Occupy This.

I've already made my disdain for the Occupy movement clear. I see no need to launch into another philosophical tirade outlining my reasons for generally disagreeing with them.

However, the general tempo and timbre of their behavior over the past month, and some recent incidents that involved protesters affiliated with California-based Occupy movements presents a bit too ripe a target for me to not take the bait. And a principal segment of the movement that, due to shortsightedness on my part, escaped mention on my last piece on Occupy, needs some addressing.

First and foremost-the bastard child of "Don't Tase Me, Bro" that occurred at the University of California-Davis. I've noticed more than a few of my associates expressing outrage over the incident-in which two police officers used pepper spray against a protester (the officers are currently on administrative leave)-and sympathy for the protesters.

Secondly was an instance where protesters with Occupy San Diego assaulted a woman who was identified (at least by the protesters) as a Tea Partier in Downtown San Diego.

Regarding Don't Mace Me, Dude-why is it that whenever police take some sort of action against a left-wing protester, everyone immediately jumps to the conclusion that the cops were in the wrong and that the protester was innocent? It's almost never the case. Before you go on to say that the cops deserved harsher punishments, bear the following in mind: 1) The Occupy movement is sustained through extensive use of public property, oftentimes through squatting. 2) The Police exist for the express purpose of maintaining public safety. Which means making sure that We the People-you, me, anyone in the area unfortunate enough to get harassed by an Occupy protester, and the little brats themselves-stay safe and do not commit crime. Cops do not go roving around simply looking to brutalize anybody who can stake a claim (no matter how logically dubious) as being "exploited", they're there to make sure things do not get out of control. Occupy has had several instances these past few months where a loss of control has occurred. In addition, Police personnel have a right to defend themselves and use discretion in the line of duty. Odds are the protester would not have received a snoot full of pepper spray if he did not act belligerently towards law enforcement (I believe the idea that this man-and the majority of Occupy-are peaceful, nonviolent protesters is a myth. The odds suggest I will not be convinced otherwise. Besides, it was pepper spray. Will Sasso and Robert Ben Garant have had themselves sprayed with the stuff for comedic effect. He could have been tased. Or given an old-fashioned beat-down with a night stick (which would have been in police brutality territory, I have to admit)).

Speaking of acting like a jackass (not a political jackass, mind you; that is a job for Howard Dean), the second instance I brought up highlights why I think the idea that Occupy is peaceful is a lie. After getting past the fact that one of the protesters uttered an eleven-word sentence before striking the camera where the word f*** was at least six of those words, I had a flashback of my time at one of the original Tea Parties in El Cajon, where one of the Tea Party rank was physically assaulted by a group of leftist sympathizers who were looking to both pick a fight and discredit the then-young right-wing grassroots movement.

And they have the audacity to call us in the Tea Party troglodytes? (I'm sorry, but if you're illegally squatting on City property and smearing your own feces on food carts as part of what amounts to a massive campaign to draw attention to yourself, you've surrendered your privacy to whoever comes in trying to videotape-odd, considering you don't have a problem if the cameras have a news channel logo on them.)

In my last vent against Occupy, I made much about the members of the disgruntled working class who I presumed were the core of the movement. I made a glaring oversight-the core of the movement, I'm sorry to say, is made up of members of my generation. Many are college students. And here is where the trouble starts.

It would be one thing if the Occupy youth were mad because they were being screwed out of employment opportunities due to governmental mismanagement of public funds and economic cronyism. But, sadly, this is not the case. Most of these protesters seem to be motivated by a desire to get the Taxpaying public to subsidize the entirety of their college education (one photographer found a protester at one Occupy movement holding up a sign that put things quite bluntly: Pay My Tuition). It's greedy and idiotic to suggest you shouldn't have to pay off any of your debt because you cannot do it on your own. Yes, college debt sucks. I wouldn't even disagree with you if you said college tuition rates are overpriced. But here's the thing: it's a voluntary debt. You did not have to do anything to put yourself into the hole. You could have taken precautions to either avoid it or mitigate it (Forgive my getting personal, but this was part of my motivation to join the Armed Forces. I may share the general lack of experience and street smarts typical of a young generation, but I was at least blessed with enough foresight to select an option that would eliminate debt worries. And let me tell you, we in uniform have problems and issues a hell of a lot more difficult and painful than you do, Occupy, and we don't complain half as much).

Arguments justifying a bailout for the students justified on the basis that Wall Street got a bailout are at least somewhat logical, but still do not make the protest or its aims any more legitimate. Never mind the fact that the debt incurred by these corporations wasn't necessarily voluntary, the simple truth is we cannot afford to give money on that scale a second time, in spite of what 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue seems to think. Add to it that this is where the Occupiers and the Tea Party actually might have common ground, we didn't support the bailout, either. It is not the government's place to interfere with the markets and pick winners and losers.

But what bugs me of late is the general damn-foolishness of the entire movement. It has devolved into a general incoherence. We hear reports of twentysomethings in New York City screaming their lungs off at a Citibank branch on their way to another protest area on the basis that Citibank=financial corporation=evil; therefore local bank=stand-in for exaggerated, imagined corporate sleights geared in conspiracy to drown Generation Y in debt. We find out that many of these people are evolving into useful idiots, being handed signs preaching Communist rhetoric by manipulative anti-capitalist infiltrators who have deftly used this movement as a personal juggernaut and not having the damnest clue what's even written on the sign, let alone what it means.

What also bothers me is the way the entire Occupy movement operates. The problem can be found in the name itself: Occupy. Occupy Wall Street, Occupy San Diego, Occupy Seattle, Occupy Oakland. Combined with their extensive and at times legally questionable use of public property, the whole movement proudly advertises that the way it will change the nation is by taking over cities and just...sitting there. That is, when they're not being disruptive. Occupy, by definition, is a non-productive campaign. Which, in fact, is the entire problem. It wouldn't satisfy these people to build a better mousetrap-that would require-gasp-effort. Easier and more fun to simply destroy the one that already exists.

The last point stays in my mind because, with somewhat different wording ("throwing your bodies against the gears"), the exact same thing was advocated by an Occupy forerunner fifty years before; a man named Mario Savio who, inexplicably, has been disgracefully bestowed with the title of "free speech advocate." It's not the only 1960s parallel to Occupy: what took the Young Left roughly a decade to accomplish took Occupy only a matter of weeks-what started out as a youth-oriented and explicitly political movement has devolved into an excuse to do nothing productive, live rent-free, filch food off the generous and misguided, and create a less-than-authentic image of a rouge-a modern-day beatnikism-to more easily get some (If I need to define what "some" would be....I won't even bother. It should be apparent to anybody reading what I mean). In short, they've devolved into hippies. At least the original version of the filthy little devils that heckled and abused Chicago cops into knocking the ever-loving daylights out of them during the Democratic convention in 1968 might be able to blame it on their steady supply of recreational drugs and awful music. Occupy doesn't have the convenience of such an excuse.

Bringing up that last group of Occupy participants-I guess they would be hipsters, they're doing this to appear cool-reminds me of a couple of closing points. First, permit me a little self-aggrandizing and some hipster-bashing (the latter at least seems always welcome). I dislike hipsters, not just because of their pretentiousness, but also because of the way they try to claim the label of iconoclast. Wearing distasteful clothing, listening to unbearable music on the basis that it isn't major-label, and attaching yourself to every anti-the Man movement an iconoclast does not make. You're just as much a slave to the system as the people you set to rail against. Now, I'm a proud Republican from a blue state living in a blue city (Seattle's liberalism can scare even those used to dealing with Los Angeles and San Francisco lefties). I'm a white kid who comes from the suburbs, is a Christian, serves in the military, loves to listen to rap music and classical composers, builds model kits, loves using large words for no reason other than that I can, somehow is friends with a lot of beautiful women, athletes, and outcasts, drives (or rather plans to drive) a Volkswagen, wears my opinions on my sleeve, likes soccer, curses like a sailor, looks forward to college "debates" with left-wing professors with gleeful abandon, maintains a normally-left-wing love of stirring up the mess, and loves his country. And I do all of it because it is what interests me and what I've found I excel at. No pressures. Nothing is done simply to follow a particular crowd. Now, that's iconoclasm. Top that, you Pabst-drinking twits.

