Counter-Friction Libertarian

More Shooting the .357 Magnum

2009-07-18T19:14:00.008-04:00

So last time I was at the range a bunch of guys with a ridiculous amount of assault weapons randomly gave me this target, which I decided to use to test my .357's sights. Excepting the headshot (which was from five yards and strictly for fun), here are the results from 25 yards. I've never really done this before, so feedback is appreciated.

To me, it looks like either my stance or my weapon's sights cause the impact points to fall mostly to the right, but as I hit the blue torso every time from a distance much longer than any home defense situation would normally require, I feel pretty safe with the magnum as a home defense gun.

Some other cool things: here's a Pringles can I shot execution style. You can see either the burned powder or a crapton of salt all around the hole. I think it's the first, because it's one the outside of the can and all. Taste tests were inconclusive...

After shooting the can, I found the bullet nearby. I thought it was an old bullet someone else had fired until I picked it up and burned my fingers.

As an added bonus, I found six WWII era 7.92 mm Mauser shells and two stripper clips lying on the ground. The shells are marked 7.9 FS 1944 TC, indicating, to the best of my knowledge, that they are Turkish-made surplus rounds from 1944.

Shooting the .357 Magnum

2009-07-04T15:58:00.011-04:00

That's my new toy. It's a S&W 686P, a seven-shot revolver chambered in .357 Magnum. I fired it for the first time today, putting 50 magnum rounds through the weapon.

The pistol is a 6" Combat model, which helps keep the felt recoil down considerably; it is almost comparable to a 4" automatic firing .40 S&W. The muzzle blast and noise, however, are considerably higher than .40, and, if one may say so, far more satisfying. This can be seen in the following video, in which I fire my last six cartridges, three in single action, three in double.

This was my first cartridge revolver, and I am quite satisfied with the results. The 686P has the option to fire in either single or double-action mode. In double action the trigger pull is relatively heavy, but not unmanageable, and in single-action mode pull is negligible. Loading is easy and quicker than might be expected. Ejection is extremely satisfying. A light push of the ejector rod drops seven empty magnum cases. This rain of brass is far more enjoyable, in my experience than the shell-per-shot ejection of automatics.

The revolver fired 50 rounds in a row with no misfires; it is a revolver, so this is to be expected. There was fair amount of lead buildup in and around the cylinder and barrel, and I have not, at this time, purchased a .357 caliber bore brush. After today, it is most definitely on my list of items to purchase.

The best aspect of the 686 is the power of the .357 Magnum cartridge. I fired it from a concrete platform into the ground downrange, causing chunks of dirt to fly literally ten feet into the air. During another fun test, the .357 completely destroyed a water bottle. (The camera jumps at first, as my brother was startled by the initial blast. I apologize on his behalf.)

All-in-all, the .357 is easily my new favorite firearm. That doesn't mean, however there wasn't time to experiment with old favorites, like the Remington 1858, a .44 caliber blackpowder revolver; a bullet fired from this weapon lodged in a block of wood, resulting in this interesting photo.

The only downside to the .357 is the cost. I fired 50 rounds at a cost of $22, and that ammo was difficult to find, with the recent ammo shortage in full effect. Together with the cost of the gun, the total cost was almost $800. This was unfortunate, but, I feel, with a government as devoted to the taking of property, particularly firearms, as ours, an expenditure worth every penny.

Who is John Galt?

2009-06-01T13:30:00.007-04:00

Today, the government nationalized a major U.S. automaker. CNN covered it, and on that channel, a commercial was featured which urged voters to vote for universal healthcare and "blow away the competition."

I am reminded of Ayn Rand's classic novel, Atlas Shrugged. The novel depicts a United States in which the government slowly eliminates competition, to the delight of big business, and eventually nationalizes those businesses, when the lack of competition has caused them to fail. As a result, the economy crashes, a process quickened by the capitalist industrialists, who withhold their gift of production from the world, thereby hastening the inevitable end.

The results of the economic crash, of course, are violence and terror in the streets. CNN reported today, in addition to the bankruptcy of GM, three people killed. One, a late-term abortion activist, the others two recruitment officers. These events, seemingly unrelated, are the inevitable result of a people losing faith in their government to solve social problems, and seek to solve the problems themselves.

Atlas Shrugged, written in the 1950s, is happening now, but with one exception. We have no John Galt. We have no Ellis Wyatt, Dagny Taggart, Henry Rearden.

I am a capitalist, a position I never dreamed I would have to defend. However, with General Motors turning into Government Motors, and blatant commercials calling for the abolition of competition, it seems I must take the unnecessary action of defending what amounts to the perfect system of economics.

Capitalism is, first and foremost, the absence of force. It is a system in which people are free to enter into voluntary exchange with others for their mutual benefit. Put simply, everyone is free, and everyone wins.

It is said that capitalism is at fault for our economic problem. It is said that the current situation is a "failure of capitalism." But, have you ever examined what it is that has failed?

Under capitalism, bad companies are allowed to fail, without aid from the government. Is is capitalism that has failed when the government bailouts do not save a company?

Under capitalism, a company belongs to an individual, or individuals, not the government. When auto parts from a certain company, recently nationalized, are expected to become less accessible, and those cars are expected to devalue faster than if they had remained private, is it a failure of capitalism?

Under capitalism, force or fraud is prohibited by the nature of the system. Companies who attempt to use force or fraud in their endeavors will fail, as customers will not stand to be treated in this manner, and will withhold the lifeblood of any business: money. When a company uses an entity which states that your wealth is subject to confiscation to fund failing businesses, is it a failure of capitalism?

Or is it capitalism at all?

In one sense, of course, it is the failure of capitalism, or, more accurately, the failure of the capitalists by conceding, negotiating or compromising with government force. Capitalism failed because it strayed away from itself.

Democrats are at fault for the so-called failure of capitalism, by their naive belief in "good government," as if any entity whose sole function is theft could ever be good, no matter what its intentions. Republicans are at fault for the so-called failure of capitalism, by their refusal to buy the best product at the lowest price, instead embracing the mantra, "buy American," as if the fact that a product was made within the borders of a certain state made it an objectively better deal.

Under times such as these, when capitalism is failing not from any inherent flaw, but from not being capitalism any longer, the divide must not be between Democrats and Republicans, but between capitalists and socialists. There are those that think a compromise between these ideals is possible. They are wrong. What we are now witnessing is the result of a compromise. Socialism, being an inferior system, benefits most from such a compromise, tainting the purity of capitalism and slowly leeching its health and vitality, like a parasite on an otherwise healthy human being.

The economy will not reverse itself through any means but unbridled capitalism. Unfortunately, the intellectual leaders of today are not willing to adhere to those ideals. The flaw in Ayn Rand's classic is that it fails to take into account a situation in which there are no John Galts. In order to combat socialism and the failure of American society, it is up to us, the capitalists, to be John Galts.

In these times, when the perfect system of economics is being corrupted, and denounced as a failure by those who have corrupted it, some must stand in defense of our economic system. We, who believe in freedom and wealth for all who are willing to pursue it by their own means, and not on the backs of their neighbors, cannot compromise. We must support capitalism as it should be, or not at all.

Capitalism is the perfect economic system. It is the system of economic and civil freedom. Forces which seek to destroy it are parasites, and like, parasites, must be dealt with before they become too dangerous. I do not know by what means these parasites must be destroyed; I know only that they must, before it becomes impossible to buy a quality product, before it becomes impossible to earn a living, before there is violence in the streets, before it becomes impossible to speak out against government oppression, before it becomes illegal to say what I am now saying.

It can happen. It happened in Russia, in Cuba, in North Korea, in China. It happened in a novel once, a novel whose content is quickly becoming true. If we do not wish to see the plot carried any further, we must reverse the trend we see in America today, by defending capitalism to our last breath, a figure of speech which, if we do not do so, might become literally necessary.

Who among you will stand in defense of capitalism? Who is John Galt?

Gun Control: Legalized Theft

2009-05-14T13:40:00.004-04:00

I'm doing something unusual today in that I'm linking to another post, specifically, A 3 Percenter Tells It Like It Is, by the Conservative UAW Guy.

Said post, in turn, links to a letter to the Attorney General of the United States government, which you can read at your leisure.

It's an interesting letter, with some controversial points. In today's world, the sender could probably be, and probably already is, labeled a domestic terrorist.

So, do I agree with it? Well, yeah. Why not?

I own a gun, and I'm saving up for two more. If you think I feel even a little bit creepy, ashamed, or socially unacceptable saying that you are completely, 100% wrong.

Let me be clear here. I love guns. I love firing guns. Firearms are precise, accurate, well-designed machines, and when I have one in my hands I feel competent, comfortable, and self-assured, not because of the gun, but because of my own skill with it.

I'm capable of hitting a stationary target with relative ease, and am familiar with the operation of a variety of firearms, including revolvers, muzzle-loaders, bolt actions, pump-actions, break-actions, semi-automatics, machine guns, and assault weapons.

In terms of practical knowledge I've fired a bolt-action .22 rifle, a .45 blackpowder revolver, a .22 semi-automatic rifle, and three semi-automatic handguns in .22, .40, and 9mm, and I intend to buy a 20 gauge double-barreled blackpowder pistol and a .52 Sharps blackpowder rifle in the near future.

I've also never hunted, or, in fact, shot at any living thing whatsoever. I don't believe in the use of force except defensive force, and I've never had a gun-related accident.

Once again, if you think I feel even a little bit creepy or socially unacceptable relating that, think again. I know guns, so I know how safe they are, and how responsible gun owners act. The ones that clamor loudest for gun control are often those who have never fired a gun, and have never learned, and yet, they're the ones that think they know best for my safety when it comes to firearms.

Let us examine exactly what gun control is. It is the use of force by a group through a more powerful entity to take the property of another group. Ironically, the entity used for this purpose, the government, uses a variety of the world's most advanced firearms, from high-quality Italian pistols to advanced German submachine guns. Unlike their victims, however, the government uses the threat of these weapons aggressively, to take weapons from those who use them only defensively. Simplified, gun control activists believe that guns should be solely in the hands of those who use firearms aggressively, instead of those who use them in defense only.

