A Young Man's Common Sense

Loving a Little Rover

2019-02-14T05:35:00.000-05:00

These days, if one pays too much attention, it’s hard to see much hope for humanity. What can we hope for when those with all the power to enact any meaningful change choose to bury their heads in the sand rather than accept any unsettling truth that might mean they have to alter their ways of life?

That is why I like to take time and see the little things that give me hope. And I also hope that perhaps this new perspective will help you see the same hope. Today, that hope is a little rover named Opportunity and its sacrifice in the name of furthering our understanding of the universe around us, even if it was in our celestial backyard.

The hope Opportunity gives me revolves around something we as human beings do so regularly that many of you may be surprised that it can be seen as profound: anthropomorphizing. WE project our humanity onto other things.

Now, why is that a cause for hope? Surely for some it’s a cause for ridicule. Something childish we do as children with our toys and teddy bears. Disney/Pixar have an entire film franchise based around it. I recall back in 2015 listening to comedian Dara O’Briain bringing myself and the rest of the audience to tears of laughter over the fate of the drillers that dug out the tunnel under the English Channel.

The gist of the joke was that the diggers were just left down there, sealed behind walls. Sure, feeling sorry for mere unfeeling machines is silly, isn’t it? They feel nothing for us, they have no consciousness, yet we cannot help but project it onto them, can we?

Now, again you may ask, why does this give me hope? This gives me hope because of what it says fundamentally about the future. Just around the corner is true artificial intelligence. For so long we’ve been so terrified of cold, unfeeling machines coming to destroy us all, machines that think purely mathematically inevitably coming around to the realization we humans need to be destroyed.

Personally, as an aside, I feel that says more about our fundamental view of ourselves than any rational conclusion about what a true artificial intelligence might do.

This view is also steeped in the mindset that morality can only come from on high, that any intelligence that comes from a source other than a grand creator must be devoid of any morality. As though we could not pass such a morality supposedly given unto us onto such an offspring. And should that morality have not come from a higher power than us, then we created our own morality, and our own intelligence grew with us, then the thought that we could not pass it on to a true artificial intelligence I think is also absurd.

Especially in light of our love for little Opportunity. If we can experience love and affection for a piece of machinery thousands and thousands of miles away, exploring an entirely new planet so that we don’t have to, how much more are we going to express for our spiritual children of artificial intelligence?

In the mere hours since Opportunity ‘died,’ there have been calls for the first manned mission to Mars to bring Opportunity home. We’ve come to care so deeply for, what some would call, a mere machine we want to bring it home. We want to honour Opportunity and show it we care.

And I say: let’s do it. Let’s express our love and admiration for Opportunity. That is the beauty of humanity. That is the extent of our love as a species. It’s a love we’re likely to pass down to an artificially intelligent offspring. It’s a beautiful thing, and thank you, Opportunity, for expanding our understanding of our universe, and of course for helping show just how much love we have left.

America's True Gods

2018-02-16T23:04:00.002-05:00

America has new gods.

America's new true gods.

We're not a Christian nation.

We're not even a nation of Christians.

Sure, the majority population calls themselves that.

But when has that ever truly meant anything?

People call themselves all kinds of things that their actions contradict.

The importance is what people do, not what people say.

America has new gods.

Multiple gods.

We don't worship the Abrahamic deities in their many names.

We worship greed.

We worship unadulterated self-centeredness.

We worship fear.

These are the new gods of America.

Greed, where corporate overlords bilk us out of our paychecks and our future for short-term quarterly savings and gains.

And we praise them for doing it.

Self-centeredness, where people can unabashedly argue their right to own a deadly weapon they treat like a toy is more important than our children's right to live.

And their voices grow louder.

Most insidious of all, however, is the fear.

Fear, that drives people who follow a holy book that preaches: Hebrews 13:2 “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares,” to decry and condemn those fleeing destruction and death.

Fear, that drives people to value their own sense of righteousness over those who just want to love.

Fear, that drives people to identity politics wherein their ideas become their identity and no matter how wrong they are, any evidence against them is an attack on them as a person not an argument, and civil discourse becomes crushed and forgotten.

Fear, that drives people to vote against their own interests and give up their own freedom while stealing it from others with a smile on their faces.

This is America today, and these are our new gods.

These are the gods of a nation that is okay with its children being killed en masse.

These are the gods of a nation that is okay with a system guaranteeing the creation of the less-fortunate, then punishing them for being so.

These gods happen when we are no longer a nation.

Americans do not seem to care about America anymore.

They care about being an American, but not being America.

They do not care about their fellow Americans.

They care about themselves, to hell with anyone else.

“I have mine, whatever the cost.”

We are the trees who have forgotten we are a forest.

That is America today; these are our new gods.

I hope we’re proud of ourselves.

Because I’m not.

May Leia be with us, Always (Mild SW Episode VIII spoilers)

2017-12-20T19:36:00.000-05:00

Thoughts on a legacy

Mild Star Wars Episode VIII spoilers, just a warning.

So, I finally saw Episode VIII, and something profound occurred to me. Something happened with little fanfare and few people pointing it out that speaks of a true hero of our times. The legacy of Carrie Fisher and Princess Leia.

When Carrie Fisher left us all, it left a hole in many of our hearts. With Episode VIII, however, something extraordinary happened. It started with Rogue One, and continued through this film. Leia and Carrie haven't left us afterall, and never will.

When Carrie Fisher left us, I'm sure many (myself included) expected a heroic ending for the character of Leia, a fitting send off to the character to send her off after Carrie into the sunset. Perhaps to be the one to make the heroic self-sacrifice on the cruiser while the rest escaped.

But they didn't. Leia lives on, and with her, Carrie Fisher. Leia and Carrie are so entwined into the hearts of Star Wars fans Leia cannot die, and Carrie cannot be replaced. They couldn't recast Leia with another actress with heavy makeup to 'play Carrie Fisher playing Leia'. They couldn't even recast young Leia with another actress in Rogue One. However far behind the technology is from looking 'totally convincing' Carrie Fisher and Princess Leia are one and the same. It's an immortality of a character I don't think we've ever seen before. It's inspiring, and fills me with a sense of joy and respect I can't remember feeling...

May Leia be with us. Always.

Thoughts on the Nye/Ham Debate

2014-02-07T15:34:00.000-05:00

I know it has been a couple days since the debate happened, and I know that it has been gone over and in the long run does not really change the face of the issue, but I have had some serious thoughts concerning what happened. Now I haven't written here in a while and the bulk of this text is actually from a Facebook comment I made, but I was prompted to put it here as well. I know I will appear biased, but these are a lot of points in the debate where I feel Ham was given a lot of leeway by Nye that were never addressed and deserve a response.

Frankly, from the start, Ham made me want to pull my hair out. Not even because I disagree with him. One could write an entire book on what was wrong with his presentation... but mainly the fact that all of his arguments against modern science, or "historical science" as YECists call it, could be easily flipped right on their heads. "You weren't there when it happened, so you don't know or you have to read it from books!" Gee, that sounds familiar, Mr Ham. It was sort of one giant string of pot calling the kettle black. Then came his essentially preaching session. You had to listen close, but Ham gave away his real position at least twice(I admit I'm going to be paraphrasing because I'm not going to go fishing through the entire 2.5 hour debate to find the exact quotes).

First was his claim how "historical science" teaches children to be closed minded and hampers critical thinking. You would think that makes sense, until you actually do critically think about his argument and realize he is advocating only "observational science," i.e. believing only what you can see with your naked eye, and then going into his long preach about all the "questions" that the Bible "answers". Basically, that line of argument boiled down to: "we need to teach children Creationism to keep them more open minded and think critically, now here, now let's throw out all these other lines of thought and only study this single book."

