by: Chris Warren.

It’s an informal birthright for each generation to complain that the generation coming after it is lazy and unmotivated. It pops up pretty much everywhere that “kids these days” are not as principled as the kids of years ago. Debate over which generation is morally superior misses the point, though. I think it’s more meaningful to first ask how “kids today” got to be the way they are, and second, be fair minded enough to admit that it’s just as wrong to cast the wide net of stereotyping over young people as it is with any other demographic.

I’m not clear on the concept: Parents are responsible for the values their children are exposed to, which is is the main driver of what kind of adults the children will ultimately become, yet the parents complain about the content of kids’ character. So if the kids have an attitude problem, then where did they get it from? Isn’t it kind of like screwing up your own do-it-yourself home remodeling project and then complaining that you’re the victim of an incompetent contractor? The most common defense to this is that your offspring are darling angels and everyone else is raising wretched beasts. Good luck with that lame justification. All the other parents think the same thing, too.

The adults who whine about children who aren’t respectful, who are not capable of dealing with the slightest disappointment, who cringe at the language and attitudes of young people, are the same adults who will raise hell with any teacher who dares put a kid in his place, who think kids have the “right” to feel awesome no matter how mediocre they actually are, who insist that sports are for self-esteem and not winners and losers and every child should get a trophy even if they do, in fact, suck.

The other half of the discussion is if it’s even fair in the first place to cast young people as being lesser than their elders. Adolescent basket cases such as Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus are over the top media spectacles who make it easy to write off an entire generation. But for every one of them there are thousands of nameless kids who are level-headed and well grounded. Either in spite of or because of their upbringing, they are quietly going about their lives, getting good grades, accepting failures with grace, and respecting others. We never hear about these young people because focused, well behaved teenagers do not make compelling news stories. They are too busy being positive and productive to worry about who is paying attention.

Anyone who has ever met one of the “good” kids knows they all seem to have a common thread: They have parents who expect excellence and don’t put up with any excuses, nor do they defend failure. When Junior doesn’t make the team, dad does not call the coach and threaten a lawsuit. He instead tells his kid he didn’t make the team because he wasn’t good enough. Get over it; don’t be a crybaby. Practice harder and try again next season. Kids who turn to Jell-O over every letdown were trained to act that way.

I’m a little embarrassed to admit that I used to believe if a kid grows up to be a bum, it’s the parents’ fault. I don’t believe that any more. There are tons of people who had dreadful, even abusive childhoods with no encouragement or support yet grew up to be very successful and respected. And of course there are people who had every possible advantage: A loving family, a stable home, a good education…and ended up as losers, in some cases committing famously violent crimes. A parent has a duty to teach their children morals and values, but at some point the child becomes an adult and makes their own decisions. If the parents truly did their job and the kid chooses the wrong path anyway, that’s not mom & dad’s fault. We can’t declare parents guilty forever.

I know someone –I won’t even say if they are male or female or how I know them– who was raised in a warm home by two very kind parents. Though of modest means, they went to great trouble and expense to provide for the children. The family attended church, sent the kids to upscale schools…did everything right. This person is now a middle aged adult and by any measure is a disappointment. They are not a criminal or a gang banger or anything serious, but their character is not at all in line with what they were exposed to growing up. The long retired parents are often visibly distressed at how their grown child acts. I genuinely feel bad for them because I know they are sincerely decent and honorable people who worked very hard to equip their kid to be so much more. Incidentally, the other siblings have solid jobs, a family, are respectful towards the elders, and are someone any parent would be proud of. Same environment, completely different outcome.

When a kid goes wrong, there is a real good chance that behind the scenes is a parent who at least partially failed in their role. I realize this contradicts my theory that it’s unfair to blame the parents for everything and good parents sometimes produce rotten kids and vice-versa, but if we accept that then we must also accept that it’s not fair to label kids universally as overindulged little brats. A huge majority of them are capable of making good decisions and exhibit their maturity every day. It’s disingenuous to denigrate young people as if they operate in a vacuum and their elders had nothing to do with how the kids formed their beliefs. In modern society, stereotyping minorities, women, religions, or ethnic groups is generally unacceptable and in some versions is even illegal! All adults, not just parents, owe young people the simple dignity of being treated as individuals, looking for the best instead of assuming the worst.

by: Chris Warren

The justice system of the literary world is somewhat random, richly rewarding pablum not worthy of a greeting card while genuinely talented writers are condemned to being the obscure subjects of graduate school term papers that will be read once for grading, then time-capsuled on a shelf in a remote corner of the university library where they become mere stuffing to help make the library’s volume collection numbers look good. This concept can also be applied to lives and situations outside of the literary world.

Madison Cawein (CAW-wine) was born in 1865 in Louisville, Kentucky and died in 1914, after publishing thirty six books of over 1500 poems. In his time he was well known and for at least a while earned a respectable living as a poet before losing most of his fortune to bad investments. He was also a critical success, having his work featured in Chicago-based Poetry magazine (to this day still the top-tier international poetry showcase) and gaining the respect of Ezra Pound and other contemporary heavyweights.