Now, getting back on subject, and closing on a personal note; I make a lot about being a painted-scarlet red Republican and being unabashedly right-wing, at times I remember that I've got a little Democrat in my blood, too. My late grandfather, a Marine veteran of the Korean War, my grandmother, herself a civilian employee of the Department of the Navy, and my mother, were all Democrats. Now, my mother and I have made our differences of opinion plain to each other, and we respect each other's views on this basis-even if there is disagreement. That's probably because the kind of Democrats my Mom's immediate family (going further down the line, I've found Republican lawmakers back in Pennsylvania) were from the generation of the party that maintained influence from 1912 to 1980-the "New Deal" Democrats. Now, I maintain my opposition to the Democrats even at this level, because it was in this timeframe that the Democrats advocated Progressivism, which in truth was nothing more than a universalist, watered-down variant of the kind of politics that caused a massive mindwipe of the body politic in Italy and Germany during the inter-war period, and also bequeathed the New Deal and the Great Society-broad-reaching social-engineering programs that, while designed with noble intentions, ultimately permitted a massive encroachment of the federal government on individual American lives and serve as the foundation for the vast majority of today's economic and societal problems (another topic for another time). But when the Democrats of this era claimed to be a Party of the People, there was at least an air of believability to it. That's why my Grandpa and Grandma were Democrats. That's how Mom was raised. But, as today's Democrat lawmakers nationwide fall in love with Occupy, I cannot help but wonder how Grandpa-a man who once actively campaigned for George McGovern-would react to it all. And as Democrat lawmakers in my beloved California continue to decide that protecting a bait fish and giving the children of illegal immigrants free tuition are more important than permitting prosperity and respecting the wishes of their citizens, I get the feeling that whenever I jokingly suggest to my family and friends who identify as Democrats that I will one day convince them to join the Republican fold, the suggestion just might be taken seriously.

But I don't know. I could be wrong. Which wouldn't bother me in this case.

(Before I forget-Happy Thanksgiving-three in a row I've been away from home. Hopefully that wil change for Christmas. Enjoy the holiday and don't drink and drive.)

Originally published on 23 November 2011.

Not Your Typical Concert: A Recap

Anybody who knows me knows that my taste in music can be described as eclectic, to say the least. Some rock, a dabble of country, the guilty pleasure of pop. People seem surprised when they find out I listen to a lot of rap. But I've never been one for the concert experience-my excuses for not going ranging from it being too crowded, too loud, too expensive, and, should independent artists be involved, not having the faintest idea who is on stage and not necessarily enjoying the music (Not to mention the tumor-esqe presence of the hipsters-Independent/alternative concerts are to hipsters what Lakers games are to celebrities; you don't go there to watch the show (it's going to be terrible in some form either way), you go there to be seen and for bragging rights (with all due respect to Jack Nicholson, who seems to take his basketball seriously)).

But last night was different-I went to my first concert, but the "concert" part is not my focus. Rather, I think of it as my baptism into classical music, courtesy of the Seattle Symphony Orchestra. And I shall now tell you the story if this baptism, and with it, hope that a generation obsessed with the likes of Katy Perry, Luke Bryan (do I really need another baritone voice and set of washboard abs to compete against, ladies?), and Young Money Records might gain an appreciation for the older style and a little high culture.

Seattle Symphony plays out of Benaroya Hall, which is located at the boundary between the Central Business District and the Pike Market (of flying salmon fame) neighborhoods in Downtown Seattle, about a mile north of Seattle's two sports stadiums and King Street Station and a little over a half-mile southeast of the Space Needle. The modern and understated exterior opens into an atrium on the east side, leading concert-goers past the facility's gift ship, a small Wolfgang Puck bistro, a Starbucks (it is Seattle, after all) to either a recital hall or to the 2,500-seat main concert hall. The foyer to the concert hall, like the hall itself, has multiple stories to enable guests to reach the different seating levels.

Inside the main hall, there is a heavy use of cream and beige, which creates a warm and intimate feel in spite of the fact that, if you sit in the main section, the ceiling is about four stories above your head. Something people who might be accustomed to going to outdoor concerts that rely heavily on sophisticated sound systems might find surprising is the relative lack of them in the hall. There are still speakers so that a performer or lecturer on the stage (which features a massive and prominent organ in it's center) can use a microphone to speak. Concert halls used by symphony orchestras don't need the electrified walls of sound (a term actually born from symphony orchestras) you see on a normal stage because the very design of the building is keyed to acoustics-something that was readily apparent to me, waiting at five minutes to eight, as the audience began filling the hall. The idle banter of at least 2,450 other individuals becomes surprisingly loud. The roof lights dim very slightly, a projector mounted in the rear displays on the wall above the stage a reminder to guests to turn off all electronic devices (to include cameras), and when the foyer is empty, the doors close, the house lights dim a bit more, and then-quiet. Quickly. To the point of being eerie.

Now, while the resident group is indeed a symphony orchestra, the size of the orchestra itself was a bit smaller than I expected. Perhaps this was merely the effect of the large stage in a much larger hall (the entire building occupies an entire city block).

The string section was alone on the stage after the lights went down. Then, from stage right, comes the first source of applause for the evening-the first violin. She walked up to her seat, took a bow, and then led the string section in the calibration of their instruments (that deafening monotone that has become something of a stereotype within music altogether) before taking her seat. Shortly thereafter, the conductor-this evening, Eric Garcia, an assistant conductor with the orchestra-walks on stage to more applause. He takes his bow, and then assumes his place at the podium to lead the strings in the first performance of the evening.

The reason the string section was alone at the beginning was because the first pice of the night was written exclusively for their instruments-Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings. Composed in 1936 and premiering in New York City in 1937 with the NBC Symphony Orchestra, lead by Arturo Toscanini, Adagio has assumed something of an iconic status in popular culture due to it's distinctly tragic (and, in a way, romantic) sound. Cinephiles might recognize the use of Adagio in Oliver Stone's Platoon. What strikes you about the piece-especially if you've never heard it in it's entirety-is how it subtly builds itself in intensity, starting with the violins before adding the larger, lower strings in, growing stronger and stronger before stopping with a sudden silence that only seems to intensify the whole performance (and where, like me, you hear your breath literally being taken away) before moving to a final section that uses the first five notes from the opening melody and gently slips back into silence. Not a bad warm-up, maestro.

The conductor took his bow amidst the applause, and briefly left the stage as the remainder of the orchestra, their instruments in tow (to include a few gentlemen carrying rather large bassoons), take their seats on stage. Again, the first violin leads the orchestra in calibration, then takes her seat. The conductor returns to the stage, and it is on to the next one.

The second piece of the evening was the 1919 version of The Firebird Suite, composed by Igor Stravisnky. The Russian-born modernist was notorious in his time for his iconoclastic approach to composing, incorporating polytonality and discordance into much of his work at a time when most music was relatively simple and orderly. This is best typified by perhaps his most famous work, The Rite of Spring (Le Sacre du Printemps in the original French). The piece, which later found a wide audience here by being incorporated into Walt Disney'sFantasia, was accompanied by a ballet dance (both music and dance in turn were heavily inspired by pagan Russian lore) that was considered so shocking and raunchy that a riot infamously broke out at it's premiere in Paris. The Rite of Spring itself typifies Stravinsky's style; very jumpy, experimental, menacing and mischievous.

Having heard the Fantasia version of The Rite of Spring before, I was at least partially prepared to expect some of the same for The Firebird, which like The Rite of Spring originally featured an accompanying ballet routine and drew from Russian myth and folklore. The start is what you'd expect from a Stravisnky piece-the air of menace and some mischief is readily apparent in the music, with the low strings and the mythic horns. The massive bassoons I mentioned earlier play their part; Stravinsky seemed to have an affinity for the instrument and wrote music that played to the extremes with the bassoon's range (most evident, once again, in The Rite of Spring, where the bassoon plays the opening bars at an abnormally high note range). About a third of the way in comes another Stravinsky trademark-a sudden, violent change in direction and volume. If you watch the performance as well as listen, you have a few seconds' warning before such an occurrence because the conductor conducts a note or two ahead of the musicians. I later thought that, if there was a concert-goer with a diet sufficiently high in cholesterol and the conductor had just the right (or wrong) timing, it would be possible for an orchestra to kill the poor man with Stravinsky by sending him into cardiac arrest from the inevitable shock.

Much of the second half, including the finale to the suite, was more peaceful, orderly, and I daresay romantic (a word that must be used carefully with any Stravinsky piece because the man defined his career by breaking with Romanticisit tradition). The finale may well have been one of the best parts of the entire evening, because the orchestra had me engaged. The conductor did his job actively (which made him fun to watch), and most importantly, I found myself not wanting it to end. I rose with a good portion of the audience to applaud afterwards before everyone stepped out for a brief intermission.

Returning to my seat some ten minutes later, I was reminded of the reason why I had chosen this evening to attend when I caught a glance of the large grand piano that had been wheeled out to center stage. Seattle Symphony had a special guest this evening in Herbie Hancock. If you are unfamiliar with the name, you ought to be ashamed-Mr. Hancock is one of the most accomplished jazz musicians and band leaders of the last fifty years. Starting as a member of the Miles Davis Quintet in 1963, Hancock has gone on to win 14 Grammys (including an Album of the Year win in 2008, the first such win for a jazz album in 43 years and only the second ever), 5 MTV Awards, and an Academy Award for Best Original Soundtrack (Round Midnight). And, as Mr. Hancock-who was gracious and entertaining whenever he spoke to the audience-would prove, he is also a damned good piano player.

Mr. Hancock began by playing three solo pieces-all of which, I am sorry to admit, I have only a fleeting familiarity with-a piano rendition of a jazz standard called Footsteps, a sweet George Gershwin number, Embraceable You, and another jazz piece whose name escapes me but whose melody proved vaguely familiar. Through it all, Mr. Hancock's hands seemed to move over the keys at lightning speeds. Mr. Hancock also played the last piece without the aid of sheet music. Not bad for 71.