The second, that was the most telling to me, was when he questioned Nye over the "meaning of life" if there was no God and Heaven. Basically Ham admitted there that he just didn't like science because he didn't like the idea of there not being an afterlife which I find an incredibly selfish world view, particularly as Ham put it, essentially saying "Well if nothing happens to me after I die, if it's just nothingness and I won't remember anything I did, what was the point?" Yes, you personally will not remember any of your accomplishments if that world-view is true. But that's only if the only thing that matters to you is how you feel personally about what you've done in life. Nevermind the great impacts you might have on the lives of those who live on after you pass, and those who have yet to walk on this Earth. Sir Alexander Fleming has been dead for almost sixty years now, but his discovery of penicillin revolutionized the entire world of medicine and saved, and continues to save, millions of lives. Were I to have made that discovery, even if I knew for an absolute certainty that after my death I was going to just rot in the ground, my consciousness over, I would still be pretty happy that I made an impact and that I would live on in the memories of others.

A third line of argument that Ham presented which I find amusing was Ham's assertion that "just because a majority believe in [modern science] doesn't make it right, and old ideas need to be replaced with new ones." He's right, problem is, once upon a time, his world view was what the majority (at least in the western world) believed. It was that way for approximately a thousand years until modern science came along. Modern science is new, not Ham's stance. Just because he pretends his view is science does not make it so. It's like putting new rims and a bodykit on a 2000 Honda Civic and pretending you're in a Fast and Furious film and it's a "new car." Yeah, it looks newer on the outside, but look underneath and it's still just a 2000 Honda Civic.

I also think Ham miscalculated and misunderstands modern science greatly. I think he leapt on Nye's statements of "I don't know" when asked questions by the audience such as "what was there before the 'Big Bang?'" and "How did consciousness come from matter?" not getting where modern science's mind is on those matters. The same with his answer of "Nothing" to the question "What would make you change your mind?" versus Nye's "evidence." His side of the argument places such a premium on that "faith" and conviction while modern science clearly does not. So while I'm sure Ham, and many of his followers, thought he had pulled the ultimate punch on Nye with his pithy "Well you know, Bill, there *is* a book out there..." lines and his refusal to accept any evidence to dissuade him from his faith, to an obvious majority, it made him appear completely unreasonable versus Nye and probably did much more harm to him than help.

That said, I did feel Nye could have been a lot tougher on Ham, on those points in particular. But I also have to wonder if perhaps Nye did not answer them because he did not feel the need to. And having said that, I disagree with many's assertions that Nye should not have done the debate. I think we've let stances such as Young Earth Creationism get plenty far without a response of some kind. That's how it's creeping back into the debate of being taught in schools, because of modern science's infernal "holier than thou" attitude. It's time for the modern scientific community to wake up, I must say.

Repurposing of Blog

2013-09-06T08:46:00.001-04:00

Salutations all!

Well, after some rather turbulent life changes I shall detail momentarily, this blog is going to be remade from a random writings/commentary blog, to a blog documenting my travels through my new home of Dublin, Ireland, and the surrounding Irish world (as well as Europe when I do my other travels)!

The update: Well, after thinking it all out long and hard this summer, I applied to University College Dublin for a Master of Arts in History. Long story short, I got accepted, and after a whirlwind of freakouts and squabbles and begging (mostly over money) I have finally made it. I am just about to go read (and hopefully sign if it is agreeable) a lease on my first apartment too! Unfortunately I've been a bit too busy since I arrived on Tuesday to do much sight-seeing, and the district I'm currently living in is rather high on inner-city shopping centers and rather low on historical interest anyway. The area I'll be moving to however is in Dublin 6 and is a much quieter area outside the main city, so that will be a bit nicer than the hustle and bustle of living in busy Dublin 1!

So stay tuned everyone and hopefully will soon be filling this page up with facts and pics of my adventures in my new home!

Kleinnak

Long Time No See and Major Announcement

2013-06-16T23:56:00.002-04:00

Hello all! Sorry for being so absent for so long, just stopping in to say that after a year of working on my practice project of "The Adventures of Harriet Potter," I have polished up my skills enough to where I feel confident working on my own original writing again. I have a project in mind and am hammering out the details. If anyone out there has any publishing advice, words of wisdom, etc, please feel free to give it!

The project will be a series of books in the young-adult genre. I'm definitely not ready to make an announcement yet as to plotlines and such until I am sure of what my rights are... don't want to "give someone else" the same idea and have them jump on it before I can actually carry it out, after all...

Food for Thought

2012-10-30T21:46:00.004-04:00

Food for thought on the nature of the modern American voting public:

Obama has to prove how exceptional he'll be as president to win popular support.

Romney only has to prove he wouldn't be terrible.

A return, "The Adventures of Harriet Potter," and a defense of fan-fictions

2012-07-07T10:58:00.001-04:00

Well, been a while since I did much of well, anything, here on old Blogger. I have good reason. Recently, some friends approached me with a proposition. "How would the Harry Potter series have gone differently had the protagonist been female instead of male?" Being a historian by hobby and most interested in subjects like sociology, this was too tempting a project to take on. I also started doing more research into it as well, and frankly was rather saddened by what I saw. The article that struck me the most being "The adventures of Harriet Potter would never have done as well as Harry Potter." This pretty much instantly set off my chauvinism detector and it finally put me completely over the edge to actually sit down and write the reimagined world of Harriet Potter.

So, for most of the past year or so, I have been piecing together just how such things would happen. Fortunately, my friends had already done a great deal of the leg work surrounding characters and even numerous new characters as well. So it is simply my job to create a coherent, enjoyable story out of it all.

I know, it usually goes entirely against my principles as a writer to do these sorts of projects. However, my own brother described it to me in a way that killed off all my scruples. He described to me that what I would be doing would be essentially like being a cover band. You play more or less your own version of other peoples' songs to get noticed for your talents. So essentially... yes, that's what fan-fiction writing is. Unfortunately, not many take it nearly seriously enough for it to be taken very seriously by anyone. Unless you know the right place to look...

And so, I've been primarily working on the site deviantArt.com where I have now posted six new chapters of my newest project "The Adventures of Harriet Potter: Year One." Yes, I picked "The Adventures of Harriet Potter" specifically after reading that article. And so I'd like to ask you all to please, take the time to stop by, have a look and enjoy a magical world through brand new eye all over again with "The Adventures of Harriet Potter: Year One - Chapter 1 - The Violinist"

http://the-mind-of-kleinnak.deviantart.com/gallery/37892096#/d52kjxf

A Question of Ethics Alone?

2012-02-24T18:03:00.000-05:00

"We've walked away from the high ethics we had during World War II..." That is what Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer recently said on the Dylan Ratigan Show. Think about that statement, "the high ethics we had..." This was during a discussion on the callousness of our soldiers when engaging targets when civilians are present, what we call: "collateral damage".

This begs me to ask a question: do any of these people actually get their World War II history from anywhere but Saving Private Ryan...? For as much completely justified condemnation that’s been leveled at Germany for its bombing campaigns against Warsaw and London and other major European cities, those were as nothing compared to the sheer devastation the US and Great Britain wrought back on the cities of Germany and Japan. Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo were largely wiped out with fire bombings. Indeed, in one night's firebombing of Tokyo more civilians were killed than in either of the atomic bombings. Those shattered towns in Normandy that our soldiers were fighting the Germans through in Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers? It was the British Royal Air Force and the US Army Air Forces that destroyed those towns in the effort to end a war, and drive the Nazi forces out of Europe altogether.