Such a concept cannot possibly be conducive with a free country. The government, however, has a weakness, which is simply that it operates on the fear of its citizens. Therefore, the government is helpless against those, such as the author of this letter, who refuse to be afraid of it.

Gun control is legalized theft, and I admire and support those who refuse to pretend it is anything else. For this reason, I see little fault with the letter mentioned here, and, if anything, feel as if such a response to government force was a long time in coming.

Back in the PRC

2009-05-07T21:19:00.009-04:00

What if I told you I no longer saw a difference between this flag:

and this one?

Fact is, I don't. Not after today. And here's the reason why.

Shortly before the Beijing Olympics in 2008, the government of the "People's" Republic of China decided they needed more buildings for the coming games. Unfortunately for the Chinese government, the land they wanted to build it on happened to belong to citizens of the "People's" Republic.

The government, however, decided that it needed the land more. It was for the glory of China that that land be used not for housing, but as a stadium. To achieve the greater good of the nation, the "People's" Republic, therefore, took over the land, forced those who owned it out, and built a stadium over their homes.

To the Chinese government, the property rights of its citizens held no value, because it was in the interest of the nation that the stadium be built. The Chinese government refused to acknowledge the property rights of its citizens, and took their land against their will, forcefully and without remorse, because their purpose was, in their eyes, great enough to do so.

Such is the nature of the communist Chinese government. And such also is the nature of the government of the United States.

If you, reader, think such a travesty cannot happen here, think, as they say, again. The Federal government of this country, the United States of America, is planning to "condemn" the land of private landowners, and build a memorial to the passengers of Flight 93. It does not matter to "our" government, government of, by and for the "people" that that land happens to belong to someone else. The greater good of the memorial, according to the people's republic of the United States, overshadows the property rights of its citizens.

"We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things," said park service spokesman Phil Sheridan.

In this, of course, Mr. Sheridan is perfectly correct. Sometimes, you just can't agree on certain things. (Like when one is being mugged, for instance. The mugger would, of course, prefer to get the money from a willing donor, but sometimes the mugger and the man being mugged just can't come to an agreement.) Of course, what Mr. Sheridan chooses to omit is that when the government and the owner of a property can't agree, the government chooses to take the land by force.

I'm almost certain it was difficult for the citizens of China to come to an agreement when their government wanted their land as well. However, the decision was made there the same way it is being made here - at the barrel of a gun.

The Chinese government, however, was at least direct. They simply kicked the citizens off their land without any kind of a trial. Why bother? The government of the PRC viewed this as a simple matter. They wanted the land, others owned the land, so the government forcibly took the land away from its rightful owners.

The government of the PRUSA, however, is a bit squeamish about this kind of thing. It is not yet so desensitized to the evil it is committing that it simply commits it. Instead, it must appease itself, and convince itself that what it does is just and proper - though its knows full well the nature of its action. To achieve this goal, to achieve an uneasy guiltlessness for itself, the government of this country files a "complaint," against the landowners, in its own courts of course, and then forcibly removes the land.

The government files a complaint. A complaint! About what is it complaining? About someone daring to own land it wants? About someone daring to own personal property where it wishes to build? When a government is allowed to use its own systems to file a complaint about its citizens owning their rightful property under what kind of system do those citizens actually live?

Not a free one.

No free system on Earth could ever deny the right of a citizen to his land, any more than it could deny him a right to his life, or his freedom. No free system does this - but ours does.

It is for this reason that I see no difference between the Chinese flag and the American flag. They are symbols of a despotic and oppressive government, basically the same in nature. Government is force legitimized, and I do not believe that force used not in defense of one's rights can ever be legitimized, no matter what name we give it.

I write this now using my laptop, sitting on my bed. I write it with my hands, transposing the thoughts of my mind. Is there a difference between my laptop, my bed, my hands or my mind? When a government takes one's physical property, the taking of one's body and mind are surely the next to go.

The government draws no distinction between what it wants, and what is mine. But I do. My property belongs to me, no matter who wants it how badly or for what reason. One thing which is not mine, however, and never will be, is that government which seeks to take what is mine, the government of the People's Republic of the United States of America.

Now That It's Too Late...

2009-05-06T12:19:00.008-04:00

I'd like to thank Republicans for picking up on the economic wisdom of Ron Paul.

But why now? I've noticed that spending and taxes have become real issues only recently, even though they've been problems for the last eight years. I wonder why that might be...

I'll take a wild guess here and say it just might have something to do with the fact that the current president is an ass - as compared to an elephant. But the thing is, the last president was an ass too, and I think it's time someone sat down with the Republicans and had a little talk.

See, the only thing that apparently stirs you people to action is the party to which one belongs. Bush spent needlessly, on a variety of unnecessary expenditures. The war, of course, is the main offender, but even if you're pro-war, we could discuss the millions of dollars he sent to Africa, spending which often aids no one, or the economic bailouts which, as I recall, many Republicans supported initially.

Oddly enough, however, the outcry over spending and taxes came in recent months, when Obama was in office. It surprised me, to say the least, to see Republicans throwing modern day tea parties (an idea originally conceived by Ron Paul supporters), flying the Gadsden flag (a symbol used early in the 2008 election by Ron Paul supporters) and suddenly talking about lowering taxes and curbing spending (an issue brought up primarily, in the 2008 campaign, by Ron Paul supporters).

These actions were, a few short months ago, considered wacky, outrageous, insane and unnecessary. Also naive, and unimportant. Suddenly, there's a Democrat in office, and the issue becomes immediately noteworthy?

Wouldn't it have been a good idea to curb spending before Obama took office, by say, demonstrating against the Bush bailouts, or, I don't know, electing a certain someone who ran on this issue, among others?

Of course, Republicans will generally argue that the reason they didn't support Paul was because he didn't support Bush's "security" policies.

Like this one.

You should be so proud. Arresting 16 year old kids. I feel so much safer now.

I sincerely hope the child in this report learned his lesson about patriotism, and the mother hers about not believing in guns. Seems to me if we had a lot more skepticism of our country's actions and a lot more guns, the government would be the one fearing us, not the other way around.

So now that we've made the United States less safe by allowing our government to arrest us whenever they feel like, are you finally going to reverse yourselves on that one? That'd be great, because, even if you trusted Bush, do you really want Obama to have this kind of power?

So good work trying to undo what you've created. It's a good start. But it would really help if you'd stay consistent and take an anti-government position on everything all the time, not just when a Democrat is in office. If you did, I could actually be persuaded to vote for your candidates. But, because they care only for party affiliation and votes, not about resolving issues, I don't honestly see that happening.

You'll be Working on the Railroad

2009-04-17T19:30:00.009-04:00

Due to massive spending on unnecessary wars and social programs and the inflationary practices of the Federal Reserve, the United States government is now approximately $10 trillion in debt. Give or take a few billion. I wouldn't actually care, as the government of the United States has nothing to do with me, except that it, for some reason, thinks that stealing my money is an appropriate way to pay the interest of said debt and spend more money it doesn't have on the very things that got it into such deep debt in the first place.

Of course, the newly elected Democratic regime will "change" nothing. Democrats and Republicans are both avid believers in the spending of other people's money, and there is no reason to believe that the debt will shrink over the next four years. In fact, Obama has just unveiled a brilliant plan to waste your hard-earned dollars.

Trains.

That's right, trains. Specifically, high-speed trains that will cost $8 billion. To start.

Obama, of course, makes the move look peachy. A high speed rail system will "lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come," said Obama.

Wait. Really? We're spending $8 billion dollars to make the environment cleaner? While we're in the middle of a reckless war and an economic crisis? Don't we have better things to worry about?

Proponents of a national high-speed rail system will argue that such a system will save commuters money, as they will not have to drive, and will so save money on gas. Such an argument is foolish and naive, not to mention immoral.

Dealing strictly with the practicalities of such a system, let's take a minute to remember that the United States already has a national rail service, Amtrak, which has been losing money for a number of years. The reason for this is simple. Mass passenger rail service is not profitable anymore. If it was, more lines would exist, as entrepreneurs would have built such lines to make money. It seems irrational to replace, or augment, the current national rail service, which is already a drain on taxpayers, with a new one, which, given the government's track record (no pun intended) is sure to lose money as well.

This, of course, raises an interesting question. If Amtrak has been losing money for years, why is it still solvent? The answer is obvious. The government, unlike private industry, does not have to provide a superior service, or run it responsibly. After all, if they lose money, all they need to do is steal more from the taxpayers.

Which brings us to the morality, or lack thereof, of a national rail service, or, in fact, national "service" of any kind.

Imagine for a moment that an organization explained to you that they intended to built a railroad, and that you were going to work on it, whether you would use it or not. If you refused, they would kidnap you and keep you imprisoned until you cooperated.

This, of course, would be slavery, which, though outlawed in 1865, still exists in the United States in the form of taxation. You work, and your money is taken from you. If you resist, you are imprisoned. Call it taxation. It's still slavery and theft.

I will probably never use this railroad. The government does not see this as a reason why I should not pay for it. Proponents of a national railroad, or any other "public" expenditure, would, I expect, be slower to embrace it if given the gun themselves and told to extort money from others for "the common good."

Be that as it may, don't expect anyone to condemn the railroad for what it is: the latest in a long line of wasteful acts of theft. No politician in Washington would be politically stupid enough, or morally strong enough, to oppose it. (No politician but one; but no one wanted to elect him.) Obama has pulled a brilliant move (stolen from the Lincoln platform incidentally) in that he has proposed a populist plan which would be politically unwise to oppose, and appears, to the majority of Americans, to be beneficial.

The real cost of the railroad, while much less than the wasteful expenditures we already make, and will continue to make, is much more, as government expenditures always are, than the majority of people are smart enough to comprehend.

