So, I'm reading a book about the history of anarchy. It turns out that anarchy is not what you see on the news. It is not confined to black-clothed, sociopathic morons, smashing windows and throwing rocks at the police at various international meetings around the world.
The philosophy of anarchy is pretty simple. It is, fundamentally, the belief that humans are perfectly capable of governing themselves. People can coexist in society without any form of organized government. Government only serves to cause friction between people of various life situations by setting up and enforcing laws that benefit one group or another. As the government becomes stronger, and rules and regulations pile up on top of each other, our freedoms necessarily diminish.
The only way to be completely free, for people to experience true liberty, is to live without the yoke of coercion, which is the sole purpose of government. Government exists only to curb our so-called baser instincts and force us to live in harmony with one another.
Anarchism is a philosophy that sees humanity as innately reasonable, considerate, and moral. It assumes that, given the choice, we will all do what's best for ourselves and our fellow man. It is a philosophy that stresses individual liberty and freedom, while also emphasising the good of society as a whole. It is not, at it's core, an excuse to, in the words of Allistair Crowley, "Do what thou wilt, so mete be". It is a call to all humans to excercise restraint in all their dealings with others. But it is a self-imposed restraint, not one directed to us by the state or organized religion or society as a whole.
If there were any sort of tenet or dogma attatched to anarchism, it would be to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Seems pretty simple, and a good way to live.
Unfortunately, in my experience, people don't always behave that way. People are generally greedy, selfish, and sometimes just plain mean.
I guess I sort of agree with whoever said that, "If men were angels, they would have no need for government." He also went on to say that if we were governed by angels, we would have no need to watch our leaders like parollees in charge of the petty cash fund.
The balance between individual freedom and security is a very delicate one. How much do we value security? How much of our freedoms are we willing to sacrifice in order to feel safe and secure? Ben Franklin said "Any man that will sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither." That is a pretty extreme statement. In my opinion, it's a matter of degrees. I'm willing to take off my shoes before I board a plane if it will ensure that my flight will not be interrupted by some whacko with a bomb in his shoe. The line is the important thing.
Where should the responsibility of the governement to protect us end, and our responsibility to protect ourselves begin?
This brings me to the other book I'm reading at the moment. It is a history of the Jewish people. No other race has been so hated, persecuted, or scorned as the Jewish race. They live in a land that is practically encircled by people that not only despise them, but actually believe that they have no right to exist. Every day they deal with threats and accusations ranging from plots to take over the world, to total nuclear anihilation.
The middle east is a rough neighborhood for the Jews, but they manage to not only survive, but thrive. Israel boasts the most liberal democracy in the region, as well as the strongest economy. They, as a people, enjoy more freedom than any of their neighbors. And yet, they live under the constant threat of attack. How do they do this? How do they balance the freedoms that their people enjoy with the security that they demand? Common sense.
They have a very well organized system of national defense. They gather information from anyone and everyone, and then they use this information to target specific threats. Yes, that's right, they profile people. If someone fits the profile of a threat to their nation, they concentrate on that person.
This results in far fewer 95 year old women in diapers and a wheelchair getting stripsearched at Israeli airports than in the US. This means that normal traffic flows through their security checkpoints far more smoothly than in any other nation on earth. This is because they are not stupid. They are proactive as opposed to rreactive. Yes, the citizens of Israel have sacrificed some of their freedoms for security, but their government works to ensure the least amount of sacrifice and the greatest amount of security. Somehow, they manage to keep their citizens safe without devolving into a virtual police state. It is a system we should look to emulate.
Anarchy is a wonderful philosophy for those that see only the good in mankind. For those that believe that humanity can actually be ruled by "the better angels of our nature."
For those of us that live in the real world, there is an acknowledgement that not all people are capable of resisting the primal urges that are programmed into our DNA. Some people are simply evil. It is protection from these people that the government is charged with providing, while keeping the intrusions on our liberties as minimal as possible.
It is a delicate balance, but one that is possible to achieve. As long as we are ruled, not by emotion, but by reason, there is hope that we can enjoy a government that works the way it is supposed to work. One that protects us from those that wish to do us harm, and doesn't inflict harm on us in the process.