Now before I get inundated by people trying to claim I'm impugning the honor of our World War II veterans, let me state my stance on warfare. It is the most horrible enterprise we as humans can engage in. Yet I will never deny that in many cases, we have very little choice in carrying it out. World War II was such an instance. Even if we were initially pulled into the European aspect of the conflict by Hitler's declaration of war on us after our declaration of war on Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbor, which was the end result of years of building animosity between the US and Japan... you get the idea there. The tapestry of history is so interwoven; it's not hard to see how multiple interpretations can easily come out, and factors forgotten or worse, ignored, in the interest of furthering our own causes.

The soldiers of World War II, and the sailors and airmen, were all following orders, the same as our soldiers, sailors and airmen are today. The difference is in World War II it was a war we were pulled into, which some will argue is also what happened in Afghanistan, but no one can deny (at least not in a reasonable manner) that Iraq was a war we pursued entirely of our own initiative. As would be a new war with Iran, whatever the fear-mongers have to say about it. This aspect of "we were attacked" tends to somehow lend credibility to any actions taken in the course of waging that war, but that does not make it ethical.

Going back to what Ratigan and Lt. Col. Shaffer were talking about, we’re now getting images and videos of our military attacking targets while knowing that civilians are present, and causing harm and death to these same civilians. When was the last war that we could do so and hardly anyone raised the slightest fuss about it? When was the last war that indeed, such destruction was in fact welcomed? World War II.

And it didn’t stop at just German and Japanese cities. In the lead up to the Normandy campaign, we estimated the bombings we needed to do to try and clear out the cities around the Normandy area for the invasion would kill 100,000 civilians, and even though Allied leaders had trepidation going into it, even a French general said to go ahead, that it was acceptable to carry out this bombing campaign; in the words of that general, "C'est la guerre."[i] And understand, this was not an accumulated number of people that would die over the course of years, this was the numbers estimated to be killed in a month. Innocent French civilians, the very people we were fighting to liberate. "Shoot the hostage," if you will. The civilians were not the target, but they were in the way of the target.

This is time for me to give another disclaimer. I am not condoning what happened in the lead-up to the Normandy campaign, I am not condoning what happened to almost every major city in Germany or Japan, and I am certainly not condoning what is happening right now in these videos. My point is, it doesn't matter what side of an issue you're on, a double standard, is a double standard. How were we more ethical back then than we are now? I would argue the exact opposite, that we are far more ethical today than we were back then, based on our current standards.

What else made today's conflicts and World War II different? Consider the difference between 1940s society and now. Seventy years ago, it was okay for cartoons to have titles such as "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips." US planes in WWII were commonly given names like “Nip ‘Nocker,” and “Nip’s Nemesis.” (never mind of course the extremely common practice of suggestive, even outright pornographic portrayals of women on these same planes, but I’ll touch more on that issue later in the article). The acceptance of such bombing tactics against targets with civilians present went far beyond even just the "necessities of war" in World War II.

In World War II, every German was a Nazi, and every Japanese person was any number of racial slurs you can think of. Both were dehumanized; evil. Immediately post Pearl Harbor, as many still remember, many Japanese citizens were rounded up in "containment camps." After World War II that changed, so drastically that only just over twenty years later there was massive outcry worldwide against our bombing campaigns over North Vietnam. Something had changed drastically, to where when even racism was still rampant here in the US, far more than it still is today, the massive levels of destruction that were acceptable only a generation before were now intolerable. The military is in fact made more ethical in its practices because the ethics of the population do not accept such tactics anymore. And so when a civilian wanders into the target area of a missile strike, we see it, we hear it, and we cry against it; a far cry from World War II ethics.

This highlights another difference, which is media. During World War II, the best images the average American had of what was being inflicted upon Japan and Germany were taken from the bombers themselves and high-flying reconnaissance planes, thousands to tens of thousands of feet in the air. And then later during the latter half of 1944 through 1945, when cameras could finally go into these areas, all that was left was the bombed out and hollow skeletons of buildings, not people. It was forlorn, but did not come close to capturing the true horrors that those people must have gone through at the time of the bombings. It took the giant mushroom clouds of two atomic blasts for us to finally begin to question this type of warfare, and even then not very much for several decades. And as I stated in the second paragraph, those weren't even the costliest bombings of the war. Today we have these crystal-clear images and videos such as Ratigan showed on his program. We can see what happens, almost as it happens.

The impact of these media changes go all the way back to Vietnam. Seeing the horrors of the war as it happens has injected far more "morality" and "ethics" into warfare than anything I can think of. We could never do things like name shows "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" today, after all, just look at the animosity Lowe's received just because it pulled its advertising from the show "All American Muslim." Even things that can be implied as being racist are deeply scrutinized. We can no longer dehumanize our "enemies" anymore, civilian or combatant, that's how "unethical" we are today compared to the 1940s.

On another related subject of our soldiers “unethical” conduct in war and how it flies in the face of this argument of the “high ethics” we had during World War II, is this from Paul Fussell, historian, professor, and World War II veteran.

And of course the brutality was not just on one side. There was much sadism and cruelty, undeniably racist, on ours. (It’s worth noting in passing how few hopes blacks could entertain of desegregation and decent treatment when the U.S. Army itself slandered the enemy as “the little brown Jap.”) Marines and soldiers could augment their view of their own invicibility by possessing a well-washed Japanese skull, and very soon after Guadalcanal it was common to treat surrendering Japanese as handy rifle targets. Plenty of Japanese gold teeth were extracted – some from still living mouths – with Marine Corps Ka-Bar Knives, and one of E. B. Sledge’s fellow marines went around with a cut-off Japanese hand.[ii]

Think about that. Are such the actions of “ethical” men? I do not intend to call what our soldiers do today more ethical, or the actions of WWII era marines and soldiers less ethical, merely to point out how what is happening is not new. These reports of the desecration of Afghan bodies is really ancient history in the field of military history. It’s as old as war itself. Again I do not condone it, merely point it out as a reminder that as ever, war is always a horrible thing, and those horrors need to be considered fully before engaging in it, and how we can be distasteful of when these things happen, but we can hardly be shocked by them. Now I know some may argue that the events Fussell talks about where carried out against enemy combatants, not civilians, but how is that better? How is such treatment then still easier to swallow?

Another aspect of this interview I take issue with is calling our soldiers “detached” and claiming how they spoke as if they were "playing a video game". When again, their language is very little different from that used in World War II. Take this excerpt from 56^th Fighter Group commander Colonel Hubert Zemke discussing aerial combat in World War II in which he was in a one on one dogfight with a German pilot. “This last dive carried us to 5000 ft, where he began a very slight climbing turn. My ammunition ran out as I fired at a range of 400 yards with a deflection of a ring and a half.”[iii] That is rather dry language for a man describing firing eight .50 caliber machine guns (that's bullets 1/2 inch in diameter) at a plane carrying another human being, who was himself trying to get into proper position to try and shoot down or kill Zemke himself. Indeed, Zemke’s final assessment of the dogfight was: “The entire combat was extremely interesting…”[iv] And while some may say that is an assessment after the fact, read excerpts from actual in combat radio messages. The language is always very composed and collected, indeed what I would call mundane. It’s supposed to be, they’re trained to keep their heads in these situations, not give us Hollywood level entertainment, screaming and swearing and whooping and hollering. George Lucas combat, I call it. Meanwhile, actually listen to video game players, particularly online. Language is erratic, hardly controlled and balanced. And again, it is the way it has always been, to pretend it is otherwise to criticize soldiers conducting warfare much as it has been done for centuries is disingenuous, I feel.

