Category Archives: COMMENTARY

Let Go Of Gays And Guns.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

National mid term elections are less than ninety days away, and along with them thousands of local offices and issues will also be on the ballot. Polls claim most Americans are in the middle with only a small vocal minority on each fringe, but I’m not seeing it. The definition of an independent/moderate in American politics seems to be anyone who hates both sides equally. Does that count?

Each side is trying to come up with a scheme that picks off votes from the middle, assuming there actually are any. There might be some persuadable citizens on local issues, but for the national elections, there’s very few votes to harvest. To clarify for my readers outside the United States: Americans don’t vote for the best candidate. We identify the candidate we dislike the most and vote for whoever he or she is running against, even if under any other circumstances we would not hire that person to run a popcorn stand. Crazy Americans!

My disrespect for big government liberalism should not be interpreted as approval for what the Republicans are up to. The best thing I can say about Republicans is that they are not nearly as incompetent as Democrats, but that’s not a compliment; it’s more like congratulating the valedictorian from the worst school in the country.

Keeping in mind the mission of Twenty First Summer as the “thoughtful, positive, relevant” blog, I’m not going to spend the next several hundred words lighting up in a whiney screed about how the country is going to hell, even if it actually is (cough-Obama-cough). There is an old trope in American politics that says a policy neither side likes is probably the best. That is exactly the path I intend on taking here.

I’m not a political scientist. I’m not a lobbyist, consultant, or analyst. I’ve never held public office nor worked for a candidate, or even slapped a campaign sticker on my truck. I have come up with two plans, one for liberals and one for conservatives. Whichever group most effectively embraces their respective plan will win over voters who would normally not even consider supporting them, and more importantly, make them loyal backers for life:

Conservatives should abandon their opposition to gay marriage.
There are a lot of gays who like much of what conservatism offers, especially regarding economic and tax issues. As a demographic, they have higher incomes and pay more into the system than they receive from it. They’re getting pretty sick and tired of being the cash machine for the schools, lazy public employee unions, and every feel good handout program on the liberal wish list. Many states and municipalities have already established their own recognition of same-sex marriage, so in these places making it the law of the land would not be a culture shock. Only in a weird, ironic world of bizarro do so-called small government conservatives use the kludge of big government to deny others that which hurts no one.

As right wing hero Thomas Jefferson famously said, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” He was speaking in context of religion but the idea can and does apply to same sex marriage. Here is my challenge to conservatives: How does your gay neighbor getting married “injure” you and “pick your pocket or break your leg” in a way that traditional marriage does not?

Conservatives will often cite morality as a reason they are against gay marriage. The problem with this angle is that morality is about one’s own personal beliefs and not about pushing them on others. The Jeffersonian standard still applies. Parents who don’t want their kids exposed to the gay lifestyle can explain it the same way they would any other objectionable behavior. The world is a big huge place. Not everyone is like you.

If the Republicans change their platform to support gay marriage, or at least stop fighting against it, I am certain they will win more elections. There are a lot of gays who really, really want to vote Republican, but the same sex marriage issue is a deal breaker.

Liberals should give up on gun control.
There is something inherently flawed about a position that punishes honest citizens who didn’t do anything wrong while violent criminals go about their business. That is the absurd corner liberals have painted themselves into by joining the cult of gun control. Like a gambler who thinks if he rolls the dice just one more time Lady Luck will deliver a jackpot, Democrats can’t leave the table out of superstition that the next one will be a big win.

After twenty-plus years of beating this topic to death and a “grassroots movement” funded almost exclusively by a single neurotic billionaire sugar daddy, liberals today have less gun control than what they started with: Conceal carry is allowed in all fifty states and interest is growing, especially among women and minorities. Many firearms training classes have weeks-long wait lists. Even well known leftist cheerleaders have conceded that the gun rights movement has enjoyed a surplus of legislation.

Liberals will commonly cite polls that indicate Americans support gun control and use the data as a rationale for more restrictions. Here’s where their conclusion goes wrong: Because someone has an opinion on an issue it does not automatically follow that they care enough to vote or actively fight for the issue. I bet I could take a poll and “prove” that  95% of adult Americans are against letting five year olds eat cake and ice cream for breakfast everyday. But how many of those adults are willing to call or write their congressman and demand that there be a law about it, or make it a voting point? And so it goes with gun control.

For their part, gun rights activists absolutely will turn out in large numbers to call, write, protest, and vote. There have been high-profile elections to prove it, and the pro-gun people have shown over and over how serious they are about taking it far beyond responding to a poll question.

So, a reality check for liberals: What are you trying to prove with your recalcitrance? Your own data shows support for gun control is a mile wide but an inch deep and the issue is loser for you over the long haul. If you stop trying to marginalize law-abiding gun owners, a big pile of them will even vote for you!

Both Republican and Democrat heads may explode to find out that the Pink Pistols is a little-known but very headstrong group of gay, gun rights supporters who are just dying to throw their vote behind someone. And oh, by the way, they have a lot of friends and family too. The first political party to cast off their ridiculous devotion to a cause they can never, ever win will gain a huge, lasting advantage.

Those who are both pleased and pissed off with my propositions are the exact people I hope to reach. I am an unapologetic Libertarian, gun nut, and sympathetic to gays. It will be a great moment when I can step into a voting booth and not have to shun one belief in order to support the other, or better still, when gay marriage and gun rights are so commonly accepted that they don’t need to be campaign issues in the first place.

