, arrogant, and irritating. He had a ton of followers with signs, all of whom had to march in with him and stand at the stage. Still, he had a perfect right to speak. But, the Republicans had a rule. At four, the microphone was to go out. So they just cut him off, in the middle of the speech, angering pretty much everyone in the room. Gee, that was smart.

I suppose there's not much more to say. I got four Ron Paul buttons and a bumper sticker, but I think that's the most valuable thing I took away from that place. Or perhaps something more important was taken away: the reminder I always get. The one that, every time I try to do things the "right" and legal and socially proper way, always says, 'forget it, you can't win, not by their rules; not by their terms.' And it's true. Tout democracy and government all you want. The system doesn't work. It's insane, it's a joke, and it's deeply, deeply flawed. If you don't believe me, go to a Republican state convention. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

Dumb Stuff I'm Not Sorry About, Episode I

2008-04-23T10:41:00.014-04:00

Admittedly, this was completely idiotic...

My parents are not amused.

Well, slightly amused perhaps...

I've taken this thing off-road on both dirt and sand, and it performed admirably. Mud... well, let's just say I'm crossing that off the list of terrain I can Jeep over in this particular vehicle.

It probably wasn't a good idea to try it on the way home from track practice in a public nature preserve parking lot either...

Hmm...

Anyway, If all goes well, I should have this thing out by tonight when my dad gets home with the Suburban.

Maybe I won't do this again. Until the mud dries anyway.

UPDATE

Well, here it is again this evening. The tailgate is open because we roped it to our Chevy Suburban and my father needed a place to sit while he rigged it all up.

There it is all hooked up and ready to be towed out.

Finally we got it out and onto (relatively) dry land.

And there she is, on the lawn, ready to be hosed off, complete with all her bumper stickers. "Ron Paul 2008," "Gettysburg College," and, of course, "Paved roads, another fine example of unnecessary government spending."

What a day...

Shooting Day

2008-04-06T14:57:00.007-04:00

I got to shoot my New Model Army replica for the first time in months today. It was fun, but blackpowder sucks to clean up...

Update: After writing this, I heard Charlton Heston, a huge gun rights activist, died today. Coincidental, and ironic. But in honor, I'll dedicate my target shoot to him post-fact. Here's to the NRA and 2nd amendment supporters everywhere!

My Visit to Concord

2008-04-04T21:21:00.032-04:00

So far this year, I've skipped school many times. However, it's usually been for good reason. Today I skipped school, ironically, to work on a school project.

In our school, at the end of the year, we are required to complete a "senior project," in which we are to create a real world product or service which helps people etc. etc. The theory is that, by making us complete a real world project, we'll become model citizens.

The flaws in this theory are evident, and I could spend an entire post on them. The reason I mention it in this post, however, is because for my project, I'm creating a curriculum piece on Thoreau, as American Transcendentalism is not focused on much in history classes, as it was not a huge event. I think, though, that it is necessary to spend some time on the subject, at least, Transcendentalism being the first, and perhaps only, American religion. (That's right Scientologists, you do not count.) Of all the Transcendentalists, Thoreau was, I believe, the one who understood the philosophy best. Emerson preached it, and Alcott tried it, but Thoreau was the only one who successfully lived in a Transcendentalist fashion with the greatest amount of success.

In order to gather information on this project, therefore, I visited Concord, Massachusetts, Thoreau's hometown, a mile and a half from his two-year residence at Walden Pond.

When it comes to Thoreau, and Transcendentalism in general, Concord has a lot to offer. My first stop was the Concord Museum, which was directly across the street from the building in this picture, Ralph Waldo Emerson's house.

The museum contained several of Thoreau's original possessions, including the bed, desk, and chair he kept in his house at Walden Pond. It also contained his snowshoes, surveying equipment, some of the pencils from the company his family owned, and the door to the jail where Thoreau spent the night after refusing to pay taxes. Unfortunately, photographs were not allowed in the museum. This photo is from their website; it shows the room and artifacts, but not terribly well...

I also visited the state park where a replica of Thoreau's cabin at Walden Pond has been built.

There's an interior too, which has replicas of the items in the museum. However, we were unable to go inside, because the hut was locked, and the Park Service people were not in their office, and, according to one very angry tourist, hadn't been in three days. (She'd come back twice.) Why was I not surprised?

Given Thoreau's aversion to government, it is ironic that it built a replica of his house. It is more ironic, however, that it proves him right every day by failing to be helpful in any way whatsoever, and basically serving no purpose in general.

Luckily the guy in the privately owned gift shop nearby was very helpful, and knew more about Thoreau, I daresay, than the Park Service. He couldn't open the hut though; the Park Service has the key, or whatever is used to open it. In any case, the store had a lot of Thoreau stuff, and it took a lot of self-control not to buy everything there (despite my moral discomfort at the notion of Thoreau merchandise). I ended up buying "The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail," (a play), "A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers," and "Thoreau, a Book of Quotations," as well as a Thoreau bumper sticker reading, "What is the value of any political freedom, but as a means to moral freedom?" and a "What Would Thoreau Do?" T-shirt.