Mr. Hancock, after taking his bow, left the stage as the orchestra returned. The first violin once again returned to the stage to applause and led the orchestra in calibration, this time striking a key on the piano rather than leading off with her own instrument. Then, Mr. Hancock and the conductor walked onto the stage, and took their places. Mr. Hancock and the orchestra proceeded to play an orchestration of an earlier Hancock song, Sonrisa, which had been arranged by George Whitty (who was present in the audience and received his share of applause after Mr. Hancock pointed this out). I'd never heard or heard of Sonrisa, but I must say that the orchestral portions of the song seemed positively haunting; creating a contrast to the warm piano.

Finally, the moment the audience has been waiting for approaches; after the four previous pieces, they are at a fever pitch. The house lights dim a little more, and blue stage lights are switched on. The conductor raises his baton, and the moment you hear that opening clarinet, you can feel the smile grow on your face as the glissando reaches it's zenith and you know you are listening to Rhapsody in Blue.

Rhapsody may well be the best representation for the United States in terms of classical composition. Written somewhat hastily in the winter of 1923 to meet an advertised premiere of 12 February 1924, Rhapsody in Blue was composed by George Gershwin, who at the time was better known for writing the music to the jazzy standards that populated the music halls of Broadway (his brother Ira frequently wrote the lyrics to these pieces). Gershwin claimed that the inspiration for Rhapsody came to him while on a train journey between Boston and New York City, stating that the rhythm of the train along the tracks and grand visions of America became the basis of the work (interestingly, while Gershwin wanted to conjure up images of the whole country in the piece, it has long since been associated with New York City; something likely reinforced by the use of Rhapsody in a 1970s ad campaign by United Airlines that touted United as "The Official Airline of the Great White Way").

Much has been made of what is now considered George Gershwin's master work. The conductor Damrosch once noted that, in Rhapsody, Gershwin "made a lady out of jazz." Indeed, with the heavy use of piano throughout (Gershwin himself played the piano for the premiere), the jazz influence that molded Gershwin's career is undeniable. Rhapsody is also undeniably a piece of classical music.

I am intimately familiar with Rhapsody; I consider it one of my favorite pieces of music, so I already knew what it would sound like and roughly how long it would last. Now, I would be treated to finally seeing it live-with a master manning the piano. Mr. Hancock, while at times adding a little of his own interpretation to the piano portions, stayed true to the spirit of the piece. The orchestra, and Mr. Garcia, handled their parts masterfully. I admit to finding my eyes rather moist (but not to tears) at the piece's unmistakably romantic midsection, with it's uplifting string base that is still capable of giving me the chills. The whole affair took perhaps sixteen minutes. And I was smiling for every second of them.

It would not be an exaggeration to note that, immediately after the last note went silent, the performance merited a standing ovation of approximately five minutes. Mr. Hancock had to return to the stage for bows four times.

Quite a different beast. If you haven't been to a symphony orchestra performance before-if you've never been to a concert or live performance, period-take my advice. Find an orchestra nearby (San Diego, Seattle, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York all have at least one), find a friend who is into classical music so you can pick a good concert date, and save your money (my ticket was $125, and I'd recommend investing in a suit. It doesn't appear to be a requirement, but most of the audience is dressed to impress, and the orchestra members are white-tie. Remember, this is a "high culture" thing). I think you'll find that you'll have an unexpected good time. But that's just me.

Originally published on 19 November 2011.

-It occurred to me that when I announce that I am a Republican, that I am actually announcing, in addition to my political position (which might be termed "Conservative" in the British Commonwealth), I am also announcing my belief in a fundamental theory of governance. To be quite frank, looking at such connections is thinking into it far too deeply for most people, but it's amusing nonetheless. In fact, of you're willing to idealize slightly, the names of the Democratic and Republican parties are in fact, more than mere names-they actually show each group's fundamental philosophy of governance.

-We as Americans are familiar with "democracy" and democrats in the classical sense. Thanks to it's emphasis in basic American History courses, it's almost a product of rote memory to know that "democracy" is derived from Greek roots, the word ultimately meaning "rule of the people." We are taught that our government is a democracy, and that most of the governments of the western world are democracies, and that democracies are good things.

-Rubbish.

-I'll grant you that the traditional alternatives to democracy are no more desirable. The mention of anarchy generally only seems to conjure images of chaos, disarray, and stab-happy, bomb-throwing Victorians. Then there are the various flavors of autocracy that have long poisoned much of the East and have long since leaked into Africa, Russia and some corners of Europe-whether it is driven by a manic (maniac?) personality (as we often see in Africa), being in the nationalist sentiment (Russia under Vladimir Putin comes to mind), dangerously infused with religion (officially in Iran and unofficially throughout much of the Arab world and the outer reaches of the Greater Iran plateau), or in it's most dangerous forms, fascism and communism. Communism, for all the ignorant advocacy afforded to it by the learned idiots in the West, has never been anything but dictatorship by committee. Fascism occasionally follows this route, sometimes it focuses on a single strongman (Mussolini being the most notable example), but it generally seeks the same ends as the communists. Nazism takes the fascist approach and infuses it with ethnocentrism and virulent anti-semitism (as was demonstrated on an appalling scale the one time it was tried out).

-So, how does any of this make democracy bad? Because democracy is, at the base of it, nothing more than mob rule. The foundation of the democracy is the vote, and with it the concept of majority rule. The ancient Greek democracies themselves would enact something if it achieved a majority. For example, if the voting members desired to exile a prominent fellow citizen, whatever the reason, they could do so if enough votes were cast (this practice, as it happens, also gave us the word ostracize, from the name for the voting tokens used for exactly such a measure). Once the majority had decided on it, that was that. You left the city-state for the allotted period of time and you were killed if you refused to obey or returned early-no questions asked. And this was an ordinary and civil action. Imagine, now, if the United States were the democracy many either purport or wish us to be. All decisions are determined by a direct simple majority vote of the people. Sounds great at first, but imagine what happens when important or controversial measures come up to bat. Do you think we as a country would spend money wisely if we were a democracy? (not that we do right now) Do you think measures such as the Civil Rights Act or the 24th Amendment would have succeeded in such an environment?

-Which takes us to the Republic and republicanism. The term seems to have entered public knowledge first as the title of a work of the Greek philosopher Plato, but the Romans were the first to properly develop the concept. The Roman Republic consisted of two branches of legislature that held ultimate political power over the realm-one representing the plebs, or common freedmen of the republic, ands one consisting of the patricians, or the nobility. In the centuries following the collapse of both the republic and the succeeding empire, this model would influence the construction and style of the English Parliament (the names of Parliament's houses continue to reflect this-the upper House of Lords and the lower House of Commons).

-It also had a very profound impact on our own nation in it's youngest days. The Founding Fathers were motivated by many commonly-shared beliefs-deep faith in God, support for Lockean theories of natural rights, and Scottish economic theory (especially that developed by Adam Smith), but chief among them was an admiration of Rome-specifically, the Roman veneration of virtue and the Roman model of the Republic.

-So, what was so admirable about the Republic to our Founders? It combined the necessities of popular influence and combating autocratic tendencies without relying on the mob mentality that plagued democracy (the Founders, even "liberal" Jefferson, held a negative view of it). Our Republic would be based on a legislature that would see a lower House of Representatives directly represent the people (elected directly every two years) and an upper Senate (the name taken from the Roman equivalent) that, instead of consisting of nobles and aristocrats as it had in ancient Rome and in Great Britain, would instead house representatives of the State government. To finish the construction, the nation would be headed by a Chief Executive (our President) who would be elected independently by representatives from each state, with the majority votes within each state being the deciding factor in how the state's electors would vote. In short, our young nation would be a federal republic, a balance between the unitary authority that the States had just fought an eight year war to rid themselves of and the ineffectual confederacy that had been briefly tried following the war's conclusion.

-To wit, I am a Republican. Not merely in the sense that I am a member of the Republican Party, but that I am also a firm believer in the concept of governance we call republicanism. I devote myself, politically and professionally, to beating back the phantasm of the autocracy that was born of the uncivilized world, thrives in the East, and has tried over the millenia to consume us. No single man's freedom or destiny should be suborned or challenged in this mortal realm by a man or men poisoned by a lust for strength. But I am most definitely not a democrat. Democracy is messy, ineffectual, and has the potential to devolve into violence and even backslide into autocracy. I don't trust anyone who thinks that it would be a good idea to govern our nation that way-we are a nation made up of fifty states with their own, unique problems and ways of dealing with them. A democracy would merely prioritize the few governmental commonalities that unite us as a nation at the expense of effectively dealing with regional problems at the national level and, importantly, protecting the rights of the minority (which has a lot to do with how Congress does things and why we have an Electoral College instead of a direct popular vote).

-Our current problem is not our method of governance-it's the fact that, three years ago, we elected a lot of people who collectively joined and ran on a massive empty promise. We started to correct the mistake last year. How it goes from here will depend on whether my fellow Americans share my love and devotion to our Federal Republic. For that, they'll have to be true republicans (and not merely vote Republican (though that would be a good place to start-but that's just my opinion)).