And now the last thing I must get straight about my stances on this subject. I am a liberal, and a Democrat. I fully admit it. But I am not a blind-faith liberal. If I see my side in the wrong, I will call it out, and to me, criticizing our soldiers doing their duty with justifications such as these, is wrong. Call civilian deaths wrong then and now, which they are, but do not try to misrepresent facts to suit your claims. It's wrong when conservatives do it, and it's wrong when we do so as well.

Was World War II a more justifiable conflict than the one we are in today and arguably every conflict we've been in since? Yes, absolutely. But to say that we were more ethical at a time when the general plan of attack was bomb two belligerent nations into complete submission, including civilians, than we are today is frankly an insult to our men and women in uniform. It is a trap we have to avoid; it is the same trap the right has fallen into in attacking the left, attacking on so many issues just because they are "liberal". It is fine to disagree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but do not start turning on our soldiers just because you finally have the privileged insight into how war is and has been conducted.

Where I would argue that we need to put considerably more pressure on our military to engage in “ethical” behavior is the treatment of women in the military service. And our treatment of women in general needs some serious reevaluation as well. This is by far our darkest black mark. The innumerable reasons given recently as to why women don’t deserve the same rights as men both in civilian life and in military life is appalling.

Especially when you consider that the only other major military to employ women in such front line combat roles was the Soviet Union. That the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin was more progressive than we are today is fairly alarming to me. In the Soviet Union, though they did not serve in overwhelming numbers, women were soldiers, snipers, scouts, fighter and bomber pilots. One Soviet women’s bomber regiment, the 588^th Night Bomber Regiment, which performed so well the Germans named them the “Nachthexen,” and after only a year of service the Soviet command reorganized them into the 46^th Guards Night Bomber Regiment, recognizing them as an elite unit and several of their members were honored as “Heroes of the Soviet Union.” These were not back-seat roles they played. They were not simply nurses and radio operators and secretaries for officers, kept far out of harm’s way.

Indeed, the most hated person on the battlefield the world over is a sniper, and the Soviet Union’s Lyudmila Pavlichenko is listed as having killed over three hundred people during her time as a sniper during World War II. The closest US women, aside from nurses in the European campaign, some of whom did get captured and become POWs during the Battle of the Bulge, was again, on the planes that our airmen flew over enemy territory with. Which in itself, considering the nature of such art and depictions does not speak well to the general historical attitude of men in our armed forces towards women. In the Soviet Union, when token US bombers landed in Soviet held territory, Soviet officers were often appalled by such sights as naked women on these bombers, and ordered them painted over. No, Soviet women were not bystanders in the war on the Eastern Front. And to think somehow our women here in the US are less capable of combat, or our men too emotional to handle seeing women in the line of fire, or that women in front-line combat will be more likely to be raped is frankly just absurd.

That is where we need to examine our “ethics” in our military, in the rampant mistreatment of our women in uniform. And it is also where we need to now examine our ethics as a society, for clearly there it is no better. I posit that nothing would serve women’s rights more than giving them more combat responsibilities. Just as it did for African-Americans, and just as it is doing right now for homosexual Americans, the right to die for your country is the strongest right to obtain, and we need to give them that right.

So no, I would disagree that “we’ve walked away from our high ethics during World War II,” and are actually into an area where we have far more of them. It does not stop atrocities, and we should expect them. But at the same time we should not allow ourselves to become complacent to them to the extent we start moving back to the mass bombing days and the “they’re all the enemy” days. It does not excuse the fact that daily women in our armed services are being sexually assaulted by their fellow soldiers. And that is the point of this article; we have improved, in many ways, but our improvements have shown other areas to improve, and we need to work on them. But criticizing our soldiers on false information? That I cannot abide, no matter who’s saying it.

[i] Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1995), 149.

[ii] Paul Fussell, “Thank God for the Atom Bomb”, The New Republic (August 22, 1981).

[iii] Roger A. Freeman, 56^th Fighter Group (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2000), 17.

[iv] Ibid.

I am no hero, I am but a man

2011-11-05T16:57:00.000-04:00

I am no hero, I am but a man. I am no Prince Charming. I have no sword, no shield, and no wild stallion. I don't have the physical body of a god; I am but mortal and fallible and human; more Grizzly Adams than Adonis; fearful of death and pain. I have made more mistakes in life already than many have had birthdays, but am fully aware and admit so. I disbelieve in love, yet daily find myself more full of it than I know what to do with.

I am no hero, I am but a man. A foolish man, who dares to try and be happy in a world of woe, a world of pain and suffering, a natural world that has consumed us in all our desperate attempts to modernize and deceive ourselves into thinking we've distanced ourselves from it. We are not distant from it, nature and life and death is all around us constantly. We will never be rid of it, so long as we are a living and breathing species living on a planet that is life itself. We are our own hope for the future and our own natural predator; a world in which both sides are equally repugnant to most of us.

I am no hero, I am but a man. I have hurt people, and had pain done unto me. I have eaten regret, not merely tasted it; felt and owned up to the feeling of remorse and allowed some to continue to haunt me to this day; knowing that pain is a lesson, a guide to keep me from walking down those paths again. Even though some are the bitter double edged swords that beg me to question "If I'd only...," "I should have...," "should I have...?" "Could there be another chance...?" That delicate and perilous balance those who understand the subject know so well; that delicate balance between keeping the past fresh in your mind to keep the lessons alive, while trying to keep the other eye on both the present and the future, and the terrible folly of thinking it is possible.

I am no hero, I am but a man. I am flawed, and human, and mortal. And I always shall be. As we all are, and ever shall we be. This modern and deceitful life pushes us to be a perfection, to be what we are not and cannot ever be. I say to you deny this force; throw off this artificial and superficial force driving you into such external and painful despair, forcing you to internalize it and believe it comes from within. Inside you are you, and that is all the perfection you shall ever need to have.

I say to you to own your humanity, to own your mortality, to own your bodies and minds and flaws and mistakes. Own your past, your present and your future. Be not selfish in this quest, share that love with others. Understand that your fellow humans, whether they be homeless on the street or suit clad millionaires, all suffer your same pains and woes and joys and fears. Because we are all human, we are all a species, together trying to survive. You must try to help the others that make our species, not the individual of yourself; a species with a great and terrible responsibility. Then we move ourselves forward, more ourselves to care for the rest of our living brethren as well. Own our responsibility, own ourselves, own the future; a real future, a real future of progress and the real possibility of happiness.

We do not have this in the world today. Today we have power and greed, misunderstanding and hatred. We have death and pains that none should experience. We have those asking for equality around the world being met with fear and violence. We desensitize and dehumanize ourselves in a world where such pain and suffering and sadness are made entertainment to us, a spectacle of rape and slaughter and murder a button push away, blinded by the veil of entertainment, never able to realize the horrible truth that there are those in the world to whom these horrors are daily and real, that these horrors are life, not entertainment.

Yet in this modern world, it is words that are the horrifying thing; words are what we ban; are what we ostracize and demonize. Because words, like these words I'm writing to you all know, are the words that drive us to think and to feel, to awaken the humanity within your hearts to look at the world and go "This is wrong." The powerful want control of the words, because words are the true power. Too long have we allowed others to use words to blind us, to guide us and imprison and shackle us. It is our turn to discover our voice, to discover our own words. It is by words we demand what's right and expose the artificial world that desensitizes us all, that makes us internalize our pains and drives us into the obscurity of anonymity.