After this (feeling slightly guilty) it was off to Walden Pond.

As you may have surmised, Walden Pond is exceedingly beautiful. It's fairly easy to see why Thoreau was inspired by nature, and why he chose to live here for two years, enjoying the pond more than the company of his neighbors.

Of Thoreau's cabin at the pond not much remains. It was dismantled after his death. However, in 1945, the foundations of the chimney were found, and the location of the house was marked out.

It's a very small place, but that makes it all the more profound. Just by walking in, one is certain he has stood in the same spot as the philosopher himself, at least once. That's something it's hard not to be affected by. It's this principle that makes history interesting; it's real.

Other historic Thoreau sites in Concord include the site of the jail where Thoreau famously spent the night after refusing to pay taxes to an unjust government, a government which condoned slavery, and waged war against a weaker, and entirely innocent, nation.

What struck me, though, was not the monuments to Thoreau in life, but that of his death.

What must be remembered about Thoreau and Emerson is that, while Emerson preached Transcendentalism, Thoreau put it into practice. Emerson was far from the ideal he envisioned. He had a large house, a wife, children. Thoreau, on the other hand, had none of these. He lived in the woods for two years. He went to jail for his beliefs. I'm not saying I'd live like that, or that it works for everyone, but one has to hand it to Thoreau, he was a true Transcendentalist; Emerson was not.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the gravestones each man has. The following is a picture of Emerson's gravestone.

This, on the other hand, is Thoreau's:

"Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!"

That was the way of the two. Emerson was the famous one, the one with the prestige, and the preacher. Thoreau was the pencil-maker. But, judge for yourself who was the better Transcendentalist.

Other famous graves include those of Bronson and Louisa May Alcott,

and Nathaniel Hawthorne.

But just to prove I'm not completely obsessed with the nineteenth century, consider that, while there, I also got to see the Minuteman Monument at the Old North Bridge.

Yeah, that was way back. When people still cared. That was so far back, in fact, that people were actually willing to die for their beliefs. Imagine that! One wonders what kept these brave souls from the comfort of their televisions, and the latest episode of American Idol.

Oh yeah, no TVs. And backbone.

But those days are gone, long gone. Lucky for us, we get to distract ourselves from important issues with mindless idiocy. Very few would grab that rifle and stand up for liberty if the government came for our guns today. That's the old way of doing things. That's history; way too boring.

But I like to think such pessimism is misplaced. I am not by habit a pessimist.

In any case, that was Concord. If you're ever in Massachusetts, I'd recommend it. It's a town filled with history, both eighteenth and nineteenth century, and a huge part of the American past. Just remember, if you go, don't forget to visit Mr. Thoreau; it's the least you can do to stop by and sit for a while, next to a real American, or perhaps more accurately, a real human being..

Happy Easter

2008-03-22T21:15:00.002-04:00

Photoshop and Sweet Jeep Picture: They Just Go Together

2008-03-22T12:42:00.012-04:00

Yesterday, as an early birthday present for my brother and I (our birthdays are 5 days apart), our parents bought us this,

Photoshop Elements 6. So far, we're pretty bad at it. It's pretty convenient though, in that it has a bunch of effects that can be used to enhance pictures without technical knowledge required. So far, I like the "cutout" effect, which I used to turn a photo of my beloved '94 Jeep Grand Cherokee into a Norman Rockwell painting:

Of course, this will allow for a lot of political humor. But, it's interesting to note that computers can do so many things now, and maybe that's not all good. After all, that's a cool "painting" of my car, but if a computer can duplicate an artist, will the skill of painting fall out of use? Hopefully not. Then, of course, there's the honesty factor. To 'Photoshop' has become almost synonymous with to 'fake.' When I showed my friends my picture with Ron Paul, some of them thought I'd Photoshopped it (they trusted me; they just thought at first I'd done it as a joke). I had to show them two others to prove I'd really met him. Then there was the Reuters scandal, where more smoke was Photoshopped over Baghdad then existed in the original picture.

Still, it's a cool program, and I think I'll enjoy it. It's amazing what technology can do now, and how much it can accomplish.

Side Effects May Include Stupidity

2008-03-18T16:29:00.007-04:00

So, let me get this straight; you won't have runny eyes or sneezing, but you might get fungus in your nose. Oh, and possibly cataracts. And also glaucoma.

You know, at that point, I think I'd actually prefer the allergies...

The fact that this ad actually works on people is a little disconcerting when you consider that the people who buy this product also vote.

Thanks for Being Enslaved, Signed William A. Chatfield

2008-03-17T17:21:00.007-04:00

I'll be 18 soon, and as it turns out, turning 18 is actually really pointless. In spite of the supposed significance of it, there aren't any real benefits. My friends tell me I could legally buy cigarettes and pornography, which is a bit of a disappointment, not only in that I wasn't really planning to buy either commodity, but also in the fact that apparently my friends think I'm a pervert with a nicotine addiction. Legally, I guess I'd be an adult, but all that means is any speeding tickets will go on a permanent record.