Gay marriage in New York

Kathy Griffin tweeted that "We Are all New Yorkers now" after the decision to legalize gay marriage in the state. Um, I'm not. Not that I have anything against gay people. My problem is mainly with New Yorkers. The fact is, this decision has absolutely nothing to do with me. If New York wants it, let them have it.

I feel a little like governor Christie on the subject. When asked his opinion of the ruling, he grunted and said "Not a big fan."

I just think it's funny that the left is so invested in the gay marriage issue that it is celebrating a state's right to defy the federal government's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Why are they so vehemently opposed to state's rights concerning abortion, illegal immigration, and healthcare? Either I'm an idiot, or this is another example of the rampant hypocrisy on the left.

Before you say it, I know it can be turned around to expose the rampant hypocrisy of the right as well. They oppose gay marriage but are supportive of state's defying the fed on the other 3 issues.

This leads to my most important point. Who the hell is Kathy Griffith? Why have I never heard of her? When did she become the barometer of right and wrong in our society? Why do celebrities, pseudo-celebrities, and the likes of Kathy Griffith continue to weigh in on subjects that they have no grasp of? And most importantly, why do some people continue to encourage them?

As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business declaring or denying anyone's right to marry anyone else. Marriage is, and has always been, the domain of religious institutions. Civil unions, which are supported in most states, and by most of America, including me, would certainly fall under the auspices of the government. A civil union is a contract, one that is protected by the constitution of the United States. Marriage is a sacrament, one that is overseen by various religious denominations the world over. What happened to separation of church and state?

On another, more personal note, I recently started writing for examiner.com under the title of Indianapolis conservative. Why they have me pegged as a conservative, I don't know. I'm sure it will mortify my mother, so I won't argue with it.

The important thing is, I may be able to make some money from it. Apparently I get payed according to page views. Roughly one half of one cent per visit. Not much, but every little bit helps. I would like to invoke that old song from the depression era, updated for the internet age...instead of "Brother can you spare a dime?" it is "Brother can you spare a page view."

Look at it this way, it won't cost you anything, and it may reduce the likelihood of me hitting you up for a "loan". I put that in quotes because a loan is something that is payed back eventually.

I submit to you that if my household deficit was rated as a percentage of my personal GDP, the US would appear completely solvent by comparison. Of course, I don't have the ability to print money and lend it to myself. If I did, there would be a flat screen in every room and Sam Adams in the fridge. Unfortunately, it's analog TV and Miller High Life for me.

So check out some of my articles. Often. In fact, make it your home page. The posts are, mercifully, a lot shorter than the blog posts. I'm having trouble making coherent points in less than 15,000 words, but hopefully I'll get better.

If this seems like a shameless attempt to rope my family and friends into pretending to support something that I have always wanted to do, that is to make a living as a writer, it is. So please don't make me ask again. I do have some pride.

Well, not really.

I was listening to the radio the other day. No, this is not another song-themed post. I was actually listening to talk radio, which I do from time to time.
They played a quote from David Carr, who writes for Time magazine or the New York Times or something like that. He said, "...but if it's Missouri or Kansas, or you know, it's the dance of the low-sloping foreheads you know? The middle places..."
He said this on Bill Mar's show. I know I spelled his name wrong, I just like it when the name is appropriate, like Anthony Weiner. I also like it when the name is ironically inappropriate, as in the case of Barney Frank.
At first I giggled a little. It was a good line. Funny, creative, rolled off the tongue nicely. It had a certain melody to it. Then I thouight, "Hey, he's talking about me." No, I don't live in Missouri or Kansas, but I do live in flyover country. I actually refer to people from Indiana as swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool, but it's okay if I say it. I'm not a liberal elitist snob. I just say it because it's funny to me.
This Carr character, who later apologized for the comment, not accepted by the way, is also originally from flyover country. He took great pains to explain this fact as he made his apology. He may have forgotten his roots because he was educated in the finest institutions in the land. I don't know squat about him, but I'd guess Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Brown, something like that.
One thing I've learned is that it doesn't matter where you went to school. What matters is what you learn while you're there. The most important thing, in my opinion, is to learn the ability to think for yourself. To form your own opinions based on what seems right to you, after researching both sides of the issue. That's why I slog through crap like Krugman and Zakaria and Chomsky (actually, Chomsky pretty much a genius, and I like him, and I hate him for it because he's still an elitist snob).
I want to be able to argue either side of any issue intelligently, depending on who I want to piss off at any particular time. The only way to do that is to learn the arguments that both sides make, think about them just a little bit, and come up with some ideas of your own on the subject.
This is what the idealogues on the left and the right will never understand. It's like they all think with one brain. They yell and shout out the same tired old talking points to the same tired audience, time after time, and then wonder why no one listens to them.
The dance of the low sloping foreheads comment makes me want to hunt this knucklehead down, beat him over the head with a club, drag him by his silver ponytail back to my cave, and feed him to my pet dinosaur. Instead I will point out to him, and to others like him, that there are universities outside of the Ivy League. There are places that, while they may not have the same manners, traditions, and social customs as yours, are inhabited by intelligent, thoughtful people that may just happen to disagree with your vision for the future of humanity.
In the words of Richard from Tommy Boy, "There are 2 kinds of smart. Book smart, which waved bye-bye to you a long time ago, and then there's street smart, the ability to read people..." If I'm looking for someone to theorize about the best possible solutions to problems in order to create a utopian society, I'll go with book smart. If I'm looking for someone that I can actually trust to implement public policy that will affect all of us, something that may not be the best solution, but at least takes everyone's ideas into account, I'll go with street smart every time.