You are not anonymous in a crowd, a crowd with a voice demanding justice, only alone are you anonymous. Stand tall my people, stand tall my friends, tell yourselves you are not a hero, you are a human, demanding with your sibling humans what is right and good in the world. A good world is not an oppressed world, where people use words like value and morals to justify placing limitations on their fellow humans, to justify death and rape and slaughter on any level. A good world does not deny a species with the ability to choose and think it's right to do so. Make this a good world, we are all humans of equality, where rights are available to all, not privileged to a few. Own your pain my fellow siblings of humanity, but do not let it shackle you. Own your pasts to fix your presents so that you may claim your futures. Do this my siblings, my kin, and we shall all as one change the world. Be the unified voice, and in doing so, we shall own our justice.

I am no hero, I am but a man. We are no heroes, we are but humans. We are not individuals, we are a species. We are not separate, we are equal, and alive in this tiny world we all call home. It is time to be one, to be the human species, and to be the whole.

Another update to The First Brother

2011-09-23T17:48:00.002-04:00

Salutations! An odd greeting for me being arachnophobic, but I tolerate cartoon spiders. Announcing the next big set of updates to The First Brother over on my website "Mind of Kleinnak". Hit the link here and check it out! http://kleinnak.blogspot.com/p/first-brother.html

Updates to The First Brother

2011-09-22T00:07:00.003-04:00

Hello everyones, just posted an update to The First Brother over on my other page. Go check it out and enjoy! http://kleinnak.blogspot.com/p/first-brother.html

2011-09-21T19:58:00.002-04:00

Hey all! Announcing my newest project, The First Brother. This is a fairly drastic change thematically from my other two projects, though I admit that at this point I'm probably going to drop Cain and Lucifer at this point. I like the start, but I really have no idea where I'm going to go with it from here.

Thematically, The First Brother gets much of its inspiration from both the classic westerns and Japanese Anime and Manga. Its plot follows Ichiro Itano (or more correctly Itano Ichiro, if you put the family name first). Ichiro is given up by his parents at the age of ten with ten other boys to be trained to serve as the body-guard/assassin to a mob boss. However, Ichiro soon learns that his leader is no ordinary mobster, and his service will soon test him in ways he never imagined.

Cain and Lucifer

2011-06-20T11:11:00.001-04:00

Hello everyone! Just writing to post the first part of my new sort of "webnovel", Cain and Lucifer. I'm hoping to be able to post a chapter or so a week, give or take, and you at home get to follow along as it's written. Don't you feel special! Anyway, I won't give any spoilers or anything away right now, just read and I hope you enjoy the mystery as it unfolds!

New Site

2011-05-20T02:31:00.001-04:00

Hey everyone, just letting you all know that I've just launched a second site, "The Mind of Kleinnak" which is a bit of a change of pace than here. It's a compilation of my fictional works (short stories, etc), instead of my more topical posts here. Though I suppose if you strongly disagree enough with the posts I've had here you'd say there's probably not much difference! Anyway, please check it out, give the first story, "Snapshots" a read and hopefully you'll enjoy. All the best.

What is Obama's credit for the death of bin Laden?

2011-05-03T17:29:00.002-04:00

One of the most irksome things I have seen from the recent events concerning the death of Osama bin Laden has been the odd outcry of people saying that Obama doesn't deserve any credit for what happened. In response to this, I have penned this piece. I admit it was first posted on my uncle's Facebook wall where a small debate of this topic was going on, but I decided to post it here as well.

Does he deserve all the credit? No. But as Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, it was on his watch, and it was his call. The intelligence community was briefing him, he was aware of what was going on, he gave the order, and he watched it go down. That much has been stated over and over again. The US Armed Forces were not going to just go and carry out a mission of this magnitude without keeping the President constantly briefed, even from the days we were merely suspicious of his location. By that same logic we can't have called it Bush's credit had bin Laden been killed on his watch.

In fact it happened completely and utterly not on Bush's watch and people are actually trying to say Bush deserves the credit for it. To think that in this day and age of nearly instantaneous communication that the Commander-in-Chief, the head honcho, the go-to-guy, the big button-pusher, is just sitting on the sidelines on military affairs is frankly just ludicrous. In fact it's been argued that the Office of the President has been TOO involved in military matters since the Korean War. After all, who is the one to make the final decision to launch America's nuclear arsenal? Not the head of the CIA. Not the Secretary of Defense. The President. The Commander-in-Chief. So really, I think it's probably completely 180° opposite, he didn't have nothing to do with it, he probably had a huge amount to do with it.

Not giving Obama his due as Commander-in-Chief and the one who ordered the mission is the start of a slippery slope... where do you stop? Not giving Obama credit for giving the go ahead and issuing the commands to carry out the mission would essentially start to discredit all past presidents and leaders in times of crisis. Roosevelt and Truman weren't physically dropping bombs or firing rifles and machine guns, nor were Churchill or Stalin, but they all get credit for being the leaders who ended WWII and defeated Hitler and Japan. They gave the orders for those things to happen though. Lincoln didn't grab up an officer's sword and march in with his boys to take care of ol' Johnny Reb, but we credit him with being the President who won the Civil War. He won it by being a leader and making decisions that needed to be made. That is what happened in the morning of May 1 in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

In the end, you can't give credit to some for an action and deny others the credit for essentially that same action. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Obama made a decision. A very difficult decision. History and precedent say he gets some kudos for this. Just because, sorry, you [the person on the other half of the debate] obviously don't like him, just because many don't want him to have the credit, doesn't mean he shouldn't get credit. I cast no aspersions as to why you don't like him, just that's what I'm going on as you rather explicitly stated that. But for comparison, I never liked Bush, but I give him credit for his accomplishments. Saddam Hussein was deposed and indeed dispatched on his watch. He handled receiving the word of the Sept. 11 attacks in that classroom extremely well (upside down book aside... I really dare anyone to receive word that a massive terrorist attack had just taken place in a classroom of schoolchildren and really care what way the book is facing...). Yet Bush did not haul Saddam out of that hideout himself. He did not lead our forces across Afghanistan and Iraq. But he made decisions and he has to be given credit for them and the consequences of them. And so does Obama.

Thoughts on the Death of Bin Laden

2011-05-02T15:51:00.000-04:00

Earlier today, I made a Facebook post in which I expressed disgust with the American and world publics over some reactions I've seen concerning the death of Osama Bin Laden. I admit that post was unfair of me... I know that there are certainly many more who fully appreciate what actually went on in the late hours of Sunday/early hours of Monday in Pakistan than there are those who don't, the images of the people cheering in the streets of Washington, DC and NYC are evidence of that... but to read comments like I have on articles and other things related to the death of Bin Laden... it is a little demoralizing. Seriously, when did critical thinking become such a luxury item, and common sense become such a rarity? Apply even a little bit of those to these events and the reasons things were done the way they were is very apparent. What follows are some of the main questions I’ve seen in regards to what has happened, with my own personal answers, that I came to after thinking long and hard about much of what has happened.

Q.) Why did it take since August when the first bits of intelligence started coming in for them to go ahead and carry out the attack?

A.) Bin Laden, let’s face it, has been really good at hiding. There's just no denying it. He's had many supporters in many places that have been perfectly willing to help conceal him for over a decade (I say over a decade because we've been hunting him much longer than Sept. 11, 2001). Even the most zealous proponent of killing him would have to admit that going in with your gun half-cocked when you only had a suspicion of where he was could have been disastrous. It could have greatly increased anti-American sentiments in Pakistan and in the Middle-East in general if US forces went shooting people up or dropping missiles in a major metropolitan area in the event he wasn't actually there at the time, or there at all. With something of this magnitude you want to be absolutely and utterly 100% sure that the target is there before you act. If we'd squandered that, we could have lost the chance forever because he would learn from the mistakes.

Q.) Why didn't we use a drone to kill him?