The worst part, however, is this:

Because Selective Service "isn't the draft!"

Oh. Wait. Yes it is.

Anyway, it's funny, because I Googled "selective service," and apparently, you used to register for this! Who knew?

It was confusing actually, because my friends who were already 18 would complain (rightfully so) that they had to fill out their selective service form when they got home. (You know, because if they didn't they'd be put in jail.) The thing was, though, I couldn't find my form in the envelope. Instead I found an ad from the army, (88% of our jobs train you for a career outside the military! In the other 12% you die!), a card requesting more information on the army, (in case you were interested...), and a letter from the SSS (whose acronym would be more accurate if they deleted the last S, or the first one, whatever.)

Incidentally I think all the Army propaganda was designed to confuse people. Instead of signing up for the Selective Service, they'd accidentally join the Army. Wouldn't that be hilarious? (Well, no, of course it wouldn't. But it might be to the government.)

Anyway, It took some searching to find the little box which contained my "Proof of Registration," and a message which read, "The Selective Service System thanks you for registering."

So, apparently you don't register anymore. What happens is, you get a letter telling you you've already been registered, and... that's it.

At least they were polite about it though. I mean, after signing me up without asking, and making me eligible for conscription, at least they thanked me. The guys who used to Shanghai people were rarely that nice about it.

I would have appreciated a bit more honesty though. You know, something along the lines of: "Hey! Want to be eligible for the draft if we decide to reinstate it, and go die in a war you may or may not believe in? Of course you don't! It doesn't matter though, because we signed you up anyway. You are totally screwed. Thanks!"

At least they provided a number if I should have questions. I thought about calling, but figured, "what the hell is this crap?!" probably wasn't a question I was going to have answered, no matter how friendly the operator was. Any philosophical arguments contrary to the idea behind SS would also probably prove in vain.

I have nothing against America's veterans. I would think, however, that what makes them special is the fact that they signed up willingly to do such a demanding job. There's little honor, on the other hand, in a conscript, and there's nothing honorable about a government who uses conscription.

Some of us aren't soldiers, and the government couldn't make us be soldiers if they tried. Personally, I don't like being told what I can and can't do by the government, and I tend to be sarcastic. I'd probably be court-martialed in boot camp for telling the Drill Sergeant I'd only drop and give him fifty if he went first. (That goes double for climbing any and all fences with barbed wire all over them.) Furthermore, any form of conscription goes against the ideals on which the country was founded, and, I should add for the law and order people, the 13th Amendment.

Selective Service is the draft. And it's getting worse. Before, you signed up or went to jail. Now, you don't even have the option of going to jail. I'm not even joking. If it comes down to doing what you don't believe in or going to jail, it's still a choice. Gandhi and Thoreau both chose the latter after all. Now, it's not even a choice, but a predetermined outcome.

The Selective Service is an assault on American liberties, and it should be ended with all haste. Any country which prides itself on being founded on the idea of liberty ought to keep that idea, and not sink to the level of common government coercion in the form of a poorly disguised act of conscription.

Why I'm a Dirty Capitalist

2008-03-16T13:53:00.008-04:00

If I was judged by the companies I like, I'd be a horrible person.

There's a post below this one which is on an actual political subject. I wrote it today, so it's new. Please skim it if you have the time. But first, I have to reaffirm my eternal devotion to Microsoft in everything except web browsers.

Today, I found this awesome video on Mary Ann's blog, In the Pines.

It's a great video, and I immediately set about trying to find a .wmv version for my Microsoft Zune mp3 player. Unfortunately .wmv is a rare format for internet videos. Fortunately, it doesn't matter.

In a move typical of the evil, yet ingenious, Microsoft Corporation, the new Zune software automatically converts MP4 format videos designed for the iPods and converts them for use in Zune. In other words, if it works on iPod, it now works for Zune.

The Zune is a great product, and, now that it handles the same videos the iPod does, it has surpassed that product by far, since it doesn't suffer from the numerous hardware issues the iPod does, and even has a better interface.

And this is all because Microsoft did what it does best, took an innovation from someone else, and made it better.

It may not be a great industry practice, but it works, and it works well. It can't be good for my soul, but once again, Microsoft has won my respect. Windows may suck, (don't use Internet Explorer, for instance, and NEVER buy Vista if you can help it) but it sucks a lot less than anyone else, and that's what makes it good.

The Abolishment of Grades: the Abolishment of Education

2008-03-16T10:48:00.011-04:00

In terms of education, I would consider myself a lucky person. I have managed to receive a good education in a typical public school.

It is unfortunate, however, that this should be in spite of the school which I attend, and that the fact that I am lucky is the result of the fact that others will soon be very unlucky.

