Combat Stress and Moral Injuries...Or, PTSD.

Stephen Sherwood returned from Iraq in the summer of 2005, along with the rest of his brigade combat team which included the 506th Infantry Regiment.  You know of this regiment from the mini-series "Band of Brothers." 

          

"Longtime friends said Sherwood came back from Iraq a changed man.  After a few days, he took down the American flag in front of his house and scraped the SUPPORT OUR TROOPS sticker off his car.  On the day of the argument [with his wife, 03 August 2005], Sherwood's wife told him about an affair she had started while he was in Iraq.  Hours later, he shot her five times in the face and neck, then killed himself with a single shotgun blast.  In his pocket, police found a newspaper clipping stating that 30 percent of troops returning from Iraq developed mental-health problems.  Fort Carson assured the media it carefully screens every soldier and Sherwood's postdeployment health assessment did not indicate he was "high risk."  - "Lethal Warriors," David Phillips, pg 97.

Sherwood's screening didn't indicate that he was high risk because he, like many (perhaps most) in his unit and others, lied on that screening.  Some senior soldiers suggested that filling the screening out truthfully would give Sherwood and his comrades a one-way ticket to the shrink, that they would be denied their block leave, and perhaps be kicked out of the infantry.  It was also perceived as being contrary to the Soldier's Creed.

I am an American Soldier.

I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.

I am an expert and I am a professional.

I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.

I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.

I am an American Soldier. [Emphasis added by author.]

The Soldier’s Creed makes it hard to ask for help.  If the creed doesn’t, the motto of the 506th is "Stands Alone." By all accounts, this motto was taken to heart by the soldiers of the 506th.  But there are some things during which our soldiers shouldn't stand alone.  Are we failing our combat veterans?  Are we giving them the support they need when they return from doing what it is we sent them to do; to kill and be killed on our behalf?  I ask myself these questions daily. 

I have been doing a great deal of reading about combat stress injuries, or moral injuries as Dr. Jonathan Shay calls them.  Or PTSD, as you likely know it.  This began, ostensibly, as research for character development for a novel that I’m writing, and that's what I continue to tell myself. The more I read, however, the more engrossed I became in the subject, and convinced that we need to do more.

As an aside, the problem with the name PTSD is that it suggests that it's simply a disorder.  I don't think it's a disorder.  I think, as do many mental health professionals, that it is an injury.  And like a shattered leg, it should be treated, and treated comprehensively.  Unfortunately, you can't see moral injuries at first glance.  But the hell they wreak on both the returning combat veterans and society is readily visible.  Or at least it should be, if only we were looking.  Very few seem to be looking.  In his book, quoted above, David Phillips shows us what it’s like when we do look.  Maybe that scares us and we continue to pretend that everything is well.  Maybe combat veterans scare us.  All part of the same problem, no?

You don't have to understand what it's like to be in combat (or have been in combat) to understand how a man or woman can be changed by that experience.  You don't have to have "walked a mile in his shoes" to be empathetic.  To suggest that would be foolish.  But I feel that it is our duty as Americans to at least try to understand and empathize.  I don't want you to patronize veterans with shows of faux sympathy.  But you should try to understand. 

You can easily see the missing limbs and burned skin from IED attacks, but as it stands right now, we can barely recognize the legitimacy of the psychic scars that many of our veterans bear.  They could by lying after all.  They could be malingerers.  They could be trying to shirk their duty.  They could be, as we called them in the Marine Corps, “shitbags.”  If so, they should be ostracized and discharged.  Better to err on the side of caution, right?  To banish them?  To cast them off?  

Here is an SNCO talking to a junior enlisted man:

"Soldier, you got hit by five IEDs, countless ambushes, and saw your entire squad killed.  Your best friend bled out and died in your arms.  You couldn't tell who the enemy was; everyone there seemed to hate you.  But other than the brain fluid that seeped out of your ears that one time your Humvee was launched 10 feet in the air by a buried 155mm round, you didn't suffer a scratch.  You're fine.  So you have nightmares?  We all do.  Suck it up.  Don't be a wimp.  Here's a fat reenlistment bonus.  Go get drunk and get laid and blow off some steam.  Oh, and by the way, we're going back in 8 months.  Dismissed." 

Suck it up.  But what if they can’t just “suck it up”?  What happens when they are in distress, psychologically and emotionally, and the above SNCO is their support system?  The answer is: Nothing positive.

Consider this: If you're going to tell yourself and others that these men and women are protecting your freedom and protecting your way of life, you should want understand that the ramifications of them doing that duty go far beyond physical disabilities.  Shouldn't you? 

We have this image of victorious WWII veterans returning home and stoically and smoothly transitioning from warriors to peaceful civilians.  That vision, through decidedly rose colored glasses, is the gold standard.  The problem is it's not really true.  Moral injuries were present in WWII veterans (just read some of the autobiographies of the aforementioned Band of Brothers) and have been present in returning veterans since antiquity.  In fact, Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey, which I take from Dr. Shay, could be interpreted as a brilliantly crafted metaphor for moral injuries.  This is not a new phenomenon, but is instead as old as warfare itself. 

Furthermore, it is nothing to be ashamed of, and we need to change the way we think about moral injuries.  We're doing this.  We're getting there.  But we're not there yet.  I don't know if we'll ever really get there, and I offer no solutions other than to ask that you inform yourself and your loved ones, even if they haven't been touched by the long tendrils of war.  I offer no solutions because I, well, I'm not that smart.  But this is a burden that we all share, like it or not.  And we, like our veterans, should shoulder that burden.

Not all combat veterans have moral injuries, PTSD, combat stress injuries, etc.  I'm not saying that.  So all you uninformed arm chair generals (and even a few of you combat veterans) can refrain from telling me that our warriors are just that; WARRIORS with no room for such touchy-feely mental weakness ("OOH RAH, HOO AH, STANDS ALONE!").  I don't want to hear that and I won't hear it because it's not weakness.  It's reality.  If you don't believe that combat changes the brain, and in turn the man, I simply point you to one of the dozens of studies that show real, concrete changes in the way the brain works after prolonged exposure to combat and other stressful situations.  Some people are changed more than others, and rarely is this change for the better.  Inform yourself.  Read.  Learn.  We all stand to gain from it.

If you are a veteran and you feel like there is something wrong, but don't understand what, educate yourself as well and seek help.  We haven't always done enough for you, and those like Stephen Sherwood and countless others, as well as their families, have paid for it.  But help is out there.  I ask that you stop worrying about what it will do to your career, and worry about what it will do to your existence as a human being. 

What to read?  Where to start?  There are thousands of books on this subject.  Some better than others.  My recommendations, which I've personally read, are as follows, in no particular order.

• "Achilles in Vietnam" and "Odysseus in America" by Dr. Jonathan Shay.
• "On Combat" and "On Killing" by Col. David Grossman.
• "An Operators Manual for Combat PTSD" by Dr. Ashley R. Hart II.
• "Lethal Warriors" by David Phillips.

When you're done reading them, check out their bibliographies.  If you want more suggestions, contact me or your local Veterans Advocate.

I'm not advocating the neutering of our fighting men.  I'm just advocating that we take some responsibility when we turn our men into trained killers and unleash them upon our enemies.  Even Lethal Warriors sometimes need help.  Who's going to give it to them?

RIP DADT

Today marks the end of the Clinton-era policy "Don't Ask Don't Tell" or DADT, which barred service members from being openly gay.  To be clear, it never barred gays from enlisting and serving, but they could and would be discharged from service if they ever came out.  That's over now.  I say good riddance. 

Most of you probably have one of two reactions, because issues like this generally breed strong feelings one way or the other.  You might be happy.  Some of you are probably very angry.  I will confess to you that I've always been largely ambivalent about DADT.  I've never supported the policy, but I never really put a lot of effort into denouncing it.  I've always thought it stupid; just as I've always thought making a big deal over someone's sexuality to be rather stupid.  Or the color of their skin.  Or how much money they made.  I figure it's best to judge someone by their virtues as a human being rather than some categorical notion.  I guess I never saw what the big deal was.  Why does it matter if someone's gay or not, and how does that effect their ability to serve our nation? 

The fact is, I'd never had any gay friends, or people I knew to be gay who served.  So I never actually experienced the effects of this policy.  It was one of those things that affect other people.  You know the feeling, I'm sure.  While I was in Germany, however, I met a gay service member.  He became a valued friend, and even though we'd disagree on some issues, he was always interesting to talk to, and always interested in my point of view.  One night at a party, he came out to me.  I told him that I didn't give a shit that he was gay.  We were drinking after all, so while my choice of words might sound dismissive or harsh, they were not.  I was honored that he confided something in me that he was not allowed to publicly say.  