A.) Recent events (or at least the past decade) have proven that drones and bombs/missiles are an extremely unreliable way to carry out something like this. Plus going in with Special Forces allowed us the chance to capture him as well if it had been possible. He could have very easily survived such a missile strike and escaped. Or we could have turned him into vapor with such an explosion and we would just never know. And then where would we be? No, we had a real chance, we knew with absolute certainty he was there, and we finally acted. In a way that allowed us to verify we had his body and that he was dead and to dispose of him: plain and simple.

Q.) How did we verify it was him?

A.) With DNA from the brain of his sister who died in Boston a few years ago. Not going to elaborate on this one, it's not necessary.

Q.) Why did we so quickly bury him at sea?

A.) Yes... one has to admit that this does give conspiracy theorists some fodder (no, not admit it's suspicious, but admit that some would find it suspicious because that’s just what they live to do, find things suspicious), but I think the good done in going about it this way is much greater than the harm done in feeding conspiracy theorists. After all, these people are so obsessed with trying to catch the US lying that the SEALs could have taken them all along when carrying out the raid and they still wouldn't believe it was real. However, Bin Laden has been the symbol of anti-American terrorism for nearly two decades, on both sides. Imagine the spectacle that would have been made of having his body make it to the US and have pictures and videos of the body make it out to the public. It would have been another Mussolini, but worse, much worse. Instead of a joke, he would have been turned into an even bigger martyr than he is now. If he'd been buried his grave would have undoubtedly been turned into a shrine. Now only those who pushed him over the side have any idea where he was laid to rest. And even images of his dead body would have been turned into rallying symbols for his followers. After all, isn't the primary image of Christian martyrdom the image of Jesus hanging on the cross? Giving them a symbol of that magnitude, of the man who "died for his cause" could have been disastrous. Now we have left them with doubt, without a leader and without a symbol. Now all they know is that instead of in a cave in the middle of nowhere, working out a measly living for his cause, he was killed in a veritable mansion fortress surrounded by guards and barbed wire. That is very damaging for his image, I think, in the long run. So, let’s agree to leave martyr symbols to those who died trying to do some actual good in the world, not mass murderers, agreed?

Q.) Does Obama deserve credit?

A.) Of course he does. But yes, our forces do deserve more of it, as they always do in conflict. However, they could not act without his say so. From all I've seen, Obama and his advisors handled this situation exactly the way they should have. And that's not being an Obama fan-boy, that's just thinking about the situation critically. Obama said, "We will kill Bin Laden", and on his watch, it happened, and with his go ahead. Of course much of it had to be kept secret because this was too big an opportunity to let go to waste or, again, screw up by going in without complete intelligence. But Obama got the information, got the confirmation, and gave the go ahead. Even then, after he received word the attack was successful, even making the announcement was delayed until they were 100% sure of the information they had that Bin Laden really had been killed and we really had his body. Obama could have waited longer and missed the chance. He could have acted too soon and missed the chance. He could have spoken on it too soon and been wrong. Caution is not a sin. But now Bin Laden is dead, and Obama was the man who said "go". We praise Roosevelt and Truman as being the presidents who won the Second World War. Why do they deserve more credit than Obama when really they did the same as him? They didn't go over there and fight the Germans/Japanese themselves, but they definitely made most of the decisions and gave the go ahead to carry out campaigns. I don’t recall any tales of Lincoln marching off to battle with his soldiers to put down the Confederate uprising. To praise others for one thing and denounce someone else for the same action speaks of a prejudice. Exactly what prejudice can only be speculated, but it is evidence that one exists. Be careful of that. Especially when some are claiming the credit should go to the last president, George W. Bush, who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what just happened. This all certainly speaks of a lack of critical understanding and critical thinking and common sense of a situation. Critical thinking and common sense break down when thoughts and ideas become “beliefs”. Those are perhaps the most dangerous things of all. September 11, 2001 was proof enough of that.

No matter how much some people don't want to give Obama any credit for anything, he did it. He did what Bush didn't in nearly two terms of office. Maybe it was just luck, but that doesn't change the significance at all. Some of the greatest and most significant events in history have been the product of luck. Reality and history really do not care whatsoever about what you want to have happened. And pissing and moaning about it when you should be celebrating with the rest of the world that a man who acted out horrible genocide and plotted more genocide, and worked to inspire countless others to plot and carry out more genocide has gotten what he had coming to him... is just counter-productive. Join us, and smile that a symbol of hatred and death is gone. This is not a time for partisanship and mistrust and more hatred and prejudice; this is not even just at time to be Americans. This is a time for the world to come together and realize that those who plot great death and murder get what's theirs in the end. We can all at least unite under that banner I'm sure, can't we?

The case against political attack ads

2010-10-27T13:26:00.000-04:00

This is from a recent comment I made on Anderson Cooper's Facebook page, concerning his post on the nastiness of modern political campaigns.

It is unfortunately the very history of political campaigns have long stood as a defense to why they continue to run this way. "Well it's how we've always done it before, so what was good enough then is good enough now." This is a falsehood; it stands in the way of progress. Instead it undermines all political and intellectual discussion. It creates distrust of all politicians and public figures from the constituents they serve, both from those who buy the poisonous rhetoric, and those intelligent enough to recognize it for what it is. It eliminates any true debate and stumbles the pursuit of truth and a better world for all. And as for the dissolution of progress, Dr. John Kotter has recently released a book outlining how thinking in such terms as "always been done before" hinders progress and also gives good advice on how to counter it effectively.

These thoughts are little more than playing to mob-rule, destroying human intelligence in the pursuit of power. A very sad fact. America right now is rife with this frame of mind, it exists everywhere from political campaigns to how we raise our children. As a student of history, politics, and from my time spent in classrooms in the secondary and primary levels, I have seen it everywhere. It drives our political, social, and economic policy. We allow the slander and libel of other citizens in political campaigns because it's how we always did it. We allow our children to make racist comments and bully each other in school over sexuality under the guilty pale of remembering that we ourselves were that way in our youths. We refuse to recognize the times when our economic system can no longer sustain itself under the very same guise. This cannot stand, something that was wrong then, is just as wrong now. Tradition and history do not make them right. It is only by intellectually standing against such things that we can have any hope to remove them. They are difficult to face, even 100 years after the end of the Civil War and the destruction of slavery in the United States we still did not have equality between African Americans and Caucasian Americans, and even after the Civil Rights movements of that time all these years later it still does not exist. These are not overnight victories, but worthwhile pursuits nonetheless.

Another defense of these ads is that they weren't as bad as they were when politics in America was just starting. Read some of the old ads from back when Jefferson was running for president, and they were truly malicious and even absurd, but while they might not be "as bad" today, I think we are returning to those ways. Listen to Limbaugh spouting off about how pictures of Obama look "demonic", and now there are those making veiled threats of revolution should they not get their way; we are hardly that much better. All we can do as informed citizens is work to further knowledge and understand that history, is history, and never a justification.

The faces of "the Few"

2010-08-30T04:27:00.002-04:00

I know everyone has their demons that hinder and slow us down and make our lives weary... however I simply cannot help but look at this picture and feel that my life is hardly all that difficult. Pictured here is newly promoted Squadron Leader Brian John Edward Lane, Officer Commanding of No. 19 Squadron of the Royal Air Force. Take a good look at this picture and try to guess how old he is.

He is photographed during the height of the Battle of Britain, September of 1940 at the helm of the aforementioned historic No. 19 Squadron, having received his post following the death of the previous squadron leader. At this point in the battle, Lane had fought in the Battle of France that May and June, helping protect embattled British and French soldiers during the harrowing evacuation of Dunkirk. The Allies lost the Battle of France. By this point to many, including the still neutral USA, it looked like they were going to lose the Battle of Britain as well. I on the other hand, look at this face and I don't see defeat. I see strain, I see hardship etched into every line of his prematurely aged face, but I don't see defeat. Instead I see determination, I see grit, and I see sadness.