To clarify the above, I should explain the situation I'm in currently. I'm a senior in my public high school right now, and recently we've gotten a new principal who has been one of the worst I've ever had, and I've had some terrible principals before. This principal is one who works in accordance with state incentives to obtain tax money, regardless of whether those incentives are detrimental to the school or its students. (See Education, Part III, and Education, Part V.) He has also imposed numerous new rules which are patently absurd, enforced old ones which are just as ridiculous, and relies on the "law and order" mentality which is as prevalent among those in power as it is unpopular with the people.

I suppose one cannot totally blame the principal, since the school board also comes into play. However, his acceptance of the state mandates under the guise of following the law, and his cheerful demeanor while he roams the school happily enforcing unpopular rules, as if he could be a benevolent, well-loved, dictator, makes him the perfect representative of our school and its quality, or lack thereof.

The point is, the school, due to the conduct of the state, the board, right down to the principal, has gone rapidly downhill. This year, the school did away with grouping students according to skill level, instead putting students of all abilities into mixed classrooms. The obvious problems with this methods are easy to look up, and I have personally addressed them in one of the linked posts above. In short, it helps no one, it is, in fact, detrimental because it drags everyone down to the lowest denominator, and many teachers are opposed to the idea.

Next year, however, my school plans to do one better in the desecration of educational ideals. Next year, the school plans to abolish grades.

You read correctly. The school will no longer be giving out the usual A-F series of grades. Instead, students will be held to set standards, and will either meet, not meet, or exceed said standard.

As usual, what drives this change is state pressure, and probably a terribly misguided attempt at equality. The idea, I believe, is two-fold. First, the assumption that everyone is equal, which is patently false, and second, that this move will somehow help education, a notion which is absurd.

Firstly, everyone is born equal. But it would be inaccurate to claim that someone who does not understand the subject material, or does not wish to, is equal to someone who does. This is not necessarily negative, as said student may excel in something else. But the hypothetical students are by no means equal.

As an illustration, I personally know I am inferior to many students in mathematics. I don't think that way, I don't want to learn it, and I don't do well in it. I'm okay with that because I excel in history and English. I would not want, nor should I be, assumed equal to some of my colleagues in math class, and some of them should not be held equal to me in history. That's not a bad thing, just a difference in thinking.

Then, of course, we must consider those students who actually have problems learning at all, or those who just don't want to learn anything. Calling them equal to those who excel in school may make us feel good, but the fact remains, they aren't equal when it comes to education; they're on a lower level, and that's just a fact.

And is it helpful to call them equal? Does it benefit them? Would it not be better to acknowledge that fact and help these students learn in a different way, in hopes of bringing them up to the level of those who excel in school? Instead of holding those who excel to a lower standard, shouldn't we try to help those who don't excel reach a higher standard?

Perhaps the school would say that's what they're doing. I doubt that's the case, though. I haven't seen the paperwork myself, but I can make a pretty good guess based on the information I do have. First of all, the local elementary school already went to this system, and their standards are ones which my two younger brothers enrolled could have passed two years ago. They're extremely intelligent, but I don't think they'd be ready to skip two grades. The standards at this school are low, very low. Furthermore, I have also heard from someone, who has no reason to lie, that the standard may be based on so called "HAOs," or "High Achievement Outcomes," which, not incidentally, are anything but. We used them once or twice Freshman year. They were pathetically easy, and, what's worse, boring to most of the kids on the class. They were also so vague as to be useless.

Whatever standard the school uses, however, I'm 99.9% sure they won't be anything near the highest one. (I'll find out eventually, by the way, and if this assumption turns out to be false, I'll eat my paintball gun.) Any standard is bound to teach nothing. Currently I'm taking four AP classes, which I enjoy. But the teachers of these classes usually hate the AP tests, because they are static, and deal in facts, not concepts and ideas. People don't retain facts well, however, because after a while, if not applied to a concept, they are forgotten. (That being said, even AP retains a grading system, and the test scores are 1-5, analogous to F-A. The new standards at the school won't even have that.)

Another illustration is my own experience with standards-based grading. See, I have a huge character flaw in that I don't pay attention in classes where I have little interest in the subject matter. That's why I got a 'D' in Trigonometry last year, while at the same time getting an 'A' in AP US History, and scoring a '4' on the AP US test. One class I'm taking this year is required, but I have no interest in it. As a result, I don't know anything about the subject after half a year of taking the class. Yet I'm still passing, and sometimes exceeding, the standard. I'd be getting a terrible grade if it was on an A-F scale, and probably working harder. I'm not saying the current situation isn't my fault, I'm just saying it's way too easy to beat a standard, and that's yet another reason why it won't work.

One final point, and the most compelling: the new system does not allow for GPA. This, I think, is shocking. GPA is what helps a lot of colleges decide who to consider for acceptance. I have a lot of friends for whom this has been either good or bad, and I think GPA is generally a good measure of one's work. It's based on a wide range of variables, including grades and difficulty of classes taken, and it goes from 0.0 to 4.0, which allows for precision and variability. Though colleges may not accept or reject solely on GPA, it is a useful tool in considering whether to consider a student further.