I shall not lie and say that I never suspected, because I did.  And while I was suspecting, I began to think of the issue in more personal terms.  Here was a man who was a honorably serving his country, had a sharp mind, was a good writer, and took his responsibilities as a leader seriously.  But he couldn't be who he was, because to do so would have effectively ended his career.  My friend had to pretend that he wasn't gay.  Gay.  Something that affected nothing as it pertained to his job.  He wasn't pretending to have an arm when in fact he didn't.  He wasn't pretending that he he was physically or mentally fit.  He was gay.  He was something that conveyed neither special advantage nor disadvantage.  It just was. 

My friend came out today.  It's all over the news.  He has shown great moral courage; both today and in preparation for today.  Can you imagine the moral courage it took?  Have you ever had to exhibit such moral courage?  My guess is that you've never had the opportunity, and if you have you probably failed.  Moral courage is hard.  I'm sure he's heard it from all quarters, but I'm proud of him.  And I'm proud to call him a friend. 

I have great faith in the professionalism of my brothers and sisters in uniform.  Despite this, I have a feeling that many of my brothers and sisters will be looked upon differently today by their fellow service members, my friend included.  They might even be looked at differently than they were yesterday.  And this might even continue tomorrow and the next day and so on.  It is my hope that professionalism and dedication to the service of our great nation will allow bigotry and false judgment to melt into the background.  We are joined by that uniform; we are made a family.  We are joined by service and self-sacrifice and common goals.  We share these things regardless of personal preferences.  Is it not our service that is supposed to guarantee us all the freedom of personal preferences? E pluribus unum?  Homogeneity may be comforting to the weak of mind, but it is boring and self-limiting.

Let us judge the capacity and ability to serve by the honor of an individual's service and not by race, creed, sexual orientation, or some other arbitrary category which only serves to separate us from one another rather than bind us together.   

**As always, I encourage discussion and dissent and I hope that you opine.  I also hope that if you choose to do either, you'll do so professionally, intelligently, and logically.  You're welcome to ignore my request; I will not delete or moderate comments but will let them rest on their own merits.  As you may know, I believe the greater power of the First Amendment lies not in allowing you to say whatever you wish, but in its ability to expose fools.

Information Operations and the 9/11 Anniversary

With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaching, be wary of your government's propaganda efforts against you.  The White House has just issued guidelines to government officials on conducting observances, of which you can be sure there will be numerous.  Two sets were issued, in fact.  One for the benefit of other nations, acknowledging the losses that other their citizens have suffered at the hands of al-Qaida and associated groups.  The other provides instructions to US officials on what tone to set and what themes to discuss when hosting functions here in the United States.  It is the latter in which I am most interested.

The memorializing will be nigh unavoidable.  You will not be able to turn on the TV or pick up a paper without having to revisit that day.  Call me a cynic, but this will not be about healing the wounds created.  For most Americans, those wounds have healed, by and large.  So this will be about opening those wounds just enough for political gain.  These events will have great propaganda value, and it is for this reason that it is necessary to strike the right emotional chord.  Not too much, but not too little either.  Otherwise these events become either obvious exploitation or insultingly crass.  Both extremes are bad for the business of politics as reflected in opinion polls (which are a lot like political porn - like porn, no one watches them, but they are oddly and obviously consumed in great quantities).

A lot rides on these grand theatrical presentations and powerful images.  One would think that such things have far less of a place in our Republic than they did in Imperial Rome, but have you ever stopped to look, and I mean really look, at even  small town municipal buildings?  They, like the parade routes and majestic palaces of Constantinople are designed to awe you with their faux columns and grand doorways.  With television, it is now easier to reach and awe the masses, but mistakes are magnified by the 24 hour news cycle.  Hence guidelines, so that all the bureaucrats are using the same script. 

These guidelines instruct bureaucrats to memorialize those killed in the attacks, first and foremost.  Then they will state what has been done to prevent another attack, paying particular attention to the military (a must), intelligence entities, homeland security and law enforcement.  They will tell us that it's important to serve our nation.  Then they will tell us that, despite all the kudos issued to the aforementioned groups, we must remain vigilant because another attack could come at any moment (rather literally in the case of 9/11 memorials) and if one does we should be resilient like before.

This is propaganda, and serves several functions.  One, it binds us together, if only fleetingly, in the memory of our unity after 9/11.  This cannot be overstated - few people currently alive have ever experienced such American unity in another context.  Two, it gives you confidence in all the bloated, inefficient entities that make us "safe."  We like feeling safe, and this reminds us that we are.  But it also (three, if we're still counting) reminds us to be afraid, because if we stop being afraid we won't need all those entities as much.  And we might actually want back some of the individual rights we have so graciously ceded for collective safety.  Lastly (four), and this is an interesting one, if we are attacked again, it allows the politician/bureaucrat to obviate blame preemptively, and place it onto the laps of those supposedly highly effective groups that have kept us safe.  Good propaganda does a lot with a little, and the very best covers antipodean scenarios without the recipient even noticing. 

For example, the document says that al-Qaida and associated franchises "still have the ability to inflict harm..." but you are to be reminded that "al-Qaida and its adherents have become increasingly irrelevant."  With propaganda, you really can have it both ways.  Al-Qaida is still dangerous, but it has also become irrelevant. If something happens, we can be assuaged by the knowledge that our officials did, in fact, tell us that danger still existed.  So be afraid, just in case.  But not too afraid. 

Deputy National Security Adviser Benjamin Rhodes says, "It’s a statement of strength that the United States can outlast our adversaries. We’re stronger than the terrorists’ ability to frighten us."  Outlast, perhaps, but our government routinely tries to scare us with the specter of terrorism and the anniversary provides no better opportunity than to do just that.  Rhodes' second sentence is patently false; we've been frightened ever since that day, and our government encourages that fear because fearful citizens are docile citizens.  The imagery flashed on television in the coming weeks, over and over again, of those planes slamming into those two beautiful towers; of the people jumping from them; of NYC and its citizens covered in dust; of a smoking Pentagon; will be capped with teleprompter-armed and well-rehearsed speakers, all of which subtly justifies the billions of dollars spent keeping us safe.  Perhaps not really, but that's not how propaganda works.  Propaganda is supposed to make you believe something you might not have otherwise believed, or to get you to continue believing something that you might otherwise begin to question.  How can I argue with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, airport security "improvements," a hyper-vigilant Customs and Border Protection, and staggering amounts of wealth spent?  I'm still alive, after all. 

I'm not saying that our government is evil, nor am I saying that it's good (it should be neither).  I'm saying be skeptical and question the motives of career politicians and bureaucrats who issue and/or are issued guidance on how the message should be delivered in a homogeneous way, void of spontaneity or true emotional sentiment.  Nor am I saying that the anniversary isn't meaningful.  It is incredibly meaningful.  Fully one-third of my life has been defined by that event and I intend on marking it in my own way.  And so should you, if you so desire.  Just be mindful of the messages being sent by those who claim to lead us.

I could be wrong and if I am, take a moment to refute my positions and assertions.  If that's too much work, I invite you to walk by any federal building carrying a full backpack on 11 Sep 2011 and see what the reaction will be. 

You can read the New York Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/us/politics/30terror.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

Welcome Home: CBP Hospitality in Buffalo, NY - 14 August 2011

I have traveled a great deal in my life.  Excepting one occasion in which a Dutch security official took keen interest in my official travel to and from Afghanistan and was referred by me to the US Embassy, the only problems I've ever had were my departures from and returns to the United States.  Since 9/11 I only encounter combative and accusatory Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents who lack professionalism. 

My last entry into the US was no different, other than the fact that this time I was not traveling on orders, which simply meant that I couldn’t use my official service to my country as a way to diffuse the CBP agent’s innate hostility.  Usually, I’ll mention that I’m on orders or something similar and the agent’s tune changes. 

This time, not only was I not on orders, but my traveling companion is going through a difficult divorce.  She has a no-contact restraining order against her soon-to-be ex-husband.  He in turn acquired a “refrain from” order against her.  There’s apparently a rather large difference between the two.  He’s not allowed to contact her in any way, and cannot be near her.  She, in turn, is not allowed to “harass” him; no texts or emails or phone calls and the like.  These orders, issued by a family court and not a criminal court, are entered into the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) database so that they can be enforced across state boundaries.  

For some reason unbeknownst to me, when she crosses back into the United States and CBP runs her passport, NCIC flags her as in violation of the restraining order despite the fact that neither my name nor my face resembles her husband.  This is the genesis of the absurdity that followed, and while it’s confusing to me, it’s equally so to the CBP because the supervisor was able to fully explain neither why it pops up so nor the heavy-handed reaction of the gate agent.