So why does almost no one know who this guy is? A confluence of bad timing, the poet’s own stubbornness, and not being taken seriously by scholars in the years since his death relegated Madison to minor poet status. His backstory is one we of the twenty first century should pay attention to.

Cawein’s life began just as the Civil War was ending. In the years that followed, the United States was too culturally fractured for any meaningful domestic writing movement to take hold. The Romantic Period had fizzled out, and its replacement, the Victorian Era, was borrowed from Europe to fill the literary vacuum in the USA. Madison Cawein loosely adapted the Victorian style, and this would later contribute to his being largely ignored after his death.

Cawein’s father was a herbal practitioner who made medication from wild plants he picked himself. The young Madison often went along on these outings, and that was the beginning of a lifelong love of nature which became a central theme in most of his compositions. Nature themes written with a rhythmic pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables (known as iambic meter) were popular in Victorian literature. This style of composition became Cawein’s trademark:

The cricket’s cry and the locust’s whirr,
And the note of a bird’s distress,
With the rasping sound of the grasshopper,
Clung to the loneliness
Like burrs to a trailing dress.

Especially when read aloud, the deliberate sing-song pattern of this passage from Cawein’s Waste Land dances off the page. Had the Victorian Era lasted longer, Madison Cawein could have kept on doing what he was doing and likely become a legend for it. By time his writing career started in earnest, Victorian literature was falling out of favor to make way for the ascending Modernist movement which began in the late 1800’s.

Remaining true to oneself is fine when creating art for art’s sake, but to make a living at it and stay on the literary radar, one must be a little more practical. In Cawein’s time, anyone who was not on the Modernist bus was probably going to be run over by it. Resistance to change frequently comes with harsh consequences even in the otherwise gentle realm of poetry. Hindsight being always clear, we nonetheless will never know if Cawein by design or by accident sacrificed a professional writing career to maintain the purity of his style.

Literature is not a stand-alone entity that exists solely to look and sound nice. It has a deeper purpose of offering insight, to give the reader something to think about and ultimately teach a lesson that can be applied to ourselves. The lesson does not necessarily have to come out of the literature itself; it can and often does come from the author’s life experiences. This is the place of enlightenment Madison Cawein brings us to.

There is no set system to decide which writers become successful and which do not. Certainly, much lesser poets than Cawein received acclaim they did not earn. But isn’t that how it works for pretty much all of life’s pursuits? I want to believe we’re in a meritocracy, where everyone truly gets what they deserve and work for. Yet, let’s not kid ourselves: Success can often be attributed to personal connections, good old fashioned luck, and sometimes outright dishonesty. The literary world that initially loved Madison Cawein ultimately kicked him to the curb. The adage “life is not fair” has no poet’s exemption.

An unfortunate setback was that Cawein’s year of birth went against the Victorian style he adopted. He must have had some sense that his chosen genre of poetry was on the wane, yet he continued with it. That might have made him a devoted artist, but it was a poor career choice. Fast forward to today: It no longer applies, especially for young people, to “do what you love and the money will follow.” Not too long ago, a kid could pursue a passion for medieval history or bee keeping or dance and have a decent shot at finding work in their field. But like Cawein, anyone who now aspires to place their dreams first and thinks the bills will magically take care of themselves has the reality of the times beating them back. Imagine a modern day parent’s reaction if their son or daughter disclosed that they wanted to be a poet, much less a poet in a literary style that was near the end of its run.

We short ourselves by blowing off the words and writers of the past as having no contemporary relevance beyond grudgingly satisfying a high school or college language arts elective requirement. Those who break through the stasis and open themselves to the insights of these writers and the lives they lived will find a surprising connection to their own twenty-first century existence. In Cawein we have a guy whose professional career and legacy was stunted by a string of bad luck and bad decisions. Who cannot relate to that on some level?

The beauty and power of the written word is that it preserves the wisdom of others, becoming a keeper of thought reaching across the ages. Writers make me feel like they are always at my side: It’s a comfort to read words from hundreds of years ago and see myself in them and know that even back then someone understood me, someone “gets it.” Madison Cawine has been gone for a century but like all writers great and small, his words and deeds are worth listening to; the lessons of literature are ageless. 

by: Chris Warren

Years ago when I was a college English major, I spent a more time than I would have cared to studying the concept of etymological fallacy. For those who understandably do not want to sit thorough a whole semester of undergraduate linguistics, here is the abridged version: Etymological fallacy is what happens when the present day meaning of a word or term is incorrectly associated with the meaning it had in the past or in some cases never had. Less precisely, it’s a stubbornness, a failure to acknowledge that language is fluid and never settled and word definitions change -sometimes radically- over time.