Originally published on 29 October 2011.

Danny Boy: Remembering Dan Wheldon

-Dario Franchitti accomplished an incredible thing on Sunday, 16 October 2011-he won his third consecutive IZOD IndyCar Series Championship (his fourth overall), and made his boss, Chip Ganassi, the first team owner in IndyCar competition to have won four consecutive championships on two separate occasions. And to both-Franchitti in particular, that means nothing right now. How Franchitti clinched the title will tell you why:

-On the 11th lap of the IndyCar World Championships, at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway, two drivers made light contact. Some faster drivers-running three-wide and moving very quickly on a 1.5 mile oval with steep banking-attempted to avoid these two. At the end of it all, this resulted in a fifteen-car pileup, which took out Will Power, Franchitti's main rival for the title, and sent him-along with rookie drivers Pippa Mann and J. R. Hildebrand-to the hospital. But as they were released from medical examination, more somber news fell across the speedway to anxious fans and competitors: Dan Wheldon was dead.

-Dan Wheldon, who had participated-and won-in only one race that season-the Indianapolis 500, perhaps the most precious prize for any driver-was running at race speed as he approached the accident when he clipped the rear of E. J. Viso's car. This sent his own car airborne into a horrific barrel roll that ended with the car slamming into the catch fence with enough force to shear the roll hoop off of the chassis. Wheldon had to be extracted by medical personnel from the car and airlifted to a nearby hospital, where he subsequently succumbed to what IndyCar termed "unsurvivable injuries"-blunt force trauma to the head, according to the Clark County Coroner.

-The reaction on pit row was to be expected-one of sheer shock and despondence. Franchitti, who had been Wheldon's teammate at Andretti Green Racing just six years earlier and replaced Wheldon at Target Chip Ganassi Racing-was seen sobbing and being consoled by crew members and wife Ashley Judd. Similar reactions were seen from Tony Kanaan, who like Franchitti was both a friend and former teammate to Wheldon, and from Danica Patrick. After the announcement, IndyCar CEO Randy Bernard made the call to abandon the race, with five parade laps in honor of the fallen Englishman-a mover fully supported by the drivers.

-Wheldon's fatal accident has made reverberations throughout the IndyCar community, reopening many debates regarding driver safety, car design, circuit selection, and race management. Wheldon was the first IndyCar driver to die behind the wheel since Paul Dana was killed in a collision during the warm-up for the 2006 season opener, and was the first driver to die in competition since Greg Moore was killed at the 1999 Marlboro 500. The accident had eerie parallels with Moore's accident: both took place at the final race of the season, both drivers had just signed deals with teams for the next season (Moore had signed to drive for Roger Penske's team and was replaced by Helio Castroneves after he died; Wheldon had signed a deal earlier that weekend to return to Michael Andretti's team to replace NASCAR-bound Danica Patrick), and Dario Franchitti had been contesting the championship in both races.

-These barren facts do no justice to Wheldon's record as a driver and to his character. Arriving to america from England in 1999, Wheldon quickly made his way up through the open-wheel ranks and, in 2003, was named the Rookie of the Year in his first year of IndyCar competition, driving for Michael Andretti's team. Two years later, as the central component of the Andretti Green juggernaut that saw him and all three of his teammates-Franchitti, Kanaan, and Bryan Herta-win races, Wheldon won the Indianapolis 500 and the IndyCar championship. Wheldon left for Target Chip Ganassi Racing the following season, competing but ultimately playing second fiddle to New Zealander Scott Dixon as he drove to a title in 2008 (the Kiwi's second), before he was subsequently bumped in favor of Dario Franchitti, who had spent half a season playing a fish out of water in NASCAR. Dan then spent two years driving for Panther racing, coming close but frequently coming up short-though usually not through any fault of his own-before he lost his ride again. Wheldon, with 16 wins-including an Indianapolis 500-and a championship, was without a ride for 2011.

-As May approached, an old friend came calling: Bryan Herta, a competent driver who had frequently been overshadowed by his old teammate during their days at Andretti Green Racing, had taken his IndyCar team efforts and combined them with those of team owner Sam Schmidt to put together a one-race effort for the 500. They were interested in having Dan as the driver. Wheldon agreed. The rest, as anyone who watched Indy this year can tell you-is history. Dan Wheldon got to play David to the full time Goliaths and reminded the IndyCar community of his immense talent by beating them at their own game in the biggest race of the year.

-Wheldon's win brought him renewed attention. He wouldn't secure another ride, but he was hardly idle. Wheldon (and Bryan Herta's team) had their hands full testing out the newer, (supposedly) safer Dallara prototype that will become the new IndyCar standard in the upcoming season. When he wasn't shaking down the prototype race car, Wheldon was in the booth as a color commentator for the Versus Network for IndyCar races. Wheldon's knowledge as a driver-combined with a natural good humor-showed many fans and observers in the media that he may have a good career as a race broadcaster once his career in the cockpit was over. As the final race of the season approached, Wheldon accepted an offer made by Randy Bernard: $5,000,000 for him and a fan if he could win the race driving from the back. The offer was designed to appeal to non-regular drivers from other series: Scott Speed, Kasey Kahne, and Kimi Raikonnen had all expressed interest, and Travis Pastrana had planned to go for the prize, but a broken ankle from an X Games Rally competition derailed that plan. Wheldon technically qualified because he had only one run one race all year. Wheldon accepted that deal, and, perhaps as a recognition for his talent and his moxie that season, was approached by former team owner Michael Andretti to return to his team full-time to replace Danica Patrick and take over her lucrative GoDaddy.com sponsorship. Reports from fellow drivers and fans on Sunday morning show that Dan was the typical Dan as the race start approached-all smiles, eager as ever.

-In addition to his excellent resume as a driver, much has been made of Wheldon's character and behavior outside the cockpit. Wheldon was a friendly individual who connected with the fans, never hesitating to stop and sign an autograph and accosting competitors who didn't on more than one occasion. Tony Kanaan and Dario Franchitti both noted Dan's love of practical jokes, and everybody has noted that Dan's marriage to Susie Behm-now tragically cut short-was a very happy one, and that Dan loved his two sons, Oliver and Sebastian, dearly.

-Dan's season-not to mention his life, all of 33 years-shouldn't have ended in turn two of the Las Vegas Motor Speedway. But his sudden absence makes all of us in the IndyCar community-drivers, team owners, executives, certainly the fans-recognize the impact he made. There's no doubt he will be missed by all. There's no doubt in my mind that, if we could ask Dan, one last time, what we should do now that hew's gone, he would say: go back out there, and race to win. No matter the track, no matter the odds. Racing is a dangerous, occasionally violent sport, as we have been reminded. A driver of Wheldon's caliber knows these risks. But they take them head on-full throttle, if you will-anyway. That's why we pack the stands on any given Sunday and scream and cheer for men like Dan.

-We'll miss you, Danny Boy. Your friend TK put it best: "This isn't goodbye. Goodbye is final. So I'll say 'See you later.'"

Originally published on 26 October 2011.

America's Zombie Apocalypse

This country has developed an ungodly obsession with zombies over the past few years. I haven't a solid idea why. Of course, in this era of 28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead,Resident Evil, and Zombieland, the zombie archetype-if there is indeed such a thing-is that of a human being turned rabid, having sacrificed soul, thought-but not life-through succumbing to some kind of horrific disease (mad cow-related or pharmaceutical experiment or otherwise), not the George Romero, Night of the Living Dead type that I have always associated with the word "zombie"-that of a lifeless hulk, doing nothing but trudging along at a slow pace, attempting to sate an inexplicable urge to destroy the living.

Either way, there are actually people-mostly the nutty survivalist types who look like that couple from Tremors, but increasingly more and more "ordinary" individuals-who are actively making preparations of some kind to help them fend off the writhing masses that will be the centerpiece of this "zombie apocalypse" that is supposedly going to rain down upon us in the near future.

I hate to break it to you, but the apocalypse is not coming-it has already begun. It started in a small section of Manhattan Island on September 17th. And while some, humorously, have actually dressed the part of the zombie, they prefer not to use that name to describe themselves. They call themselves the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

I know you've probably guessed by now that the zombies I'm discussing are neither dead or diseased. They don't have any (apparent) desire to feed on human flesh or human brains. If you know me at all, you know I think this whole "zombie" thing, in either variation, is utter nonsense. The only way in my mind for humanity to suffer anything of that sort is through an act of God (or, worse yet, an act of the Devil, who seems to have a taste in cruel jokes).

But, that still leaves our "zombies" with two things they do have in common with their fictitious counterparts: the urge to destroy, and the tendency to spread.

Like any stereotypical heartless, money-grubbing, puppy-kicking Republican, I hold a certain degree of contempt towards left-wing protesters. Not because they're protesting-I'd like to think I have the courage of conviction to not bemoan a person because they are protesting-as I recall, it was a right thought so important by our Founding Fathers that they protected it with the First Amendment to the Constitution (along with speech and religion). And I shouldn't throw stones at protesters simply because they're in a protest movement-after all, I've publicly identified myself as a member of the nation's other pre-eminent protest movement. Rather, I protest the protesters on rational grounds-the way they carry out their protest, and why they're protesting.