As an aside, if you’re not aware, you are no longer allowed to travel back into the US from Canada without a passport, a passport card, or an “enhanced driver’s license.”  Technically you’re not allowed into Canada if you do not have the necessary documents to get back into the US, but the Canadian agents do not check for passports from travelers entering Canada from the US; they only ask that you present a photo ID.  You could actually be denied entry back into the US.  Keep that in mind if you wish to visit our northern neighbor.  CBP’s policy is that it’s your fault if you do not know the rules and you will not likely be granted a swift reprieve. 

To the point, however, our interaction began innocently enough in CBP terms.  We queued up and eventually rolled up to the check point at which time a working dog smelled the outside of our car.  A camera flashed me as I entered the stall, and another camera was pointed at the back of the car so as to record the license plate number.  There was another camera pointed inside my window and I presume some manner of audio recording equipment was present as well.  New, post-9/11 blockades force you to make a 90 degree turn upon exiting the stall.  This prevents a mad dash for the safety of the US.  All for my protection, I’m sure.  Unlike in airports, there were no signs saying that I couldn’t use my phone, so I snapped a quick picture of all this.  I’d still bet you that had someone seen me, they would have inquired about it and possibly confiscated my phone.  It’s just a hunch I have, and I was unwilling to test this hunch later in the encounter.  I can’t afford to replace my phone at the moment.

The agent himself was dressed in a very military manner, with dark blue BDUs, body armor under his blouse, and a sort of tactical vest.  He was carrying a pistol, ammo, hand cuffs, pepper spray, and a baton.  We can’t forget the badge, behind which he hides when someone questions his station.  The only thing he was missing was a rifle and a helmet.  But that’s how just about any average cop looks these days, which is telling in a way if you think about it.

I presented our passports and he began by asking us a slew of questions.  Standard stuff, really, and while I don’t see why I have to tell a US government representative why I was in Canada for example, I have no problem answering them honestly.  We even talked about my being a Marine.  Then he ran our passports in his nifty little system and his demeanor changed.  I saw him reach up to his radio and call in a “10-22 on a tan van with two occupants.”  He asked me to turn off the car and to hand him the keys.  He then put a black strip under the vehicle and proceeded to open the sliding door of the van and looked around.  He filled out piece of paper with the license plate number and the number of occupants and handed it to me. 

In less than a minute, four CBP agents approached the driver’s side and a guy in a white glove (more on him later) instructed me to put my hands on the steering wheel.  The first agent says, “It’s the female,” and they then descended upon the passenger’s side, instructing her to place her hands on the dash.  They took her out and began walking her over to a neat looking mirrored building.  I sat there patiently.  Then I looked back and saw them holding her arms and I was curious about that whole thing.  I knew what it was about, as this happened to us in Chicago, but in a far less heavy-handed manner.  So I asked the guy.  Here is the transcript:

Me: "Do they really need four guys to walk her over there?"
CBP: "Do you have a problem with that?"
Me: "Yeah, I kinda do."
CBP: "Yeah, why's that?"
Me: "Because I'm a citizen and-"
CBP: "What's that mean?"
Me: "We're American citizens and you're treating us like criminals."
CBP: "What's that mean?"
Me: "Not much anymore, I guess."
CBP: "Do you know why she's going over there?"
Me: "Yeah, when we-"
CBP: "Do you know why she's going over there?"
Me: "I guess not."
CBP: "Then why are you opening your mouth?"
Me: "Because it's my right to do so?"
CBP: "It's your right to do so?  Keep it up."
Me: "Keep it up?"
CBP: "Yes.  You've been told."
Me: "I've been told...  I've been told, he says."

I wasn’t sure what this meant at the time.  I am still not sure what the agent meant by this.  I intend on inquiring with my congressman, and am hoping that he can shed some light on what the CBP agent meant when he said that I’ve “been told.”  My assumption at the time was that were I to continue to question the agent and the CBP or to exercise my right to free speech, I was going to be detained or otherwise embarrassed.  Frankly, I was in a state of semi-shock at the absurdity of it.

I did not ask my initial question with hostility.  I was merely curious.  Had the agent said, “Yes sir, that’s just standard operating procedure,” I would have been quite content with that answer.  But he didn’t.  He asked me if I had a problem with that.  He did not do so nicely.  In short, he was a prick about it.  He was exercising his authority; he a badged, uniformed representative of the US government and me a lowly citizen, neither accused nor suspected of a crime.  Perhaps he felt that I was challenging his authority and that he, by the virtues of the uniform and badge, commanded unquestioning respect and deference.  So he felt that he had to intimidate me back into line, instead of treating me with respect and preventing a situation from even starting.  I’m afraid to say it, but it sort of worked.  I had to assume that my “being told” was a threat and that further speaking on my part was not going to end well for me.  I couldn’t assume otherwise since his inference as to what he felt about my citizenship seemed to speak volumes. 

So I shut up and sat there.  I thought briefly about turning on the voice recording function of my phone and striking up another conversation with him and discounted that immediately since recent events have shown government representatives to be less than enthused about being recorded.  So I sat there.  And as I sat there, I was convinced that were I detained, I’d be released in short order because I did nothing wrong.  I knew that.  He knew that.  Everyone knew that.  But had I continued to speak, and the implied threat was exercised, I had no idea how long I’d be stuck in some room waiting for someone to talk to me and let me go.

After a few minutes, the agent points to two other agents and instructs me to drive to them and to park.  So I thank him and tell him that I appreciate his help, without malice, and do so.  The agent directs me to park and then tells me to turn off the car and to roll up my windows.  This is to keep me from hearing them, you know. 

Inside the mirrored building, the agent had firm hold of my companion’s arm and asked her if she had any outstanding warrants.  She replied that she did not but that she was going through a messy divorce and that it was a restraining order issued by family court.  He says, “Ah, that explains everything,” and immediately let go of her arm.  She asked why this has happened twice, and he explained that it pops up as a “no contact/in contact” violation.  No one can explain why that is.  My assumption is that she’s traveling with a male (me) so they in turn assume that I’m him.  Who knows?  They don’t.  If they did, they probably wouldn’t tell us. 

After ten minutes or so, my companion comes back and is escorted by the guy with the white glove who comes around to my side and asks me to roll down my window.  He is apologetic and explains the situation to me, telling me that the code the gate agent called in resulted in the reaction he and the other three agents had and that he was supposed to handcuff her.  He was very professional.  He noticed that I was overseas (assumingly from my passport) and we chat about his experiences with Blackwater and mine with DynCorp. 

I tell him (as I tell you now) that I am very familiar with security and procedures and the like and that I understand their having to make sure that they themselves are safe.  I then told him that the agent rubbed me the wrong way and that I found him to be very unprofessional and disrespectful when I asked him why they needed four agents to escort her.  He again said that they reacted as they did based on the code the agent called in, the “10-22,” and that he shouldn’t have called it in that way.  I kid you not that his next words were this:

“He knows better.”

He knows better.  But he did it anyway.  The entire confrontation between me and this agent, which could have been easily averted several times, happened because he called in a high-profile code despite knowing better.  Amazing, isn’t it?

I told the agent in charge that if the guy said that it was protocol, I would have been fine with that.  Except that it wasn't protocol.  He said again, “He knows better.”  He said, "In cases like this, we usually have you park the vehicle and we have an officer escort both of you into the building and we ask some questions.  He knows better."  Then he went on to tell me that he’s been doing this since 1975 and that most of these guys only have a few years of experience.  He basically blamed the agent’s lack of professionalism and common courtesy on his lack of experience. 

He then thanked me for what I do and told me to keep safe out there.  I returned the sentiments and went on my way.  In the 24 hours that has followed, I have wondered repeatedly if I hadn't just blown the whole thing out of proportion.  But then I think, no.  I think, hell no.  All he had to do was treat me with a little respect; as a man, as a citizen, as someone who has served his country, hell, as a human being, and we wouldn’t have gotten into a pissing contest which I was sure to lose.  But he just barked at me and threw his tin badge in my face and told me to know my role.  In fact, according to his supervisor, he needlessly elevated the situation to begin with.  It never should have happened at all. 

I fear my government and its legion of quasi-paramilitary forces, bureaucratic thugs, and growing body of incomprehensible laws more than I've ever feared any terrorist with a bomb. The latter cannot destroy our way of life, but the former can. The latter only wishes to kill you; the former wishes to subjugate you for your own protection, be it from the terrorist, or yourself.

There were twenty stalls at that one border crossing.  If what the agent in charge says is accurate, most of them were occupied by people without experience, who’ve been employed entirely in the post-9/11 era of suspicion and fear.  They have had the specter of terrorism looming over their careers since they began.  They have been taught that everyone is a potential threat and will be treated as such until such a time as they’re proven not to be.  No border stop is routine.  There is no illusion of courtesy whatsoever.  They have to be tough guys and have to be aggressive and assume you’re a bad guy because if they fail even once, if some jihadi gets a bomb into Buffalo, they might as well have failed a thousand times.  They will be investigated and thrown under a bus and fired.  The Global War on Terrorism battlefield has literally crept into our backyard while we were cowering under our beds.  And we give our government money and demand that it treat us like shit.  All in the name of freedom.