 

 

The Elvis of Airplanes.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren

In the year 1954 Eisenhower was President and some wannabe named Elvis Presley was a barely-discovered singer on the Memphis music scene. Nestled in the frenzy of Cold War buildup, the Pentagon took delivery of their first Lockheed C-130 Hercules transport aircraft. Both the singer and the airplane had something else in common: As with anything new and unproven, no one at the time knew or necessarily cared what their respective legacies would be.800px-Lockheed_C-130_Hercules

What we know now that we did not know then, and why the average citizen who typically has no interest in military aircraft should care, is that the Hercules would become an aviation legend and one of the few success stories of government spending. It will take off or land on short, crappy, unpaved runways and haul about 40,000 pounds of whatever will fit inside at 330 miles per hour for 2000 miles. It is the only aircraft operated by all five branches of the military. It has been used both to kill people and rescue them from death. The internationally-acclaimed U.S. Navy Blue Angels use one as a support aircraft (“Fat Albert”).  There is no shortage of customers for the Hercules. Recently, the Filipino air force added itself to the list of foreign countries that covet the C-130 and collectively buy hundreds of them. In different variations, it is a flying gas pump, freight train, hospital, fire truck, police car, weather station, secret spy den, gun platform, and troop hauler. It can unload cargo without even landing. There isn’t anything it has been asked to do and failed. The Lockheed-Martin C-130 Hercules has no peers.

The only experience I’ve had with a C-130 was when I went with my dad to visit the U.S. Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. They have the “Spectre” gunship version on display. The aircraft, in a word, is sinister. Windowless and dark colored, high speed rotary Gatling guns pointing out one side remove any doubt as to what the Spectre is used for. A few guns on a large airplane do not sound like much, but these things are h-u-g-e. They take up pretty much the entire cargo area and spit thousands of 20 millimeter shells every minute. It’s hard to understand the magnitude of these weapons until you see one in person. That aircraft has a creepy vibe you can sense just by standing there. If I were a bad guy, I would run, run, run, for my life at the very sight of a Spectre, although it may not do any good. Resized ac130 2

It says something about American ingenuity when a military aircraft that made its debut exactly six decades ago this month is still relevant and in production. The Hercules has been through many upgrades and facelifts, but the basic design from 1954 is still flying strong. Today, a C-130 costs about thirty million dollars before it’s equipped for a specific task. By Pentagon budget standards, that’s coffee change. By everyday taxpayer standards, it’s a lot of money. But thirty million for an aircraft that can do so much and has a service life of over half a century is a pretty good deal by any standard.

The U.S. Coast Guard (which, by the way, also has an August birthday) is the only branch of the U.S. military that includes saving lives and property as one of its stated goals. They’ve been doing it with honor since 1790, and in 1958 they added the C-130 to their inventory. It’s hard for me to buy into the idea that an inanimate object can be a hero, but there are an untold number of people who need no persuasion as they know they are alive today only because a Coast Guard C-130 saved them from peril when nothing else could. Whether it’s a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, an oil spill in Alaska, a ship wreck in the Atlantic, or a medical emergency at the South Pole, almost nothing assures survivors that things will get better soon like the comforting sight of a mighty four-engined, white and orange U.S. Coast Guard C-130 arriving on the scene. c_130_hercules_c_130e_lockheed_us_coast_guard_1920x1080_81544

We hardly ever hear of the government getting something right because, honestly, they hardly ever do. Government incompetence is so common, it’s become a late night comedy show punchline. Most citizens are not as much against paying taxes as they are against wasting it on nonsense and graft. Even me, as a devout Libertarian, would whine a lot less about my tax bill if I had some confidence that I’m getting a good deal for my money. But fair is fair, and when the government does actually get something right, they deserve credit. The Lockheed-Martin C-130 Hercules is more than just a good deal, it’s the “Elvis of Airplanes”: A beloved, timeless legend that performs flawlessly and will be revered long after the last one makes its final landing, which is not expected until the 2030’s. By then the Hercules will have been in service for eight decades.

As cool as Elvis was on his own, he still needed his guitar to help sell the act. And so it is too for the real, human heroes who use the C-130 to do so many incredible things. Any military person knows having well-tested, solid equipment is essential to completing the mission. I expect to get back to Dayton, Ohio one of these days. When I do, I’m going to pay Hercules a visit. The old bird is never going to swing its hips to crowds of swooning fans, but there are plenty of military veterans and survivors of disasters who know what the headline act will be when it really matters.

 

 

 

 

The Tragedy and Comedy of Senior Summer.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

The fun and fireworks of Fourth of July celebrations are long fizzled out and I count myself among the many who are not ready to admit the unofficial end of summer is only a month away. As the ubiquitous back to school advertisements foretell, yes, the calendar always gets its revenge. It’s the cycle of life we grow accustom to even if we don’t necessarily like it.

For last spring’s high school graduates, it’s much more than a perennial change of the season. It’s their dwindling days of having a legitimate claim to childhood, of not having to worry about anything serious, of living under the close protective cloak of parents and teachers. Within the next few weeks, their lives will change abruptly and things will never be the same. They’ve just completed a major life goal; I can’t really blame them for wanting to party, cut loose, and not give a damn about anything for a month or two.

I refer to the summer after high school graduation as “Senior Summer.” It occurs only once in a lifetime and is both a carefree joy and a sad, long goodbye as friends who have known each other for years and together shared many important experiences drift apart and go their separate ways to college, the military, a job, or mom’s basement. Sincere albeit naïve platitudes of keeping in touch will be offered and accepted, but it’s not going to be anything like the halcyon final scene of the classic hit musical Grease, when the kids graduate and begin their Senior Summer by happily singing about how they’ll “always” be together. The places and people that our young lives revolved around for four years quickly become just photos in a yearbook.