The Charade of Inauguration

2009-01-20T13:33:00.021-05:00

Most of these people are idiots.

It's a bit sad really, to see so many people turn out for something so silly as a presidential inauguration, but this is America, and we really like to feel as if we're part of something important, even if nothing important has actually taken place.

I would, of course, be a hypocrite if I proposed that today's presidential inauguration was not historical. I will admit that while I hold nothing but contempt for Obama, I arrived late to Servo (our school's dining hall) because I was busy watching his anti-climactic swearing-in in my dorm room. And they were serving tacos today.

I did this because the moment was historically important. However, in terms of my life philosophy, tacos are of vastly more value. I enjoy eating tacos; I don't really care who the president is, because in the world of my political philosophy, they don't have presidents.

But anarchism aside, I found the inauguration silly and overrated. If nothing else, it demonstrated the ignorance of the American people of truth and reality. The prime example of this was the swearing-in of the first black president on the Bible of the same man who once wrote, "Negro equality? Fudge!!"

Yes, the Great Emancipator, was, in fact, a racist. Don't believe it? The above quote is found in James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, which, for those of you out of the Civil War loop, is the book to read on the American Civil War, and is highly, highly reputable. It goes on to describe Lincoln's early days of campaigning, and how he repeatedly denied that he believed in making black men equal to white men.

Good choice Barack.

And before we get ahead of ourselves and bring up the Emancipation Proclamation, I'd like to point out that CNN mentioned it already, which is silly, seeing as it actually did nothing for slaves. Lincoln essentially says, in the Proclamation, the slaves are freed, but only in the areas where I currently have no practical jurisdiction. (i.e. the Confederate States of America.)

One can argue that the Proclamation was symbolic, tactical, and allowed for the freeing of slaves in captured CSA territory, which is more or less true, and this is all well and good. However, it would have been nice for Lincoln to free the slaves in, say, Kentucky. He didn't, however, because he didn't want border states to join the CSA. As a result, many blacks in border states remained in servitude until 1865, when slavery was abolished nationwide - and after Lincoln was dead.

So comparing Obama to Lincoln is actually a bit insulting, and historically inaccurate. I'm betting that Obama knows this. He's well-educated, after all, and most well-educated people are aware of Lincoln's serious flaws on the issue of race. If Obama wanted to swear on the Bible of a real advocate of black equality, he could have used a Bible belonging to John Brown (if one still exists), who was probably the least racist person in American history.

So why Lincoln's Bible? Especially if Obama knew better (which, let's face it, he probably did)? Well, I'm betting that he swore on Lincoln's Bible for the same reason that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation: politics. Just because you and I and the president know that Lincoln was a racist, doesn't mean all those people watching did. It doesn't actually matter that Obama swore on the Bible of a man who denied in speech and writing that he was for the equality of blacks; it only matters that Obama swore on the Bible of a man who is known, in legend, if not in reality, as 'the man who freed the slaves.'

Disgusting isn't it?

Speaking of disgusting, what was Aretha Franklin doing at the inauguration? And, I'm really not being racist here, why the focus on skin color? Yeah, I get it, Obama is the first black president. Big deal. Does that mean he's only the president of black people? I think not.

In fact, I think it's highly insulting to the president that we continue to celebrate his skin color. He was not voted in on the color of his skin, or at least, I hope he wasn't. After all, we theoretically choose our presidents based on their merits, not their skin color. So Obama was elected, theoretically, because he was the best speaker with the best ideals. (In actuality, he was elected because John McCain was an idiot.) He was not, I would hope, elected because his skin is darker than a white man's. To say that he was is denying any merits those who support him think he might have.

Furthermore, Obama is the President of the United States. Not the president of the black population. I honestly don't care how much melanin is in a person's skin; I care that people are essentially good, and worthy of my respect (no pun intended), so hiring Aretha Franklin and making a big deal about race is in incredibly poor taste. It accentuates the color, not the man, and a race, rather than a nation.

Consider the inauguration as two strange events which reflect on the American people: the swearing-in of the first black president on the Bible of a racist, and the highlighting of a man's skin color as evidence that Americans aren't racist anymore. This is why I prefer the company of tacos to the company of those in the National Mall today. The tacos, at least, are reasonably intelligent. And damn tasty to boot.

My First Custom-Painted Nerf Gun: Blue 4

2009-01-09T15:33:00.020-05:00

For those of you who still visit this page, thank you most sincerely. I haven't posted in a long, long time, and you deserve a serious, thoughtful, and judiciously well-written post.

Unfortunately, you're not going to get it.

What I offer instead is this epic paint job I did on a Nerf Maverick Rev-6.

We aren't allowed to have any weapons at school, but Nerf guns are generally overlooked, as it's pretty much impossible to injure someone with them, short of striking someone over the head. (Of course, since Gettysburg College reads my blog, or used to, and on the off chance Nerf guns aren't allowed, let me just say that I totally won't have this gun in my dorm room when I come back.)

Anyway, I wanted to put it up here because I want to show people, but I can't put it on Facebook, because I'm saving it as a surprise for a certain subset of my friends who I get to see in a few days. (Not my college friends of course. I would never bring a Nerf gun to college if it's against the rules, now would I?)

So basically this is how I'm going to show people without my friends seeing it before I bring it back to... where my friends are.

I decided on an urban blue camouflage color pattern, occasionally, though very rarely, used by the military in real life, but far more prominent in popular culture. I painted the gun using gray Testors paint and two custom blues I mixed, one dark, one light. I used q-tips to hand-paint the gun and a toothpick to paint green sighting dots on the iron sights the gun comes with. I also used a toothpick to paint the gun's name on the cylinder: Blue 4. It comes not from the color of the "weapon," but from Call of Duty 4, a first-person shooter from Activision, in which the player's M16A4 rifle has the designation "Blue 4" chalked onto the receiver (regardless of the user's camouflage pattern; I just put the "blue tiger" pattern on the one in this screenshot because it fits the theme).

Shown here is a comparison of a normal Maverick and my custom-painted Maverick.

It still needs touch up work on some areas where yellow shows through, but for all intents and purposes it's done. I guess I wanted to show people because I had a lot of fun painting the gun, and this was my first attempt at it, and, in fact, at any kind of camo. I'd like to know what people think. Is it done well, or is it not convincing? Yeah, it's not really important, but I like feedback.

All in all, I think I'll have a lot of fun with "Blue 4," and I'm certain it will be the only custom-painted Nerf gun in the hall. Not, of course, that I mean a dorm hall. No, not a chance.

Democracy, For Ages 3 and Up

2008-11-05T11:18:00.047-05:00

As is commonly known, the results of the national presidential election are in. Unsurprisingly, my election prediction was verified, and Democrats, at least on campus, are very pleased with the one-party rule America finds itself under. The total lack of opposition, and the knowledge that they are free to pass laws without those pesky restrictions so ordinary prevalent in a democratic society have caused many students to come down with a very bad case of false superiority, the likes of which are rarely seen outside of Macintosh television commercials. Only an half-hour ago one student had to go to the health center, as her head had swollen to dangerously high levels, poor thing.

In all seriousness, the attitude of the victorious Democrats is irritating primarily because of its relative unimportance, despite all claims to the contrary. Every reason the Democrats have to be proud is as much an achievement as that of a child who has beaten his parent at some game or another, because the parent has let him.

Let's honestly examine the list. Obama won the election. Well congratulations for that. However, do the Democrats seriously believe it was because they ran a good campaign? Let's face it, they could have run a mediocre campaign and beaten McCain. Hell, a mildly intelligent dolphin could have beaten McCain, one of the weakest candidates the Republican Party has ever fielded

And let's not forget Palin. She-who-can-see-Russia-from-her-house probably did more to end the Republicans' hopes for 2008 than Obama could ever have dreamed of. Really Democrats. Are you proud of that? At least challenge yourselves next time and beat up a toddler or something.

So, determining that the Democrats could have won the election not only with their hands tied behind their back, as the saying goes, but also while locked inside the trunk of a motor vehicle, what's left for the left? What else can they be proud of?

America did elect a black man. Isn't that great? Well, not really, not when you look at it objectively. I mean, if you actually aren't racist, you don't even take skin color into account. You just judge a person on his actions and ideas. Saying that electing a black man is a milestone is just celebrating the fact that now we judge people for the color of their skin, instead of judging them poorly for the color of their skin.

But clearly we are still racist; otherwise electing a black guy would, in fact, not be a big deal, and would not be any more impressive than electing a white guy. In fact, being glad of an election based on the elect's skin color shows that skin color does matter to you, in one way or the other. As for myself, I will be happy with regard to the issue the day a minority is elected and it is not considered unusual. Only then can it truly be said with any degree of accuracy that the racial issues of the country are over.

Another note of pride for the Democrats is that they are now the majority in the House and Senate, for all practical purposes instituting one-party rule. Many Democrats were very happy about this, one student coming to class with paper taped to her backpack, the words "Democratic nation" written on it.

The irony here is, I think, apparent. A nation controlled by Democrats only is anything but democratic. One-party rule is equivalent to dictatorship, as no opposition is offered to any bills that party might pass. The "Democratic nation" that particular party is referring to with pride, is actually closer to dictatorship than democracy. Strange thing to be proud of.

Perhaps the biggest false notion the Democrats have is that of "change," a word used by Obama during his speeches numerous times. This is a word now being trumpeted around campus by delirious Democrats; one student in my class felt that real change was now on the way, as the same administration had been in charge for - eight whole years!

Forgive me for laughing, but as an amateur historian, watching someone refer to a mere eight years with the sense of awe is highly amusing. Regardless of what Obama supporters may think, Obama's nothing special; he's just a Democrat, another Clinton or Carter. Not very exciting to those who actually have the ability to analyze events that happened before their own birth, but terribly exciting and new to those whose entire world is eighteen or nineteen years old.

Speaking of history, someone should make Obama re-take high-school social studies. Last night in a speech he mentioned a 106 year old woman, Ann Nixon Cooper, who was born "just a generation past slavery” and couldn't vote at first because "she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.”