There are no smiles here. Men just returned from another hard fight, almost always with less planes coming back than went out. That was the reality these men lived in for almost a year, from the late spring of 1940 through spring of 1941. The enemy they faced, the German Luftwaffe, outmanned them, outgunned them, and had a years' worth of combat experience under its belt. This was the great test in that moment of history; after Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Norway and France had all fallen, and Italy being part of the Axis and Spain under control of a Fascist regime every bit as ruthless as Germany's, all eyes were on Britain. The war for the soul of Europe for that one year rested solely on their shoulders. We here in the USA offered little help. We sent no planes, we sent no pilots, we sent no ships, and we sent no soldiers. Britain was seemingly a force alone.

Forget fanciful images from films like "Pearl Harbor", of American volunteers risking criminal prosecution and lost citizenship back at home to gallantly help the beleaguered Great Britain to victory, the total amount of US airmen who flew during the actual Battle of Britain was between seven and ten. Our sole contribution to the actual fighting. Almost 150 Polish airmen fought in the battle however, even after England failed utterly to live up to its promise to assist Poland in the event of a German invasion. One in every eight pilots in the RAF during the battle was Polish.

We in the US, however, were neutral and would remain so for nearly another year and a half. The first full squadron of volunteer US pilots in RAF uniforms didn't become active until February of 1941, well after the majority of the fighting of the battle had wound down as the Germans prepared to invade the Soviet Union instead. The squadron itself was formed and being trained in September 1940, at the time this picture was taken. We have no right to take any pride from Allied victory in the Battle of Britain, or even pretend we do. But really, Britain was not alone. Apart from the Poles, scores of Czech, French, Norwegian, Belgian, Danish, and other pilots had all escaped to Britain. In fact the highest scoring RAF unit of the conflict was No. 303 (Polish) Squadron, which only entered combat on the final day of August 1940. On top of that many pilots from around the Commonwealth, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, all flocked to the homeland in its hour of need.

It would be over another year from when this photograph was taken before the US signed the Lend-Lease Act and started sending aid to Great Britain in earnest in exchange for Caribbean naval bases. It would be another year and a half almost from this photograph until we actually entered the war, and almost another two years from this photograph before we started sending our army air force in earnest to England to carry out the bombing campaign against occupied France and Germany. And even then, we were woefully unprepared to carry our weight. We talk of American victories and American military might when without Great Britain it never would have happened. They gave us staging areas, they taught us tactics and took us under their proverbial and even literal wings.

This was a different conflict, a different time. These were desperate and dedicated young men. Our soldiers on the ground today do not face the same struggles that Lane and his comrades did. No one but those who were there and then in that shining moment can have any idea what it possibly felt like; those of us alive today can only taste it. Fighting to keep anything resembling morale as your airfields, factories, and finally cities are all bombed mercilessly for months on end and no matter how many times you go up and how fewer and fewer of you return every time the enemy never seems to break or lessen their assault. Yet they held, they held strong and they kept fighting. And in the end that determination paid off in victory that I think won the war in Europe. Without a British victory in the Battle of Britain there would have been no launching point for a Normandy invasion, nowhere for the streams of Allied strategic and tactical bombers to break down the German war machine and fighting spirit bit by bit. This moment and these young men were the ones who beat Germany; they kept the light going and the door open for the future.

Let’s go back to the picture now. This was the face of that battle; very weary, very young, but very determined young men. Whatever your guess was at his age from the beginning, he was only twenty three at the time of this picture. He's not photogenic. The lower half of his face is markedly paler than the upper half from being covered by a flight mask after spending much of every day flying. The frown-lines between his eyebrows are very pronounced, he even appears to have bit of a wandering left eye if you look close enough, and you can. But he looks back at the camera, right back at you, and he's unwavering, isn't he? This is the face of Brian John Edward Lane, and this is the face of the Battle of Britain. Lane was not the highest scorer of the battle, not by a long shot. In fact he just barely made 'ace', which is to say he shot down 5 or more enemy aircraft, with a final score of 6. The man to his left, our right, George Unwin, downed over twice as many as Lane. And unlike Lane, Unwin survived the war. Lane on the other hand finally met his fate in combat over the North Sea in December of 1942. Yet it is Lane who we remember today. Because Lane didn't have a low score because of lack of ability, he had leadership thrust on him at a young age and carried his torch well. He dedicated himself to leading his men and the success of the unit over personal glory. The photo shows Lane as he was; a hard-working, no nonsense leader who wanted to win.

Look hard at this photograph. This is the face of a hero. Of a common man who fought a grand fight. And even if it claimed his life, he has in fact survived until today, hasn't he? Even knowing that he only lived two years beyond this photograph, maybe it's just me but I don't see death in Lane's face... do you? I see someone determined to keep going, even if it does kill him. That's a powerful thing, a force of will we all should have, don't you think? It's decidedly missing in today's world, the drive, the desire to win and keep going no matter how long the odds. I know some may argue that our enemies have it today, blowing themselves to smithereens in desperate attempts to kill us, but that's not the same thing, not by a long shot. Fighting to defeat your enemy even if it kills you will always win over killing yourself to kill your enemy. It didn't work for the Japanese in World War II and it won't work now. We should all learn something from this picture, learn something from this small moment in history and move forward with our lives, and keep fighting, even if it kills us, but with a hope for a future all the same. In that way we can all be heroes can't we? We can help keep the spirit of the "Few" alive. We can make sure that the sacrifices of those like Lane don’t go forgotten, or those who're putting their own lives on the line today. The very soul of our modern times depends on it.

(credit to image from militaryimages.net, photograph by Stanley Devon, September 1940)

A Perspective(from FB note 4/1/2010)

2010-04-04T18:12:00.000-04:00

It is an interesting thing today to look at the world around me. A world of machismo and self righteous auras of blamelessness that permeate our society about as thoroughly as a skunk smell infests everything in the general area when one's flattened on the highway. It bugs the living hell out of me, to say the least. But that's not really why I'm writing this now. I'm writing this because of how points of view relate to this. It gives us a very, from my point of view, false point of view on the nature of what these ideals mean and the calling I think this age is giving to us. What do they mean to us? Strength. Power.

But this is wrong, utterly. Instead it is the opposite, it is weakness, pure and simple. The strong is not the person who shrugs off others, who seems to stand unassailable by blame, who pushes their point of view across at the expense of all others, because they're not. They are not immune to blame, they are instead just dodging it. It is weakness to be unable to help shoulder the feelings of others and feel their pain, let it pierce them as powerfully as it stabbed the person who's hurting. It is weakness to close your mind to that which you should let in to broaden your understanding of the rest of our world and society. The strong is the one who stands arm and arm with another when they feel pain and pulls them back up to their feet, the strong is the one who stands with their head held high and says "i was wrong". It is the strong who puts their own ego aside to take a minute and just sit and listen to what the other side has to say. The people who do these things, who shoulder others' pains, who listen and who take blame as well are strong because these people carry many burdens. They are strong because they do it believing no more than it is the right thing to do, and they do it for relatively nothing in return but the satisfaction of having done the right thing.