What works for language cannot so easily apply to science because science has to operate within the limits of facts. Writers are encouraged to pick and choose words to suit the purpose; it’s part of the creative process. Language is, after all, mostly an art. There is an entire generation of climate scientists trying to be artists, and they are not succeeding at this conflicting dual role.

The word “pollution” was the standard noun at the beginning of the climate movement. For a long time, this worked for the activists. It is very generic, nebulous, and can be easily blamed on big, bad corporations. Pollution evolved into the currently favored term, “carbon footprint.” It may not seem like it matters, but it does. Blaming corporations is still a big part of the plan, but calling it a carbon footprint presents the issue in a way that makes it very difficult for the individual to push the blame off on industry. We all have feet, right? Anyone can relate to the metaphor; it requires little scientific acumen to understand, and is too personal to ignore. The strategy worked. Now it’s fashionable to reduce one’s carbon footprint. The term has become so mainstream it’s even used in advertising. By design or by accident, “carbon footprint” is a brilliant success. Well played, guys.

The other benefit is that the activists have magnanimously given us a path to salvation. Yes, brothers and sisters, we’ve all committed the sin of pollution but we can make it a zero-sum game by planting a tree or car pooling “to reduce our carbon footprint.” It’s a relatively painless way to absolve our guilt. This is how people like Al Gore and other Learjet liberals justify their carbon-puking lifestyles and multiple gigantic homes that inhale more electrons than many American neighborhoods. They confidently tell themselves, “I paid the World Wildlife Fund to plant a bunch of trees for me in South America so I’m good to go.”

At the corporate level, proposed sales of carbon tax credits has very little to do with keeping the environment clean; it’s about the government profiting from something they claim to want to eliminate (see also, tobacco tax). The concept is simple: Dumping toxic waste is bad, but if you give the government a pile of cash they will let you do it anyway. There is never any sincere talk about reducing pollution to begin with because that would shut off the cash flow. Cap and trade, carbon tax’s cousin, should be a more palatable solution because in theory all the money changes hands between private parties and the government doesn’t get a cut. It appears very libertarian and free-market capitalist-driven. The catch: The final version of these deals never has any resemblance to the original proposal. Are we expected to believe the government will leave alone anything that does not include them receiving a payoff? No matter which scheme is rolled out, the end result will be corporations get to keep pumping out the filth, the government makes a ton of money, and both will cheerfully brag about how they really, really care about the environment. Take a guess who receives absolutely zero benefit from any of this? That would be you, John Q.

The Roman Catholic Church used to allow the wealthy to purchase their way out of feeling guilty. Borrowing from history, the climate movement has created its own modern day secular version of Papal indulgences. Whether it’s schoolchildren planting trees in the park or big companies forking over millions of dollars for the right to poison the planet, buying absolution is a centuries-old concept.

We’ve long passed the point where scientists stepped over the line of being objective fact finders and turned into biased advocates for a cause, which includes the very unscientific task of selling the cause: Climate scientists are almost entirely government funded; they want us to believe that the results of their research is in no way connected to their desire to assure their livelihoods or fulfill a predetermined outcome. These are the same people who have the nerve to dismiss any privately-funded research (what little there is) that doesn’t toe the line as propaganda cranked out by paid shills. The oft-cited statistic that 97% of all climate scientists believe climate change is real, and more importantly, manmade, cannot shake the stench of self-interest. It’s like 97% of cattle ranchers claiming excessive consumption of red meat has absolutely nothing to do with heart disease.

Anyone paying casual attention to the media for the last few years may have noticed that the term global warming is almost never used anymore and has been replaced by “climate change.” The semantic slight of hand is not random: It’s hard to convince the public that we’re all going to fry when it’s snowing in Atlanta. What to do? Dump all reference to warm and find a term that has more wiggle room for interpretation. But wait…wasn’t global warming supposed to be “settled science?” Science that periodically needs to be redefined to accommodate changed or newly discovered facts is by default not “settled.” Is the planet boiling or not? By contrast, no one has ever revised the law of gravity because there’s no reason to. The scientific truth of gravity cannot be broken. It’s been the same since the beginning of time and no poll-tested talking points are necessary.

I agree the planet is getting warmer, and we as a concerned society need to find cleaner ways of living. Where I disagree with the climate activists is I believe the latter is not necessarily connected to the former, nor do I accept as “settled” that increasing temperatures are both long term and man made. Cleaning up the planet is its own virtue. Do we really need expensive scientific research as a rationale for doing the right thing? No, but that assumes the research does not have a political agenda behind it. Industry/conservatives need to pull their head out their ass and quit pretending that there’s nothing going on with the climate, because something clearly is going on. And environmentalists/liberals need to end the pretzel logic hypocrisy of selling the right to pollute to the highest bidder while telling everyday Americans what kind of light bulbs they may use.