Does anyone see the problem with that?

Thoughts on the 2010 Elections

I will confess that the outcome of the 2010 elections is not wholly what I had desired.  This will likely elicit cries from the audience that I am a closet liberal, but I assure you that this could not be further from the truth.  My political philosophy is far more nuanced and does not lend itself to being shoehorned into neat ideological categories.  Despite this, I will gladly take the results, because I am hoping that it means we will have a period of legislative gridlock during which nothing gets accomplished.  I mean this not in the traditional sense; not much good gets accomplished when one party has control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.  Instead, I mean this in the sense that I hope that little legislation detrimental to our nation gets accomplished.  In other words, I wish for a “do nothing” Congress that, by default, stymies everything that the president wishes to do. 

This is contrary to what I’ve written in the past, belittling Congress for doing nothing, with members working too little, and mostly just collecting a paycheck while waxing ecstatic about their own individual grandeur.  I still advocate a strong, competent legislature, but the operative word is “competent.”  What we have witnessed in the past 100 years does not evoke confidence in the legislature, which is mostly a tool of the executive.  Or perhaps the executive is a tool of the legislature, as the latter body has effectively delegated much of its responsibility to the former.  But I digress.

In 2006 I hoped for a Democratic victory, as I did in 2008, both of which I've also written about.  I wanted all of these idealistic liberals and hopeful independents to have their hopes and dreams crushed.  They were simply trading one set of incompetents for another.  I suspect that many of them see that now, and I suspect that many more simply refuse to believe it.  But the seed of thought has surely been planted.    

The period of time after the 2006 elections, and more so after those that took place in 2008, has shown me and hopefully others the dangers of giving one party too much power.  Democrats believed that the sweeping victories in those two elections gave them “a mandate” to push through various legislative agendas.  It didn’t, but more on that momentarily.

I have also come to more firmly believe that we are in need of a strong third party to offset the slavish devotion to ideology the “Big Two” possess.  It seems, on the surface, that we are simply swinging from one extreme to the other; each victory by one party being seen as a triumph of that party’s ideological underpinnings.

John Boehner, the presumptive Speaker of the House, said last night that change starts now.  I cannot help but to stifle a yawn and a snore.  I vaguely recall that I’ve heard such talk before.  Despite his proclamation, which I suppose is merely his effort to win graciously, you will likely see the GOP attempt to rectify the “grievances” that Democrats have issued to them these past four years.  Nothing will change.  Washington will not, contrary to Boehner’s rhetorical musings, begin doing what’s best for the American people.  Boehner’s party is in charge, just as it was four short years ago.  They say that insanity is defined by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  If that’s true, then Americans are collectively insane. 

The sense of supreme validation this election gave to the idolaters, those who raise a fist in victory and say, “We Won!” is scary.  I can’t help but ask, “Who won, and what did they win?”  Did Americans win, or did the GOP win?  Is the latter good for the former?  And what did they win?  Power?  If the answer to that question is yes, then we should be scared, indeed. 

This is all the more frightening when one subscribes to the oft-mentioned notion that Americans have some manner of collective wisdom in elections.  Consider all the hoopla that is made just prior to Election Day about how effective the massive amounts of money spent on ads and campaigning are at swaying the electorate.  How things change the day after, nay?  Now the virtues of the collective wisdom of party-line voters, uninformed voters, and plain apathetic voters is extolled to no end.  Further, the winners wrongly interpret this collective wisdom, and see it, again, as legitimizing their personal ideology, which means they are less than likely to compromise.  Vae Victus, indeed.  In this case, however, they fail to see the reality. 

If Americans do have a collective wisdom, it does not lean in favor of one ideology over another.  This election was not a referendum against Democrats or Obama, nor is it an outspoken desire to see a conservative agenda pushed through by a newly empowered GOP.  This election, like those of 2006 and 2008, is a referendum against the ineptitude of our government as a whole.

What to Eat? - A Political Metaphor

You walk into the only restaurant in the county.  You're famished.  You haven't eaten in what seems like days.  You sit down, and open the menu.  It's printed on high-quality paper, and there's all sorts of fancy decoration.  The table's are really nice too.  And the wait staff is top notch.  In other words, the presentation is impeccable.

However, your menu choices are:

A.) Tuna melt and fries.
B.) Grilled Cheese and fries.

You're really, really hungry, so you order the tuna melt.  It's terrible.  You can barely stomach it.  The mayo is rotten and the tuna tastes like something caught in a Thai toilet.  Worse, the fries consist of potato chips left out in the kitchen for three days.  And it cost you twenty of your hard earned dollars. The fine print on the menu says, "No Refund."

So, you figure, what the hell, I'm still hungry, so let's try the grilled cheese.  No one can screw that up.  Oh, and it comes.  It looks delicious.  The wait staff guarantees that it is the best sandwich ever, and that it will completely eradicate the taste of rancid tuna left over from the first order.  All of this, for the low price of $30.

You dig in and are immediately let down.  It too, is terrible.  The cheese is, strangely, not melted and slightly moldy.  It's certainly not what was advertised.

So what do you do?  It's the only restaurant in the county.  You go back a couple of times, trying both items on the menu, and they never get better.

Let me ask you: Would you keep going back to this restaurant?  No, I'm guessing that you would not.  At least not until they got a third item on the menu for you to try.  Instead, you'd either stop eating out, or drive to the next county.

Our current political system is this restaurant.  You have two choices, and both of them taste like the inside of a dead deer's ass.  Why do you keep going back to eat it?

In 2008, I did not vote in the presidential election.  It was my own little way of protesting this system.  Why would I eat a steaming pile of shit given to me on a silver platter and then smile all the way to the cash register, because, well, I gotta eat, right?  I wouldn't.  I was presented with two equally repulsive candidates.  And before you tell me that I should simply vote for the "lesser of two evils," I say, no.  I shan't do that under any circumstances.  That offends me.  If we can sit here and rationalize all the ill in our nation because, despite that ill, "this is still the freest/best country on earth" can we at least not pretend that the empty-headed nimrods that are presented to us as presidential candidates every four years are the best people our nation has to offer?  Please?  Pretty please with sugar on top?  Because they're not, people.  Yes, this country may very well be the freest/best nation on earth, but that doesn't mean that because of this we should sit back and relax and let these colossal douche bags beat it to death with huge steel dildos.  (Yeah, I'm a lot more lewd than normal; I'm fucking pissed.  When I submit this for publication, I'll be sure to make it teen friendly.)  Being good is no excuse.  Do you know what happens when you fail to maintain "the best?"  It because the "used to be the best, but is now just sort of okay" item of discussion.

So, please give me a third choice on the menu of democracy.

Think of voting as the sustenance of civic virtue.  But like your real-life diet, you must be careful what you consume.  You must be careful on what you cast your vote.  Your vote is fucking sacred.  It is SACRED.  Don't toss it away because you must vote for, for, for SOMEONE!!!  Right now, you've only got two choices; one with a D (for dumb fucks) and one with an R (for really fucking stupid).  Continued consumption of these two items is sure to make you unhealthy.  It sure isn't doing much for our nation, is it?

Coming Out of the Closet

I am incredibly hesitant to label myself.  Other than “Marine,” which has defined me far more than any other label, I really abhor the idea of being grouped in with anyone on just about anything.  Perhaps I relish the role of “outsider,” or perhaps it’s a defense mechanism that allows me to “fit in” and semi-identify with all manner of people.  Besides the foreboding feeling that I’m coming upon the middle part of my life having accomplished very little (which is in fact rather absurd), I do not generally engage in enough self-reflection to allow myself to answer the questions that the previous sentence engenders.

For years, I’ve had misgivings about “conservatism” and “liberalism” and it’s saddened me that those are really the only two viable camps in which a person can make a home, ideologically.  It has always struck me odd that most everyone indeed DOES fall inside those two camps; on almost every issue they are in complete agreement with the ideological grounds of one camp over another.  You’re either a liberal, and identify strongly with token liberal issues (abortion, gay marriage, regulation of industry) or are a conservative, and identify strongly with token conservative issues (abortion, gay marriage, deregulation of industry).  I often thought that these stances were intellectually inconsistent – how can you want the freedom to do whatever you want in your personal life, but then wish for mind-numbing government control over other aspects of society such as schools and the market?  Conversely, how can you want free markets but want draconian laws specifying who you can sleep with in your own house?  The whole thing was just plain odd to me.  Where I grew up, there was no such thing as “libertarians."  Sure, I did know people who might have been libertarians and had libertarian ideals, they just didn’t know it.  So they suffered through cognitive dissonance as it pertained to reconciling the beliefs of their “camp” with the beliefs of their mind.  Most were “conservatives” and it was just easier to toe the line.