"When you feel just like a tourist in the city you were born, then it's time to go."
That's a line from the song "Tourist" by Deathcab For Cutie. Quick sidenote, Deathcab For Cutie is the greatest name for a rock band since Green Apple Quickstep. It's not even up for debate.
I recently went home for a long weekend. Is it weird that I still consider it home when I've been in Indiana for almost 3 years? It is what it is, I guess. Indiana, though not a bad place to live, will never be my home. For one thing, the food is terrible. Food is very important to me. I like to eat. The Red Sox are also very rarely available on television. This is actually more important than the food issue. Finally, my entire family is back east. I miss them a lot. You never realize how important some things are until they aren't anymore.
That being said, this last trip was a little strange. Something didn't feel quite right. I'm not sure what it was. Maybe it's true that you can't go home again. Or, as Stephen King says, "Home is the place where, when you have to go back, they have to kill you." That's not as creepy as it sounds. It's really supposed to be some kind of metaphor. The reason it's important to leave your comfort zone is that it is impossible to grow as a person with the restraints put upon you by familiar surroundings. When you don't have the opportunity to experience new things, it's almost like a prolonged catatonic state. Challenges that you may confront are avoided for the simple comforts of a friendly and familiar smile. Leaving the nest irrevocably changes a person. Not saying that it's good or bad, it just does.
I never felt really comfortable in Massachusetts this time. It still looked like home. It smelled like home. I saw my parents and my sister and all my in-laws, who seem to have, for some reason, taking a liking to me. Something just didn't feel kosher. Maybe it's because we weren't there for long enough. Maybe it's because we've been gone too long. Maybe it's because we've romanticized home to the point where the reality can never live up to the expectation. Who knows.
The point is, I felt like a tourist, when I should have felt at home. This can mean one of two things. Either I am done with Mass. for good, or I need to get the hell out of Indiana, and fast, before it's too late.
I still carry the east coast with me. My accent is as strong, if not stronger than it used to be. I still religiously follow the Sox and the Celts and the Pats and the B's. I still read the Herald, the only paper in Boston by the way, Pravda doesn't count, even if they do own part of the Red Sox. I miss the food. I miss Dunkin Donuts on every street corner. I miss the radio stations and sports on tv. I miss my family and friends. I don't miss the politics, or the fact that we were always broke. Not that we're not always broke now, or that I like the politics in Indiana, but it's a little bit easier here than there.
It felt strange driving through the town I used to live in. Everything seemed familiar, and yet foreign. Some things had changed that I didn't even notice until they were pointed out to me. New buildings, different stores, things that you don't even notice unless you're paying attention, and maybe that's just it. Maybe, when I wasn't paying attention, everything changed. Or more likely, I did.
I think that everyone fells a certain disconnect when surrounded by strangeness. Maslow says that people are either able to cope with it, unable to cope with it, or they relish the challenge. Some people find excitement in change, others fear change, and still others simply accept it as a part of life. I haven't figured out where I fit in yet. Either in Mass. or Indiana, or in Maslows heirarchy of personalities, but I will at some point.
I will be home next month. This time I will be bringing the entire family, which is my entire life. I know one thing, wherever they are, my heart is, and that's as good as home to me. I will see then what's more important to me... where I am, or who I am there with. Many questions will be answered, but what will it change? Probably nothing, maybe something, maybe just me.