The climate movement hurts itself with their efforts to change the meaning and language of what years ago they insisted was a done deal. Whatever merit their argument has gets lost in a miasma of political correctness and sloppy rhetoric that would not make the cut in a freshman composition course. The settled science of ten years ago doesn’t work now, so they just alter what it means and call it change. It’s the climatologists’ bastardized version of linguistic fallacy. My college English professors would always call us out on it; climate activists have the luxury of making up their own rules.

by: Chris Warren

I strain to understand why, in a world where everyone is more connected than at any time in human history, there are concurrently so many people who are going through life out of touch, lonely, and mostly devoid of meaningful human contact. It seems that it doesn’t take much to be someone’s “friend”.

Those who defend the proliferation of social media (mainly Facebook) will argue that it allows us to maintain connections to people we might otherwise not have on our radar: Old high school friends, former coworkers, distant relatives, etc. I have to surrender that point to the Facebook fanboys. It is a great medium for keeping in touch with people who you don’t mind having around as long as they don’t get any closer than your News Feed.

And I hate to break it to the serial News Feeders, but if the internet is a way to “keep in touch” then we also have to accept that it provides an easy excuse to avoid genuine relationships while giving the appearance of a normal life. Can’t have it both ways.

Every now and then a Facebook post will pop up that goes along the lines of  “my Facebook friends have helped me through my troubles and are always there for me….”  The sappy verbiage varies but the ending always sounds like middle school gushing: “Facebook friends are real friends! Repost if you love your Facebook friends!“ How pathetic and forlorn does a soul have to get to reach a point where they allow themselves to become emotionally attached to people they rarely if ever deal with face to face, and then affirm the “relationship” with a cyber version of a chain letter? I don’t know if I should hug them in consolation or give them a bitch slap. I tend towards the latter.

I have close friendships that might not have happened if the internet was around at the time. The internet makes it too easy to remain at a distance while at the same time giving some semblance of a real relationship. Giving a damn about someone and wanting to be their friend requires more effort than a few clicks on a screen. That which is valuable is worth working for.

When I pull it all together, what I conclude about the “Facebook phenomenon” is that it attracts a few specific types of people:

The Loner: Facebook is a haven for their socially lazy and unskilled ways. Of course that does not mean everyone there is a misfit, but it’s a safe bet that the concentration of “people with issues” is much higher on Facebook than it is anywhere else outside of group counseling. Loners will often only respond to others’ posts and seldom start topics of their own because their existence is so empty they have nothing to say, but still want to feel like they are participating in a conversation. It’s totally lost on Loners that people with strong, meaningful real-world relationships don’t spend a lot of time on Facebook, because, uuhhmm, they don’t have to? And those who are isolated, lonely, or do not have much going on in their lives never seem to leave. 

The Attention Whore: Where else but Facebook could they tell the world about their new lover/car/house/job/Nobel prize, health club triumphs, and rescuing damsels in distress? It’s a never-ending monologue of me, me, me! Their abilities and accomplishments are so superlative that it makes me wonder how they find time in their awesome lives to post regular updates. They always claim to come out on the winning side of every challenge and truly believe they are inspirational figures. Attention Whores love to tease interest in their upcoming adventure: “Leaving for the gym! Those (insert name of exercise equipment here) are in for a rough night!”. There is a 100% chance that a follow up post will be made a few hours later declaring supremacy. They characteristically have large numbers of “friends,” most of whom are also Attention Whores. They spend most of their time “liking” and commenting on each other’s missives, which serves the dual purpose of making them appear to be popular and assuring the circular neurosis of ego masturbation never dies.

The Whiner: The least harmful species of Facebooker, Whiners are sometimes misclassified as Attention Whores. The difference is that Whiners are not necessarily looking for attention; they are mostly trying to blow off steam. How many people are paying attention is not the point, which is good because few people actually are. They like to post numerous short items as opposed to long rambling speeches. The whining is often about small hassles most of us experience every day but are emotionally stable enough not to broadcast on the internet: “I can’t sleep,” “I hate this weather,” “I have a headache,” “My pizza was cold,” “This cab driver is a dick,” are all common whiner-style gripes.

The Therapist: There’s always that one person who seems to have an endless supply of unsolicited internet wisdom. No matter what problem it is, they’ve got a meme or quote that will fix it. Photos of rainbows, waterfalls, puppies, and fields of flowers are on their greatest hits list, with pithy sayings front and center. If your mother is an alcoholic, or your spouse is cheating on you, or your son is on probation, just look at the nice picture of the sunset overlaid with a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote and your troubles will melt away. The reason Therapists should never be taken seriously is because they tend to be pretty messed up themselves, which brings forward the obvious question: If their condescending clichés couldn’t resolve their issue, what makes them think it will work for you?