Well one out of two isn't bad, I suppose, but while women weren't allowed to vote until 1920, blacks were given the right to vote in 1870, five years after slavery was abolished, so someone born "a generation past slavery" in the early 1900s could not, in fact be legally barred from the polls based on the color of their skin.

And yet, to be fair, a case could be made that Jim Crow laws and the like prevented this, so I suppose it's still better than Joe Biden, now VP-elect, and his idiotic and historically inaccurate announcement recently that not only was FDR president during the stock market crash of 1929, but also that he got on TV - which hadn't really been invented yet.

All in all, Democrats are doing what they do best: acting like children. They're gloating about an easy win, happy because of transitory undeserved power, and unable to see outside of their sphere of reality. Welcome to American politics. Remind me again why we take this seriously?

Of course, the Democrats didn't have a monopoly on childishness last night. I could go on about McCain's disgustingly nationalistic concession speech, and the way Obama was booed when McCain congratulated him, giving Republicans an even worse image than they already have, but why bother? This election was, as previously demonstrated, not the result of people being happy with Democrats; it was the result of people being extremely irritated and annoyed with Republicans, whose detrimental policies and attitudes, along with their unwillingness to understand the issues, virtually destroyed their chances of winning.

All in all, the election was exactly what it was designed to be: a game, a game for children in which all the players are the correct age group, mentally speaking. Unfortunately, the children who win this game are allowed more than a lollipop; their prize is to control the lives of an entire population. Ultimately, it is a game in which the disinterested and rational population of the country are certain to lose.

P.S. On a lighter note, check out this hologram CNN used last night to get an update from one of their field reporters. Nifty!

Why I'm (Still) Voting For Ron Paul

2008-11-04T10:02:00.017-05:00

Today is, of course, an important day for our nation. It is the day in which a small group of the population competes with another small group of the population for the power to coerce the majority of the population.

And who will you vote for? Who will be your choice to run this freedom-loving oligarchy of ours? Will you vote for international aggression, breaches of your personal privacy, and war? Or will you vote for theft and punishment of those whose only crime was to succeed?

Decisions, decisions.

Since I doubt the poll workers in Adams County read my blog, I feel safe is saying that I will be voting for Ron Paul, a choice I believe to be morally justifiable. Instead of voting for coercion, I will be voting for a candidate whose sole aim is to remove as much coercion, and as many as those institutions which perpetuate it, as possible during his term.

Many tell me that this is foolish. They insult my intelligence by pointing out that Ron Paul has no chance. Do they think I am unaware of that? Or worse, that I should think it a matter of great concern? This election would be a success for me if Paul gained one percent of the vote. But, I am not voting for Paul in the hopes that he will win, but because it is morally right.

There are those that tell me that voting my conscience is "a waste." Conservatives, who talk tough when voting to send other people's sons into battle, and who, rightly and, I believe, justly, declare that the only way their weapons will be taken from them is over their body, are yet so afraid of an Obama presidency that they would cast a vote to prevent it, by voting for a candidate who espouses their ideas but little, yet has a chance of winning. Liberals, for all their supposed open-mindedness and passion for justice, do not understand why someone would vote for the candidate he actually believes in, rather than the popular and well-spoken Barack Obama.

The man who votes out of fear, the man who votes based on popularity, or the man who votes on principle; whose vote is the least wasted?

I vote simply for that candidate which I wish to see elected, and there are those who suppose, because of this, that I do not understand politics! Well, perhaps this is true. But, above politics I value truth and morality. I think Ron Paul should be the president of the United States. Why then, should I lie, and vote for McCain or Obama? Why should I vote for "the lesser of two evils," when I would still be voting for evil?

When two candidates are offered as the only options, and both are bad candidates, I have three options. I may vote for a bad candidate, I may not vote, or I may vote for a third canidate of my own choosing. As I have found a third candidate I believe worthy of my choosing, I will take the third option and vote for Ron Paul. In this, I believe I am doing right. I refuse to vote for the violation of people's privacy, and I refuse to vote for an unjust war. I refuse to vote for subsidized robbery, and I refuse to vote for a socialist model of healthcare. I will not be responsible for tapping phones, punishing those who succeed, or the lives lost through war and inferior standards of medicine. I refuse to be a part of these injustices.

Therefore, I will vote for Ron Paul. While it may not do me any practical good, it will, at least, keep my conscience clean. That I'll take that over expediency any day.

It's Columbus Day!

2008-10-13T23:14:00.038-04:00

Woohoo! No class, let's go rape some Indians!

Obviously I'm being sarcastic. To those of you still left, happy Columbus Day, the most pointless federal holiday in existence!

I'll come clean, I wouldn't have had classes today anyway, because we have a form of fall break called "Reading Days." The main point, however, is that I personally find the whole idea of Columbus Day silly.

I don't find it silly enough to post on it, of course. What prompted this particular rant was the fact that some people still find Columbus socially acceptable.

While perusing the internet today, I came across a blog which defended Columbus Day as an important holiday, and denounced detractors as 'revisionists.' The argument was one I used to support, in a less advanced stage of my political evolution; Columbus helped discover the Americas and "civilize" the New World, and thus, in some convoluted way, is a sort of founding father of the wonderful nation of America.

That whole thing about cutting off the hands of natives and raping them (not necessarily in that order) was unfortunate, but not to be examined too closely, if at all. Sometimes, these people doubt whether that stuff ever happened.

Even amateur historians, and I include myself in this particular category, would take offense to this rather distorted view of the past. Naturally, that stuff did, in fact, happen. I remember reading about it in my APUSH class, and the teacher was no liberal, quite the opposite in fact. Columbus was quite a fan of cutting off body parts as punishment, and enslaving natives; he was eventually arrested for such actions. This is fairly easy stuff to look up. Modern cries of "revisionism" are so absurd as to be completely dismissed, and as such are actually somewhat amusing, rather than offensive.

What is offensive, however, is the argument that whatever happened in the past, no matter how horrible, was justified by modern America. This opinion is an unoriginal one, a simple rehash of the old maxim: "the end justifies the means."

Much could be written on the validity, or lack thereof, of this maxim, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not particularly important. While I sympathize with Amerindians, an argument as simplistic as 'Columbus helped found America, which makes everything okay' is in the same category as the argument that those who bring up unpleasant facts about Columbus are "revisionist;" it is so silly as not to elicit offense. What I object to primarily is the notion that America is better off due to European influence, when such a theory cannot be proven.

I should, at this point, make clear that political correctness holds no appeal for me. I am not saying that Amerindian and European culture are equal. I am saying that I refuse to draw a distinction between the two. I have many reasons for this, most of which have to do with my rather unique political philosophy. The one which might be compelling to even those that don't share my philosophy, however, is that the argument that America is better off for European influence is an argument based on alternate history. This,while entertaining material for novels, is not valid for political or social analysis. In this specific example, the proponents of what, for the sake of simplicity, I'll refer to as the "better America" argument are not using history to support their claims, but alternate history. They are not saying 'this continent is better off because...'; they are saying 'this continent is better off than it would be.' The problem is that there is no possible way to know what this continent 'would be,' because we can only objectively know what it is. It is this careless support of a holiday based solely on alternate history that bothers me personally.

All this being said, I disagree with liberals on this issue as much as I differ from conservatives. I have no"white guilt." I don't feel responsible for what was done to the natives of this country. To do so would require that I identify either with my country, my race, or my ancestry, rather than identifying with myself. I didn't steal from/torture/maim/rape/kill anyone. I didn't force anyone onto any reservations. I didn't keep anyone in a bizarre form of welfare-slavery. Most of it happened a long time ago. I can not possibly be made to bear any responsibility for it.

Yet, every Columbus Day, the issue is brought up somewhere. For this, I can see no valid reason. The problems don't come when we examine the past. They come when we try to change and distort it, to try and say what happened did not happen. They come also when we try and blame individuals for the actions of other individuals, especially in an anachronistic fashion. The whole problem with Columbus Day is that is does exactly these things. It brings up issues which, while important, aren't worth celebrating, and aren't worth protesting. To try and do either, and to sanction a day to do it, is pointless and bizarre.

So have a nice Columbus Day (though by the time I post, it will be Tuesday). Enjoy your day off, hang out with your friends, and please, don't give anyone smallpox. Your successors will either be defending it, or decrying it with inaccurate blanket statements (so to speak) for the rest of their natural lives.

American Democracy: A Foundation of Lies

2008-10-08T00:34:00.026-04:00

If ever my belief that democracy is a sham needed reinforcement, tonight was the night.

Yes, I've decided to write a post, and I suppose I owe some sort of apology for not writing one sooner. As an excuse, I offer the fact that in the past month I've been thrown into an entirely new environment. I moved 600 miles, knew no one, and nothing about the area. This is not to say I haven't adjusted. I have, with a large degree of success. That, of course is the problem.

To be honest, I haven't blogged in a while, because I've had better things to do. I've been playing ultimate pretty much every day, hanging out with my friends, going to classes, and sleeping.

I like sleeping. A lot.

That's not much of an apology, but it's the truth, which is far better. Take it or leave it.

In any case, in my apology I mentioned that I'd made friends. The great thing about this college is that, unlike high school, the majority of people here are extremely intelligent. As such, most have an interest, at least, in politics. Consequently, a friend of mine had the debate on, and a bunch of us watched it.

If you want my opinion (and you do, at some level, or you wouldn't be here), McCain and Obama are doing their jobs admirably. Their job, of course, is that of the professional politician, namely, to lie.

The politician is one whose employment depends primarily on the whims of the people. It follows logically, therefore, that his ideals, or stated ideals, will shift to match those of the majority, right, wrong, or neutral. Speaking in the moral sense, the politician's ideas are determined not by his own conscience, and, consequently, he either has no conscience of his own, or chooses to ignore it. In the former case he is amoral; in the later immoral.