Firstly, the way Occupy Wall Street has "done their thing"-I dislike it because it's far too typical of left-wing protests. The left may still have the edge over the right in "organizing" sheer numbers, but I'd deign to call this protest organized. In New York City and almost every other city this disease of a movement has spread to, it's a disorganized mess of human beings, shouting incoherent slogans, dressing as robbers, zombies, and other characters from some Democrat cosplay menagerie, blocking traffic and pedestrians, and in general just being a nuisance and doing things that get their participants arrested. It's the same thing that plagued the violent protests at the 1968 Democratic Party Convention in Chicago and the idiotic protest against the World Trade Organization up here in Seattle at the close of the 1990s.

More important is the protest. Occupy Wall Street brazenly claims to both represent 99% of Americans and to be inspired by the "Arab Spring" movements that deposed dictators in Egypt, Tunisia, and most recently in Libya. They are calling for a fundamental change to American economic culture. And they, in effect, are placing all of the blame for the nation's economic woes squarely on "Wall Street"-meaning big corporations-and, whether they realize it or not, all businesses.

The ignorance of it is both woeful and astounding.

I am by no means absolving Wall Street or big businesses of anything and everything-corruption in the American corporate world is well-established and well-documented. And more than a few of the protesters in the Occupy Wall Street movement no doubt have a legitimate beef because of this. But, to those precious few souls, I must implore you-abandon the movement, because you are focusing your anger and pressure in the wrong direction.

The Tea Party has also acknowledged corruption in big business. Perhaps the movement's most prominent spokesperson, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, has said so several times in speaking engagements this year. But, unlike Occupy Wall Street (and in spite of her opponents' repeated accusations if idiocy), Mrs. Palin correctly identified the source of the problem-government intervention in the free market.

Which is why I find myself with a growing dislike of the Occupy Wall Street movement. For every ten frustrated working class joes who are venting their anger about the system, there are ten thousand various others-college-age ingrates, hipsters, punks, opportunists-who are playing the role of the useful idiot.

"Useful idiot" is a term coined by Vladimir Lenin, leader of Russia's Bolshevik Revolution, to describe Westerners-Americans in particular (John Reed comes to mind) who through their vocal advocacy of the Communist revolution and its aims, assisted Lenin and his ilk by giving the Communist movement an air of legitimacy.* The majority of the protesters (and their prominent supporters-I'm talking to you, Cornel West, Naomi Klein, Roseanne Barr, Alec Baldwin, George Soros, Radiohead (note that all the previously mentioned are all rather wealthy in their own right-and I never saw what the big deal about Radiohead was, anyway)) are fulfilling this same role. What on Earth am I rambling about? I have come to the conclusion that Occupy Wall Street is less of a protest against corporate greed and really more of a shill to turn the United States into a nation with a socialist economy.

This belief is not merely political bandstanding-one of the protest's primary organizers is an group called Adbusters, which publishes a magazine of the same name. This group is, without question, one of the most prominent anti-capitalist and anti-free market organizations in the United States. A disconcerting number of protesters, when they're not obstructing traffic, are holding signs that are variously advocating either giving a Communist or Socialist government a go here in America, or, failing that, at least levying a profanely high tax on "the rich" (one such sign called for a 90% tax rate on the top one percent).

Let that last one sink in for a minute. Basically, this idea suggests that, as an American citizen, if you are making more than a certain (arbitrary) amount of money in any given year, ninety percent of everything above that will be taken away. That is not taxation. That is theft. Pure and simple. Taking something from someone without their consent is a crime; it makes no difference if the purse you're snatching was taken from someone with one dolar or one hundred million.

This is where the zombie thing comes back into the equation-well, specifically the "urge to destroy" aspect of it. I hope that if any of these people occupying the business districts of cities across the nation were to actually stop and reflect on what they're doing, they would recoil in horror. It frightens me that this many people are going to let their envy and dislike of the success of others when they themselves are experiencing hard times (if not outright failure) get the better of them. Yes, the system is broken. I'd be an idiot to dispute that with you. But your anger should not be focused on the men in Brooks Brothers suits heading to the skyscrapers. It needs to be focused on Washington, D.C. instead. 

You cannot make the current situation better by taxing the wealthy into a virtual oblivion. You (and I) have absolutely no right to walk up to anybody, ask them what they make, and based on their answer, arbitrarily determine that they "have made enough money" and then proceed, by using the force of law, to take away that which is rightfully theirs. It is not in the Bible. It is not in the Ten Commandments God handed to Moses. It is not in our Constitution, and it is not in any document governing international law. Anything you can cite is probably false. The idea behind the free market is that you are free to make (or lose) as much money as you desire. That a business executive with a Fortune 500 company has a multi-million dollar salary or the entrepreneur down the street has managed to keep his standard of living at low millionaire level does not mean that they took that money from you. If you want it so bad, you have to get up off your ass and get it yourself. The way you do that, obviously, is to get a job. Obviously, they're aren't a lot at the moment. But the reason why they've dried up is not because some Gilded Age caricatures that the government and the mainstream media (not to mention Occupy Wall Street's organizers and sponsors) are trying to convince us the wealthy in America all seem to be are trying to pad their expensive lifestyles. It's because a lot of people under the Capitol Dome and other government buildings have it in their heads that they can play God with both the economy and with other aspects of American life that never were (and were never intended to be) under their jurisdiction. The government played a game they weren't allowed to play, and sent the economy into the tubes.

Where do "the rich" and the corporations come into this? When the government decides it's going to start picking who wins and who loses in the American marketplace, everyone and anyone who has the money to do so will do everything they can to ensure that they aren't on the losing side. In effect, the corporations participating in this crony capitalism aren't trying to mess with "the little man", as seems to be the common conception-they're simply exploiting an opportunity.

Getting back to that 90% tax on the rich-that's a damning thing in it's own right, because if such a confiscatory rate were actually levied on a national level, it would sow the seeds for communist upheaval. For a short time, the working class would be sated by having the powers that be appeal to their envy by taxing the bejeezus out of whoever makes enough money to be "rich" this week. Those who have enough money left over from this fiscal rape will promptly either hide it or take it and leave the country. This would lead to an economic disaster: the wealthy-who supposedly take all of our money and pay no taxes (statistics from the IRS and other auditing agencies and anyone else with the time and patience to plow through reams of mind-numbing tax data have repeatedly established that this assertion is nonsense-the top one percent pay approximately 35% of all taxes) use the majority of the money that they and their evil, greedy, and immoral corporations make to create jobs. The idea that all the money a corporation makes goes into the pockets of it's board members is asinine-almost all of it goes to pay the= salaries of somebody (directly or indirectly) or to pay dividends to stockholders. And odds are you hold stock, too. No, you say? Ever heard of a 401(k)? The way that generates money for retirement is through investing in corporations. I don't know about you, but if I gave money in any amount to someone or some company for their financial livelihood, unless I had given it as a gift, I would expect a return on my investment. You lose the money you're putting into those companies if you're trying to tax them to death because it seems like they've got cash and you don't. So-the wealthy who are generating the capital necessary to create the jobs you hunt for so you can make your living will remove what they can because the system-which, in our case, is ultimately We the People-have sent them the message that we despise their success so much that we'll take away what they're earning and justify it with a legal form of "because f*** you, that's why." 

Long and short of it is, what far too many affiliated with Occupy Wall Street are suggesting will destroy the economy by bleeding the capital dry and eliminating the ability to create jobs with it. So, what about all those people who still don't have a job even though we've snatched all this windfall? No doubt all that money will be funneled into various government programs specifically designed to take care of these people and give them peace of mind. And when that money disappears shortly afterward, due to the fact that the people that have been trusted to be the custodians of this ill-gotten capital have demonstrated for 80 years that they cannot budget it to save their lives, the masses will have nobody left to turn on and blame but those politicians. When this happens in a country, this tends to be the stage where things get violent. Should it ever get to that point in America-God forbid-this is where we officially would become a communist nation. And nobody will be around to appreciate the irony that we actually went Bolshevik the moment we started levying that godforsaken tax.

So what am I going on about? You cannot fix a broken market by going socialist. I don't know why so many people participating in these protests think this is a good idea, because if anybody has studied the 20th Century with anything more than the passing interest typical of the history and civics classes in high school, we have had multiple opportunities to observe a socialist system in action-Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, and as of late Venezuela, to give examples-and the one large constant with all these examples of implementation is that it does not work. People starve, the economy stagnates, the brain drains (so to speak), and the government only grows more corrupt and powerful. So why in God's name would we want to do that here!?

Time and time again, when I've gotten on my high horse about this issue, I have cited envy as the root cause of this anger and this problem. It's human nature to dislike those who have when you have not. We are reminded-rightfully-that the more ambitious and more successful (I refuse to use "more fortunate" because it implies that independent wealth is an accident) have a moral obligation to help those who are in need. But taking from the rich simply because you are poor doesn't fix the situation. All it does is move money around and, more importantly, disincentivizes working to improve your condition. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a surefire recipe for economic stagnation.