The question is, when GPA is abolished, is how is a college supposed to read a standards-based transcript? "Exceeds the standard" could be anywhere from a 'B-' to an 'A+', or even more varied . (Who knows?) What does a college do now? With GPA it would be easy to see how the student did on average. With "exceeds" it's arbitrary, and covers a wide range of people. There's no point where a college can say a student is a 'B' student, or an 'A' student. All they know is that the student exceeded a fairly simple standard. Where does that leave the college?

And don't think the colleges haven't protested against this move by many schools, as have many teachers. The fact is, if we want to blame someone, we should, as is usually the case, blame government. With NCLB, and "egalitarian" state mandates, the schools have little choice. Public education is a dismal failure for the simple reason that bureaucrats always think they know better than the teachers, parents, and students. Education is secondary to votes, so when a legislator has a chance to "prove" he's working for education, he signs any bill that makes it appear that way, regardless of how helpful, or harmful, it will actually be.

I am lucky in that my class is still receiving A-F grades, and a GPA. I've already been accepted to a college which grades the same way, and offers a wider degree of educational and personal freedom than public school. But my class is one of the last in the old way of teaching. The pendulum is swinging towards false equality and bureaucratic standards, instead of grading and concept-teaching, and for the students caught in the new and harmful ways of teaching, including many of my friends and family members, it will be hard, and there will be very little education involved for any of them.

The Lonely Role of the Rebel

2008-03-15T00:13:00.004-04:00

As a libertarian, I try to take things as life gives them. Few things annoy me, and fewer still cause me fear. Perhaps the one thing that does is America's eager and headlong rush towards suicide by government.

I am constantly amazed and disgusted by the ignorance and apathy so many of my peers wear as a badge of honor. I tire quickly of the fact that dissidents and rebels are looked down upon as troublemakers, eccentrics, and somehow annoying members of society.

I was reminded of the situation today in my high school cafeteria, when some random kid asked a friend of mine if he could film him eating Jello, because he was "making a video to prove that the school should serve healthy food." This argument is one which has been around for years, and the sanctimonious do-gooders who advocate for it often fail to see that such actions only serve to punish the many for the sins of the few, in addition to being utterly pointless. After all, kids don't get fat on cafeteria food alone, and I personally weigh in at the average weight for my height, despite eating all the time. So why should the government force me to eat healthy? I'm not in any immediate danger of getting a heart attack. On the contrary, I run cross-country, five kilometer races. I take care of myself. Why do I have to put up with them telling me how to eat? Of course, it's more that; it's also the presumption of the school that a child's diet is the responsibility of the state, and that a child is too stupid to eat healthy anyway, given the choice.

In any case, the whole thing seemed wrong, and I began to outline the points involved to this young man, who ignored me while filming his little spot, told me to "stop talking," and simply walked away.

What fueled a rare spark of frustration at that moment was the fact that somehow, in some way, someone so ignorant of the facts of the matter would have the arrogance to regard my opinion as not even worth thinking about, as if slavery were his badge of superiority. It was as if someone had willingly enslaved himself, and held himself up as an example to a free man to follow.

But then, that is the American way. I asked an acquaintance, "did you hear that?" only to discover that he was of the opinion that it wouldn't affect him, he didn't care, and why think about such things?

Naturally.

I have lots of friends who find my political opinions totally acceptable, and a refreshing idiosyncrasy. They do not think I express them more than is prudent, and they do not become annoyed by them. They are also, not incidentally, people who don't care about being accepted by the main part of society, and they are people who are highly successful. It's not they who find me annoying, and in fact, I have a good relationship with most people I come in contact with.

But they aren't normal people; they're above average.

And this is why America is the way it is today. Because the average enjoy being slaves. This is why we have a government which steals, spies, and tortures. Because the people of this so-called republic do not care what happens to themselves or others.

Perhaps it seems like a leap: cafeteria food to slavery. But is the tiniest enslavement not still an enslavement? Not that it was only this small issue my acquaintance did not care about; it was all politics, including those I have personally heard him disagree with. Simply because he thought them wrong didn't mean he was willing to do anything about it, or speak too loudly of them.

And that's really cool to Americans.

There's something sick about a society that willingly enslaves itself. There's something fundamentally wrong with our culture. We learn that bravery is running around on a field for fifteen minutes, or eating scorpions on television. The bravery of the past, that of Washington, or Thoreau, or Gandhi, is just history, and that's boring. That's not "in." That happened a long time ago. Hey, what's on MTV this weekend?

And, in any case, we're the freest nation on the planet. That stuff in China and Russia, that's all far away. Can't happen here. 'Stop whining.'

America loves its freedoms, but it hates with a passion those that work to secure them.

As the military works to secure the country from external threats (theoretically), so the rebels and dissidents, protesters, objectors, work to secure it from internal threats. But how often do we see yellow ribbons with, "Support Our Civilly Disobedient"?

It's not new of course. The Founding Fathers were also ridiculed. They were also hailed as troublemakers, rabble-rousers who would be better off living quietly in the normal life. It didn't stop them from risking all in the pursuit of human liberty.