And really, that might be the reason I don’t label myself.  I never had a group with which to identify while growing up.  I couldn’t understand how I was the only person who, for example, believed that a woman can choose an abortion if she’d like, but also thought government was too big, too unwieldy, and too god damned intrusive.

Nowadays, I do realize that I was and am more of a libertarian than anything else.  But still, I resist calling myself that.  I will say it in private.  But one gets the distinct impression that to do so in public is akin to political suicide – Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian, nor is his son.  In fact, his son Rand recently wrote an article distancing himself from that label.  Why?  Because no one knows what the hell a libertarian is, apparently.  Or, as Rand says, it’s simply because people have the WRONG idea of what a libertarian is.  I will also say that the rabidity of Ron Paul’s supporters in 2008 turned me off from the label “libertarian.”  It also turned me off from Ron Paul (though he and I do disagree on matters of foreign affairs and defense).  So you have two of the most recognizable libertarian politicians who…aren’t even libertarians.  I think there exists a branding problem.  I say this because I really think that more Americans identify with libertarianism than exists members of the Libertarian Party (to which I do not belong – see above).  I’d go so far as to say that the MAJORITY of 18th and early 19th century Americans were libertarians, to one degree or another.  They may not have believed that a person should be a homosexual or other distinctly religious things, but I’d guess that they mostly thought that those decisions should be left up to, get this: the individual.

Maybe that’s the problem, or say, the incompatibility of libertarianism in the minds of most people today.  Certainly there exists a large number of libertarians that don’t “believe” in abortion, but think that the choice to have one is best left to the person.  However, most people in general, I think, view these sorts of issues as issues in which the state SHOULD be intimately involved.  More accurately, perhaps, is the notion that “freedom” only exists so far as you agree with the particular freedom in question.  I really think this is a true statement.  For example, you have people who claim to be about “freedom of religion” but vehemently oppose the construction of a mosque near supposed holy land in NYC; they only like freedom of religion if they benefit from it (and simply forget about arguing rule of law – they’re interested strictly in the emotional).  I’d bet my entire salary that these are the same people that will protest the removal of Christian crosses from publicly funded road-side memorials erected for slain policemen.   They want the government to prevent a privately funded Muslim mosque/civic center from being built, but also want the government to allow publicly funded religious memorials.  They don’t really believe in freedom of religion – they believe in freedom of THEIR religion FROM other religions (or lack of).  Imagine the uproar were Muslim symbols to be publicly funded.  The possibility of religion being explicitely personal and leaving government out of it entirely almost never occurs to them.  You could note the same inconsistencies in virtually every issue of “freedom.”  Whereas liberalism and conservatism serve a great deal as moral compasses to the adherants of each (or immoral guides if you’re on the other side), libertarianism doesn’t do that at all.  It leaves the choices up to the person, which is probably part of the reason it has difficulty finding people who might become members.  The problem is that our political parties are now the definers of morality.  Libertarianism doesn’t have to do that, and that scares people.

I can only wonder if the main players in either camp even believe in the basic tenets of their ideology anymore – the flock simply goes along with whatever the shepherds say, so their understanding of the complexities of any particular issue is moot.  This is simply slavish devotion to talking points.  They’re like patrician Romans in the late Republic; they paid lip service to the gods to reap political benefits, but didn’t think that they really existed.  Conservatives, to whom libertarians have often been closely compared, aren’t conservative anymore, at least not fiscally.  They talk the great talk about fiscal conservation, but that’s all it is.  The kicker is, I don’t think that the leaders of these groups have more than a superfluous understanding of any of their pet issues – it’s talking points deep (One can see this in the talk of Obama’s Islam and citizenship – they’ve been giving talking points and that’s as far as their understanding goes; call it the Palinization of politics, though it began long ago.  Max Baucus represents the liberal side, as it pertains to health care legislation…).

What is my point, other than to compose beautiful writing on issues about which no one cares?  I suppose my point is that I sort of wish that everyone were a libertarian, because that would mean people would largely leave each other alone to live their own lives in whatever manner they saw fit.  It’s the embodiment of “live and let live.”  But people simply cannot do this, and must seek to subjugate others and force them to live by their rules; to do otherwise is somehow an affront to their personal moral code (hence the phrase often bandied about like some sort of rally cry – “This is a Christian Nation!”).  If everyone were libertarians, they could really believe it when they say, “I don’t agree with you, but I support your right to say it.”  As it stands right now, they believe nothing of the sort.  If everyone were libertarians, they could really believe it when they say that we live in the freest country on earth.  As it stands right now, we have archaic laws that stifle freedom.  If you don't believe me, you should try to buy a pack of clove cigarettes for your own personal consumption on your own property.  You can't.  Because they're banned for sale in the US.  If everyone were libertarian, we might not have $13 trillion in debt to go along with our bloated, inefficient government and social programs and crumbling highway system.

My other main point, which might very well be lost in the verbosity of my prose, is to say that libertarianism has a branding problem.  Libertarian politicians don’t want to be called libertarians.  How can regular people admit to being such a…a…a…THING!, when these people won’t admit to it?  Hardly anyone even knows what a libertarian is, nor do they know what it would mean for them if libertarianism were popular (i.e. yes, Suzy, you can still believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, and you can choose not to practice it, but you can’t tell Bobby that he cannot).  The branding issue might as well be smacking us in the face with a ball peen hammer.

The Faultline Movement, such that it is (or isn’t), is my way of formulating some personal political philosophy.  I suppose that it’s more about me defining myself than fomenting real change from the grass roots level, or at least equally so.  Perhaps libertarianism really is too tainted by false notions to make a meaningful change.  I don’t know.  Perhaps being a libertarian is akin to being gay – it takes a bit, perhaps a lot more than a bit, of moral courage to come out, and sometimes it’s just easier to stay in.  That way you don’t have to answer so many questions.  Questions you’re not even sure HOW to answer, because you no longer fit into the neat, tidy little boxes of Gingrich and Clinton.  After all, we humans like conformity; we like feeling like we belong.

Maybe it’s time to redefine what it is to be a lover of personal freedom.  Or maybe it’s just time I came out of the closet.

Morning Coffee (156)

Greetings, Coffee Drinkers. Today is the second day in what appears to be the Most Optimistic Year in history. I suppose we'll see what everyone's saying around 31 December. If I had to guess, it would be something along the lines of, "Here's to hoping that 2011 is better than this year."

See? You like how I take that optimism and crush it under the boot heel of pessimistic realism? I do what I can, folks. If you didn't like such bitter Brew, I suspect that you would not keep coming back for more, day after dolorous day.

Blasphemers Will be Punished by the Hand of the…uh, Law:

This past July, lawmakers in Ireland banded together to protect an endangered group of social belief systems, called religions. These institutions are so frail, despite having millions of adherents and the ability to generate untold millions of dollars in tax-exempt revenue around the globe, that in Ireland a law was passed in July of this past year (2009) which protects these belief systems from blasphemy, making said indiscretion a crime.

Thank the gods/God/Allah/Yahweh/Buddha/Quetzalcoatl/David Koresh. If this law weren't passed, these "religions," as they're called, would surely have lost what little prestige they still have, and would likely have been eradicated within a couple of years. (Since we're talking about religion, I pray that you sense the sarcasm.)

This law, the breaking of which can result in a fine of up to 25,000 euro (almost $37,000), defines blasphemy as, "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defenses permitted." That is what I call "clear and comprehensive."

I am no lawyer, but it seems to me, through the use of my ill-educated mind, that the operative phrase is "intentionally causing outrage among as substantial number of adherents of that religion." It would appear, then, that a court must decide if the resulting outrage caused by some nefarious blasphemy (i.e. what we might consider free speech) was done intentionally. The element that does NOT appear to be considered, however, is whether or not that outrage was, by any measure, rational. This law, arguably, encourages irrational behavior by the faithful. If I were to publish or utter matter that was critical of a particular religion and that religion's adherents irrationally became outraged, and say, rioted and looted buildings in Copenhagen, I would still be at fault. If I somehow escaped the rabid lynch mobs caused by my blasphemy, I could be fined a fair sum of money for "intentionally" causing outrage. Never mind that I didn't intend for the adherents of this belief system to cause millions of dollars in damage to public and private buildings and/or cause harm to persons in the vicinity of the expression of outrage. Isn't an eternity in Hell enough of a punishment?

I had always considered blasphemy an act that could only be committed by an adherent to a particular faith. It always seemed difficult to me that someone who does not believe in something could blaspheme against it, but I guess this is not true. I think it shows how insecure these religions are; they can stand not even the slightest criticism from those outside their faith, let alone inside it. It is as if they realize how intellectually shoddy their faith's construction is, and fear that their flock will also realize it if they are allowed to hear these outside blasphemers. (Brewer's Note: Not all members of religions are this way. The Brewer knows some fine individuals that are happy to discuss and address a non-believer's questions and criticisms, no matter how harsh they may be.)