The Political Screecher: This is the only class of Facebooker whose level of vanity is equal to Attention Whores. Screechers are masters of cherry-picking ideas and facts and whipping them into what they think is an unbreakable fortress of logic. Screechers sincerely believe they will win others over to their side, one meme at a time. Anyone who does not concur is a moron. It’s a kick to disagree just to disagree with them and then watch them fall over themselves trying to pick apart your argument, as if Facebook was a forum for meaningful discussion. It goes right over their head that you are only messing with them just for the fun of it. For what it’s worth, most screech posts are anti-conservative because Facebook has a disproportionate number of young internet-saavy liberals who have plenty of free time to grace our newsfeeds with insightful political analysis while the rest of us are out all day working legitimate jobs. Screechers should be avoided even when you do agree with them: Any acknowledgement, whether positive or negative, only encourages them to keep at it.

I’ve been called a snob, and worse, for my disdain of social media. That’s ok. If anyone sees themselves in the above categories, or is embarrassed to admit how much they are on Facebook and think I am talking about them: You’re right. I am talking about you! My deepest respect to Mark Zuckerberg for becoming a billionaire off others’ harebrained mutterings. I cannot deny that there are some valid uses for Facebook, but the ratio of garbage to good is so high, it’s not worth it. It’s like sticking your arm in a porta-potty full of fermenting shit to pull out a ten dollar bill.

by: Chris Warren.

How deliciously gratifying it is that Piers Morgan finally got whacked from his low rated CNN talk show. Normally I would take no delight in seeing someone lose their job, but in Morgan’s case not only am I shamelessly gloating, I sincerely hope that his career, or what he passes off as a career, descends further into obscurity. Very rarely is there such a blatant example of someone getting exactly what they deserve. On that point, Piers Morgan delivers.

CNN signed Morgan on despite his having a thin television resume and little name recognition; since then the British native has gone from nowhere to nowhere via his stuffy moralizing about American culture, particularly gun issues. One would think that early on CNN would have taken the hint and throttled him back or at least given him a crash course in American sensibilities in the hopes of saving their investment. For whatever the reason, they dragged him along for three years. On some nights Morgan attracted only 50,000 viewers. There are public radio stations doing better than that.

The reasons for CNN’s bad judgement and Morgan’s wasting hundreds of hours of valuable prime time bandwidth will be parsed in college journalism courses for years, but it’s really not that complicated: Piers Morgan thought he did not need to understand his audience; he believed his audience needed to understand him. Morgan personifies the predicate that liberals know what’s best. We should stop asking so many questions and gratefully accept their superior intellect. What colossal failure of due diligence led CNN to conclude that a British carpetbagger with no credibility other than giving him access to a TV camera would be taken seriously by a farmer in Nebraska? Or an iron worker in New York City? Or a retiree in Florida? What was CNN thinking?

Morgan still thinks he’s relevant even in the midst of complete failure. In what might be fate mocking him, getting kicked to the curb has given him more attention than he ever received doing what he was hired for. He’s certainly making the best of what may be his first and last fifteen minutes of fame. Morgan continued to milk the same anti-gun canard that was a major player in his plug being pulled when he took another cheap shot at American culture in his tweet, “I wouldn’t get too excited @NRA -I’m not done with you yet”, the NRA of course being the National Rifle Association. The humor in this tweet is that Morgan persumes he was a credible threat to the NRA in the first place.

The schizophrenia of Piers Morgan gets deeper. In a New York Times piece about his new unemployment, he candidly admits, “’I’m in danger of being the guy down at the end of the bar who is always going on about the same thing,’” he said. He added that he was sure there were plenty of people in the heartland angry ‘about this British guy telling them how to lead their lives and what they should do with their guns.’” The guy who thought he was going to become a media titan by hectoring us thickheaded Yanks doesn’t even listen to his own psychoanalysis: He admits being “the guy down at the end of the bar” who won’t shut up, yet he still keeps running, or tweeting, his mouth.

Morgan is not “in danger” of becoming the blubbering drunk at the end of the bar. He already is the blubbering drunk at the end of the bar, and has been for years. But at least over served bar regulars can blame it on the booze after they sober up and return to their senses. Morgan has no such out. Go home, Piers. You’re drunk on yourself.

by: Chris Warren

A longstanding tactic used to sell the public on renewable energy has been to portray it in positive, almost loving, terms that no one would disagree with. All of the glowing claims are true to a degree, but universally ignore the reality that everything has a down side and no energy is truly free or clean. The political left wants everyone to believe that renewable energy is a magic pill with no side effects, and the political right dismisses it out of hand as some feel good hippy trip with no practical application. They are both wrong. And it bothers me a lot.

My solar power enlightenment began when I looked into the feasibility of installing solar panels on my house. While I do appreciate the ecological aspect of solar and it did factor into my goals, my main intention was to achieve some level of independence from the commercial power grid. We live in a savage world held back by a thin, fragile veneer of civilization which I believe is going to crack very soon. With it will go the public utilities that “always” work without anyone really noticing until they are gone. Violent societal chaos will escalate from there. I don’t plan on being the first man down.