Americans should thank the god they fear so much that those they so hate exist, for if we were to leave this infantile and pathetic nation on its own for even a decade, its downfall would be swift and immediate.

And Americans should hold no illusions about this situation. The reason we keep this country safe for you is not for the thanks you refuse to give us, but for our own benefit. We wish to keep our rights, even if you do not. The fact that the paths we must take to secure these rights secure yours also is very lucky for you.

So watch your American Idol. Feel secure in your apathy. Don't worry. We don't need your applause or appreciation. In fact, we should recoil at it. All you need to do is sleep the blissful sleep of ignorance. There are yet men who stand guard in the night to protect the rights of themselves and others, and fear least of all the ridicule of a sick and backwards society.

And when you wake up tomorrow, remember to place all your scorn on the rebels and the dissidents. Display your overwhelming ignorance for us. Tell us that we who are politically knowledgeable, and protest, and fight for liberty are foolish and unnecessary. When you say it, it makes us fight all the harder, and personally, we wouldn't have it any other way.

The Revolution

2008-03-08T01:06:00.016-05:00

"These are the times that try men's souls..."

-Thomas Paine

No one said it better than Thomas Paine that winter of 1776, and no one said it more effectively.

We are indebted as a nation to men such as Paine. But, as skilled a writer as he was, he had a significant advantage over the writers of the 21st century; namely this: the men of the revolution had souls to be tried.

As Ron Paul's official candidacy winds down, his supporters, the so-called Ron Paul revolutionaries, look for a new candidate to support, a new leader. They fly in many directions, towards the Obama camp, or even to the outstretched arms of McCain, thinking that, as a Republican, he will somehow preserve the Constitution.

These are the times that try men's souls, but today, unlike in Paine's time, we have no souls to try.

Where is your loyalty, O revolutionaries? Where is your zeal? Is it the mere impossibility of success that sends you fleeing to the safety of more "plausible" candidates? Is that all you fear?

Those supporters of the "Ron Paul Revolution" who claim to be Americans, and love America, have less American spirit in them than I; I who do not even believe in America, or any other organized government.

"There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing."

-Henry David Thoreau

I do not claim agree with Ron Paul on everything, nor am I so blind as to follow any politician. But I will vote for him. I have been a supporter since the early days of this campaign, I have met this man, and know him to be sincere in his ideals. And I see no reason why the fact that his defeat is inevitable should keep me from voting for him.

And in a larger sense, I do not stand only for Paul, but for the Revolution. Our revolution. Or have we given that up? Was it ever real, or just a buzzword, a marketable slogan? Do you want a revolution truly? Or was that just something you said to get votes, like the D.C. elite do?

Doubtless many decided to use the word for the latter purpose. Doubtless many do not think a revolution is actually necessary. But for those who were sincere, for those who believed in the cause of liberty, how can you call yourselves revolutionary if you vote for expediently and not for the moral right? For that is the way of the old order, not the way of the Revolution.

And is it a difficult revolution to maintain? Really? You have not the hardships our countrymen faced in the winter of 1776. You are not living in hovels, freezing, starving, dying daily. You are not suffering. You are living through the winter of 2008, in a heated home, comfortable, watching television, or surfing the internet; your biggest worry is the next tank of gas, not the next meal, or living one more day! And you say you may give up on the Revolution because we cannot get a man elected?

You live in relative comfort because those who did not have your advantages suffered, and died even, because they believed in liberty, and proved it to their physical detriment. Do you think they walked away when all hope was lost? Did they join the other side? Did they fight for something they did not truly believe in, because it was expedient?

You say you find it difficult to vote for liberty. But our first citizens found the strength to die for liberty.

And now who are the heroes? The men of Valley Forge, or men like Arnold, who betrayed the cause of liberty for his own convenience? What action will you take in our brief period of history, when the country is under our stewardship, partially at least? Will you stand firm for liberty, or go the way of expediency? I know I, at least, will do what is morally right. You will vote for Obama, or McCain, and you may win. I will vote for Paul, and I will lose. But in doing so I will have earned my reward after my own fashion at least; I will retain my integrity.

No revolutionary, no true revolutionary, falters in his cause for liberty. Revolutionaries do not surrender, they do not give up. They fight for that which they believe, and if they lose, they fight to the last man, so that the world will remember their cause, so that something larger is preserved.

Our revolution is a small one, but it is easy. You will not have to face a debilitating winter. You will not have to storm any batteries, you will charge no forts. You need not die upon the ramparts, or even risk your life in any way, as so many have done in defense of human liberty. All you have to do, to lead our revolution, the only action you need take is, when it comes time for you to cast your vote, write down a name: Ron Paul. That is all that is required of you.

If you really want a revolution, if you really want freedom, if you really want change, that's all you have to do. And if you want it, that is what you will do. We cannot sell our souls any longer; we cannot submit to convenience and to expediency. This is a revolution we must undertake, though it will not succeed,

"For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever."