Dermot Ahern, a justice minister (maybe THE justice minister, I do not know), is of the opinion that the law is necessary, because the 1936 constitution protects only the belief of Christians. And if you know anything about Europe, immigration has somewhat changed the face of faith in many countries. So, according to Ahern, it is necessary to protect the beliefs of all faiths. I agree with this. But why not simply amend the constitution to state that all faiths are protected, rather than bring about a law that arguably limits free speech? I see no reason for this law. Laws surely already exist that protect people from being discriminated against based on their beliefs, age, sex, etc. Fear must be the only reason. Fear of offending someone. Fear of riots in the streets over cartoons depicting Muhammad. I should add that the authors of these cartoons still face real threats to their lives. I can't help but wonder, though, if this law protects the beliefs of atheists. It must, right? I would hope that a Christian official would be fined for saying something derogatory about atheists, but I find this unlikely.

Atheist Ireland, which claims to protect the rights of atheists, agrees with me that this law serves only to hinder free speech. In response to this law, Atheist Ireland published a list of 25 quotes from all sorts of people that technically would result in a fine under this new law. These quotes have been uttered by the likes of Mark Twain, Bjork, Salman Rushdie, George Carlin, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and, yes, Jesus. That's right; some of the things Jesus had said would have resulted in him being fined 25,000 euro under this law.

What is it that they say? "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions?" Hopefully, this nonsense will be repealed, and a valid law will be created that prevents discrimination, while preserving free speech. I do not think it terribly likely, but I can hope.

Burj Dubai Set to Open:

I love the city of Dubai, which is situated in the United Arab Emirates. I visited there in 2003, and was impressed with the city and its residents. Dubai has taken a big hit in this financial crisis, the irony of which I couldn't help but to admire. UAE's leaders had endeavored to relieve the nation's dependence on oil for its economic vitality, and thus invested heavily in real estate and infrastructure and building projects to hopefully lure other investors and big-spending tourists. I give UAE credit for identifying that they needed to diversify their economic base, which most countries in the region seem very reluctant to attempt. I hope that Dubai and UAE comes out on top in the future, but right now it seems they are feeling the crunch, just as much, if not worse, than the rest of the world.

But good news is on the horizon. The Burj Dubai, the world's newest "tallest building" is set to open soon. So far though, from what I've read, it seems that they're having issues renting out space in this magnificent, 2,640+ feet tall building. Despite this, it should give Emiratis something to cheer about; a boost in national pride and prestige. Congratulations to Dubai.

Word of the Day: Constitutional (noun): A walk taken for one's health.

On This Day in History: The Alamanni cross the frozen Rhine and invade the Roman Empire (366 CE). Georgia is the fourth state to ratify the US Constitution (1788). The Russian garrison at Port Arthur surrenders to the Japanese (1905). President Nixon signs an order lowering the speed limit to 55 in order to conserve gasoline during an OPEC embargo (1974). A moron was enjoying the first day of marital bliss in his life (2001).

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." – Jesus Christ, said to the Jews in John 8:44, example of possibly blasphemous speech covered by the new Irish law.

Morning Coffee (155)

Greetings Coffee Drinkers. Welcome to the year 2010. I'm sure you are all looking forward to seeing just what this year has in store for you. I know I am, though I'm relatively certain that it will be "more of the same."

 

Hopefully everyone was safe and with luck, you can even remember what they did last night. With luck, you did nothing foolish, like elope, for example. I was very safe, as I had a few drinks with the proprietors of the restaurant situated below my hotel. I also remember my evening quite well. I departed the restaurant at about 2330 and walked up to my room. By this time, it was beginning to sound like a warzone outside. So I opened my windows and, half in and half out of my room, I beheld a cacophony of completely random fireworks. It seemed as though every house in the village held their own fireworks display, and each house was competing with the houses adjacent to it. It was madness. (Nay, it was SPARTA!) Soon, the streets filled with smoke and it smelled like a battle had was taking place. I happened to enjoy this immensely and took many, many
pictures. You can see more here, here, right – here, here – also, and, here. Another here.

 

All in all, it wasn't a terrible evening. I am sure there are some out there who had a marvelous evening, likely spent with good, old friends who were deeply missed and who finally returned to be a part of each others' lives. Perhaps they'll move in together again, or lend each other money and buy each other expensive gifts. Maybe they'll just "be there" for one another and provide emotional and/or logistical support in these, the most difficult of times. Wouldn't a story like that warm your heart? It most certainly would mine.

 

"I want to paamp, you uap!" – Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Today on my way back from the free uber-breakfast offered by my hoteliers, I saw a magazine called "Planet Muscle" on a small desk in the hallway. Since I take perverse pleasure out of annoying myself, I picked this magazine up and took it to my room to "read." I must confess that I get a real kick out of these things. Actually, the whole "muscle culture" provides me with great amusement. This magazine is really just a huge, cleverly designed advertising campaign for various supplements.

 

In fact, the first third of this particular issue are real ads showing numerous "before and after" photos of "regular guys" who achieved miraculous gains of rock-hard, striated, slab-like layers of mass in just weeks, all this while cutting down their body fat percentages from the 20%-range to single digits. Some ads even have cleverly placed newspapers that have been Photoshopped into the hands of these "regular guys" so as to give the real impression of just weeks passing. I will confess to being unable to make out the publication date in either picture. Despite this minor issue, all they had to do, apparently, was consume the supplement in question. These supplements have delightful names that range from the hard-core-sounding "Hemo-Rage Black," "Melt-Down Fat Assault," and "Dark Matter/Dark Rage" to the very scientific and medicinal sounding "Halodrol MT," "Quadracarn," and "Kre-Alkalyn." I can only assume that there are distinct markets within this market; one for the jock-like and another for the more discerning wanna-be.

 

The prowess of each and every one of these items in providing "explosive gains" is shown by one hulking behemoth or another, with glistening, hairless bodies, ridiculous fake tans, and gelled hair who state emphatically in giant, cartoonish fonts about how this is the best product they have ever used. See, all of these products are the best product ever. No real science is provided, other than improbably large numbers about the massive amounts of growth hormone or some other substance provide. That being the case, you must try them all if you want an utterly impractical, farcical physique like these men.

 

The rest of this magazine features cleverly written articles, which are really just advertisements for other supplements. They might be interviews with various iron-pumping idols or just features about the lifting prowess of this guy or that guy. Sometimes, Big Name Muscle Guy will show you what he does in order to get "horse-shoes," or as regular humans call them, triceps.

 

This is a huge industry, preying on the inadequacies and, quite frankly, the gullibility and complacence of men everywhere. See, a lot of these guys really want to look like the tools in these magazines, but they haven't the will to really train. What they do have is disposable income, so they will run right down to GNC and buy the newest, berry-flavored supplement which is sure to put them over the wall that they've encountered in their training regimen (i.e. fantasizing about the things in these magazines and not going to the gym).

 

The magazine also has plenty of "fitness babes." Some of these girls aren't bad looking, having not yet achieved the freakishly abnormal muscle mass and associated "dude-look" of some of the female competitors you might have seen. And since this industry is geared primarily towards men, these women provide nothing of value other than posing in very little clothing. (As an aside, the owner of the magazine before me dog eared literally every page that featured a scantily clad, suggestively posing woman, whether she was featured in an advertisement or not. I found this to be hilarious.) Most of the women you see in this magazine are mere props to advertise some sexual supplement or another. The gullibility of the audience has already been firmly established, so why not attempt to dip further into their pockets by suggesting to them, obliquely, that they can bag themselves a couple of these hot fitness hunnies, and perform some miraculous, if ill-defined, feats in bed, so long as they use Vigor Lab's "Chainsaw," which I think just makes your penis hard. I cannot tell for sure. But it goes right along with the miraculous feats enabled by "Hemo-Rage Black." And if she is turned off by your "bacne" and won't give it up willingly, you'll now be able to simply take it right after ripping the door off her Prius.

 

Needless to say, the magazine in question gave me an easy twenty minutes of enjoyment, while I laughed at the absurdity of it all, and contemplated the gullibility of the target audience and admired the slick production of these half-hidden ads. And it led to a decent, lighthearted Brew, I think.

 

Word of the Day: Panacea (noun): A remedy for all diseases, problems, or evils; a universal medicine; a cure-all.

 

On This Day in History: The Julian calendar comes into use (45 BCE). Russia begins to use AD (Anno Domini) (1700). Ellis Island opens (1892). The Ball drops in NYC for the first time (1908). The Navy SEALs were established (1962). A fool took some apparently meaningless vows and was married (2001). Random other things (Various).