As I researched further the allure of electricity made from sunlight started to pull me in, which is a very unusual trajectory of thought for my normally practical manner. It is a good thing, isn’t it, that we can power our homes with pollution free renewable energy? Of course it is. But here’s the but: While sunlight may be free, all the hardware and support equipment needed to turn it into useful electrons is very expensive and complex, and the production of the equipment can be environmentally messy. From a purely financial basis, there is no possible talking point around solar power’s very low “bang for the buck.”

Green energy supporters/the political left are famous for defaulting to the emotional: “We will stop pollution.” “We will create jobs.” And of course the famous catch-all excuse, “It’s for the children.” Yadda yadda. The emotional default is not totally without merit. My dire predictions of civil disorder notwithstanding, solar panels are in part a personal statement. I have a sense I’m doing something that matters, even if it’s a small thing. I can have it both ways: Agree with tree-huggers up to a point while keeping myself grounded in the reality that solar energy has a lot of drawbacks and, for the foreseeable future, will not be a major player in keeping the world’s lights on and factories humming.

I will confess to being something of an oddball in the solar power realm. It’s not very often you come across a conservative guy who thinks renewable energy is not only worth doing, he walks the talk and actually does it himself. Yet here I am, living a lifestyle powered in large part by the sun. To be clear, I absolutely do not endorse taxpayer handouts, subsidies, or special favors for implementing green technology. If solar power is truly worth it, then it should be pursued for its own virtue and not in response to a government body’s bribes or threats. Conservatives are not against the concept of green energy; they are against policy where the government pays for or mandates its use.

The power plant that I designed and built all by myself gives me a sense of pride and accomplishment and I do not apologize for my emotional default in regards to it. I have often derided people who seem to look at everything in sappy and emotional terms and think that’s a good enough reason to do something that on any other level makes no sense at all. This time I will hold my fire. Is it really so bad to feel good about renewable energy, provided one is actually using it themselves, and does not smugly expect (or force) everyone else to do the same? Is that enough to make it a conservative-approved “live and let live” arrangement?

One morning last summer I was up on my roof performing some basic maintenance. I noticed the sun was full across my panels and it was at that instant I felt like I was truly making a difference. I paused my work for a moment and just sat there and took it all in. From the roof I admired the trees and the birds and the huge cloudless blue sky. There was a conspicuous absence of man made noises. The message was clear: Yes, what I am doing matters. Mankind has been given clean sources of energy that do not harm the environment and will never run out; we owe it to ourselves and our Creator to make the best of it. I marvel at how from over ninety million miles away, God’s bountiful light of life showers down on my teeny little roof, pushing subatomic electrons through a wire to be turned into real energy that I can use everyday.

by: Chris Warren

Is it possible to be happy by doing only what is needed? We show up at our jobs, do housework, go shopping, take care of kids, eat, sleep, and so on, day after day. These activities are not by default a drudgery. Many people enjoy doing them, and there is a satisfaction in a job well done. Still, pitiful is the man who is busy only when he needs to be; who has nothing to do when there’s nothing to do.

I was in grade school when I built my first crystal radio. It never worked, but I had many hours of fun experimenting. My friends thought I was some sort of science wizard, even though I didn’t really know what I was doing. When my dad revived an old shortwave receiver that had originally belonged to my grandfather, I immediately took over the set. With a simple wire antenna, I was often up until dawn pulling in signals from all around the world. I was glued to the thing, completely absorbed by the idea of worldwide communication. This was well before anyone knew what the internet was.

By time I hit my early teens I was into CB radio. It was a big fad at the time, and I was happy to go along. Our local area had numerous “regulars” with cute CB names like “Old Grey Mare” and “Lamplighter”. The discussion was civilized, and if the adults resented us kids hanging around “their” channel, they didn’t show it. We acted like gentlemen and they let us be. Within a year or two the CB craze fizzed out and some of my friends moved to ham radio. That’s where the real action was. I had to jump in. Instead of listening to faraway places, I could talk to them too. As much as my parents would have preferred not having their house peppered with antennas and cabling all over the roof, they saw how much I loved my radios and how positive it was for me. Decades later, the roof on my own house is laden with antennas. I still have a radio operator’s license and enjoy the hobby every day.

The purpose of a hobby is not only to fill idle time, but to make idle time meaningful. It’s an odd contradiction that as technology gives us more free time, we don’t seem to be having much fun with it. Some will suggest that people are just lazy…they would rather passively plop in front of a screen than do anything that requires thought. I don’t buy into this idea. I think that after a long commute to and from work, dealing with family needs, shuttling kids around, and taking care of ordinary household tasks, most people are just too damn tired.

It’s been clearly documented that participating in hobbies and activities stimulates the mind and helps the body rest. Painting pictures, attending church, working out, or belonging to a club do indeed require time and effort most of us might rather spend doing something mindless. But there is a net-plus to our psyche when we get off the couch and do something. After an evening of messing with my radios or working on an electronics project, I feel like it was time well spent. Never once after shutting down my station for the night have I ever told myself, “That was boring. I should have watched TV instead.

