Life without Soldiers

I have just finished an article from the New York Times about U.S. Army soldiers marching in Moscow's Victory Parade--which makes the end of the Second World War in Europe-- when I made the dubious decision to read the comments section.



For the most part, the comments lauded the parade as a wonderful symbol of fraternity after the 50 bitter years of the Cold War.That is what one would expect from rational, clear minded, folks.



Alas, a few others decided to use that section to espouse their infantile understanding of man as well as to express their belief in their own moral superiority to the rest of man all the while FREELY sitting in their home or more likely, in some coffee house.


I really have no use for such people. Sitting in the comfort of their home, an office, or some other genteel setting, waxing moralistically about the iniquity of war and denouncing militaristic displays, all the while listening to blues and making their plans for their next outing to the local art museum or play.

While I too like visiting museums and other typically bourgeois activities, I also realize that the world is a mean, nasty, and ugly place. There are times when one has to meet the world with equal ferocity, brutality, and even cruelty, just to survive or protect what you love.

When I think of these people, I am reminded of a quote from the political theorist John Stuart Mill. It goes: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Could not have said it any better than myself.

The pursuit of an impossible goal

Libertarianism has been in the news lately. The Tea Party activists have grown their movement from insignificance to one that has caused at least one Left leaning individual to promote a "crashing" of said parties.Juvenile antics aside,the mere fact that this individual cares enough to make the effort to try to embarrass and marginalize the Tea Partiers, tells one that this is a movement that has achieved enough significance to warrant attention.

Ron Paul-the Doctor/Congressman from Texas, has captured the hearts of millions of anger conservatives who have grown disillusioned with the Big Government Republican Party during the Bush Era. He won a straw poll at a recent CPAC meeting in February for who should be the next Republican candidate for President. Momentum seems to be on the Libertarians side for once.

But is their goal of small government really achievable?

Most Americans today accept a relative high level of governmental spending. The difference tends to be where it is done and how much money it cost. Conservatives are in favor of expenditures on military, but not social spending. Liberals are the opposite. Moderates on both sides favor spending on both, but place emphasis on different aspects.

Meanwhile,libertarians want to do away with almost all spending by government except for the most bare essentials--police and enough military to protect the borders. No money for education, infrastructure, health care, social security, etc. They propose that each community make do with what they each can generate fiscally themselves.

The most obvious problem with this is how this permits poorer communities to whither on the vine. If your people are too poor to support infrastructure for education, health care, and business how then are you supposed to self-improve? How do you pull yourself up by the boot straps if your boots have no straps?

The other issue with libertarianism is that it ignores history and human behavior. Without laws, the most strongest of a group will seek to dominate the weaker portion of a group. Empires are a excellent example of this. From the earliest regimes to the present, large, wealthy people have sought to control and dominate land and people either through direct use of force or through "soft power"--embargoes, the placement of people friendly to the Empire in places of power, etc.

Libertarianism is tends towards Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the idea where if left unhampered by laws, the strong will soon come to dominate the society as a result of their natural superior physical and intellectual traits.Libertarianism doesn't explicitly say that should be the case, but only that persons should be free to fulfill their goals without hindrance from government.

But as we've seen from history, such a lack of restraint often times leads to gross abuses of human rights.Slavery, child labor, unsafe work conditions, and convict leasing, are some of most notable cases where lack of law has been of a great detriment to the health of people.

Furthermore, lack of regulation can crush capitalism as it permits powerful interests to monopolize certain industries and the subversion of the stock market by those who use unethical practices to make millions.

What I find to be irritating is the hypocrisy of people like Ron Paul. He says he doesn't want governmental interference in the economic realm, but is stridently Pro-Life--and thus advocates governmental interference in something infinitely more personal than economics. Sorry, but you cannot say you are for personal liberty in one instance and for restraints on liberty in another. You don't get to pick and choose when and to whom liberty applies to.

The outraged as expressed by the Tea Partiers and supporters of Ron Paul is legitimate and to a certain extent, I find truth in it. The spending by our government has exploded to unprecedented heights. We are on an unsustainable track and the liberal response of "Bush started it" doesn't justify Obama's adding on to it anymore than a person in a mob using such an explanation to excuse an assault on a single person.Our government simply has to learn to run more efficiently with less funds.