Years ago I had an occasion to stop by my old high school during my own Senior Summer to drop off a library book I forgot I still had. Being summer break, the place was empty and kind of creepy. Even though I knew the physical layout of the building in great detail, an odd feeling nonetheless came over me: “I don’t belong here. Naperville North isn’t my house anymore.” The school where I felt welcome and comfortable as a student walking the bustling halls laughing with my friends just a month or so earlier now made me feel like I was wandering around a stark alien spaceship. I just wanted to finish my business and get out of there. It felt terrible having an aversion to a place that was such a big part of my life and held many warm memories, but I knew I had checked out and moved on.

The emotional pain of leaving a familiar sphere of faces and places does have a big upside: As much as it may upset young people to let go of the only world they know, the opportunity for new and exciting experiences is breathtaking. The errand to drop off the library book was my reality check. It unnerved me at the time, but summer is fleeting and that fall I started college. I had a chance to study topics I liked and not what was chosen for me. In what can only be described as an amazing case of being in the right place at the right time, I applied and was hired for a job at a popular radio station. I had zero experience but it turns out I was a natural for yapping on the radio. No one was more shocked than me when my weekend/overnight program pulled in more listeners than some of the prime-time big shots. New friends, new school, and a new job that was a hundred times cooler than whatever my peers were doing to make a buck. All this happened less than a year out from graduation.

front-of-school

Teens going through their Senior Summer and feeling equal amounts of pain and joy have a difficult time grasping the idea that there is a big, inviting world out there just dying to meet them and give them a chance to make a difference with their fresh ideas. Like nearly all who came before, they will ultimately navigate through the churn of heavy feelings and doubt and learn that leaving the cocoon of high school –even if they don’t think they can handle it– has a higher purpose. It’s an essential part of the self discovery process.

This past weekend I went to visit my adopted niece because she is going off to college in a few weeks and I don’t expect to see her again before Christmas. I’ve known this young lady since she was born and I could sense her worry. “Chris, I’m so nervous about this,” she admitted, nearly in tears as she hugged me tightly. I said the only thing I could think of, unrehearsed from the heart. “You’re going to have a great time and amaze yourself and everyone with all the good you are capable of.” That wasn’t me saying something insincere just to be polite. I really do believe in her, maybe more than she believes in herself at the moment. Next year will be her brother’s turn. He is a highly motivated, dynamic kid and I’m certain he too will do very impressive things once he is freed from the limitations of high school.

It hurts to watch young people stress out over things we older and wiser folks know will pass, but there are some situations we cannot or should not bail kids out of. All we can do is smile and understand and assure them that joy and pain often come as a matched set. In my June 17, 2014 article I mentioned that the greatest trait of strong people is they know they are loved. It’s the most powerful and important feeling we can impart on our kids when we launch them into the world as brand new adults to figure out for themselves that the end of Senior Summer is the beginning of a bright and promising future .

comedy-tragedy-theatre.jpg.pagespeed.ce.mb7wzS84XI

 

 

Downloading A Hot Mess.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

Call it pride, misjudgement, or just plain looney, I can’t figure out why a certain element of people will dramatically claim they were wronged and in the process of trying to make everything right, they become a party to making it worse.

Foolishly letting themselves become hapless ringmasters of their own very public circus, they realize only after the tent collapses that if they had just laid low and kept their mouth shut, the embarrassment and damage would have been mitigated if not eliminated outright. Assuming, of course, they had a legitimate gripe in the first place. In many of these situations, the only “problem” is the one the self-appointed victim created.

For today’s cautionary tale of looney, I present entertainer Barbra Streisand, who went off the hook when a photographer incidentally included her house in an aerial photo. The photo was buried in a collection of many thousands of pictures of California coastline geographic features publicly available on line. When Babs found out, she quickly lawyered up to have the photo purged from the internet. The lawsuit and ensuing media coverage resulted in exactly the opposite of what she was trying to achieve: The photo became a huge draw. Prior to Streisand’s childish meltdown, it had been viewed less than ten times, and that included web page hits from her own attorney. After the Hollywood paparazzi caught the scent of the lawsuit, the image pulled in over 420,000 views in less than a month and is to this day still widely copied and reposted.

The house that launched an internet legend. Photo © 2002 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project.
The house that launched an internet legend. Photo © 2002 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project.

This spectacle of incredibly poor foresight was the genesis of the Streisand Effect, a term coined to describe what happens when someone tries to erase something from the internet and the attempt epically backfires to spawn a high-profile storm of attention that, but for the effort to get rid of it, would have never occurred. The inaugural Streisand Effect incident was back in 2003…social media did not exist, the internet was still an emerging platform, and digital cameras were big dollar luxuries. Had Streisand stuck to opening her mouth only when singing, the aerial picture of her house would have been just another obscure web page with single-digit popularity. Not only did she ultimately lose her legal case (along with the ton of money spent on it), she became an eponym for the ages for more than just her singing talent.

The year 2003 is ancient history in internet time. Today, it would seem to be a common assumption that everyone has a greater awareness of the possibility that unwanted information is difficult to erase. It only takes a short trip to YouTube or any one of the hundreds of comedy websites to figure out that the assumption is totally wrong. There are infinite gigabytes of people doing things that they would probably not do if they knew it would end up on line. As if that were already over the top, there are still other more-guts-than-brains types who know full well their gags will live forever in cyberspace because they are are purposely uploaded by the participants themselves.