A harsh accusation, but true nonetheless. Naturally some will take issue with such a statement. It is difficult to call any man immoral, or even amoral. Many will agree, however, that politicians are untrustworthy, and it would not be inaccurate, I believe, to state that the majority of the American people hold a general distrust of politicians.

For this, there is a good reason: politicians are liars. It's their job.

Both Obama and McCain spoke tonight on the evils of lobbying and special interests. Both were, in my opinion, correct in speaking negatively of each. Unfortunately, with each sentence, the candidates demonstrated the extent of their own hypocrisy.

Barack Obama, who claims to stand not only against lobbying and special interests, but against CEOs and big businesses, has some very corporate supporters, including Citigroup and Google. Most interestingly, Obama's biggest corporate supporter is Goldman Sachs.

McCain, of course, is not immune to special interests. His top five corporate supporters are Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan.

Interesting coincidence that so many companies, many in financial trouble, should show up on McCain and Obama's list of campaign donors. Especially before a large bailout bill.

Surprised? You shouldn't be. Welcome to American politics.

How many people watched the debates tonight? How many saw McCain and Obama, sincere, empathetic, and passionate, decrying the special interests in Washington? And how many bought it?

Politics is a show, and a very entertaining one. Who can blame us for watching it? But this isn't an episode of your favorite series, it's your life. We watch, we spend hours of our lives watching two characters on a stage, quite literally, and we award the one with the better performance the ability to rule over us. And this is taken seriously, and called freedom?

I maintain, and have maintained for a long while, that Obama will win the election. It is not because he has a better platform, or better ideas than McCain (though neither man's platform or ideas are particularly desirable). It is because he speaks well, and McCain does not. It is as simple as that. Obama is a better actor. He convinces voters he understands them, sympathizes with them. He blames corporate greed; and he takes money from corporations he condemns. He is a liar, like McCain, like most politicians.

Why do Americans love this game, which they call democracy? Why are they willing to fight, to die even, for this? For the freedom to choose between two men who will stand upon a stage and promise the world, who will sympathize, who will speak of great things, with the full knowledge that they are lying? Who have no intention of following their own stated ideals?

Obama and McCain were correct in condemning special interests. Perhaps they should start by refusing to participate in the special interests system. Their deceit and dishonesty is part of the reason political change is ineffective, is part of the reason I favor civil disobedience and disregard democracy as another failed system, albeit a very good failed system, as they go.

A wise man once said,

"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

Obama and McCain (shrewd, but hardly wise), love to speak, but say nothing, because they speak no truth. Their meaningless mouthings of courage and patriotism, of change and hope, and of democracy, are simply lies, lies to which we are all held captive.

Shooting, and the Revolver vs. Autoloader Debate

2008-08-20T15:05:00.013-04:00

Since the above picture has been my profile pic for a while, it would be inaccurate (i.e. a lie) to say it was taken today. But I did go shooting today, and, since I didn't bring my camera (stupid, stupid, stupid, as I'll explain later) I'm using this photo, because it's close enough.

The reason I'm practicing mental flagellation for not bringing my camera is because I didn't just fire my trusty .45 today. I also got to fire two of my grandfather's Beretta handguns, one in 9mm and another in .40 S&W! (As soon as I fired the .40, I really wished I had someone with a camera getting the recoil and the brass in the air.)

Now, I'm used to pretty small recoils, since all I'd fired before today was a .22 rifle and revolver, and my .45, which contrary to the expectations of such a caliber, has a small recoil, due to the weight and barrel length of the weapon, and the low powder charge recommended by the manufacturer (friggen' lawyers). The 9mm certainly packed more of a punch in the recoil department, and the .40 was nothing short of insane.

I like to think I did okay though. I didn't drop the gun, or hit myself in the face, and I even hit the target a bunch of times. After I got used to the recoil, I even hit what I was aiming at!

Here's a question for all you gun nuts, though. My brother and I have this ongoing debate about revolvers versus autoloading pistols.

Admittedly, I'd rather have a semi-automatic in a combat situation, but since I'm never joining the military, I'm only judging relative usefulness in personal defense situations. Given this, I'm on the revolver side of the debate, for three reasons; one, you can't put high-powered magnum cartridges in most autoloaders, and two, revolvers don't have feed issues. (Reason number three is the fact that revolvers are classier.)

I bring this up because the .40 failed to feed twice, and another gun my grandfather had, a .22 autoloading pistol, had so many feeding problems that eventually we decided to give up.

Revolvers don't have that problem.

In all fairness, I did have a couple of defective caps not go off, but I think that's moot because, let's face it, the New Army 1858 is not a modern revolver, and it's not using modern cartridges.

Anyone with guns, I'd like to know your preference, just for fun.

Massive Sarcasm, Episode One: All Hail Michael Phelps

2008-08-15T13:56:00.021-04:00

Ever since the elections kicked into high gear, I've been quite impressed with CNN. They were moderate, fair, made everything easy to understand, and even gave coverage to Ron Paul. Lately, however, even CNN is starting to get on my nerves.

This morning, the news on CNN included a woman trapped under a bus, the elections, Georgia, and even Bigfoot. However, those stories were all deemed secondary compared to...

a swimmer.

Is it just me, or is the hero-worship of Michael Phelps getting old? Today on CNN, they were going over what the guy had for breakfast, for Christ's sake.

Or maybe I should say "for Phelp's sake," because, as the above, my first serious venture into Photoshop art, indicates, I'm pretty sure the media thinks Phelps is some kind of deity. During the breakfast thing, CNN used a graphic to show Phelp's calorie intake compared with the average person. One side was labeled "Michael Phelps." And the other? "Mere mortals." I kid you not.

Well, excuse a mere mortal such as myself for being a little irritated at that sort of behavior from a major news outlet, but it seems to me that swimming fast, while impressive, does not qualify one for deification. He's an Olympic athlete, not an Olympic god.

And what's the big deal anyway? Did Phelps do anything of major international standing? In fact, he didn't. He... swam. Really quickly. But the way the media is treating him, you'd think he'd found the cure for AIDs or something.

I don't mean to demean Phelps himself. I personally don't have an opinion on him one way or the other, because I don't know anything about him. I do know, however, that there are more important things CNN could be covering. Even the discovery of Bigfoot (probably, scratch that, definitely, a hoax) is more interesting than a swimming contest.

"Bigfoot"

Of course, I know exactly why the media is doing what it's doing. Ratings. People want to know about Phelps. It's a simple reflection of the culture today. Instead of being informed and knowledgeable about our politicians, or our philosophers, we are knowledgeable about sports and entertainment. The average man-on-the-street can tell you who won the World Series or American Idol last year, but not who the secretary of state is, or who Emerson was. We worship the mindless while shunning the intellectual.

This is sort of why democracy doesn't work. (These people can vote you know.) The focus on the mindless is why people will vote for McCain because he likes God (an actually interesting story on CNN today), or for Obama because he makes pretty speeches. They don't know that, historically, religion in government, or pretty-speechmaking without substance is a sign of either a weak leader or a bad one. They don't know that because, instead of history, they've devoted their life to learning the statistics of their favorite baseball player.

Or swimmer.

It's just an observation. One which I feel is important. Unfortunately, to most Americans, it's not as important as winning small discs made out of precious metals. All I can say is that if Phelps ever does become a god, I hope he'll put in a good word for America to the other deities, because I think in the future, the way we're going, we're going to need all the help we can get.

Obama and McCain: Trading Constituents for the White House

2008-08-14T21:45:00.010-04:00

I don't watch a lot of TV. When I do, however, it's almost always the History Channel. Lately, however, the so-called "History" Channel has been almost unwatchable.

I don't know if it sells or not, but when I watch something called "The History Channel," I expect history. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. It's been a long time since I've seen any genuine history. So far, the programming seem to be about evolution (not history), dinosaurs (not history), fat people driving trucks on ice (not history), and people surviving horrible accidents on videotape (not history). And right now, I'm watching a show about people fishing in Alaska. (It's not history either; but at least I'm learning some interesting things. For instance, did you know that in 1918 someone invented a fish-gutting machine called "the Iron Chink?" It's true!)

So what's the deal? Money probably. Maybe history doesn't sell. But since the History Channel is now the "Prehistory, Science, and Cheap Entertainment Channel" what are genuine history geeks supposed to do?

It's probably just a matter of time until they sell themselves to the Discovery Channel.

Ugh.

Well, you probably don't care about that, or any of the other ideas I've been kicking around lately. (Why isn't ultimate an Olympic sport? Why hasn't anyone shot Subway's marketing directors yet?) But most likely you're on one side or another on a different topic, such as the presidential election.

If so, I pity you. Since I'm not on anyone's side (except Ron Paul's, which is virtually no one's at this point), I have the leisure of looking at the election objectively, which does nothing to change my current opinion: that both McCain and Obama are fundamentally the same.

The current example is the Georgian situation, in which both Obama and McCain display an alarming tendency to think they're already president, and, in doing so, totally forget they're representatives of their respective states.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for a candidate to be aware of a major global situation, in case he becomes president. However, both McCain and Obama spoke to Georgia's president directly, and, of course, each publicly offered his own opinion on the situation.

I realize, of course, this is all about politics, and in the comedic pageant of democracy, each candidate is supposed to take some kind of action regarding every single current event, from Russian imperialism to John Edwards' infidelity issues. But speaking directly to Georgia's president? That's a nice gesture, but I think both candidates would do well to remember that they are still senators, with no global responsibility whatsoever. It's almost as if when a politician becomes a president, his job is no longer to work for his constituency, it's to look good, and promote oneself.

Why am I getting so worked up about such a little thing? Because, to me, it reflects the foolishness of the entire system. The whole theory of government is that politicians are representatives of the people. But it seems as if Arizona and Illinois haven't had a senator for a long time now. In order to represent "everyone" as president, McCain and Obama have both abandoned their constituents, who will still vote for them most likely. (Of course, that makes sense; anyone naive enough to want Obama and McCain to represent him probably doesn't realize how little those two actually care about those who voted them in.