If you want to be part of something meaningful, if you really wish to say no, once and for all, to big government, and the two-party tyranny we have put up with so long, if you want to be part of the revolution, you must vote: Ron Paul, 2008.

An American Revolution

2008-03-04T19:59:00.005-05:00

This election is one of the worst I've ever seen, not that I've seen many. We're essentially forced to choose between John McCain, the belligerent war-hawk who would attack Iran, and either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, socialist extraordinaries. Those of us writing in Ron Paul don't have this problem of course, but unfortunately that isn't really going to effect the outcome.

There is one part of the election so far that's gone right, however.

Tonight, the town of Brattleboro, Vermont, passed this bill, stating that if President Bush or Vice President Cheney enters the town, they will be promptly arrested by Brattleboro Police for crimes against the Constitution.

Of course, this would outrage a lot of people. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it's a great idea. The only problem is that it should have been extended to the entire Executive Branch. And Congress. But no bill is perfect, and arresting the president is a pretty good start.

The sad part is, I'm sure the above read like a joke. But I'm not joking. This administration, and this Congress, with the exception of a very few, have worked hard to take the rights of the American people. I think there should be some consequences to that.

Some would say that the idea of arresting the government is insane. I would ask them if it those people if they thought it more or less insane then dumping a pile of tea in a harbor while dressed as Indians. Because most of these people do applaud that sort of thing, as long as it was done a long time ago. If the Boston rebels had by some chance managed to arrest Thomas Gage, modern Americans would be applauding that too I suppose, and at the same time denouncing the residents of Brattleboro for doing essentially the same thing. Because to those people, 1776 was "a long time ago."

Actually it might be unfair to criticize Americans for failing to stand up for their rights. The majority of America wasn't even in favor of separation from the Crown. It always takes a minority to start a revolution. After all, most people want freedom, are willing to advocate and vote for freedom, but the majority is unwilling to do anything about it.

The founding fathers say you're welcome.

In any case, I'll have a lot of content tomorrow. In the meantime, ponder this story, and whether or not the idea is really so insane as many might initially suppose.

Artificial States

2008-02-24T15:24:00.008-05:00

An interesting development in American politics which seems to have been overlooked was brought to my attention yesterday by a family member. Apparently, out West, the Lakota, an Amerindian tribe, has plans to secede from the United States.

A lot of people, I suppose, would be outraged by this. I am not one of them. Personally, I think it's about time. The American government treated the Indians horribly during the nineteenth century, and today, in a gesture of apology, subsidizes them, using our tax dollars to put them in a form of welfare enslavement.

These are not, however, primarily the reasons I sympathize with the Lakota tribe. I personally enjoy seeing people refuse to follow the laws of the United States government. The Lakota, by declaring their independence as a free state, refuse to be oppressed, instead taking action for their own freedom.

In this and other forums I have expressed the opinion that democracy was an inefficient and immoral system which was incompatible with human liberty. This view is not popular. I find few who would agree with this view, or who would agree, at any rate, without commenting that, regrettably, no such better system existed, and that no alternative was therefore open to them.

Of course, the recent events with regard to the Lakota prove otherwise. The other option, which the Lakota have undertaken, is to vote through action, to simply refuse to follow an unjust system and government.

Many would call this action treason, and rightly so. The question then becomes, is treason so bad? Certainly it can be. Many people would hold up men such as Jefferson Davis, and Benedict Arnold as rebels and traitors. However, other famous traitors include George Washington, and John Brown.

What distinguishes men like Washington and Brown from those of Arnold and Davis is their individual actions. Washington and Brown fought for freedom from taxation, oppression, and slavery, while Arnold betrayed his country for money, and Davis so that his people might continue to hold people as property.

This illustration breaks down a fundamental lie perpetuated by the state: that governments are real. In truth, governments are a type of collective, a simple construction created in the minds of some individuals, no more real in truth than the invisible friend children so often create from themselves, perhaps less so. All that the state is or ever was is a group of people insisting that their creation exists. These people claim their conception is important, and real. Despite this, however, it only takes one person, refusing to go along with the illusion, to dispel it. If one refuses to follow the law, and is physically able to do so, how can the law actually mean anything?

Take again the illustration of Washington. The revolutionaries of 1775 refused to follow the laws of the state, and in doing so, caused it to cease to exist in America! By refusing to follow English law, the very state of England literally lost some of itself. If a state can be so destroyed, by the willpower of mere humans, can it ever have been said to have existed in the first place? Is it truly real?

I have a friend who disagrees with me very strongly, and who is a staunch nationalist. I tell him when he becomes outspoken about his views, and attempts to try and get me to think similarly, that I simply do not believe the country he loves so much is real. It is a concept, not a tangible reality. Invariably the inquiry put forth is why do I not leave?

Ironically, the same friend also believes in private property, or professes to. However, one wonders how one who believes in the state can also believe in private property. If we truly own our own property, as I believe we do, how can we live within the so-called borders of the United States? The United States professes to own all the land from Canada to Mexico. But if I own property also in this area, should my land not be my own state? Whose is it really? Furthermore, how can I "leave" the country, when I do not believe the country exists!