 

"These Shameful Metaphors. I fought it through the teeth. Shameful Metaphors; biting at your heels. Shameful Metaphors; I fought it cheek to cheek. So why then has my life made no sound? And are your eyes closing even now? My life made no sound. I fear your eyes closing."

Morning Coffee (154)

Greetings, Coffee Drinkers. It has been a long time since we've had a Brew. Much has happened in the world, and the Brewer has not been around to discuss it with you. For that, I apologize. Life, delightful as it is, gets in the way of things like this, sometimes. I have been working on other projects here and there, and have recently moved to a foreign country where the beer (and coffee) is plentiful and delicious. As Adam Duritz sings in the song "Long December," "Maybe this year will be better than the last." But for now, I've still got the ability to whip up some Bitter Brew…

 

TSA Wants to See Your Labia and/or Scrotum:

I would be insulting your intelligence where I to relay to you the events that took place a few days ago, on Christmas Day. You surely remember that a man attempted to detonate an explosive which was sewn into his cotton briefs. His goal was to blow a hole in the side of a plane as it prepared to land in Detroit, and thus kill a bunch of people. If you are unaware of this happening, then you must have been in a coma, and I ask that you simply type "Christmas Day Bomber" into Google so that you can track the subsequent conversation about privacy and security.

 

Much has been made about the failure of the security protocols which allowed for Abdul/Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board a plane with explosives placed precariously close to his family jewels. I would think that much should be made about this failure. Were it not for luck, or Abdulmutallab's incompetence, nearly 300 people would have died on Christmas day. It doesn't help matters that Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, said that the system worked, and then Robert Gibbs echoes the same sentiment. Much backtracking was made by Napolitano, and then by President Obama, who of course spoke in the passive voice about how "our government has not acted as it should." He is but a regular citizen expressing disappointment in "our" government. I digress…

 

The point is that the system did fail. Abdulmutallab's own father, a prominent Nigerian, reported him to embassy officials because he was concerned about Abdulmutallab's fundamentalist leanings. Abdulmutallab's US visa was not rescinded. He was not even flagged for further inspections by security were he to decide to ride in an airplane despite being on a list of 550,000 people who might pose a risk. Instead, he was flagged for a closer look when he renewed his visa. I should note that he was barred from entry into the United Kingdom. None of this proved very helpful.

 

The story gets worse than this. Abdulmutallab paid for the ticket with cash, and did not check any baggage despite claiming that he would be staying in the United States for two weeks. When I flew on a one-way ticket to Afghanistan, my bags and my person were utterly ransacked. I had popped up "randomly" for additional screening. Yet this guy, with known ties to al-Qaida, who was on a list of persons of risk, who was denied entry into the UK, who purchased his ticket with cash and possessed only a carry-on bag, and whose father had reported him to officials in Nigeria, did not apparently rate an additional pat down. Not that this would have been effective, since the screener would have had to vigorously search him, and search him in an area that is so utterly distasteful and demeaning and such. I have worked security for big events before, and have had to pat down thousands of people. It sucks. Believe me. No one wants to feel your testicles or your breasts. Well, perhaps some do, but it is just as uncomfortable for security personnel as it is for those being searched. All that being said, I doubt anyone would have found Abdulmutallab's explosive…uh…package.

 

But there is something that would have found it. It is called Millimeter Wave Passenger Imaging. The problem is that it also produces semi-detailed images of your junk. In other words, someone could see your penis/vagina/breasts/buttocks. Privacy advocates are quite obviously against this, because of the aforementioned reasons. Security hounds are rather for it. It does the work that actual humans find distasteful – it sees, rather than weakly gropes for, Abdulmutallab's explosive package. This system is not yet being used widely. And as I alluded to, it has met some fierce resistance. But I think the recent attempt to destroy a plane will dissolve some of that resistance.

 

Personally, I'm torn about the use of such a system, which does, to an extent, violate the privacy of passengers. The other day, I caught myself saying something completely ridiculous. I said, "Whatever makes flying safe, I'm for." How utterly absurd. I blame it on my fear of flying, which I developed after a lovely flight on the airline Afghan Ariana in 2003. This is a flimsy excuse. I have libertarian leanings, and such a statement is rather antithetically opposed to such leanings.

 

I offer you a great article about this topic, and I hope that you'll read it. In it, the author describes how the system would work, with the hope of assuaging the fears of those who do not want their naughty bits exposed to leering security personnel. For example, when you are scanned, your face is not visible to the person who sees the image of your sweet, nubile, naked body. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. No, your face is obscured. And the person seeing your face does not have access to the images of your sweet, nubile, naked body. Your privacy is relatively assured. And believe me, after a couple of hundred viewings of people of all shapes and sizes, the security folks aren't going to care about how hot or not you are. I've patted down many, many, many beautiful women, average women, ugly women, large people, small people, and dudes of all shapes, sizes, and ages. I couldn't pick a single one of them out of a lineup. I don't remember a single one. And with this system, the operator wouldn't even see a face. But read the article, as the author articulates how the system works far better than I.

 

I suppose with that said, I'm rather ambivalent to the presence of such a device. I'd rather that than some embarrassed kid frisking me gingerly so as to not offend me, while putting hundreds of people at potential risk. It is terrible that people who want to blow up planes exist, but they do. I am not all that thrilled about the prospects of a free fall from 36,000 feet, so I guess I'm fine with showing some faceless security official my manhood. Of course, maybe having to use shared showers has eroded my modesty. Will this system be foolproof? No. No system is. I offer you the case of the would-be assassin of the Saudi counter-terrorism chief. He may have hid his explosives in his rectal cavity and detonated said charge with explosive effect via a cell phone.

 

What do you Coffee Drinkers think?

 

My apologies for such a mundane, ill-written Brew. I am out of practice, and I will endeavor to do better for all (three) of you.

 

Word of the Day:

Vicissitude (noun): 1. Regular change or succession from one thing to another; alternation; mutual succession; interchange; 2. Irregular change; revolution; mutation; 3. A change in condition or fortune; an instance of mutability in life or nature (especially successive alternation from one condition to another).

 

On This Day in History: The Roman emperor Commodus is killed (192 CE). The Vandals, Alans, and Suebi cross the Rhine and begin their invasion of Gaul. They would eventually end up on North Africa (406). Shopkeepers in England brick up their windows to avoid paying the Window Tax (1695). Arthur Guinness signs a 9,000 year lease and begins brewing Guinness (1759). Abraham Lincoln signs an act which admits West Virginia into the Union (1862). Thomas Edison demonstrates incandescent light for the first time (1879). The Marshall Plan expires, after distributing $13.3 billion in aid to rebuild Europe (1951) (George Marshall was born on this date in 1880). The Soviet Union is officially dissolved, as all official Soviet institutions cease operations (1991). The Euro is created (1998). The US Government hands over control of the Panama Canal to Panama (1999).

 

Tomorrow is the ninth anniversary of my marriage to a remarkable, amazing woman. Words fail to adequately describe my feelings for her. Had I not met her, had I not called that night so long ago, I would not be where I am today; I would not feel as only she can make me feel. I ask that we all take a moment to hope and pray that a woman who is as amazing as she, and who exhibits such sublime traits and characteristics, gets exactly what she deserves in life.

Morning Coffee (153)

Greetings, Coffee Drinkers. It has been too long, by far. I have not been inspired to Brew in a long time, and I hope that my Drinker-ship will forgive my insolence. But I've been working on some other projects here and there. Needless to say, a lot has happened, and there's no way to cover it in one Brew. Hopefully you've checked out Publius's "Observation Post," as he's back up and running as well.

Supreme Court Nomination:
Certainly, you've heard about this SCOTUS nomination business. And I'm sure you've heard that Obama has nominated 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Prior to this nomination, you'll remember that much was made of Obama's alleged desire for a judge with "empathy." But this Brew isn't about whether or not she has "empathy," whatever that might mean for Justice.

Here's an introduction to the news on Judge Sotomayor:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." - Judge Sotomayor, 2001.

Sotomayor's quote is troubling. For one, it presents false logic. This being the case, it doesn't speak too highly of her intellect, which Robert Gibbs defended the other day by saying that her detractors, who argue that she hasn't the first class intellect necessary to be a Justice, didn't graduate summa cum laude from Princeton. I shouldn't have to point to the absurdity of Gibbs' argument as well, but I will. Very few people in history have graduated second at Princeton. This doesn't mean that they don't get to question the intellect or ability of someone serving for life as a Supreme Court Justice. Let me say that again: For Life. Back to the issue, however, Sotomayor's comment about the "richness of her [a Latina's] experience" is an intellectually insufficient explanation for someone's ability to come to any given, or in this case a better, conclusion.