We also as a nation have to get a point where personal responsibility for our actions and for caring for our own, becomes our national mentality. You cannot or should not depend or expect to depend on government to take care of you. It isn't fair or right for the people of this government to provide care to people who are able to work. The sense of entitlement to access to government largess has become all too prevalent in this nation.

Libertarianism is not a practical solution to our nation's problems. Too many people on both sides of the aisle have too much invested to go to a bare bones governmental structure nor would most Americans give up their comfortable lifestyles for something totally unknown.

The Ron Pauls and Tea Partiers are then latest manifestations of the Anti-Federalists and like their ancestors, they will be on the losing side of history. But I believe that they will make an impact in terms of reforms.Just what those reforms entail have yet to be seen, but there is so much debt that it seems impossible that nothing will change.

A comment on comments

I have a habit of reading the comments under the articles I read on the Internet. Why, I don't know. It is a rarity that I'll find a halfway intelligent remark. Most of what I read are either remarks that insult the other side of a debate or an expression of the absolute certainty of the poster that their beliefs are the correct ones.

The Internet has been for the most part, a boon for democracy. The expression, sharing, and dialogue between different view points are healthy for a democracy. We need that interaction for this country to progress.

But the Internet also has help lead the to the destruction of civility and tolerance in political discourse. Websites dedicated to a particular viewpoint take articles and find ways to use them to incite their fellow ideologues. These ideologues then either take this information and either blog about it or use it bash a rival ideologue on some forum or comments section of a article.

The venom-dripped words that fill the subsequent posts cannot be good for dialogue for all that it accomplishes is too elicit an response that is equally lethal for a healthy debate.

The problem is that so many of these people isolate themselves from other points of views that it creates a significant level of tolerance.Then when they engage others with differing views that are so convinced of the supremacy of their beliefs and the utterly absurdity of the other persons, that they have no thought of trying to understand where the other person is coming from. The other avatar is a dastardly member of the most execrable party known to man.

We tend to think of segregation along the lines of racial or ethnic lines, but I think we now have to include politics in that as well.More and more we see people congregating in ideology specific websites where the members don't debate, but engage in intellectual incest.What will happen is that over time the ideas of said group will become deformed by the lack of rigorous challenge of beliefs and concepts that scientists so diligently apply to their own theories.

I know nothing will change when it comes to anonymous people bashing other anonymous people in the comments section. People have too much invested emotionally in politics and the very anonymity of it makes brave men of us all. But it would be nice to see people learn some decorum and at least try to respect other people's opinions.

A faint hope it maybe, but faint is better than none.

When the "Best and Brightest" are neither

It is widely known that college campuses' and the surrounding towns are breeding grounds for future Left Wing activists. That has come to be a fact of life in America of of the 21st century.

These incubators of liberal politics have created an atmosphere where arrogance, self righteousness, and intolerance are part of the DNA of the residents. No place in America embraces the "progressive" world view so passionately as universities have.Ann Arbor, Michigan--my hometown--is notorious for being a particular fecund area for radical left wing politics.

Since I have grown up around such people I have come to really loath such people. It isn't so much their politics--I straddle the line between Left and Right ideologically--but the infuriating display of the aforementioned traits.

I came across an excellent example of this while reading about World War II Ace Gregory "Pappy" Boyington--whose exploits would inspire the television show Black Sheep Squadron as well as a host of books--on Wikipedia.(http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappy_Boyington)

One quote got to me: "she didn't believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce." Yeah, who would want to produce people who were willing to sacrifice their own lives in order for others to remain safe?

Frankly, she is the type person no nation or university would want to produce. Arrogant, simple minded, naive...I could go on, but it would be a waste of words to point out this person's flaws.

What she represents is the typical leftist who imbides the sayings of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr and applies it to the world at large. While I have much sympathy for those men,it is due to the exertions of men like Boyington that "peaceniks" can speak their mind so freely.

Could have either Gandhi or the dear Reverend been able to speak their mind in Nazi Germany?Judging by what happened to the Scholls, I don't think so.