"New Low" for the middle class

I listen to the radio a lot. Out here in the midwest there are two types of radio stations, country, and crap. That is assuming there is a difference between the two. There is one station that plays pretty decent music, though it is one of those that seems to have a playlist of about twenty songs, played over and over in a somewhat different order. Occasionally they throw in a new one. One of the new ones I heard over the last year, and that have made it into the regular rotation, is "New Low" by a band called Middle Class Rut. It's a good song. But it got me thinking about the middle class.
What exactly is the middle class? Does it really exist? It seems as though the only time it's even mentioned is by politicians or their cronies trying to drum up support for one campaign or another. "I'm looking out for the middle class" say countless leaders who are, in reality, looking out for themselves and trying to get into your wallets.
I am about as middle as they come. I am the middle child of a middle income family, living in the middle of the country, middle of the road politically (although I would probably be considered a fascist by many due to my ideas on the proper size and role of the federal government, which would be funny if it wasn't so sad), creeping up on middle income as I make my way through middle age. Am I average? No. If I'm not an average American, is there any such thing as an average American? I'm not sure that there is.
The chorus of the song, such as it is, goes like this "I feel right, I feel left, I feel wrong, I feel left behind. I feel up but mostly down." Describes a lot of people that would be considered middle class ar average, doesn't it? We are all trying to slog our way through our lives, paying bills, working, attempting to find a balance between what is necessary and important, and what may be considered frivolous or enjoyable. But the frivolity is necessary, if only to recharge our brains for the droll and mundane. We all spend a lot of time living in our own heads, dreaming our own dreams, imagining our lives in another frame or reality.
We are all, I think, Walter Mitty. I haven't read the story in decades, but I remember it because it seemed to describe me in some way. Mitty would escape into fantasy in order to lessen the burden of an otherwise unhappy life. I also remember it because it was the first time, but not the last, that I thought that maybe I was smarter than my teacher. She claimed that Mitty was preparing to kill himself. That all this fantasizing and dreaming was unhealthy in some way. I felt that it was entirely healthy and a natural reaction to his circumstance. He felt trapped and frightened by what his life had become, so he invented different scenarios in order to cope with it. It probably would have been healthier for him to just change his life, but he was so adapted to convention that it was impossible for him.
This is acculturation at it's most extreme. Most of us are held back by convention and cultural restraints. In many cases it is a good thing. You don't go to the grocery store in your underwear, unless, of course, you're in really, really good shape. Our culture demands that we wear pants. There are many ways that cultural convention can hold us back if we let it. We are taught by our elders to fit in at all costs. To be like everyone else, at least outwardly, so we need to turn inward to satisfy our individuality. Some of us break free of these restraints to do great things. Some of us never manage, and our imaginations are forced to help us cope with our shortcomings. I think to some degree we all do this, not only because our lives are unhappy, mine isn't, and never really was, except for the periods of time in which I made stupid decisions and caused my own sort of doom spiral, but because we are human beings.
We dream because we are human. It is part of the human condition to yearn for something more, something better, something else. That is probably why catchphrases such as "Hope and change" act as magical mantras on the minds of so many so-called average Americans. We want hope, we want change, we want more. This is what separates us from animals. The desire to create, to enjoy, to have leisure time and freedom.
We, as a nation, for the most part, don't need to worry about where our next meal is coming from. Our economic system has provided the greatest amount of wealth in the history of humanity. This wealth is spread out, in spite of what some people insist on claiming, among all of us. Not equally, that is true, maybe because we are not all equally equipped or inclined to take the necessary steps to provide for our own needs. This widespread wealth allows us the opportunity to seek out other gratifications, to improve our own situations.
So, is there such a thing as an average American, or middle class? Only in reference to campaign slogans and punchlines at elitist cocktail parties. Other than that, there are only Americans. We are all in this together. In spite of the efforts of some to make everything a war between the rich and the poor, or the middle against the extremes, there remain only Americans. We have been given the gift of freedom. That great gift comes with great responsibility. We are required to shape our own lives in the manner that we see fit, and then live with the consequences. Through it all, during good times and bad, we all look for something more, we all dream about something better or different. We are the catalysts for hope and change, not some unctious politician. We dream and then we create. In doing so we create a better life for ourselves, our families, and our nation.
The longest journey begins with the first step, and the first step to progress is a vision, a dream, a goal, something that begins in our minds and then is made into reality through hard work and perserverance. By improving our own lives, we improve the lives of those around us. Self-interest, to paraphrase Adam Smith, is the driving force behind the progress of individuals, communities, and nations. The greatest advances in society have been provided by so-called average citizens that have risen above convention and created. It all starts with a dream.