My friend is not alone in his nationalistic views. Many people put infinite amounts of love into an illusion. They claim to love the country, or love America, when America is only extant in their minds, no more real than a fleeting dream, less even! "America" would cease to exist the instant its people decided it did not exist. Why should I pledge loyalty to something so fleeting?

I believe that countries, states, and governments are outdated, unnecessary, and harmful to a truly free society. A free society must be made of individuals, not collectives. It must focus not on national identity, but on individual identity, in which each member of society is a member to nothing, pledging loyalty to no one, but simply living as he sees fit.

The Lakota nation is not on this path. No nation is, because the concept transcends nations. But I believe that the step they have taken, to ignore that which they feel unjust, is a good first step, a step taken by Washinton, and Brown. And I believe, that if we had more such steps, maybe, eventually, we could get past the illusion we have created and live in reality, not as Americans, but simply as human beings.

Ron Paul Wins a State Delagate in Maine!

2008-02-17T17:23:00.009-05:00

This picture has nothing to do with this post, but it's a good indication of what kind of weather we've been dealing with up here of late. Plus it's a cool picture. That's my dad's van, or it was, until the transmission failed. No point keeping it in the garage now.

Anyway, today we had our caucuses in the town I live in, and Ron Paul won!

Of course, that's probably because I live in a small town. Ron Paul received 4 votes, and the rest of them (12) were split among the other candidates. One of the votes was, of course, mine. I registered to vote today. That's me above. (Apologizes for the stubble. I'm on vacation, so I haven't shaved since Thursday.) Unfortunately, in order to vote for Paul I had to register as... a Republican! (That's right, for the next three months I'm a registered Republican. I feel like I have to go take a shower now...)

In any case, in addition to voting for Ron Paul, I'm also now a state delegate! I'm going to Augusta in May to vote for Ron Paul in the culmination of the Maine Caucus. So if Ron Paul gets any delagates from Maine, I can proudly say I'm one of them.

It's funny really, because I had no idea what I was doing. In fact, I still don't. And now I'm a delegate. Pretty neat really. But it proves how stupid the American political system is. I mean, my town has 2,000 people living in it. 16 people show up and vote in the caucuses, and now the official result is that the whole town is for Ron Paul. Doesn't really make sense.

Oh well. At least we know Ron Paul will have a few more votes from Maine. If your primaries/caucuses are coming up soon, why don't you do be a delegate for Paul as well? It's easy, fun, and gets Ron Paul votes. And really, what's better than that?

Barack Obama: Man Without Substance

2008-02-16T16:49:00.008-05:00

Recently, I've heard a lot of people saying that Obama doesn't actually say anything, and thought that had to be false. Even though I dislike Obama, I was pretty sure it was just conservatives saying something about someone just to discredit him. This time, however, I have to hand it to them. They're absolutely right.

As usual, CNN in covering the presidential election and, as such, had a few minutes of one of Obama's speeches in one of the primary states. (Wisconsin I think.) I was waiting, if you want to know, for some meatballs to heat up in the microwave, so I thought since so many Democrats love Obama, I'd see what the big deal was.

Well sorry, but I don't get it. Obama didn't say a damn thing for the entire 15 minutes he was on. I kept leaving the room to check on, and eventually eat, the meatballs, so maybe I missed something, but every time I came back in, it was pretty much the same stuff. Basically, the guy was giving some kind of motivational speech about workers in WWII, the pilgrims, American pioneers, and how the country needs change. However, exactly what kind of change, why it was needed, and how it would be carried out, was never specified. In fact, I'm not sure I heard Obama give any concrete ideas or positions the entire time.

It reminded me of motivational speakers. They talk a lot, and make you feel good about yourself, but dive below the surface and they're not actually saying anything. They're using buzzwords. That's an Obama speech. He doesn't talk about his political positions, or why he'd be a good president, or indeed what he'd even do as president. He just tells you America's a great country, that it needs change, and that we can do it! (Whatever the hell "it" is...) Then, everyone cheers.

But what are they cheering for?!

I mean, okay, imagine this guy is applying for a job, which, by the way, he is. Imagine you're the boss, which, again, you actually are, in theory anyway. Now imagine someone comes in for an interview and tells you absolutely nothing about himself. He doesn't tell you what he would do to better your company, what kind of work he does, or if he'll do anything at all. All he'll tell you is that whatever he does, it sure will be different than what you have now! You going to hire that guy?

Well apparently a lot of Americans would, which explains why a lot of Americans aren't businessmen.

Personally, I'd rather elect someone who tells you exactly what he's going to do, even if people think it's a little crazy, than take a chance and elect someone who refuses to tell you what he's doing, or how he's going to do it. Obama's a good speaker, but when it comes to ideas, he comes up empty. That's not presidential, and that's certainly not the kind thing I want to have to deal with for the next eight years. How about you?