Why else do I say it is weakness to be self-righteous and avoid feelings and emotion? Because doing such things are products of fear, of course. It is because those who prescribe to this are afraid to accept it, to accept the pains of others and the humiliation of blame. Afraid to accept the possibility we are in fact wrong, or in the wrong. This may perhaps make us the weakest society on the face of the earth. No wonder we're declining. Really, we're little more than a decadent, festering former power so wrapped up in ourselves we can hardly acknowledge anything outside our own minds anymore. Most of us no longer have our own principles, we adopt them from another to ease our own minds and then if it's wrong you still have someone else to blame. I am not this, and proud to be. Instead I question, everything. I question the motivations of my government in all things, as much as I question those who oppose it. But I question not out of suspicion, but out of a desire to know, to know why all sides are doing what they do. I am there for any who ask my help, and I give it gladly knowing I am a good person for it. I always leave room for the fact I may be wrong, and can do wrong, for I am human and thus fallible. I have made many mistakes, and fully admit them, and have no reason to believe I'll stop making them.

That is my message to you all. Be strong; stand with one another and share their pains. Think outside yourself and express tenderness for another human being in a way that goes beyond your own self interests. We are only as strong as we are together. Enough of this petty infighting that divides us and weakens us. Enough of this pulling into ourselves and denial of the very emotions that make us human and strong. Those who believe such things are desirable qualities are are not to be revered or respected... but pitied. Pity those who cannot or refuse to feel such things as another's emotions. Pity those who live wrapped in their own self righteousness afraid of failure and their own humanity. Read these words here and question yourself, what kind of a person am I? Am I strong, or am I afraid? From my point of view, I am strong. Who's with me, and for those who aren't, who'll join me?

A Brief History Lesson on American Politics(from FB note 03/24/2010)

2010-04-04T18:07:00.000-04:00

Hmmm... in these troubled times of Armageddon prophecies over something like who's entitled to health care... perhaps a history lesson is in order. Conservatism and Liberalism are far from confined to Democrats or Republicans. Let's time travel a little. Late 1850s. The Republican party was just forming from the disintegrating Whig party. Compared to today, it was considered fairly liberal, because liberal means against the status quo. Times were different then, at the time the Democratic party held most of the wealth in the country and was largely made up of wealthy southerners who considered themselves near royalty and fought hard against such values as equality and the abolition of slavery among other things. With the fall of the Confederacy and by and large the South after the Civil War, the Republican Party took power, in fact the president who took over after Lincoln's assassination, Johnson, was impeached by and large because he was a Democrat.

Fast forward a little, come to the 1920s. The country was doing amazingly, the conservatives were now the Republicans. They had basically become the old southern Democrats, they had the wealth and the power, and they liked it that way. However, deregulation and a lack of a check and balance on economic policies as well as a world economy ravaged by the horrors of the Great War (World War I to most) lead to a Great Depression here in the US. It was liberalism, with great amounts of socialism that got us out of the Depression. We put men to work for the government with things like the Civilian Conservation Corps, and while many argue that it was World War II that brought us out of the Depression, what was that when you really think of it but more socialism? The government sent men to fight for the country and paid them to do so, the government put factories to work building millions of aircraft, tanks, billions of bullets and firearms, medical equipment, everything. That is what got us out of the Great Depression, the government putting the country back to work.

Then after the Second World War, things changed. The world had again been ravaged by war, but now we had a great business model and a full level of infrastructure the world completely lacked. And the men running our businesses had all learned organizational skills from the military, which meant our men were dedicated, knew how to follow a good rank and file system and the men at the top knew how to take credit for their businesses failings, as generals do when assaults or defenses fail (Something distinctly lacking in our modern business strategy of punish workers by firing them when businesses go down and rewarding the people in charge with more money isn't it?). And on top of that women were going to work more and more, meaning higher levels of income for the average American family which we could actually afford because we had all the world's wealth in a nutshell.

Which brings us to today. Contrary to popular opinion among modern conservatives, there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. At the time, we had it all. However, as deregulation spread through the American business model, things began to change. The CEOs began to completely take over, and trickle down economics was introduced by someone I don't need to mention. This placed more and more power in the hands of a very few, but again, because we had all the world's wealth still this wasn't such a bad thing for the country on the whole. However, we had put billions of dollars into Europe and Japan after the Second World War, and Japan in particular grasped good business ethics, very similar to the post WWII American system. The rest of the world has been catching back up with us, and as more money goes to the Middle-East for oil and to China and Japan and Europe, that leaves a lot less of the finite amounts of wealth for us here in America, and such a system becomes far less practical. Now we have another "war" going on, and the stock market took another hit as deregulation rode in again and destabilized the economy once more.

However, there is serious problems this time that make it much more difficult for us to effectively counter the economic troubles like we had with World War II. Whereas with World War II we could send millions to work in factories and overseas to fight a just war, we now certainly cannot, because our industrial infrastructure is completely in shambles. We do not produce our own goods here, we produce them overseas. Even in our military we produce specialized high cost and high technology equipment that require very specialized labor. Very different from World War II where we could put people to work riveting together giant B-29s and Sherman tanks and aircraft carriers. The military industrial complex (which by the way was spoken against openly by Eisenhower, a republican) has really damaged our ability to do this. So we're spending millions on products that have no real practical application to the actual needs of our modern military. In World War II we did not win because we had the best equipment, we won because he had enough of what was good enough. We don't have that now, we have too little of what's more or less useless. So here we are, a massive deficit that was put there by the last administration, not this one (do some fact checking, between 1998 and 2002 we had a surplus) a military situation that increases our deficit and continues to do so instead of pulling us out of it, and no real means of putting Americans back to work by either side.

As well there's no effort to lower the gas prices that have horribly exacerbated the problem. Our economy was essentially built upon our very low gas prices. People could afford to drive 40 miles to work every day, people could afford to take vacations and buy expensive things and afford big, safe vehicles for the family. But, now the price of gas goes up, Americans have to spend more money to get to work without being paid more to compensate. Businesses have to spend more to pay for their utilities, as well as to get their products and services to where they're needed, and since as we've discussed modern American management isn't going to take the cut so again it's the middle/lower class who suffers. Instead of easily being able to pay off their debts and continue to spend, people take cuts in what they buy and in taking trips, killing our nationwide tourism trade and making harder times on more businesses. It doesn't take a genius to see the correlations.

So, we need something to go against this status quo to finally push us out of this problem. Sorry, the "conservatives" really aren't putting anything forth but the same things that put us into the problem in the first place. They aren't giving any of their alluded to better plans to fix health-care so we no longer have millions going into massive debt or dying because of its massive costs. If they want to save America, put Americans back to work. Take pay cuts and stop firing us. Come up with good business practices that bring the money back into the country. Stop funding projects that have no practical application when we could be producing massive amounts of what our soldiers actually need. Bring the gas prices back down so that people can afford to go to work and buy products that put other Americans to work as well. Tell people again to listen to the Statue of Liberty and say "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" That is what history is telling us to do, I think it's time we do it.

A Sign of Humanity (from FB note 01/26/2010)

2010-04-04T18:02:00.001-04:00

Sometimes the most rewarding undertakings we as mere creatures can pursue are the ones with no clear outcome and we have but a glimmer of hope for victory. And we know deep in our hearts that we have naught but to fail. But the glory and the pride and the worth comes in the struggle itself, and to push to achieve the impossible which other mortal beings would quail and falter at, and to keep pushing on until at last you can not take another step and fall knowing you did your utmost for what you knew was right and just and good. That is perhaps the one true sign of real humanity. Because the true human does not do so for eternal salvation or rewards material or any other form of personal gain, but because we know at the deepest levels that it is the right thing to do.

First post

2010-04-04T17:57:00.000-04:00

Well here we are, I've finally sucked it up and joined the blogging world for all to see outside the miniscule yet vast realm of FB. Here I plan on laying down all my notes I write since really just calling them "notes" to me diminishes the thought and effort I put into them. I'll start off here with my note "A Sign of Humanity" in which I impart my wisdom on what it means to be human.