So I'm reading a book by Abraham Maslow. I know, but when I took it out at the library I was unaware that it's a textbook for post-graduate psychology students. It's pretty interesting, but in the first chapter I came across one of my danger words.
There are a few words, phrases, and concepts that set me off. For example, anything that involves global warming, organic food, regressive tax, social justice, or the greater good are very likely to cause me to have a heart attack. Another of these ideas is the anti-intellectualism thing. This is the idea that Americans are basically idiots that hate anything intellectual. We are all against learning and education. I actually read a book by Elizabeth Jacoby that claimed exactly that. She said that the "folks" just don't appreciate the fact that their intellectual superiors are looking out for their best interests. We in flyover country are too stupid to take care of our own lives, and too ignorant and proud to let them do it for us.
This idea was first introduced, I am sure, by intellectuals themselves. Most likely because no one was listening to them. The reason no one listens to intellectuals has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism. It is more likely because of the fact that intellectuals have never done anything in their lives but think about stuff. While there is nothing inherently wrong with thinking about stuff, I do it all the time, it is usually advisable to have some experience doing stuff before you give people advice about the best methods for doing stuff.
Talk what you know, and what you don't know, don't talk. I remember that from high school. Apparently, these eggheads never heard that phrase. Why should I take the advice of someone that's never held a real job in their lives, never had to live check-to-check, never had to decide which bill to pay this month and which can be put off for another month. Most of these people went directly from the teet to the teet. Mommy's to the government's. They all seem to work for various "thinktanks". What, exactly, is a thinktank? What do they do there? Do they sit around and think? I do that for nothing. Why should they make 6 figure salaries for it? Are they smarter than me? They would say yes, I'm not so sure. If they can't tell the difference between "anti-intellectualism and anti-intellectual, they should forfeit at least some of their salary.
It seems to me that their biggest bone of contention is with the religious right. They feel that the "biblical literalists" completely disregard scientific fact in an attempt to give some sense of meaning to their lives. This is to say that, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, people that believe in the truth of the bible are just plain stupid. I am by no means a biblical literalist. The way I see it, Jesus taught in parables. If he is the son of God, perhaps he inherited that trait from his old man. The bible is many things. It is not, in my mind, an accurate historical account of human history. I do not, however, completely discount the opinions of those that feel that it is. They are entitled to their opinions, as are the secular humanists, the Muslims, the Jews, and even the democrats. It is only when their opinions paint me as an uncultured, uninformed imbecile that I take issue with them.
How are the bible thumpers any different from the cult of global warming that has arisen over the las several years. Oh yeah, global warming has been proven to be a farce. When the average temperature of the earth has actually declined over the last decade, and you change the name of your movement in order to disassociate yourself from the prime motivating factor of your movement, you should probably pack it in.
The truth of the matter is, no one can really say for sure that the origin of human existence is one thing or another. None of us was there. If you believe in creationism, the big bang, or even alien intervention, I can't say for sure if you are right or wrong. I can say that if you call me stupid, we should step outside and have a discussion about the capital forming effects of collective institutions such as farming cooperatives and labor industrialization in the pre-marxian world. You won't know what I'm talking about, and frankly neither will I, but I can fake it as well as you can. That's because I'm not stupid. And neither is most of America. No other nation puts such a premium on education. No other country is so beholden to a knowledge economy as America. No other people are as versed in the ways of modern life as we are. That's because no other country has embraced modernity as heartily as us.
Ideas are the new currency, and this nation has them in abundance. Intellectuals, the really scary ones, are afraid that their monopoly on thinking is going the way of Ma Bell, and they are afraid. They are the kids we used to pick on in school. You know, the one's our mothers told us would be running the world someday. Our mothers were right, and now they are having their revenge. Trying to tell us how to live our lives, tell us what we should eat, whether or not we should smoke, how to raise our children, and then whining about how we hate them when we don't agree with them. It's the revenge of the nerds in the new millenium. And they wonder why we hate them.