How about the Soviet Union? China? Cuba? Perhaps we will see change in Iran because of the protests, but if history is any guide change will have depend on how infected the Iranian government is by malaise and incompetence moreso than the "moral power" of the masses.

Mass protests, sit ins, and non-violence work only in societies that are governed by laws that are strongly backed by force who willing submit to the law of the land themselves.The Marines and the armed forces as a whole are the guarantee of each American's right to speak their mind. A lawyer or activist group is helpless against armed persons who come with bad intentions.

For proof of the futility of groups like Amnesty International, one only need to see Rwanda. They spent much time broadcasting to the world of the terrible massaces of the Tutis' by the Hutus, that resulted in the accomplishment of nothing save the deaths of 800,000 persons. One could also point to the ongoing conflict in the Sudan and the Congo for more proof of the ineffectiveness of law and activist groups versus armed persons who are determined to fulfill their malicious goals.

War is an absolute waste of man, machine, and genius. It is destroys the bodies and souls of men, and desolates the land that they live upon. It strangles innocence and smothers love while fanning the flames of hatred.In short, it represents the worst of man's nature.

But that doesn't mean one should never pick up the sword when we are presented with a challenge to our lives. There is no spiritual gain by refusing to defend oneself or other's from people who intend to do harm. If someone kills you and/or your loved one what have you gained? Moral superiority over your assailant? Who cares? Your dead and the perpetrator is still free to kill others.

As awful as war is, there are worse things. Mindless pacificism is one of those. It is one thing to refuse to fight in a war that is not directly tied to the defense of the nation(Vietnam, both Iraq Wars). But it is altogether different when we are talking about the defense of the country.Pappy Boyington and others of his generation were willing to lay down their lives so young people like the girl at the University of Washington could have the chance to go to college.

An excellent and pithy summation of the reason for the exertions of men like Boyington and John Basilone can be found in an epitaph engraved in a memorial in British 2nd Division's cemetary in Kohima, India. It reads:

When You Go Home Tell Them Of Us and Say
For Your Tomorrow We Gave Our Today.

My Own Prison

God, I hate my job. Stocking medical supplies was not what I envisioned myself doing at the age of 33.The McDonald's style uniform, the mediocre pay(but appropriate for the job I do), and the infuriatingly lazy and incompetent people I work with.The job I have is in every way unsatisfying.

I realize that many Americans today would kill for my job right about now. I am thankful that I have a job that has good benefits. But that doesn't mean that I am content. Not in the least.

The person most responsible for my discontent is also the same person writing this entry. It is because of my actions--or inaction--that I find myself in a manual labor job that offers no chance of advancement, no development of skills that I could apply elsewhere.It is figuratively--and considering how close I work to the morgue--literally a dead end job.

What this job does offer is countless hours of mindless labor under the direction of supervisors who are too busy making war on their workers than actually doing their job.Of course, that assumes that these supervisors can ACTUALLY do the job they are entrusted to do.

The Union that I find myself held in bondage to, is run by persons who are more concerned with lining their pockets than negotiating contracts that help their members.That these people lacking in education and intelligence is evident to those of us who are intelligent and educated. People who think Unions are all that and a bag of chips, have either belonged to the UAW or have drunk the nectar of Unionism.

While it feels good to vent my anger and frustration, I still know that "I am the master of my fate".It is I who is responsible for escaping from the financial and intellectual prison that I have gotten myself locked into.

What is the best way of making it out permanently is what I am trying to determine as I write this. I'd like to stay at my current place of employment, but at another part of the company. But that doesn't seem likely as there are few jobs that are attractive from a salary standpoint or that I am qualified for in terms of education or work experience.

I do have a passion for history. In fact, I along with my father have started preliminary research for a book about my grandfather and grandmother's experience in World War II. This has brought some excitement into my life as I feel that I am finally doing something worthwhile with my life.

The book is a short term project. My long term goal is to earn a Master's Degree in History so I can teach at both the high school and community college level. I could also seek a career in as a archivist.

But that is some years down the road. As of now I have to continue to deal with the million different irritations and frustrations that come from working a low skilled job. Like a inmate, I am counting down the days until I can finally depart this prison.

The aftermath of death

When a person dies sometimes more is lost than the deceased. Families and friends splinter without the deceased no longer holding the group together.