Another thing about success is it's relationship with failure. You cannot have success without failure at some other point in the constellation. That's the nature of the game. When we see other's success, we tend to be reminded of our failures. Everyone hates that feeling. I know I do. The worst feeling in the world to me is that sensation after I have failed at an endeavor I found meaningful-it sucks. But I do not go trying to mess up an outside entity I can place the blame on. I resolve to try harder and work smarter so I succeed next time. Sometimes it comes easily. Most times it doesn't. But when it does come, the success tastes that much sweeter.

Now think about how cruel and selfish it is to deny someone that to fulfill a selfish greed born of repeated failure, and you recognize the problem with the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and why I have spoken out against it.

One more thing...I also detest this stupid "99%" claim they make. I'm technically part of that "99%"-I'm a young high school graduate in the ten percent tax rate bracket. Factoring out the money both the federal government and the State of California will take from me, I will be lucky to make approximately $26,500 this year. But I have no outstanding debts. I don't spend my money on alcohol, tobacco, or recreational drugs. Most of the things I have to entertain myself I own outright. I am by no means rich. But I sure as hell don't consider myself poor by any standard. Think about that the next time you make another ignorant claim to speak for me and the rest of the 99%, OWS.

Come to think of it, America's obsession with a zombie apocalypse suddenly makes a great deal of sense. It would be a hell of a lot easier to deal with.

*(I find it interesting that Lenin chose to use the word "idiot." It implies that the Godfather of Communist insurrection himself knew that the ideology he was propagating was a false promise.)

Originally published on 8 October 2011.

The Stubborn Auteur of Cupertino-Remembering Steve Jobs

Today-Wednesday, 5 October 2011-America lost one of it's most innovative and enigmatic men.

Steven Paul Jobs, age 56, died earlier today from complications related to poor health. Mr. Jobs had been suffering from pancreatic cancer since at least 2004, and underwent a liver transplant in Tennessee two years ago. He had taken medical leave from Apple in January, and had announced at the end of August that he would be stepping down as Chief Executive Officer of Apple. Mr. Jobs lived long enough to see the unveiling of the iPhone 4S-the latest in the iPhone line, one of Job's greatest achievements. He is survived by his wife of 20 years, Laurene, and his four children.

Mr. Jobs did a great deal to inspire adulation from the legions of Apple "fanboys"-extremely loyal Apple consumers and advocates-not to mention derision, scorn, and mockery from PC and Microsoft consumers. Whether you loved him or hated him-and his computers, for that matter-you can't deny the impact he made on the worlds of computers, information technology, and business. The New York Times referred to Jobs as "one of the great innovators in the history of modern capitalism"-and rightfully so. Jobs had a gift for winning over consumers with a mixture of simplicity, reliability, aesthetics, and showmanship. Perhaps two of the things most commonly said about him were that he made products that you didn't know you needed until he had created them, and that, as a businessman and executive, he was utterly ruthless. Maybe so, but both these characteristics simply go to show that the Jobs model worked: Apple went from being a computing nomad, increasingly isolated by a Microsoft-backed competition, to the world's leading technology company-one that, despite still not having double-digit annual sales figures in the computer and laptop categories, managed to kill the tablet program set up by HP-the world's PC sales leader and the company where Jobs began his career and met Apple co-founder Steve Wozniack-less than a month after it's introduction, and is now threatening to push HP out of the PC market altogether. All this does nothing if not command respect.

I've already said much of the same when I wrote my piece on Jobs's retirement. But at the end of that piece, I also ruminated on Jobs enjoying retirement (he was still Chairman of the Board) as he sees more and more people becoming Apple users. Mr. Jobs, unfortunately, will not get that chance. So, I think it best to pay condolences to his family and friends for their loss and pay tribute to his legacy-one that, appropriately enough, might be summed up by one of Apple's old advertising slogans: Think Different.

Farewell, Mr. Jobs, from one last new Mac fan.

Originally published 5 October 2011.

On Death or Taxes

-The title is a citation of a quote frequently attributed to Benjamin Franklin, easily America's first true celebrity and one of the great minds of his time. The full quote (or something roughly to that effect): "The only things that are certain in this world are death and taxes."

-Right now, I cannot help but wonder if it had ever occurred to Mr. Franklin that death from taxes might be on that list as well.

-Not too long ago, President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner appeared on national television to make their case for their individual ideas as to how this debt impasse must be overcome. Each has their arguments, but it seems to me that the President is taking advantage of the support he naturally receives from the media in baiting the Republicans as being "overly protective" of the rich. The solution, the President argues, is that the "millionaires and billionaires" have to pay their "fair share" in order to help the country shuffle through and to protect the middle class, as opposed to accepting a "cuts only" approach championed by the Republicans.

-The President is right about how a "cuts only" plan will not work. But he is right for the wrong reasons. The President supports the possibility of a tax increase, especially on the upper class, as a way to make up the money. Right now, the founding statement of National Review goes through my mind: "To stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!"-which, in a way goes back to a famous statement made by the American philosopher George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."

-By now, I will assume that, based on my past writings, that I have made it repeatedly clear which side of the aisle I stand on, so I will drop any pretenses: The President-and a good chunk of Washington-is ignorant of their history (though that's not a surprise, given that that is the end result of the machinations of their ideological forefathers to whitewash real historical study in this country with banal and self-aggrandizing appeasements in the forms of (minority) Studies, the end result being that nobody remembers what important thing happened and why, only that an Inuit lesbian was somehow involved and that automatically makes her a hero and leader of whatever the movement was-but I digress, that's besides my point). But, on second thought, perhaps I shouldn't insult their intelligence and should perhaps focus on their character-they're perfectly aware of what they're doing, and could care less because it benefits them now and the hell will only rain down after they're gone.

-We have to cut spending on all fronts-that our entitlement spending is out of control is acknowledged, if not fully understood. One significant alteration that is not necessarily a cut would even work at this point-stop using Social Security money to pay for things other than Social Security. Then we wouldn't have to worry about this pension crisis that's staring us down right now. We would have a lot of programs that are suddenly sans budget, though. We have to ask ourselves-what's worth keeping? And we have to come to grips with the answer that we're going to have to get rid of a lot of things we're not necessarily eager to dispose of: the National Endowment for the Arts; ethanol funding; PBS; NPR; sugar subsidies-somewhere in this country, there are whole voting blocs who's ballot box decision will hang entirely on whether or not a politician will whore for those votes. It's time someone other than the fringees who haven't a shot in hell anyway take the courage to say: "Pound sand. There are more important things Uncle Sam's supposed to be spending his money on."

-The other half of the equation will be to let business grow. Note the word choice: Let business grow, not let's grow business. The government does the latter, and it is a stupid idea every time it's tried. Think of government spending public largesse to stimulate the economy as being like a man who has been taking testosterone pills-initially (ignoring for the sake of convenience that it takes a couple of months for the effects of these pills both to be felt and to wear off), the build is excellent; energy abounds, development accelerated. But the pills eventually run out-just like the cash runs out. And the doctor-the lenders-will not give more. The end result is that you are left flabby, flaccid, moribund; worse off than when you started. No-the solution is to get government the hell out of the business. Needless to say, the left will scream bloody murder about this, and would inevitably play on middle class fears about another Enron or another Bernie Madoff to justify keeping or strengthening the regulations. Let me remind you-we had plenty of regulatory oversight and plenty of regulators when the aforementioned two occurred. The unjust will truly exploit every loophole to evade the law. In the end, all the regulation does is stymie the legitimate and create dependency-and to say this is what the President or his allies on Capitol Hill want, while callous, might not be far from the truth.

-There is huge political advantage to that system: Washington gets to create a hybrid of a free market and a command economy. It gets to pick winners and losers, and it gets significant largesse from the corporations looking to get back a little more wiggle room, and because of their size, Washington manipulates and works with them to allow them to control their sector of the industry, effectively shutting down competitors who don't have the financial wherewithal to keep up. And the politicians get to paint these corporations as the sole offenders the next time the economy takes a dive.

-The other key aspect of freeing the market is taxes-which are precisely what the President states is missing from the Republican plan-specifically, taxes on the upper class. I've gotten onto high horses about this "pay their fair share" nonsense before, but having read a transcript of the President's speech, I find that it bears repeating.

-I know quite a few people-perhaps not the "millionaires and billionaires" the President refers to-but people who are independently wealthy nonetheless and-usually-the owners of their own business. These people-not the vieux-riche hamming it up in Newport or The Hamptons or Malibu who almost always come to mind when we think of the upper class-are America's upper class. Their bank accounts may not be at Bill Gates or Derek Jeter or Marshall Mathers (aka Eminem) levels-but they live a good life and worked hard for it. (I also note that there is a reason these people make up a vast majority of of the wealthy in this country-not everybody has the cunning to make goldmine business deals or a world-class flair for marketing showmanship or the artistic skill to make money in sport, art, film, or music; it's a select few, which is why they make the money the make and what a lot of the liberal-arts majors are slowly starting to awaken to as they look at their friends who opted to study engineering, business, or law instead). But stop thinking about how nice the things he or she has are and start thinking about the costs he or she must endure: there's the house(s), the accompanying utilities, automotive upkeep, groceries, clothing, college tuition, personal entertainment. Now add to it: business expenses-and there are many: property maintaining costs, utilities again, advertising, equipment, vending, supplies, employee salaries, employee bonuses, covering for lost labor when an employee cannot show up for work, matching employee contributions to Social Security and the employee pension and healthcare plans. Now add to it that, more than likely, this person is paying anywhere between 26 to 28 percent minimum, in either an income tax or the Alternative Minimum Tax, of whatever they're making to the Government.