It’s one thing to be upset when something is released by others that was not intended for public consumption, it’s quite another to let the genie out of the bottle yourself. By doing so, one forfeits the right to complain about it later. Hardly a week goes by when an amazing act of dumbassery flashes across the net in mere moments, then realizing what they have done, the perpetrator makes a vain attempt to backpedal out of the mess, which serves only to make the mess bigger and more popular.

As Ms. Streisand’s now (in?)famous example teaches us, there are very few purely innocent victims of internet embarrassment. And of those who are, many bring further damage unto themselves by going on a fool’s errand to remove the offense. Much of the “humiliation” out there is manufactured by the humiliants…if that’s a real word.

Putting anything about yourself on the internet is a lot like getting a tattoo: It stays there forever so you better really, really make sure it’s what you want. Young people in particular lack this level of discretion. The internet hasn’t been around long enough to fully know what the extended effects of immortalizing adolescent misadventures will be, but there can’t possibly be any lasting benefit of a digitized half naked teenager holding a can of beer, especially a decade or two down the road when they have kids of their own.

A recent European Union court ruling that everyone has “the right to be forgotten” means google and other search engines are legally required to remove links upon request if the person to whom the link refers to does not want to be found on line. Those wishing to take advantage of this new right may want to consider that they risk being sucked in by the Streisand Effect. There is already a cottage industry of websites based outside the jurisdiction of the E.U. dedicated to exposing what google will not. You’ve been warned.

The idea of anyone running to their attorney over something as mundane as a distant, indistinct picture of their house seems quaint compared to what is easy to find on line these days. The trifecta of lack of sense, lower standards of acceptable behavior, and a digital camera in everyone’s pocket has busted the door open to all kinds of crazy, a lot of which the involved parties are actually proud of…for now. On the cosmically small chance Babs Streisand reads Twenty First Summer and doesn’t like this article or the photo that goes with it, I’m betting this time she will keep her lawyers out of it and quietly move along.

If in my own moment of crazy I am memorialized on the Web, I promise not to say anything to anyone. I’ll just fade into the background and hope the whole ugly deal is lost in a sea of other people’s foolishness.

 

 

Strong Enough To Throw A Star.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

There is a well known story by American author Loren Eiseley (1907-1977) that goes something like this:

“There was an old man who would take a walk on the beach every morning before he began his work. One day, he was walking after a big storm had passed and found the vast beach littered with starfish as far as the eye could see, stretching in both directions. He noticed a small boy approaching. As the boy walked closer, the man could see that he was occasionally bending down to pick up an object and throw it into the sea. The boy came closer and the man called out, ‘Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?’ The young boy paused, looked up, and replied ‘Throwing starfish into the ocean. The storm has washed them up onto the beach and they can’t return to the sea by themselves,’ the youth replied. ‘They will die, unless I throw them back into the water.’ The old man replied, ‘But there must be tens of thousands of starfish on this beach. I’m afraid you won’t really be able to make much of a difference.’ The boy bent down, picked up yet another starfish and threw it as far as he could into the ocean. Then he turned, smiled and said, ‘It made a difference to that one!’” (adapted from The Star Thrower, 1969, 1977).

Numerous versions of this story are floating around out there, but the lesson is the same: Very few of us will change the world for everyone, but one person can make a difference to someone, and to that someone it’s a very big deal.

In 1991 Cathy was a middle aged working mom with four kids who earned a modest living as a call center service rep at a large company. A few blocks up the street from her office was a well worn and austere apartment building used for low income senior housing. Owned & operated by a local faith-based charity that clearly had more good intentions than money, nobody would choose to live there unless the alternative was a cardboard box by the railroad tracks.

One day Cathy recruited a coworker to help her deliver a chair to a friend over lunch break. They pulled up to the senior housing building in Cathy’s beat up old minivan with a large padded recliner chair crammed in the back. The coworker was a strong, young twenty-something male specifically chosen to provide the muscle needed to lug the heavy piece up several floors to an apartment door in a dark hallway.

A weak old lady answered the door and warmly hugged and greeted Cathy. As they entered, the lady candidly mentioned, “I think I had a little accident in the bed.” There is no delicate way to describe it: Wall to wall, floor to ceiling , the place smelled, literally, like shit. The young guy set the chair near the window; it looked out of place as the only decent piece of furniture in the entire apartment. He waited uncomfortably while Cathy helped the lady change in the other room and hoped they didn’t know that he knew about the wretched, disgusting funk in the air. His courtesy of feigning ignorance was pointless since there was no possible way not to notice the “accident.” There was some idle chit-chat, and the pair of coworkers headed for the door. On the way out, Cathy tells the old lady, “I hope you like your chair. I’ll come by later and finish cleaning up. You’ll be ok till then.”

On the short trip back to the office, Cathy explained to the visibly puzzled young man that she met the old woman months back through a random encounter at the store and simply “adopted” her. At the end of the workday, Cathy returned to the dumpy apartment to take care of her friend; he went to his clean, odor-free home in a nice neighborhood.

Star-throwers are hard to spot because they deliberately avoid being noticed. Like mysterious little spirits, they quietly go about performing good deeds. The boy on the beach didn’t say anything about what he was doing until someone asked, and Cathy did not disclose the true purpose of the lunch hour chair-moving mission to her young helper until the topic could no longer be avoided.