I can’t prove a correlation, but some of the most depressed, unhappiest people I know have no active pastimes. They trod through their daily existence and never seem to have much fun, even when given the opportunity. Many of them spend thousands of dollars on counseling and antidepressant drugs but can’t bring themselves to take piano lessons or buy a health club membership. If they could just cut loose, try one positive activity that interests them, it’s possible that the moment will come when they realize a fulfillment that cannot come from medication or paid therapy. 

by: Chris Warren

The validity of statements made in the past can and should be measured by how well they hold up against the test of the future. Unless and until the big guesses evolve into tangible reality, they are usually at the same level as overdramatic hucksters on late night infomercials telling us they have the secret to all our heart’s desires.

The apparent death of the Second Amendment as we know it and the subsequent rise of the gun ban movement over the vanquished National Rifle Association was glowingly foretold by liberals since before 2008 when Barack Obama won the Presidential election. In his first term he bailed on his promise to come down on the “bitter clingers,” but that was not enough of a buzzkill to keep his patsies from reelecting him. My rearview mirror wisdom now confirms what I presumed in the first place: The gun ban movement is indeed a collection of overdramatic hucksters, with Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg getting top billing. Note: I refuse to use the term “gun control” in the context it is employed by the political left because those claiming to want “common sense gun laws” are either liars or fools (see also, useful idiot). Their ultimate end game is the complete and total abolition of all private civilian firearm ownership. I will not take the bait and be a party to their overt bullshit, even if it is rhetorical hair splitting.

The “gun lobby” is not as much a lobby as it is a genuine, people-centric movement. The NRA has around five million members, each paying (give or take) about thirty-five bucks a year. Many if not most of those members donate over and above the yearly dues and are also members of state NRA affiliates. Then factor in sales of NRA-branded clothes and gear, raffles, cash donations collected at gun shows, and yes, the occasional corporate sponsorship. But there is more to it than just a big pile of money. Gun enthusiasts are active participants every single day. They know it’s not enough to “like” a Facebook meme or slap a sticker on the back of their car or write a $35 check once a year.

Most of the time, being engaged is not very exciting. It’s a daily grind of staying informed and reacting when needed. As one NRA member put it, “Thanks for emailing your U.S. Senator, but you have to also write a letter or send a hand written postcard. No one ever tripped on a bag of email.” Even buying a gun or a box of ammo is a statement. A common taking point dragged around by gun banners is that firearms ownership is on the decline; the recent dazzling increase in gun sales is due to the same core group of “gun nuts” panic buying multiple firearms. The theory only works if you ignore the thousands of new gun carry permits issued every year and that very few gun owners will respond to a survey by admitting they own guns. I know I would not. And I personally know dozens of gun owners who would not. Even my own family does not know exactly how many and what type of guns I have. Liberals in general and Obama in particular are in a tizzy because their claim that fewer and fewer Americans want to keep guns cannot be validated against gun sales, carry permit figures, and registration in training classes, all of which are easily quantifiable facts. Gun owners are sophisticated enough to know that any data collected on firearms ownership will ultimately be used against them. As a result, Second Amendment supporters’ default setting is to be recalcitrant towards the media and the pollsters who work for them. To put it more simply, many if not most gun owners deliberately lie on polls and surveys.

Pro-gun citizens have the advantage of a common thing (guns) that serves as a base for organizing. They gather at gun shops, ranges, gun shows and shooting competitions, all of which serve a secondary purpose as a friendly venue where ideas are exchanged and information is passed along. As amazing as the internet may be, there is no substitute for a face to face discussion where everyone can shake hands and look each other in the eye. The gun banners have no such common platform. They organize marches and rallies which are are limited in duration and headlined by professional victims along the lines of Jesse Jackson or Micheal Pflager. There is no natural interaction, no opportunity for small random meetings. Everyone stands around and cheers for a speech, lights a few candles, then goes home.

The left are accomplished experts at getting people to sign an online petition or answer a poll question, but their “point and click” activism is a mile wide and an inch deep. When it really counts, the claimed support is mere gentle vapor drifting to invisibility, at least on the gun issue. This is why Obama got elected with such vigor only to see his fan base go back to playing Xbox. They are thinking, “Hey, we voted. What else do you want?”  Progressives then turn up the spin and gooey sentimentality because they can’t make a case with facts and and follow through, nor do they have genuine long-haul support for their gun ban goals. It’s not too hard to figure out why many progressive causes never seem to materialize into active policy even when the polls say it should be an easy win.

The goodwill and kinship felt among gun people transcends anything the left can put up. When gun banners gather, it’s to share their disgust for those of us who disagree. When gun enthusiasts gather, it’s to express appreciation for Constitutional freedom. There is no acrimony toward anyone. Celebrating freedom does not require hating anyone. But gun banners have to hate guns and gun owners, otherwise their cause has no reason to exist.