This is odd, that we would take someone who we have seen abondon their state for the entire country, and give them an even bigger job. Perhaps the only consolation is that there isn't a higher office for them to take!

Politicians, right or left, are almost always the same. They don't care about their constituencies; they care about power, and getting elected. It just goes to show the fundamental flaw in our system: that those who we give power to are often the ones who are least deserving.

"My Country Beat Your Country!" Nationalism and the Olympic Games

2008-07-28T21:04:00.011-04:00

Okay, boring, I know. But stay with me here, I'm going on a totally different direction than you think. Unless you've read my blog for a while, and you're thinking, "crap, he's going to go off about how stupid the concept of organized nations are." Technically, it's more than that, and it's a different take on the Olympics than most people, liberal or conservative, so you might as well read it.

Actually, the whole Beijing thing is just "the last straw" as they say. I've hated the Olympics for years. I know, it's unusual. But, unlike the masses, who see the Olympic Games as some kind of wonderful world-peace, let's all just get along/sit around a campfire singing "Kum-By-Ah," I see it as a joke and a farce.

Let's face it, what do these little games accomplish? Do we really think because everyone gets together for a week and pretends to like each other things are going to change? Is there anyone who seriously thinks that a week after the games are over they won't be killing each other in the Sudan? That the Israelis and Palestinians won't continue to have periodic border wars? That North and South Korea won't be antagonistic enemies? Hey, I know, let's invite Al-Qaeda to the Olympics, and we'll just be one big happy family!

Of course, that's not going to happen, because wars are caused by various political and psychological factors, factors which can't be erased by a swimming competition.

As if this little pageant of false peace wasn't bad enough, the Olympics fosters an attitude of superiority of one's country over another based on irrational standards. Yes, America is a better country than most, politically, and, arguably, socially. Do the American people need to win a little gold disc to demonstrate that? What exactly does it prove that one's country beats another country in a game? I am reminded (metaphorically speaking, of course; I wasn't around) of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, where the hockey contest between the American and Soviet teams was seen, and is seen now, as some kind of higher contest between capitalism and communism.

Well it wasn't. I hate to burst everyone's patriotic bubble, but capitalism and communism, and the relative worth of each, should be determined by different standards than a hockey match. Okay, so we won a hockey match. What if we'd lost? Would something be different? (Keep in mind that America won the Cold War, an event anyone has yet to link to hockey.)

Capitalism is based on the ideals of freedom and free-market competition. Communism (or the practical version of it at any rate) is based on government mistrust of consumers and companies to be responsible, a pessimistic and inaccurate tenet that often leads to a loss of political freedoms. That isn't going to change as the result of a game.

Which brings us to China. For all the glorification of the Olympics, the facts are these: China's Marxist (or is it Maoist?) government has committed numerous atrocities and violated the political rights of its citizens, as well as the citizens of other countries. That isn't going to change because of the Olympics. In fact, the Olympics have caused people's homes to be destroyed, and a crackdown on free speech, free assembly, and free press.

This is not unprecedented, of course. The Olympics have been held in Nazi Germany, in 1936, and in the Soviet Union in 1980. Interesting choices, given the contempt we hold for both countries now, though neither is extant at this time.

But, on a larger scale, why should we be surprised? When the games are a farce, shouldn't it be natural that they are often held in countries where freedom is a farce?

All these problems have the same root, that is, the false concept of the organized nation. People want to feel warm and fuzzy about their country's contributions to world peace. Thus, the Olympics. Never mind the fact that, in the case of China, say, the nation is question is doing nothing for world peace, and has, at least once, directly impinged upon it. Even the United States is not immune to this. We like to pretend we are workers for world peace, by going to the Olympics, among other things. But if we really wanted world peace, would we be waging a so-called "war without borders"?

Organized nationalism also leads to the concept of the games as representative of worth. Americans feel they must beat an opposing nation, if that nation's view differ from theirs, or just because they need to think they're better. They hardly realize that America would be a better nation even if it failed to win a single medal.

And, of course, organized nationalism leads to the curbing of rights, whether it be in the case of a government thinking its citizens need to be some kind of "master race," a government thinking it needs to invade a country full of peaceful citizens in the name of communist nationalism, or a government thinking it needs to wiretap its citizens to protect its so-called borders.

Even if nationalism (which sometimes hides under the pseudonym "patriotism") wasn't fundamentally harmful, it would still be fundamentally inaccurate. Nationalism implies that, by living in a certain plot of land, under certain leaders, one has special characteristics unique from those who live within different borders, and under different leaders. This, of course, is false.

It can doubtless be said that individuals are unique, but not for reasons of nationality. The stereotypical American is either a hardworking, honest, upright citizen who values his freedoms, or a fat, rude, arrogant, cheeseburger-eating, son-of-a-bitch, depending on whose stereotype we are using. Neither view is accurate of each individual in the United States. Certainly, many Americans are hardworking, honest, upright citizens who value their freedoms. But hardly all, or even most. And many Americans are fat, rude, arrogant, cheeseburger-eating, sons-of-bitches too. But not all, and not most.

The fact is, stereotypes are inaccurate in the same way that groups, and by association, nations, are false; they attempt to label several individuals as the same. In reality, there is no such thing as an "American," and no such thing as a "Briton," a "Chinese," or a "Frenchman." We are all of us individuals. I am not the same as my neighbor, and my neighbor is not the same as I. There can be no true group, because a group implies similarity, and no two people are fundamentally similar. They may have similar attributes, or share similar views, but they are not the same by any means.

In some ways, the reality of voluntary groups may be argued. Granted, groups whose members have voluntarily joined may have many similarities, and come closest to living the fiction of "the group." But nations, as they are, are not voluntary. Two children may hypothetically be born a mile from each other and one may be "American," and the other "Mexican," or "Canadian." This seems strange to me, that each child is labeled thus by his location of birth, over which he has no control whatsoever. And we find fundamental differences in meaningless details such as these?

Nationalism, in any form, is unrealistic, because of its own nature. It stifles individualism, or individual thought, and, a fiction itself, it leads to other fictions. Like the Olympics. The Olympics are a simple manifestation of nationalism. This is the reason why, to some, they seem to be a joke, and why they are often held in countries with poor track records in terms of human rights.

Needless to say, I won't be watching the games this year, and have no desire to. The cheesy commercials and commercialism, the doping scandals, the close and controversial competitions (each subject of which is a post all its own) won't bother me, because I won't care, and because I belong to no country in particular, belonging solely to myself. Instead, I will focus, as I always try to, on having fun and living a good and honest life. That, I think, is a much more rewarding pursuit than trying to win a small disc of metal, and more obtainable at that! Any American who cares enough of the little games the world plays in its spare time is welcome to tell me all about it, providing they understand that, frankly, I couldn't care less.

McCain, Hypocrisy First

2008-07-21T21:57:00.008-04:00

Wait, I thought John McCain didn't like negative campaigning. Wasn't that what McCain-Feingold was about? And according to this article, McCain promised to run a "respectful campaign." What happened? When did John McCain change?

Oh, that's right, when negative campaigning became advantageous to him.

Let's not get the wrong impression here. I don't support Obama. I'm a die-hard Ron Paul fan. I was for Ron Paul before it was cool; I'm for Ron Paul even though he's no longer in the race. But let's face it, when it comes to making oneself a target, McCain just does a better job than Obama.

The problem, of course, is that McCain says stupid things, while Obama refuses to say anything. And while I respect McCain for actually having a platform (unlike Obama), maybe he should stick to it once in a while.

I realize conservatives get all sentimental about supporting the troops and whatnot, and I understand that. I even understand McCain tugging at people's soft spots (so to speak), and identifying himself with 'the troops.' If he wants to send people on a guilt trip about that kind of thing, he's welcome to, be my guest. (Plus, I'm sure McCain does support the troops, in his own way. Perhaps I disagree with his form of support, but no matter.)

However, if McCain's undying loyalty to the troops is as solid as his devotion to non-negative campaigning, I wouldn't exactly want to be in the Army if he becomes president. (Scratch that; I wouldn't want to be in the Army anyway.)

How about a little consistency Mr. McCain, especially in an ad where you claim to have some? If this is what you call "the straight-talk express," God help anyone who doesn't get off at the next exit.

I mentioned before that I'm a Ron Paul fan, not news to anyone who reads this blog with any regularity whatsoever. Part of that is because Ron Paul, unlike McCain, is a consistent, honest person, who never strays from his principles. That's why Ron Paul can secure votes even after he's not running, and it's why McCain, who is the exact opposite of Paul, is going to be looking for a job come November.

I don't want Obama to win. I really don't. Obama has no platform, and can therefore garner votes by looking pretty and sounding good. McCain, on the other hand, is unconvincing, inconsistent, and unpopular. I'm still voting for Ron Paul, but I know he won't win. What confuses me is those who not only support McCain, but think he's somehow going to run on the principles of the last eight years and gain some kind of major victory, or any victory at all!

The abrupt change in McCain from crusader against negative campaigning to negative campaigner is illustrative of the modern Republican Party. Whether it's going from 'no world-policing' to 'safe for democracy,' and from small government to CIA wiretaps, Republicans these days are 180 degrees from where they once were, and it will show in 2008, when Obama takes the White House. It is unfortunate, and not a little ironic, that a gun-grabbing, tax-and-spend liberal will be the result of eight years of so-called Republican administration, but that's why I left the Republicans, and it why the election will likely be the way I've predicted it.

John McCain. "Country first." Or is it, 'McCain first'? In the sense that he'll do whatever it takes to win, and by doing so, lose the election. All I know is that with a candidate like this, the country isn't going to be first in anything, except, perhaps, taxes, because in the fall, it will be squarely in Democratic hands.

Selfish Vacation Post #3 (Series Two)

2008-07-13T18:37:00.022-04:00

Don't worry; it's totally not what you think.