-All of this is before factoring any other taxes (payroll taxes being the most prominent) that come with all this.

-Now ask yourself-#1. If you had to pay that much money away after having done so much to earn it, wouldn't you want the finer things with what you've got left? If I made $100,000 a year, I would not be content to live in a tenement in Spring Valley and drive a 1986 Honda hatchback-I'd have at least a decent apartment downtown with an Audi (though part of me is tempted to find the combination that would enable me to avoid having to pay for either over the course of the next five years-A Jetta or a Passat would easily suffice). Then ask-#2. If you had all that, and then some self-important, over-inflated talking head who is trying to win votes amongst the Rust Belters came up to you and told you "you have to pay more, it's the only way the economy will survive", what would you say? Especially if you knew that this man and his working buddies are going to do nothing to make it easier for you to make more money to cover those new losses or to file those tax returns and, secondly, you get the strange sensation that this extra money they're going to take from you probably isn't going to be spent wisely. Personally speaking, I think that the most likely response would include that one word in the English language that is equally easy to communicate with a finger as it is verbally.

-So what am I getting at, after my Milleresqe rant? Don't increase taxes, especially on the rich-it's fiscal suicide. It has been shown repeatedly in the past that increasing taxes does not correspond with an increase in revenue. Why is that? Because when those tax rates hit, those with the ability to get their money out of the filthy hands of the Treasury will do so, and those who can't will put up with it for about fifteen seconds before they start finding ways to cut the amount of money they spend and the amount they report on their 1040s. If you give the idea thought, a tax raise on the rich is in fact the best way to increase taxes on the middle class: because the rich, as I said before, will either move their assets out of U.S. jurisdiction or will be taxed into the middle class tax brackets. When that happens, all the government will need to do is simply redefine "rich" and hope that the public doesn't notice that rich suddenly starts at $78,000 a year this year and will start at $60,000 a year three years after that. Their next gambit would be to exploit the confusion as millions of middle-class Americans wonder to themselves, with their wardrobe from Kohl's, their half-paid-off home in Dubuque, Iowa, and their 2001 Ford Taurus they suddenly became "rich."

-So what is the solution? Shrink government, pure and simple. Cut spending across the board-if We the People want something so bad, We the People should spend our own money to get it, rather than our neighbors (and, in the form of Social Security and Medicare deductions from Millenials who are in the workforce, our children's) money. Maybe then we will regain fiscal sanity and ask ourselves if something like, say, a nationwide, federally-subsidized high-speed monorail, or federal study on the psychological effects of stimulating oneself with battery-powered devices is really worth the debt. Secondly, we eliminate government interference in the marketplace and let it-and the people with capital who drive it-do their work. You'd be surprised how quickly prices can drop when companies no longer have the stupid shield of federal regulations to protect them from consumer demands. Yes, the market will go through downtimes. But we're better off if we have to deal with losing 10 jobs for a year instead of letting the government try and "fix" things and magically make 100 jobs disappear. As a case in point, everybody thinks of the 1950s as a time of great prosperity in this country. Nobody remembers that there were three economic recessions during that decade. Three. And the reason why that is is because the President at that time, Dwight D. Eisenhower, left the economy the hell alone. He understood that it was more than capable of sorting itself out. If Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt had that same understanding-or that same sense of respect for American self-reliance-the odds are the history books would not have a Great Depression to refer to.

-But that's not going to happen in the short term. The Republicans are in a bit of a civil war over it themselves-the much-maligned Tea Party faction being largely in the right, so to speak, on the matter. The Democrats, and President Obama in particular, seem to have the understanding that the solution is unacceptable: sanity will come at the cost of their political careers, since many of the current class of leftist leaders in the country (and more than a few of the older ones, namely those who cut their teeth as part of the New Deal coalition) have built their electoral standing on populist appeasement and pandering to anti-wealth sentiment and sanctimonious federal handouts to anyone who can claim to be poor. So, we are at a stalemate. A compromise is obvious. In which case, I suggest that the President be willing to demonstrate the diplomacy he has buit his public persona on and show some bipartisanship by allowing Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who is quite possibly the most competent parliamentarian in the Senate, to help broker a deal until the time comes to fight the main battles. The big brawls and the need to fortify your side will come in full blast next year. For now, at least, let's work together to ensure the United States keeps AAA credit at least until then.

Originally published on 26 July 2011.

On American Exceptionalism

-Two-hundred-thirty-five years ago, during a sickeningly humid summer in Philadelphia, then the largest city in the swath of the British-controlled central North American continent, a group of men from all along that coastal stretch adopted a resolution. These men came from many backgrounds-one was a lawyer from eastern Massachusetts, one a publisher and prolific inventor who called Philadelphia home-the closest thing to a celebrity in that day-one a plantation owner and legislator from Virginia. Their chairman was a wealthy smuggler from Boston. Their resolution was aimed at the most powerful head of state in the world-George III, King of Great Britain and Ireland, and listed the offenses and grievances the King-through the appointed officials ruling in his name-had committed against his peoples in this territory. The resolution also stated that, because of this, the people were revoking their consent to be governed by the King, and would be creating a government of their own to rule the land. The name of the new nation, to which these men pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their Sacred Honor, was to be known as the United States of America.

-History has assured us that we are quite well aware of the end result of all this. Those thirteen ragtag colonies-cum-states were joined by thirty-seven more at the top of the promontory of the world.The United States became, and very much still is, the Shining City on the Hill. And as July 4th comes around every year, it is important to be reminded of this-especially this year, as many who have truly been blessed to live here seem to be losing sight of both their birthright and their obligation.

-A recent poll announced that a majority of wealthy Americans have a pessimistic outlook regarding their future in this country. It is very disconcerting when the people in this country who are, in effect, the engines of the nation's livelihood, feel their children will not have a better standard of living than they themselves currently have. Since the first settlers arrived at Virginia's shores more than four hundred years ago, this has been the American Dream: Work hard, get rich, leave this world knowing your children will have a better life than you did. For so long, this is what motivated people to come to our country. In some ways, it's what motivated more than a few of us to go elsewhere around this world and share our gift, whether the recipients wanted it or not.

-I feel there is a sense of fear of our decline, and that it will come from the outside. Nervous eyes dart to the People's Republic of China in particular. The worry is that the Chinese, with many of their younger generation going throughout the world seeking higher education, their currency manipulation, their accelerated military development, and their buying up U.S. debt-along with real-estate and corporate investments-has some panicked that the Chinese will overwhelm the United States. This is nonsense. Need I remind you that we have experienced this "Yellow Peril" some twenty-five years before with Japan? And what happened? Nothing. The Japanese spending habits went too far, and the Japanese payed for it economically in the nineties-in fact, they continued to pay for it ten years after the fact due to demographics. The same thing will happen with the Chinese: they will become overconfident in their economic strength and their supports will collapse under their own weight. Add to it: the PRC is a communist, militaristic nation that is spending astronomical sums of money to develop a military that is, at the minimum, technologically on par with our own and has been actively practicing censorship, suppression, and subversion. If and when Beijing suffers their own economic slowdown, it is the Politburo who should be worried: there will be an educated young populace that is trying harder and harder-and succeeding-in listening to things the Chinese government doesn't want them to hear waiting to throw Mao's Little Red Book back at them...

-No, if our trouble is anywhere, it comes from within. To put this as briefly as I can: the reason for America's "downturn" is due to complacency and attempts to inculcate We the People with what can be mildly described as a defeatist attitude. Our attitude towards the wealthy is very indicative of the former. It is human nature to be envious towards those who are more successful than us. It has existed since Cain slew Abel in a fit of envious rage. But part of the idea of the American Dream is that we take this impulse and we turn it towards a positive end-we work hard to achieve what we want. Bear in mind, of course, when the United States came into being, there was no other way. You could hate the rich six ways to Sunday, as the saying goes, but all that got you was cold and starving. You had to work just to survive-so why not work harder to make the best out of your situation? Try and make life easier for your children, because you love them and don't want them to suffer the same hardships you did. More than two hundred years later-isn't it obvious that even if you're poor in America, life is still good by any universal standard? To make a mocking joke-where else in the world are the poor people overweight?