I love going to Subway. Not for the food, that pretty much sucks. But I like the way they make the sandwiches. I think if Adam Smith designed a sandwich shop, it would look a lot like Subway. Adam Smith was the father of modern economics. He was a huge proponent of the division of labor. Of course he also opined that, in extreme cases, division of labor could lead to a stupid, dull, and unfulfilled existence for the majority of humanity. He obviously never thought about the time saved, and the immense wealth created and shared by all, that the division of labor could provide, opening the doors to climbing Maslow's pyramidal heirarchy of needs, blah, blah, blah.
Back to Subway. If you've ever been in there you know that one person greets the customer and asks what kind of bread and meat you would like. He then slides the product to the next person, who applies the vegetables and the toppings before passing it on to the next person who wraps the sandwich and hands it to the cashier, who rings you up and tells you to have a nice day. I know that all restaurants function in this manner, but it is so easy to see at Subway. It all happens right before your eyes. It is the most efficient, fastest way to make a terrible sandwich known to man. And it always makes me smile, especially because I know I'm not the one that has to eat it. One of the things I miss the most about Mass is the plethora of small, family-owned sub shops. It seems like every town, no matter how small, has at least 2 or 3. In Indiana, also known as the nation's largest truck stop, the choices are significantly limited. Less competition means worse food. Something else Adam Smith could have agreed with. And so that brings us to...drumroll please...Book review time.
Back by popular demand. Really, the letters, emails, and phone calls I received from publicists and authors begging me to review their books has been overwhelming since my last effort. They have been sending me free advanced reader's copies and just-released hardcovers by the truckload. So I thought I'd try to keep the gravy train moving. Free stuff is free stuff, even if most of it is crap.
I recently read P.J. O'Rourke's "Peace Kills". Unfortunately, this belongs in the crap section. Kind of like the food at Subway. Stale, homgenized, and tasting slightly of tin. I like O'Rourke. He can be funny, incisive, sarcastic and obnoxious. Sometimes all in the same sentence. I admire that. But this one has none of his usual humor or caustic wit. In fact, it felt to me as if he got his bar tab one night at closing time, took one look at it and said "Oh, Oh. Time to write another book." Then, during the cab ride home, he texted his secretary and ordered her to cobble together some of his old pieces, "Anything about foreign policy, that seems to be big right now, and Chomsky's making a killing", added a little commentary, hopefully before he sobered up, and sent it to his publisher. Now I know why I got it for 3 dollars online.
The reason I brought up Subway and Adam Smith in the beginning of this, is that I actually like O'Rourke's style. I've read a few of his other books and found them to be amusing and informative. He is, above all, a smart-ass. But he's also very smart. This makes for good reading in my opinion. 'Peace Kills' is not one of his better efforts. I recommend his book on Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. That one was so good, I was grateful that I slogged through the original before I read O'Rourke's take on it. Smith is difficult to read. He makes a point, then remakes it over and over and over again. Finding the nuggets of gold in 'Wealth of Nations' is akin to searching for a handful of needles in a 900 page haystack. Actually, pins might be more apropos. The search is long and difficult, but it is well worth the effort in order to see the depth and sincerity of his arguments in their original context. O'Rourke manages to capture the essence of the entire book in a scant 200 pages. Simply by visiting several countries, getting drunk, and writing down his observations, he highlights the main points of 'Wealth of Nations' as well as Smith did. Quite extraordinary if you ask me. That's why I was so disapointed in 'Peace Kills'. He set the bar too high, and this one falls woefully short.