Nearly everyone at some point in their life has helped others. Lots of people are habitually helpful, but not everyone is a star-thrower. True star-throwers go beyond doing something nice once in a while. They instinctively see stars that others miss. In a world that is so difficult for so many, stars should be easy to find like the beach in Eiseley’s parable. But in the real world they can and often do hide in plain sight. People in need may mask their difficulties, be too embarrassed to ask for help, or be in denial that they have a problem. More likely, many of us don’t want to notice the stars all around.

Loren Eiseley teaches that the need is far greater than one person can handle and admonishes lazy bystanders through the character of the old man. Sooner or later the boy must stop throwing starfish. He feels sorrow for all those he did not get to and guilt for leaving them behind but knows that at least some of them are safely back in the water. Compare that to the attitude of the old man, who not only saw no higher purpose in throwing starfish to begin with but also has the nerve to tell the boy that it’s better to let them all die than to save just a few.! Uncharitable people often use this twisted logic to explain away their lack of compassion. It’s easy to say the job is too big and assuage one’s guilt for not even trying than to give one’s best effort and know it would have mattered to someone. Mocking others for doing what you are too unmotivated to take on yourself is an old bit.

When I agreed to help move the chair, it never entered my mind that doing an ordinary favor was going to result a lesson that I would remember for years and years. I later lost contact with Cathy but her sense of humanity and kindness and showing love to God by showing love to others will never leave me. There are so many stars. Like the boy on the beach, Cathy knows she will never save all of them. The apartment building is still there. I seriously doubt the old lady is alive. She was in her late 70s or early 80s at the time. This incident happened twenty three years ago. Either by luck or divine intent two souls were both in the right place at the right time and again proved the old man wrong. A Star-Thrower made a difference to a poor,  sick, elderly lady who was tossed back into the life giving sea so she would not whither and die on a beach.

 

 

Daniel Explains Himself.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

In 1973 the end of the Vietnam War was near after going for ten violent years. As thousands of soldiers came home, many were welcomed back as heroes, while others were the target of high profile protests and derided as willing conspirators in a hugely unpopular war. A common attitude among returning veterans of the time was that they did not want attention of any kind, negative or positive. They just wanted to go back to their ordinary civilian lives and be left alone.

Also in 1973, singer Elton John released a song called Daniel. It became a hit, and is still very popular over forty years later. It’s about a disabled vet who wants to leave his difficult experience behind and find a quiet place to be himself. The story is told from the perspective of Daniel’s younger brother. It does not self-identify as a “Vietnam song,” yet it softly describes the sentiments of nearly every returning combat veteran. In just a few minutes, Elton John encapsulates the thoughts of so many who have endured so much. Daniel, the character, is not just one person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB7gskqXFgw

Due to the political climate and the proliferation of recorded music and radio, more music came out of the Vietnam era than any war before it. Very little of it was positive. Someone having no prior knowledge of the war could listen to the music of the time and easily conclude that it was a very divisive period for the United States. There was a lot of frustration, disappointment, anger. The protest songs were the loudest voice in a divided nation.

The voice that was not being heard was that of the soldiers sitting in mud pits watching their buddies get killed by the hundreds. No one was singing to comfort them or give them a cultural outlet for what they were going through. That would not come for another three decades. In 2003 the war in Iraq was going full blast and country singer Toby Keith released the single American Soldier. It is a story about military guy who, like his fictional comrade-in-arms Daniel, wants to go about his life with no fanfare or attention. Unlike Elton John’s approach, the meaning of Toby Keith’s composition requires no guesswork.

Two songs released thirty years apart that take widely diverging paths to essentially the same conclusion. So what else is different between Elton’s and Toby’s interpretations? The answer is not about two individual songs. The Iraq war was never truly embraced by the civilian public, but unlike Vietnam no one held anything against the men and women sent to do the dirty work. We as Americans grew up a lot in those three decades. We learned to see the difference between those who order the war and those who actually fight it. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were the catalyst for dozens of popular patriotic songs that would have never been conceived in the time of Vietnam.

If music is a reflection of the culture that created it, then something transformative happened between Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan. Protest songs still exist today but do not attract anywhere near the attention they received in the 1960s and 1970s. Pro-American songs (mostly country) consistently hit the top of the charts and are used for TV commercials, sporting events, and political rallies.

It is said the power of music is that it can make us feel something. I think that is only half of the equation: We also create music because of how we feel. Many years after Vietnam ended, Elton John’s song writing partner Bernie Taupin explained that he got the idea for Daniel in 1972 after reading a magazine article about how Vietnam vets who came home wanted nothing more than to fade into normal life. It effected Taupin so much that he turned that feeling into a song that is still commonly played nearly two generations later.

So does music give us feeling, or do we put our feelings into music? This chicken-or-egg argument misses the point. The answer is: Both. Music is a mode of communication. The artist says something through their song with the intention of influencing his or her audience to form an idea or opinion that might not have occurred otherwise. The musician wants to get inside our heads. That is the entire purpose of any art.

What sets music apart from other art forms is its universal appeal and staying power. Very few people attend live theater productions or art galleries, but almost everyone likes some form of music and probably owns recordings. And long after playgoers and art gallery junkies have left the building, digital technology gives music fans the advantage of being able to listen favorite songs any time they want.

The idea for this blog article came out of a story I’d heard that Daniel was actually about Elton John’s real-life brother and how much it hurt Elton when Daniel had to go live in the warmer climate of Spain for health reasons. It did not take much googling to figure out what I had been told about this song was 100% urban legend. As I read further, the true back story of Daniel came alive. The reality was far more compelling than the legend.