At the risk of sounding cliche (which I realize is a bit of a cliche itself), hello again. I haven't put up a post in a while because KOA internet connections are often iffy, and the server in the last one kept resetting itself, resulting in my being unable to put up pictures. Since the posts I've been doing rely rather heavily on pictures, I preferred not to put up any posts until I could upload pictures.

To make things even more fun, I had to write this part of this post in Notepad, because the internet connection at the Fredricksburg KOA was so bad that I couldn't even load Blogger, and because my shiny, new computer doesn't yet have Microsoft Word installed.

In any case, I suppose I should get on with the post, so everyone can stop wondering what's with the picture of the leaf that looks like pot.

And I hate to disappoint you, but it's not pot. More on that later.

So, Saturday found us at the American Helicopter Museum, in West Chester, Pennsylvania. This was more for the little kids, I think, as the museum had a sort of little kid feel to it. If there hadn't been military hardware involved, I probably would have gone nuts. Lucky for me, I found a friendly Bell AH-1 Cobra. That made it somewhat more interesting.

And guess what else I found? A Columbia Edition WJ! (Non-Jeep Officianados: The WJ was the Grand Cherokee from 1999 to 2004, generally inferior as an off-road vehicle compared to its predecessor, the ZJ. The Columbia Edition was offered in 2004 by Jeep and Columbia Sportswear.) Even though I don't like any Jeep built after 1994, finding a special edition Jeep was kind of fun.

But I digress.

Anyway, the Helicopter Museum was slightly interesting, but not that much. To begin with it was manned by two old guys who would trap you and talk your ear off. They were extremely knowledgeable about helicopters, but not so much about when people want you to stop talking. Nevertheless, enthusiastic guides are better than boring ones, and they helped make some exhibits interesting.

Speaking of exhibits, the Museum is quite small, and doesn't feature many. It has, among other exhibits, all the aircraft you'd expect. The aforementioned Cobra,

a UH-1 Huey,

and even a V-22 Osprey.

It also had this unusual addition.

The "Cheerful Chopper." I don't know what it's about, and I didn't ask.

Our next stop was the Good and Plenty, a Pennsylvania Dutch (German; Pennsylvania 101: 'Dutch' = Corruption of Deutsch = German) restaurant that serves huge portions of homecooked food. Basically, they bring you food until you tell them not to, because you're too full. Then it's time for dessert. It's like a buffet, but with the added benefit of really good food.

As I recall, I ate two fried chicken wings, four helpings of mashed potatoes, five slices of bread with butter, one helping of corn, two helpings of mixed vegetables, two helpings of noodles, one bowl of ice cream, one helping of gelatin, one helping of roast beef, one slice of shoo-fly pie (dumb name, great taste), and one slice of strawberry-rhubarb pie.

Give or take a helping of potatoes.

Or two.

The final event of the day was Longwood Gardens, which was a mixed bag. It's a garden, obviously, that belonged to some rich folks. Personally, I wasn't all that into it. I prefer nature to be, well, natural. I like wild nature better than cultivated nature.

That being said, the gardens could be amusing at times. There were several bizarre fountains,

strange topiary,

and odd plants.

Some plants were amusing on the basis of the name alone.

My brothers and I found other various ways to amuse ourselves. Some favorites included pretending we were famous historical dictators,

taking historically themed photographs,

and pretending the topiary was carnivorous.

Also amusing were the various types of plants whose leaves look like marijuana. For instance, this is a Japanese Maple Leaf:

And, I don't know what this one is actually. I'm pretty sure Longwood didn't have any weed though...

So that explains the image at the top. Sorry to disappoint you, but I've actually never seen a real marijuana leaf in my life.

At the end of the night there was a large lighted fountain display. I couldn't really get a shot of that; the camera wasn't good enough. It was interesting, but only for about two minutes. And it was an hour and a half long. The fountains use something like 10,000 gallons of water a minute, which is kind of obscene, and it's all set to classical music. I don't know about you, but I can't take classical music and lighted fountains for an hour and a half.

I think my principal problem with the whole thing was how utterly pointless it was. What does it mean exactly? A jet of water shooting a hundred feet in the air, colored red, using enough water to alleviate thirst in Nigeria for a year is nice I guess, but isn't it kind of pointless? I mean, is there any philosophical merit to it, or are you doing anything by watching it? Even things I do for fun have meaning to me. I'm not sure how a colored fountain connects to anyone, but to each his own I suppose.

Luckily, we went to some places with real meaning the next day.

Before that, however, let me tell you about the wonderful campsite neighbors we had that night.

Remember how in one of my previous posts I told you that those tourists in Philadelphia were stupid? Well, I've revised my opinion. After dealing with our campsite neighbors for a while, I only think people who don't know when the Declaration of Independence was signed are only mildly unintelligent.

I know I'm often unfairly mean to people in these posts, but really, I'm very accepting of people, even if they may not be too bright. But, these neighbors were like something out of a horror movie. In three short stories, I'll let you decide for yourself.

The first story goes like this. I was sitting at a picnic table, trying to read a book and eat a cheeseburger. Suddenly, a hissing noise at the next site over made me look up. The hissing noise was the result of a can of Axe body spray, being sprayed on a piece of wood by an enterprising young pyromaniac. He promptly threw the wood into the fire, and...

nothing.

Let me set this up for you. Not only is this kid trying to create towering pillars of flame, but he's too dumb to do it correctly. Personally, I've never done the whole Axe-flamethrower thing, but the fundamentals are fairly basic. You have to apply the spray to the fire, not the fire to the spray. If the spray is on something, it won't combust. It has to be airborne and hit the flame. Pretty simple concept, and intuitively easy.

Despite this, he had to try three more times with this highly inadvisable stunt before he figured it out.

That's not the dumb part by the way. The dumb part is that his mother was watching the whole thing and smiling!

Story two is even better. Same kid, different circumstances. His sister (I guess), comments that they're running out of wood. So this kid decides to split an entire log. With a hatchet. A small hatchet.

For those of you who have never cut wood before, that doesn't work. You might get the log split, in a couple of days. If you're very lucky. Generally, to achieve the desired effect, one uses a splitting maul, or, in a pinch, an ax. Unless, of course, one is depressingly ignorant.

By the way, if you've never cut wood before, but you're still fairly intelligent, you'd still be able to figure it out after a hatchet stroke only goes a half-inch into the wood. Unless, as I say, you're an idiot. It took this kid a good five minutes to give up.

So, on to story three, in which our hero grabs a long, but relatively thin, vine hanging from a tree and attempts to use it a swing, with predictable results. This was after being warned by his sister (whom I suspect is about as smart as her brother) that it was poison oak (which it wasn't). His response was, as I recall: "vines ain't poison!"

Well actually, some of them are. Makes me wish it had been poison oak really.

I should point out that the child in question was at least fourteen years old, and should have known better in all instances.

The rest of the family was just as intellectually challenged. They were up until two in the morning every night bashing gays, Jews, and, for some reason, redheads. They all smoked, of course, and several were often inebriated.

There was one little kid who was pretty friendly, and who I felt sorry for. He kept coming over to our campsite to talk to us. The subjects usually were interesting, though extremely awkward. (I mean what do you say to, 'my dad gets drunk a lot. Not as drunk as my uncle, but still pretty drunk.'?)

Needless to say, we were usually glad to be somewhere other than the campsite.

One of those places, to which we went the following day, was Brandywine Battlefield, site of a Revolutionary War battle in 1777. There wasn't much left of it when we went there, though the volunteers were quite good, and showed us through Washington's and Layfette's headquarters.

(The first picture is Layfette's Headquarters, the second, Washington's.)

There was also a huge tree, that was there at the time of the battle.

Actually, the best part of the battlefield was the museum. I couldn't take any pictures because it wasn't allowed, but they had a pretty good collection of Revolutionary artifacts, including a reproduction Ferguson breechloading rifle, a British weapon which more than doubled the fire rate of the standard smoothbore musket and was far more accurate. Luckily for the Americans, the man who invented it was shot in the arm, and couldn't really demonstrate it anymore, leading to a loss of interest in the weapon.

The battlefield itself didn't take that much time, so we went to Valley Forge next, where Washington and the army spent the winter of '77.

Valley Forge is much better preserved. The visitors' center was interesting, featuring an exhibit which I like to call Wall of Minorities.

I thought that was a little too politically correct, but it probably attracts more visitors.

The site itself has the usual features. There were large equestrian statues,

and cannons.

Valley Forge, of course, wasn't an actually battlefield. It was an encampment. The cannons were a precaution, just in case the British did decide to attack. These were stored in an area called, appropriately enough, Artillery Park. The idea was that the cannons could be moved around quickly from a central location, depending on where the attack came from.

One part I liked was the parade ground, where we met once again with our friend Baron Von Stueben.

The next day, however, was a regretably dull one. My parents are very into Wyeth art, so we had to go to an exposition at the Farnsworth Museum.

Now, I wouldn't want anyone getting the idea that I don't like art. It's just that I don't like the type of art we saw. It was basically your typical painting themes: fields and naked people. Personally, I'm more of a fan of surrealism (because it's generally original, to say the least), and photography (because, on the flip side, it's as real as it can get, mostly). Paintings of real things seem to me boring, because it's neither "real" like a photograph, nor strange and original, like surrealist paintings. It seems wishy-washy to me.

Luckily, after being dragged around the art museum for an hour, we took a walking trail by a river, and got to see nature, which is far more interesting, because it's actually there, and able to be experienced.

In between the museum and our next stop, we ate in Delaware, at a place called "The Charcoal Pit." I ate an 8 oz burger, fries, and nearly six scoops of ice cream. Just to prove I could. I wouldn't recommend it if you can help it, however, especcilly if you have to walk around a lot afterward, which, of course, I did.

The final attraction that day was Hagely, a DuPont estate where gunpowder was made. It was more interesting than the Farnsworth Museum; barely.

It wasn't that it was totally boring. There were some interesting things. Like this overcomplicated hammer.