Secondly, and I know that it's very difficult to even get around the inability to present a logical argument, were such a statement made by a pre-Chief Justice John Roberts, or any white male judge, their political careers would be effectively over. This would easily be a racist comment if made by the aforementioned demographic. But in this case, we're told (i.e. scolded) by Gibbs and others that everyone had better tread carefully. Gibbs says, "I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation." Of course, the unspoken second clause to that sentence is, "unless you want to lose any gains you made in securing the Latin American vote, and appear to be a racist." This is a prime example of how you're a racist if you criticize, rightly or wrongly, a minority, but you're lauded if you criticize the "wisdom" of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males. Interesting double standard, if I do say so.

This is the entire point. Sotomayor may or may not be a so-called "activist judge," but one thing is certain: she was picked partially because to fight her confirmation would be politically inadvisable, or at the very least, must be done so in a very delicate manner. She's a perfect candidate, but maybe not in the usual sense; she's a perfect political candidate. She's a woman, Hispanic, relatively young (remember: lifetime appointment), and if you believe the news reports, has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 70 years (or 100 depending on the source). There are probably a dozen or more candidates who are equally qualified, but very few with Sotomayor's "unique" qualifications such as ethnicity, sex, and Cinderella story. But it's the ethnicity that makes it so hard for Republicans to fight her confirmation, or to do so with any zeal. Too much criticism and they will be labeled racists, and will lose any Hispanic votes they have gained, and will be unable to gain any more. You're seeing this label already.

I don't have a say in whether or not Sotomayor is confirmed, so I have no impetus to research her and make a coherent argument against her, although were she to be proven to have a history of statements like the one above, I'd question her ability to be a Justice. Thankfully, I'm not a GOP Senator, but if I were, I'd be hesitant to dig too deeply, like I might with a white male nominee. No one wants to be labeled a racist. But I will say that to avoid a rigorous discussion, even a heated one, about the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice who will serve for life simply because our elected officials are afraid is absurd. It's another symptom of a broken, diseased system.

I've noticed a trend lately. A number of articles have stated that great discretion and deference is given to a President's choice for Judicial nominees. Charles Krauthammer, a conservative, has said as much, saying that Republicans should:

"Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences."

I agree that elections have consequences. And I respect Krauthammer's ability to write, and I respect some of his opinions (and frankly, he's a far better man to represent the GOP than is Rush Limbaugh). But the notion that the President should be given deference in his nominations is ludicrous. The Constitution says nothing about granting deference to a President in this regard. It doesn't even imply deference. This is what Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

This clause does not say, "The President shall nominate and the Senate should sorta mull the situation and then confirm the President's first choice." It's the Senate's duty to rigorously investigate any Supreme Court nominee by any President. This means to take the above illogical statement made by Sotomayor in 2001, and consider that in the context of her entire career. Anything less and they've failed us, their employers. Anything less and they're not fit for their jobs as Senators.

This article by David Paul Kuhn describes some of the issues at play with this nomination, but also with what some call "positive discrimination", which is basically white males not getting jobs they're otherwise qualified for were it not for being white and having a penis. One could argue that this happened in the Ricci v.DeStefano, a case upon which Judge Sotomayor ruled.

Speaking of ethnicity and sex, see this article about a group at the University of Chicago called Men in Power. It's somewhat interesting.

Power to the Powerful:
Would you like another sign that our system is showing advanced signs of decay? Read this article.

In it, you'll get to read about how the President (any) travels to political functions, and we taxpayers, or those of us forever in debt bondage, pay for it. This week President Obama attended two fundraising events, one for Harry Reid in Las Vegas and another for a donor dinner in Los Angeles. For those counting, that's two different cities in two different states. But this is all classified as official travel, because in between those events he attended some public event where he spoke about energy. Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union (can they organize a strike?) estimated that the "non-public" portion of the trip from Vegas to LA and back cost at least $265,000. This is because the President's travel package consists of Air Force One, the back up AF1, and a C-17.

The rules governing travel are sort of convoluted. The Air Force pays for the cost of operating the aircraft, but the government reimburses for airfare, etc. Strange. Equally strange is the fact that the reimbursements never equal the actual costs. For example, campaign stops by Bush and Cheney incurred $6.5 million in expenses, of which their campaigns reimbursed to the government $198,000. We taxpayers paid the rest, or roughly $6.3 million. We're paying for their reelection, and not through regular political donations. In other words, I am paying the President's bill to go stump for Harry Reid. I'm paying for Reid's campaign, to some degree. Just the same, I was paying for Bush and Cheney's reelection (and other Republicans), despite not giving their campaigns one red cent.

As the article states, "watchdog groups don't suggest that the President shouldn't travel, or even that he shouldn't travel to political events." Well, they might not say it, but I will. Taxpayer dollars should be spent solely for the business of the government. Reelection funds, campaign speeches, dinners, etc, are not government business. How is this so hard for watchdog groups to understand? I don't want the White House to be more forthcoming with travel expenses, as does Pete Sepp's group. I want the President to be legally barred from attending any such events on the taxpayers' dime. If he wants to attend, he can do so out of his own campaign funds or by using his own money, and he can charter a plane to do so. Air Force One should not be used for such things, even if the Air Force is completely reimbursed. I will grudgingly concede that safety is an issue, so if Air Force One is necessary, then the President must reimburse in total. Harry Reid's challengers haven't the ability to have their supporters flown in on taxpayer funded aircraft.

All told, the stops, one of which cost couples $30,400 to attend and was followed by a cheaper event so that the plebeians could also give money to their leaders, pulled in $5-6 million for Reid and the Democratic Party. Not a bad haul; all the President needed to do was make some minor remarks on energy policy and it was all official business.

So Convoluted, Even the President Can't Understand it:
Our government bureaucracy is so mind-numbingly complex that even the Commander in Chief doesn't know about all the agencies which make it up. Yesterday, the President took a trip to a burger joint and had a brief exchange with Walter (LNU) during which Obama asked Walter what he did for a living. Here's the exchange:

Obama: What do you do Walter?
Walter: I work at, uh, NGA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Obama: Outstanding, how long you been doing that?
Walter: About six years
Obama: Yea?
Walter: Yes.
Obama: You like it?
Walter: I do, keeps me...
Obama: So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial...uh...
Walter: Uh, we work with, uh, satellite imagery..
Obama: Right
Walter: [unintelligible] ...support systems, so...
Obama: Sounds like good work.
Walter: Enjoy the weekend.
Obama: Appreciate it.

Intelligence professionals will know what NGA is and what the agency does. I'm conflicted about whether or not a President should know. He is, on one hand, the boss of this agency (and many, many others). Is it important if he doesn't know? Probably not. I just found it humorous, is all.

Personal Reflections:
For those of you who read regularly, you'll know that the Brewer only rarely delves into his personal life. I find that it's generally not important to the task at hand, that is Brewing Coffee. I am also of the opinion that you don't come here to read about me. This is fair, and this is how I'd prefer it to be.

But today I am going to make a brief exception. I would like to talk about my uncle, with whom I have been fairly close most of my life. He and my father were together my heroes growing up. Holidays were complete only after hearing them regale me with stories of youthful bravado; their stories were the stories of my clan; their legacy to me. I would be enthralled, enchanted by hearing them speak of their youth. The three of us spent a lot of time together, around the table talking drinking coffee, mine with milk and sugar. But also outside, hunting and fishing. Virtually everything I know about the outdoors is because of my father and my uncle.

My uncle is also among the funniest men I've ever known. His repository of jokes, many of which are dirty, must number in the millions. I am a poor teller of jokes, for I can almost never remember them. But my uncle can tell them all day long. He captures you in the story, and hits you with the punchline. Rarely has he told the same joke twice, but when he did, it was like the first time you'd ever heard it.

He also loves kids. Far more than I do. And kids love him. Growing up, there were always plenty of kids around, and my uncle always made them laugh. I'll never forget the smile on his face when I showed him a picture of my newest son.

I'm writing though, because my uncle has terminal cancer. He is 59. There really isn't much else to say at the moment. I am not a religious man, and will never pretend to be. But I ask that you might keep him in your thoughts. Pray for him if you like. Sacrifice a pig or a bull if that's what you choose. More importantly, appreciate the time you have with those who you are close to. Build up those fond memories like an unbreachable fortress, for when you must see them off, your fond memories are what remain.

Word of the Day: Iniquitous (adj): Characterized by injustice or wickedness; wicked; sinful.

On This Day in History: Andrew Jackson kills Charles Dickinson in a duel (1806). The Lincoln Memorial is dedicated (1922). The remains of two unidentified American servicemembers are buried at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery (1958).

"Told me you loved me, that I'd never die alone. Hand over your heart, let's go home. Everyone knowed it, everyone has seen the signs. I've always been known to cross lines. I never ever cried when I was feeling down. I've always been scared of the sound. Jesus don't love me, no one ever carried my load. I'm too young to feel this old. Here's to you, here's to me, on to us, nobody knows. Nobody sees. Nobody but me." - "Cold Desert," Kings of Leon.