The Elton John/Bernie Taupin team is not known for making strong political or social statements in their music. Heck, they are not even Americans! Yet they were moved to create a quiet acknowledgement of what Vietnam vets were going through. It sparked my interest enough to study their art more closely and discover for myself what they were trying to say. Over my lifetime I must have heard Daniel a million times and didn’t think much of it. Now that song will never sound the same to me the again. Well played, Elton: You got inside my head.

 

When Field Day Isn’t A Drill.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

When I was a teenager just getting started in the amateur “ham” radio hobby, a local radio club included me in an annual event called Field Day. For the unfamiliar, Field Day is a worldwide contest held on the last weekend in June. The official purpose of Field Day is to practice emergency radio communications under simulated disaster conditions. Participants set up their equipment in a park or other outdoor area, put up temporary antennas and power everything with portable generators or off-grid electricity. Once on the air, the clock is ticking and operators have twenty-four hours to make contact with as many other stations as possible. Obviously, things move quickly. There are no lengthy bull sessions. We just exchange station ID, location, and signal data. Because amateur radio is capable of worldwide communications using only radio signals and does not need any wires or the internet, Field Day is truly a global event with operators in almost every country joining in.

Individuals may participate on their own, but most Field Day activity is organized groups or clubs that have several radios going at the same time, with operators rotating in shifts for the entire 24 hour event. These “encampments” can be quite large and impressive. The stations often attract media attention and the curious public; all are warmly encouraged to ask questions and see for themselves what ham radio is all about. In addition to an emergency drill, Field Day serves the secondary purpose of community outreach.

When-all-else-fails-logo-25_low

Anyone watching me get ready for my first Field Day might have thought I was planning a voyage to Mars. I was sixteen. I spent weeks excitedly making supply lists and collecting gear together. After successfully nagging the car out of my parents, I proceeded to cram it with hundreds of pounds of radio equipment, antennas, extension cords, spare electronic parts, tools, test instruments, batteries, a sleeping bag, lots of food and water, and something for almost every possible way-out there scenario. The older guys teased me; at the end of the event 90% of the minutiae I dragged out there went unused and was dragged right back home in the exact same unopened box I originally packed it in. Today, the idea of stuffing enough junk for a NASA mission into a two door Dodge Aspen just to spend one weekend in a suburban park less than an hour from home seems like the brain storm of an obsessed crackpot.

Decades out from that weekend, I am “the older guy” now. I still enjoy ham radio and my predisposition for always being ready for (most) anything is also as strong as ever. My methods have become more thoughtful and refined over the years even if the occasional teasing has not. What I don’t understand is that almost everyone close to me acknowledges the utility in being prepared but almost no one actually does it. There is a cognitive disconnect between thought and action.

My personal daily carry: Flashlight, Leathernam tool, gun
My personal daily carry: Flashlight, Leatherman tool, gun

The basic daily take-alongs such as keys, wallet, and a cellphone are standard for most, including me. In addition, I can’t feel ok leaving the house without a Leatherman tool (similar to a Swiss Army knife), a flashlight, and sometimes a (legal) gun. The gun is for my personal security because, as the saying goes,“when seconds count, the police are minutes away.” Fortunately I’ve never faced a problem that required a firearm to solve, but the Leatherman and the flashlight come in handy surprisingly often. My friends think I am quirky for bringing all that hardware with me, yet I use it all the time to deal with many  small but annoying problems. One time when I was hanging out with my friend and his teen son, I used my Leatherman to rip open a box, tighten a screw, and along with the flashlight, un-jam a vacuum cleaner. When my visit was over and I was leaving, the young son commented that my Leatherman was pretty cool. I told him I’d buy him one for his birthday and he replied, “Thanks, but I can’t see too many times when I would need something like that.” I was speechless.

I got involved with ham radio at a young age because it’s a fun and interesting pastime. Through my hobby, I had a loose awareness that it was important to be ready for trouble but failed to apply it in my own life. Even after participating in several Field Days, the lightbulb did not click on; it seems I too got sucked into a whirlpool of cognitive disconnect. There was no big moment of enlightenment. The lightbulb started dim and came up slowly.

As I paid more attention to current events, it became clear that overdependence on modern convinences creates a complacent society. I can see it in my own neighborhood: The lady who has just-in-time groceries delivered from an on line service. The perfectly able-bodied guy who calls a contractor for even the smallest task. The house with a stack of empty pizza boxes at the curbside every single week for trash pick up. To everyone reading this blog and thinks I’m a little whacked, I ask: If your power went out, all the store shelves were picked clean, and the gas stations were offline, how long could you get by with only what is in your home right now, and what would you do when your supplies ran out? Just sit there cold and hungry and wait for the government to save you? Steal what you need from others?

I think when normally lawful people become desparate to provide for their families no matter what they will resort to looting, probably from folks like me who had the foresight to plan ahead. Be warned that “folks like me” are heavily armed in anticipation of when the pizza box guy and his ilk run out of legitimate options. I may not be the last man standing, but I sure as hell aint going to be the first one down.

As I write this article on July 4, 2014, hurricane Arthur is beating the crap out of the American east coast. Most in the area will either ride it out on luck, resort to crime, or wait like compliant little sheep for the government to bail them out. I choose none of the above. The lessons of Field Day are not only for radio hobbyists. A week or so supply of food & water, some flashlights, and other basics is not particulary expensive. Having them ready before they are needed could mean the difference between being a survivor and being a fatality.

For another article on this topic, please check out Grandma Was A Survivalist Nutjob.

For information about how you can get involved with amateur radio, please visit these highly recommended websites:

The American Radio Relay League (ARRL)

Prepared Ham 

 

 

 

 

Sisu: Why You Don’t Have It (But Will Wish You Did).