The University of Michigan football team is a high profile example of this. With the passing of legendary Coach Bo Schembechler, so went the appearance of unity in the ranks.Michigan football went from an autocracy speaking with one voice to a parliamentary democracy with people going their own separate ways. UM now has its Lloydists, Les Milesians, and RichRodrians. Out of uniformity, came chaos.

But as interesting as the internal strife within the UM football is, it isn't the reason why I am writing. The provocation that has caused me to blog is the chance viewing of an obituary of a relative whom I never met.

Lucille Peterson nee Towler, was my paternal grandmother's sister. My grandmother, June Quattro, passed away from lung cancer in 1969--some eight years before I was born.In my 33 years on this earth I have never met anyone from the Towler-Carpenter side of the family.It's as if they never existed.

Why did my grandmother's family never keep in close contact with my grandfather and his children? After all, my father and his siblings are as much Towlers' as they are Quattros'.

My family isn't alone in experiencing this. I myself have done the same with my mother's family after her death. (admittedly, the circumstances aren't the same. My mother and her family were not big parts of my experience growing up as I was raised by my father) I admit to having no second thoughts about eliminating contact with those whom I share genes with.

Why didn't they maintain contact? Were they never close to begin with? Was the emotional devastation of the loss of a sister too much for Mrs. Peterson? Why I'll never know.

All I do know is that I have family out there whom I'll never know. I know that I have distant family in Italy, Germany, Ireland, etc, but these people are much closer to me. These are people whom I can trace to my grandmother whom I know little about.

I suppose this is what has caused me to write this evening. A random email containing the obituary of the sister of a grandmother whom I never met evokes a feeling of sadness within me.Sadness over their deaths and perhaps more

I don't know June Quattro. I know her children and husband, but I don't know her. I don't know the person whose DNA makes up one quarter of my being.I am her youngest son's only child, yet when I see her picture I know nothing about the woman whom gave my father life and shaped his values--the same values that my father passed on to me.

When a person dies more than just the physical and emotional presence of the deceased goes with them. The ties that bound families together loosen, memories are lost or discarded due to the pain of remembering the lost loved one, and the person them self becomes a stranger to the generations who had little or no contact with the deceased.

We as a nation are told to remember the sacrifices of our nation's soldiers--and rightly so. But we should also take care to remember those of our family whom came before us for we wouldn't be here without them.

Live like you are dying

There are times when pop songs actually have something to say. Kris Allen's "Live like We're Dying" is one of those songs. In an effort to maintain a clean look to the blog, I'll link to the lyrics instead of posting them here.http://http://www.musicloversgroup.com/kris-allen-live-like-were-dying-lyrics-and-video/

While I would not it on a list of all-time great list of pop songs, the message it conveys is one that I think makes the song worth listening to--unlike most pop hits in that regard.

It is telling the listener to take nothing for granted. Live life to the fullest and make sure those who you love know it.It implores us to live life with an sense of urgency for we all have a limited time on this earth. For we know not how or when we will cease to be of this earth.

Now contrast that to most top 40 songs today. They are about three things: Sex/romance, money, and living a aimless, dissolute life. There is little of substance--musically or otherwise--to these songs. They are cookie cutter musicians with cookie cutter songs.

Lady Gaga for all her catchy beats is basically an updated version of Madonna. Nothing original or profound in her songs.

Rap has become crap. No more Public Enemy railing against racism in "Fight the Power" or Tupac imploring for better treatment of black women like in "Keep Ya Head Up". All we get now are songs about bitches, drugs, fancy cars,and money.

Modern rock is a tiny pebble in comparison to the large boulders of the 1960's and 1970's. They are a bland, uninspiring, bunch who have nothing to say.Where have the Credence Clearwater Revivals' gone?

It is this singularity of "Live Like We're Dying" that makes it stand out to me. So little of popular music has something meaningful to say that when one comes upon a pop song that has a message exhibiting signs of thought that it makes a person take notice.

"Live Like We're Dying" isn't saying anything profound about the mysteries of life or the universe, but the simplicity of its message should not deter a person from imbiding the lesson it is giving you.If we all lived life as if we were dying, this world would be much better off.