My analysis should not be taken to mean that firearms freedom supporters and the NRA have nothing to fear from Barack Obama and his army of useful idiots, led by Michael Bloomberg. On the contrary, as soon as one Second Amendment abuse is beaten back, it’s not long before another pops up. The gun banners, knowing nothing will get done at the national level, have recently shifted focus to state and local efforts. To their credit, this tactic will probably be more successful than trying to get any big federal rules through Congress. They have indeed managed to get some very heavy-handed anti-gun legislation passed in a few states and cities. The gun enthusiasts have likewise benefitted from several laws expanding Second Amendment freedom. Which side is ahead is a matter of semantics, but it’s generally accepted that the pro-gun side has the upper hand. For the purpose of fundraising and stirring up their respective bases, each side will claim the other is winning.

In my relatively short career as a firearms owner, I’ve discovered that “gun people” are some of the most harmless folks you’ll ever find. They would prefer not to involve themselves with controversy, and they would rather spend their time pursuing their Second Amendment freedoms instead of defending them. Gun people do not see themselves as the reason for criminal gun violence (they are correct). As long as the left demonizes us, blows off the true cause of the problem to pursue a power trip, and pushes to take away not just a Constitutional freedom but a natural, God-given right, Second Amendment supporters will have no choice but to jump reluctantly off the diving board into the cesspool of politics. President Obama and Michael Bloomberg don’t care enough to understand that all gun people really want is to live in their freedom and be left alone.

by: Chris Warren

It is a natural tendency to associate with people similar to ourselves. We embrace the familiar, and that’s why big cities have Chinatowns and Greektowns, Jewish and Polish neighborhoods, and a gathering of pretty much every nationality and faith. As a practical matter, it makes perfect sense. People from the same culture can be a true community, speak their own language, eat their own foods, and observe their holidays and traditions. It feels warm and belonging.

Practicalities aside, gravitating towards those similar to ourselves to the exclusion of all others cuts us off from viewpoints and insights that cannot be gained from confinement in a homogenous group. There is a benefit to stepping outside of our cultural comfort zones. In some cases, it’s not voluntary. Going to school or work, we don’t always get to pick who we hang around with. Nothing forces one to learn something about interpersonal relations like sharing a classroom or work space with someone who is totally different than you. There are a small number of inquisitive adventurers who consciously seek relationships with people outside their own demographic. Most of the rest of us go for the default of keeping company with our own kind whenever possible.

I have a lot of friends who are Not Like Me. I hate to use the word “diverse” because of its political correctness implications, but in my case the adjective fits. For context, I am a generic American white guy. Of the six people I consider my true close friends, only two of them are also American-born white guys. The rest include one from Vietnam, one from the Philippines, one from India; and one American-born, first-generation hispanic who spent a good chunk of his childhood living in Mexico. I’m not fishing for compliments about how open minded I am since I did not purposely go looking for these people. It just organically happened: I meet someone, the personalities click, and it takes off from there. If I appear enlightened about my eclectic circle of friends, it’s because they inspired me to reach out, not because I have a built-in curiosity about others.

Perhaps more than anything else, these Not Like Me friends have given me an understanding of how good it really is here in the USA. I know patriotism can be a overplayed sentiment, but there is no ignoring that the blessing of life in America became a lot more meaningful when I developed a close friendship with a guy who as a young boy was driven out of his native Vietnam by communism and the brutal violence that always comes with it. Or the hispanic kid from economically depressed Aurora, Illinois who, in spite of being just as much a “real American” as anyone on Mount Rushmore, did not have the same opportunities as kids in the upscale town a few miles away. Still, he respects himself and is not just scratching by, but is thriving and growing in the midst of a daily existence that would put the average suburban white boy into full hissy fit meltdown mode.

Anyone who has never witnessed in person a United States citizenship swearing in ceremony is missing an amazingly moving experience. I’ve attended two, in support of friends. There were old men, young men, mothers holding babies, entire families, flowers, flags, and an ocean of joyful tears. Most of the new citizens endured years, possibly decades, of difficulties and hardships to arrive at point I had attained merely by being born in the right place. I may have never seen it that way but for having friends Not Like Me.

Avoiding different people by design does not automatically make one a xenophobe; it does needlessly limit our world view and opportunity to experience others. It’s like having pizza for lunch every single day: There is nothing wrong with it, but every day we have pizza is a day we deny ourselves the chance to try something else. Applying this concept to relationships, the answer is not to dump our “pizza friends,” but complement them with friends of a flavor we may have never considered before. 

Very few people purposely set themselves up with a group of buddies who look like they came out of a United Nations meeting. Through a string of crazy coincidences and genuine blessings, that’s exactly what happened to me. Cultural differences are only as much of a problem as you allow them to be. By the way, none of this should be taken as a snub to my generic American white guy friends as they are a big deal to me too. But being pushed beyond the similar, even by accident, has kept me from falling into a “pizza every day” rut. Friends are important and enriching, and it’s just fine if they’re Not Like Me.