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

A few weeks back I posted an article that discussed the difference between strong and weak people. It was intended for recent graduates but I hope everyone can get something from it.  A positive attitude is usually discussed in singular terms and applied to the individual, so it’s rare to see the concept in the context of a large group. In American culture, winning sports teams and of course the military are good examples of what group determination can accomplish. Even still, a group is comprised of individuals who will have their own personal agendas even if they are otherwise loyal to the organization and its goals.

The tiny Nordic nation of Finland is the global equivalent of the quiet neighbor: They take care of their place, don’t bother anyone, are not unfriendly or standoffish but do keep to themselves. Perhaps by design it is not obvious, but these understated people have a spirit of “git-er-done!” that would make John Wayne look like Homer Simpson.

mfinland

Sisu (SEE-soo) is a Finnish word that has no direct translation, but in rough terms means grit, guts, determination, willpower, and perseverance. The dictionary definition of the word does not go nearly far enough, though. The Finns have tapped into a form of strength that is not duplicated anywhere else on such a large scale. To put it in terms Americans can understand, imagine if the resolve to never quit that made the US military so revered and esteemed was ingrained into a culture to the point that it becomes the very heart & soul of an entire nation. That’s the essence of sisu.

The human condition of sisu is not fully understood even though it has been scientifically studied by psychologists and sociologists. We do know what it isn’t: It’s not about situational bravery, such as when an otherwise risk-averse guy saves someone from a burning building. It’s not about merely working hard or being highly disciplined or achieving a goal. Although these things are components of sisu, they alone are not enough. About the only thing everyone agrees on is that sisu is a uniquely Finnish quality. It is their entire national and cultural identity condensed into one single word.

While reading for this article I came to the conclusion that sisu is greater than the sum of its parts; it’s at a whole different level than what most of us think of as determination. Finnish historians and folklorists attribute sisu to the ethical hardening that comes from hundreds of years of fighting the harsh weather, the churning sea, the rugged land, and the Russians. In one description, it was pointed out that Finland has gone to war with Russia forty two times and never won, not even once. Yet, Finland is still a sovereign nation with its pride as strong as ever. No one ever grew stronger by being successful every time. There is room for failure in sisu, but zero tolerance for being a crybaby about it.

finland-flagI do not believe that sisu can be taught to those who were not immersed in it since birth, which is very unfortunate because it’s an attribute we should all wish we had.  We can emulate it to the extent that we can, copy elements of it into our own lives, and in the process become stronger and more resolute. The problem: Those who are already inclined to face big challenges don’t need much inspiration, while the lazy & unmotivated are going to keep doing what they’re doing, or not doing, if that’s the case. I’m sure Finland has its share of shiftless slackers, but the concentration of bums in a society goes down greatly when sisu is is part of a country’s DNA and having a “stiff upper lip” is a national expectation.

There are a few people in my circle who I would say have something close to sisu. Each individual has different character traits, yet there is one common theme: Almost by willpower alone they can carve a path out of any situation. No matter how crappy a deal they’re given, there’s no complaining. They don’t attain complete victory all the time, but they always come out the other end better than when they went in. If we can’t have sisu in its purest form, the hunger for it and a never-ending effort to aspire to its ideals will make us better. Finland may be a self-effacing country that does not call attention to itself, but they are ok with that. Their strength and perseverance comes from within. The Finns wisely know that if you have sisu, no one can take it away; and if you don’t have sisu, no one can give it to you.

 

 

United States v. Elonis Is A Supreme Mistake.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren

Almost everyone, including myself, has at some point said something they later regret. If it’s said on the internet, or later leaked onto the internet, then it has the potential to create an ocean of unintended consequences. YouTube alone is littered with career-ending remarks that are so jaw-dropping dumb, it makes one wonder: What path of insane reasoning did the speaker use to come to the conclusion that what they were saying was a good idea? Adding to the astonishment, many of these comments were made with the full knowledge they would be open to the public. It’s not a “what were you thinking?” moment, It’s an “are you even capable of thinking?” moment.

The story of Anthony Elonis might have been just another cautionary tale of how a guy let his mosquito brain overpower his alligator mouth; what makes it stand out is the small brain-big mouth combo pack is going all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The gist of the case is that Elonis was convicted of making threats of violence to others on his Facebook page. At least one of the comments was directed at…now get this…an FBI agent who was investigating his other threats. The particulars of the case are rather boring and lengthy as would be expected in a legal proceeding. I have read it so you don’t have to, and trust me when I say in addition to his legal trouble there is something really wrong going on inside Elonis’ head.

Elonis does not deny that he made the comments and the facts of the case are not in question. In simple terms, Elonis wants the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction because his remarks were made on line. His defense is that people talk trash on line all the time and what is said there should not be taken seriously. He therefore considers his statements, which include musing about shooting up a kindergarten class, “free speech”.

To be clear, this is not about one coarsely-worded rant or a volley of argumentative one-upmanship of the kind that pops up on Facebook and Twitter millions of times a day. There were numerous threats of graphic violence made over a long period of time and directed at more than one individual, and Elonis has a history of inappropriate behavior in his off line life. Among other things, he was fired from his job for making sexual advances towards an underage female coworker. Legal issues aside, Anthony Elonis is at minimum a creepy pervert whom I would not allow anywhere near any woman I care about.