-Our refusal as a people to work for ourselves to improve any deficiencies we perceive in our condition is to blame. Not some isolated, odious individual who incurred our ire. Everybody got furious at Bernard Madoff after his Ponzi scheme came crashing down around him. They had a right to, Mr. Madoff played on the trust of many people and stole their money. But I worry that we secretly relish times like this-when some wealthy man comes down in a fraud scandal during an economic slowdown. It becomes frightfully easy to shift responsibility to him (or her). Which is half the problem with our beloved land: we refuse to assume responsibility for our livelihood. Too many people would rather take riches from people who still work for them and expend it all on their quest for immediate gratification. Whether we think we're doing it or not, we already are doing this through our out-of-control entitlements system. We'd rather cruise and collect on Social Security than actually save money while we have (or had) the chance so we could be self-sufficient in our retirement. And we seem to be collectively ignoring that the consequence of this is that the next generation-my generation-will pay dearly for the loafing of the Baby Boomers on the government dole. We won't have  a retirement fund because we will never be able to stop working (note how this pessimistic language manages to seep down into my own treatise-this is supposed to be patriotic and uplifting. So much for that).

-Self-reliance and self-sufficiency defined the American character. It is what made this country so appealing to the world in times past and, even today, makes it the envy of the world. We have got the best this life can offer and everybody knows it. Except ourselves. We seem to be wedded to this idea that we should try to make as many nations of the world like us. The political elite currently running the country certainly seems to think so-note the deferential talk to our allies in Europe, our empty posturing to Africa, and our kowtowing to belligerent states the world over. This is not the America we should strive to be. In the grand scheme of things, is it important that the French public approve of our foreign policy? Would Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahdmenijiad, Kim Jong-il, and Mummar Ghadaffi do what we want them to do if we try the back-away-from-the-bully approach? Does the world gain anything from the United States lowering herself to it's level?

-NO. It does not.

-Lowering oneself a level implies an inherent downgrade. And seeking to reduce America's status so that the world can feel more comfortable putting her as an equal is a bad thing. This means a weaker America. The world at large likes a weak America because this enables the world to meddle with America. It must give the government of Iran sick glee to know that America has the economic, military, and philosophical might to rain down and brutally crush them, as they did with the Nazis, yet cannot use it because she hamstrings herself.

-Some of this nonsense no doubt comes from the anti-imperialist mindset that permeates through America's universities and political elite. Today's history student is taught that American and European colonization of lands far and away in Africa, Asia, and Oceania, is to be regarded with disdain because it was all done in the name of genocide and oppression by men living in a country founded on a lie. What is the lie? All men are created equal. That seminal line from the Declaration of Independence has been subject to what can only be described as a campaign of defamation by historical revisionists-chief among them, I'm sorry to say, feminists and black enthnocentrists. They claim that because there is no reference to women and that slavery continued to exist after the nation came into being, that the claim that all men are created equal is fallacious. Ignorance of history is a mighty ally. The truth behind that lie is that Thomas Jefferson, the original author, wanted to abolish the practice right then and there. We know that he had philosophical allies in his two fellow editors, John Adams, who had a Puritan Northerner's disdain for the practice (He once received a slave as a wedding gift and immediately freed the woman), and Benjamin Franklin, the kindhearted and notable Pennsylvanian. But the line that would have condemned slavery was ultimately excised so as not to offend Southern delegates who considered slavery too important to their financial situation. It is also important to remember that the Constitution, authored and ratified eleven years after the Declaration of Independence, included language to abolish the slave trade by 1808 (which did happen). Slavery may well have died a natural death if not for the economic and political rivalry between North and South. For all the claims that we continue to be a racist nation, it is important to remember that we rid ourselves of the damned institution earlier than most other nations. Also, the only nation in the world where black and white intermingle (much of the western world) that elected a black man or woman to it's highest office before we did (at least among those that come to mind, I'm aware I may be ignoring the island nations of the Caribbean and the Pacific) was the Republic of South Africa (it should be noted that Nelson Mandela benefitted from his status as a political prisoner of the apartheid era in a majority-black nation).

-To get back to the main point, we are taught to frown on the imperialist movement. We seem to base this almost solely on the fact that bad and painful things happened to the native population of the lands colonized. Tragic? Yes. Murder is murder. But ask yourself these questions: Were these lands really better off without western influence? And would they have persisted if they had only made passive contact with the outside world? I say the answer is no on both counts. Take India for example. Historically, a mighty nation. But the India of the sixteenth century would have been eaten alive if it existed in the modern world-provided, of course, the modern world had the stomach to endure the brutality it would encounter. Critics are right to condemn the British efforts to ignore self-determination. But India is better off for having had the British in charge for so long in the first place. The world's largest democracy is more tolerant of different peoples because of it, and has also been blessed with numerous native English speakers and a developing capitalist economy (after decades-long experimentation with socialism failed) that has now turned the country into a world power. Even Dr. Manmohan Singh, India's Prime Minister, has stated that his countrymen (and the world) should give their old imperialist overlords a little more credit.

-Likewise, we look to America's own somewhat-inadvertent forays into this field:Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq has her democracy, baptized in blood and fire. Mistrust and confusion between the disparate groups still exists on a large scale, but there is hope yet. The nation's youth and Iraq's own history as a hub on trade routes suggest that the fire of freedom will burn bright between the Tigris and the Euphrates.

-Afghanistan is different. The land has little historical development as an independent entity, and the peoples populating it have a longstanding isolation and distrust of each other, not to mention anyone else. It has been difficult because the American forces in the area are part of a minimal commitment and, quite simply, are trying to do too much. The people of Afghanistan need to try and figure out how to make this western civilization thing work.

-As challenging and troubling as that sounds, remember that there can be no going back. One cannot go lower than the bottom-and yet, there the Taliban resides. I have made it no secret that I regard with disdain my fellow Americans who feel that we should not look at our culture or way of life as superior to that of anyone else (such a philosophy seems familiar as of late in Washington). I point to the Taliban as the ultimate evidence that such arguments are not only wrongheaded and ignorant, but dangerous: when one refers to the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan during the nineties, one uses 'government' as a term of convenience rather than fact: what government? There was none. All the Taliban seemed capable of doing was killing people who didn't ascribe to their backwards, pseudoreligious cult worldview and harboring like-minded individuals. We know how that turned out. Which at the very minimum is why we cannot allow Afghanistan to regress.

-Changing a culture takes time. When a people are particularly isolated and surrounded on all sides by belligerents who are adept at playing on their fears, the process is naturally difficult. But we cannot afford to give up "bringing civilization." because it is difficult. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to the world. And we need to recognize this.

-Rudyard Kipling, the English short story author and poet, is particularly reviled amongst the anti-imperialists for his poetry. Take, for instance, The White Man's Burden. The title alone seems offensive to some. But this was no celebration of wanton destruction of indigenous tribes in lands distant. Rather, it was intended as an admonishment of President William McKinley's imperialization efforts in the Philippines. Kipling, an Englishman born in India and a longtime resident of Vermont, knew better than anyone else the effects, causes, and consequences of imperialism. And we are right to see him as it's advocate. Kipling was an imperialist. But he was one because he saw it as an obligation. To quote P.J. O' Rourke, Kipling saw civilization-the western way of life we sought to bring to the world at the turn of the twentieth century-as God's will. A civilized world was a free world, and a free world is a better world.

-Which brings me back to my point. We as Americans have Freedom and Our Dream. These are our birthright-ours to claim, having been won by our ancestors in battle and exploration over the years. They are also our obligation. When America posted herself as that Shining City on the Hill, the world rose with her. Through our quest to forever improve ourselves through our embrace of liberty, justice, and hard work, we became an example. France, one of the biggest sponsors of the American war effort, was heavily motivated by the American Revolution when they, too, turned on their King. Many early Americans were also supportive of the French Revolution (though it should be noted that both these things essentially evaporated once the French Revolution devolved into Jacobin experimentation with Rousseauism and the guillotine). An America that intends to become one more like the world is an America that has given up. One that refuses not just her dominant role in the world, but also her unique position. The ultimate consequence is surrendering the notion that the free way-the American Way-is not special, and not good. The price paid for that is a comfortable psychological slavery for us-slaves to the winds of world opinion. For oppressed peoples the world over, the consequences might be a little more painful and a little more visceral.

-Can I prevent this singlehandedly? No. Will I permit it? Absolutely not. I will choose to honor my birthright and fulfill my obligations as an American by remembering that this land of ours, and the creed that weds us to it, is not just something Exceptional-it truly is a gift from God. And we do it no justice by disavowing it simply so some tinpot dictator or some pretentious social democrat from Europe will stop giving us the evil eye at the next meeting of the United Nations Secretariat. Let them. If they were in our position-and they wish it, every last one of them-they would do the same things we do. But they are not in our position, and they never will be. Because only America can embody American Ideals. Others can only emulate.

-I am a soldier. I serve my country every day. I'm about as committed to the cause as you can get. But you don't need to go to such extremes to do the Right Thing. Simply be proud-and thankful-to be an American. Know that you are special. Understand why. Don't get arrogant about it-realize that the power we have should be tendered out of obligation, not ambition. Study your history and study it thoroughly. Do not pass up an opportunity to call a revisionist or a disparager on their nonsense. Remember that we are supposed to be an example to the World, not merely a part of it. And above all, be that example.

-God Bless America, God Bless You, and Happy Independence Day.

Originally published on 4 July 2011