The failure is not in the legal system, but in Elonis’ screwed up sense of his “rights” and a general breakdown of civility enabled by the internet. It way too easy to be abusive while hiding behind a keyboard. Being mean to people you can’t see is an easy trap to fall into even for those who are normally in control of themselves. Many times I wisely re-worded a message because it sounded unnecessarily harsh; and a few times I later wished I had more carefully edited myself.

The Supreme Court blew it by agreeing to hear this case because by doing so they acknowledge that Elonis might be right. No doubt the lame “it was on the internet so it doesn’t count” defense was cooked up by Elonis’ attorneys. In a way I do not blame the lawyers. They have a duty to represent their client  and can only work with what they are given. But wow, is this such a tough call that we have to bring in the Supreme Court to deal with it? The defense’s theory is that there should be a different benchmark of acceptability for on line speech than there is for any other medium; this is known as the subjective standard. He expects the Court to affirm that threatening someone with violence is ok as long as it’s done on line.

Elonis is a criminal with a proclivity towards violence and his conviction should stand. Threatening an FBI agent and giving a step-by-step description of how you want to whack your ex goes well beyond free speech. I don’t understand why the Supremes think there is a possibility the lower courts got it wrong and Elonis was simply pursuing his First Amendment rights. If the Court rules in favor of the defense, it sets up a precedent for every nutjob and hate group in the land to go on line and threaten whoever they want under the protective umbrella of free speech with no legal recourse for the intended victim.

What is it about sitting in front of a computer that turns otherwise considerate people into ultra-jerks? Maybe not to the level Elonis has elevated it, but unkind nonetheless. We non-criminals can learn something from the case of Anthony Elonis. The world would be a more gentle place if we imagined ourselves speaking face to face with the target of our flames before pressing send.

 

 

DREAMing of a Solution.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren

My dad, who is not a sophisticated guy (I mean that as a compliment), once observed that the American court system does not do what’s fair, it does what’s legal. In a perfect world there would be no distinction between the two. When courts aren’t fair we sympathize with the situation, but in the back of our minds we concede that “life is not fair” is part of…life. It’s further complicated by the fact that fair is largely a matter of viewpoint, whereas legal is a lot easier to pin down. We tend to stretch these boundaries when dealing with children as they are sympathetic figures deserving of a light touch.

If a child is introduced to a bad situation by an adult, then the responsibility of bailing the kid out of trouble goes to other adults who presumably know better and have the child’s best interests in mind. It is not a time to fuss over whose fault it is or how “unfair” it is that someone else has to right the wrong. In that spirit, we need to make fair and legal the same thing and find a way to let young illegal immigrants who grew up in the United States stay here. People who know me are aware that I strongly empathize with people from other countries and cultures and have blogged about this issue before.

The biggest problem with immigration policy in the United States is that both the left and the right attempt, and fail horribly, to correct the intractable maxim that sometimes there is no truly fair option, just varying degrees of unfair. Conservatives are cold and disconnected for not seeing that deporting people just to wave the law & order badass banner  is an ugly scene. Being legally right doesn’t make one morally right. Going the other way, liberals are manipulative users. They profess to care about immigrants, but only for selfish political reasons. For over a generation, Democrats have played up this issue solely for votes and believe with a cult-like intransigence that everyone is entitled to be here no matter what rules are broken or what the unintended consequences are. We have borders and laws for a reason.

Imagine a young person who was brought to the United States illegally as a child. They did not make a choice to come here on their own and may not even be aware of their immigration status. They grow up in American culture, hang out with American friends, speak English as their first (and possibly only) language, have no criminal history and little if any familiarity with their home country.

This is not a way-out there hypothetical scenario. There are tens of thousands of kids living in the USA who fit this description. I would like everyone who thinks this person should be given a one-way ticket back to their country of origin to answer these questions: Is your legal argument for kicking them out of the USA greater than the moral argument for letting them stay, and furthermore, is your argument so strong that it’s worth ruining a young life for? Are you willing to look this kid directly in the face and personally tell them they are being deported? What if this person was your neighbor, or your own kid’s best friend, or your future son or daughter in law? Exactly what “problem” is solved by shipping them out?

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM) has been floating around Congress since 2001 and has bipartisan support. I understand that in the world of politics the devil is always in the details. There are plenty of things in DREAM I’m sure I do not like, but I do believe in the basic premise of the legislation, which is to give people who came here illegally & involuntarily as underage minors a chance to stay and be productive members of American society. “Amnesty” is a loaded word in American politics, but it’s exactly what’s needed when the law is so blatantly unfair that a greater moral imperative is created to warrant changing it, or for minors who did not intend to break the law in the first place and played no active role in how they got into their situations.

Twenty First Summer is not a public policy blog and I am not knowledgeable enough on this topic to attempt a dissection of the DREAM Act and all the things that are both right and wrong with it. All I know is that kicking promising young people out of the only country they know and identify with for the “crime” of being brought here as minors by someone else is inhumane and should not be allowed to happen. I’m not coming at this from a right or left perspective. I’m looking at it as a question of “Is this moral?” For me the answer is a no-brainer: It’s disgusting and wrong. I’ll let others sweat the political details.

As President Chris, my first goal would be to stop the flow of illegal immigration to begin with. Then, pass some form of the DREAM Act and make it wholly separate from how the legal system will treat adults who are not innocent bystanders and came here fully cognizant that they were breaking US laws. That would be my compromise: Go easy on the young people in exchange for locking down the border and throwing the book at the adults.

Our default should be to find a way to help the children, not run them out like unwanted pests. The United States likes to brag about how we as a nation care for our kids. The DREAMers are “our kids.” They are Americans in their hearts if not in the law; they deserve to be protected and held close like the treasures they are.