And these propaganda posters.

It was also amusing when we saw this sign, which made us realize we were definitely in Delaware.

That's right, "corporate appreciation month."

The rest of the place, however, was basically old houses and waterwheels. The houses weren't great because we'd been in so many old houses already.

As for the waterwheels, they're intriguing, but there's really only so long you can watch this:

(It's sideways. If anyone knows how to flip it, let me know.)

So Saturday and Sunday were kind of unexciting in my opinion. Luckily, Monday more than made up for it, because Monday was the day we went to Aberdeen Proving Grounds, home of the Army Ordinance Museum.

We went there last year; between that and the poor lighting conditions, I didn't take many pictures. I did take pictures of my favorite weapons: the Sharps Rifle, the M14, and the H&K G3 and MP5.

There was also a replica of a Remington 1858, by Pietta, the same company my replica '58 is made by.

In addition, there were several tanks, tank destroyers, howitzers, and artillery pieces such as this odd double-barreled cannon.

Of course, Aberdeen can get confusing, particularly because whoever wrote the plaques can't spell, or use correct grammar. I picked up several (errors that is, not plaques), from "its" being used where "it's" was needed, all the way up to the word encumbrance spelled "incumbrance." Or something of the sort.

There was also this plaque, which I have no explanation for.

It reads, "[The T-34] gave the German Panzer divisions a spanking."

I don't know; it just seems like an odd choice of words.

The Museum did have one flaw, which was that it didn't have enough Jeeps. It did have a Willys MB.

This was set in the back with a whole wall about the Willys MB/Ford GPW, which included this highly accurate quote regarding the Jeep legacy.

While I commend Aberdeen for rating the Jeep so highly, some other military Jeeps might be in order, particularly the M-38, which was used in both Korea and Vietnam.

Speaking of Jeeps, I found a modification on a Grizzly mine-clearing tank that I totally want on my ZJ.

That would certainly help when stuck behind drivers going five under.

The best part was, perhaps, the bathrooms. The men's room was themed, for some reason, with German WWII desert camouflage. I really don't know why.

I used the, um, latrine, and visited the gift shop, where I bought a book cataloging most 20th century military firearms, and a small model MB, before leaving for the Fredricksburg KOA.

The Fredricksburg KOA was infinitely better than the one with the neighbors from hell. I was most impressed with the bathrooms. (It's not the first thing that comes to mind unless one has been away from a clean bathroom for too long.) The bathrooms at this KOA were clean, spacious, inside a bug-proof building, and, as an added bonus, had the radio tuned to the local country music station. (Yeah, a lot of KOAs have radios in the bathroom, go figure.)

Unfortunately, we only stayed there one night (though if we hadn't, I wouldn't have been able to post this!), as the next two will be spent in the Gettysburg KOA. The reason we were in the Fredricksburg area was because we were seeing a battlefield we hadn't seen before: Manassas, or, as we in the north call it, Bull Run.

It was almost 90 degrees when we got to Manassas, Virginia, and it got hotter as the day wore on. To make matters worse, we'd eaten a large breakfast at some restaurant on the way. We knew we were in the south because the food was excellent, and because only in the south would you find a candle that smelled of "crisp cotton."

Between this and time constraints, we didn't see much of it, which is unfortunate, because it's an interesting battlefield, and the site of two separate battles.

Both battles, called First and Second Manassas by the south, and First and Second Bull Run by the north, resulted in Confederate victories, most likely due to the incompetence of the northern commanders, and the relative skill of the southern ones.

Today, the battlefield is generally southern oriented, but evenly covered by Union and Confederate plaques and monuments, and is fairly well marked.

The battlefield does have its absurdities, which one has to take into account when visiting Confederate territory. Take this statue of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson for instance.

Note the highly exaggerated muscle tone. Seems unlikely, considering how undernourished even the commanders were back then, even at the start of the war. It's also slightly childish. I mean, was Jackson not good enough as a human? Do they have to make him some kind of comic-book superhero? What's the deal?

There was also this "monument" to General Bee, who was shot and killed in the first battle.

Note that the majority of the text isn't about Bee at all; it's about how he gave Jackson his famous nickname. I mean, who is it really meant to commemorate?

If you think I'm exaggerating how much the people who make these monuments worship Jackson, keep in mind there actually is a Stonewall Jackson shrine, and it's called that. The Stonewall Jackson Shrine. I was there last year.

The government, however, does not keep ordinary plaques as well as the Jackson-themed monuments, or any other monument for that instance. Consider the following examples.

Nice.

There was a museum here too, which was pretty good. It featured a general overview of the battles using a map and several LED lights, which, strange as it sounds, works pretty well, and a large collection of guns, always a winner with me.

There was also a display about uniforms, and how similar Union and Confederate uniforms were in the early days, leading to massive confusion.

All in all, it was a good experience, but more time would be needed to see the battlefield further.

Well, we've got two days in Gettysburg and then we go home. If you've read these, thanks. I may do another one in a few days, but since it's only going to be Gettysburg, it would be relatively short. After all, I'll have the next four years to check the place out.

I've had fun this vacation, and I hope you enjoyed some part of reading about it.

See you all when I get back to normal blogging!

Selfish Vacation Post #2 (Series 2)

2008-07-10T21:14:00.040-04:00

Go ahead ask. You know you want to.

We'll get to that later. As promised, here is my continuing report on my vacation. Last time I wrote a post on this, I expressed the wish that the following days would not suck. Luckily, they haven't so far. The past two days have been winners for a variety of reasons, including two haunted forts with vast historical significance, good Mid-Atlantic food, and a visit to scenic Delaware.

We'll begin with Delaware, because that's where I went first.

Now, Delaware is not exactly known for its tourist attractions, or anything else for that matter. (One may remember that famous scene from the movie Wayne's World: "Hi, I'm in... Delaware...") But, in fact, Delaware is quite scenic. Note the lovely industrial wastelands, and silos of chemicals in the following pictures.

Beautiful. But, we weren't there to see that stuff. We were there to see Fort Delaware, a Civil War fort which also happens to be haunted. Now, don't get the wrong idea, I'm not one of those people who thinks everything is paranormal; quite the opposite in fact. (That being said, there are some things can't be explained, and yes, I believe in ghosts.) The only reason I mention it is because Fort Delaware, and the second fort we went to, Fort Mifflin, were both featured on the SciFi Channel's Ghost Hunters, which is kind of where we got the idea to visit them.

However, we were, of course, genuinely interested, more interested in fact, in the forts' histories. Fort Delaware is a Civil War era fort, and the staff are dressed, and act, as if it was 1864, which I found quite hokey, actually. I don't mind people dressing up in reenactment clothes; in fact, it's kind of interesting. But, I hate when they have to pretend as if it's literally 1864. It's not, we all know it's not, and it gets in the way, I feel, of teaching legitimate history.

Anyway, before I go on, I'd better explain "Crabby Dick's." See, in the parking lot for the ferry which takes visitors to the island fort, there was an eating establishment named (and I swear this is true) Crabby Dick's. I imagine they get a lot of business from the name, as there were several different signs on the building which sported its rather unusual name.

The second picture is the best. The brown sign, if you can't read it says, "see host fer service." Yes. "Fer."

Anyway, we didn't eat at Crabby Dick's, which I'm kind of relieved about, not so much because I was particularly concerned with catching a certain type of parasite, (I'm sure Crabby Dick's is very clean) but more because I hate seafood. Instead, we caught the ferry to Fort Delaware, as described above, and got down to checking out the place.

Oh, but first, one more thing. And I promise this is the last before Fort Delaware. Did you know Delaware has an anti-terrorism tip line? It's true! Check out this sticker on the window of the office where we bought the tickets.

That's pretty paranoid, to say the least. Not only is it pathetic to have an anti-terrorism tip line, but seriously, who's going to attack Delaware?

Okay, so, Fort Delaware. Not a bad place really, but as I said, a little hokey and touristy. Besides the actors, there was a snack bar, and little kid programs.

I don't really have anything against little kids, as long as they're fairly intelligent. However, kids who are genuinely interested in the American Civil War are, let's face it, rare. Why would you, as a parent, drag your kid to a place like that? Unless, of course, you were trying to help educate them about their history, which I guess is understandable. But then, the typical little kids' programs aren't all that educational. Fort Delaware's was as typical as they come. First there was a musket demonstration, which was interesting, as it involved blackpowder weapons being fired.

The guns featured were the Revolutionary era "Brown Bess" and the Civil War era 1863 Springfield Rifled Musket. These are basically the typical, bread-and-butter guns of those wars. To history geeks they are as commonly heard of and recognized as the AK-47 or the M16 are today. Still, as typical as it was, it was still fun, because, hey, guns never get old. Yeah, I still had to deal with the whole "cover your ears, it's loud!" and "rifled muskets were more accurate than smoothbores!" thing (which gets really, really old when you're a history/blackpowder geek; first of all, my revolver is twice as loud, and second of all, no crap) but they were still guns. And guns are a whole lot of fun any way you cut it.

After the muskets though, things got to the little kid program, which, despite my irritation was probably quite good for the little... tykes.

I admit, though I did know all the information given, it was pretty informative. Basically, the actor playing the Sargent ended up "recruiting" a bunch of little kids, and demonstrating the recruitment process of the Civil War. (The point, by the way, for you you non-Civil War geeks, being that by 1864, it didn't take much to get into the army, since the government really didn't care where the men came from, as long as they could fire a musket.)

So, okay, that wasn't so bad. I admit it. I just like grouching about touristy history, and I like to think I know more than the other visitors. (Actually, at Fort Delaware I probably did...)

In any case, the rest of the visit was basically exploration. We saw may cannons (proud staple of almost all Civil War sites),

as well as the armory.

We also got to see the Fort's latrine.

Lovely.

There was also a kitchen, an officer's quarter's, a prisoner shack (complete with Confederate actor referring to Lincoln as a tyrant and despot, which was interesting) and a Spanish-American War era stone hallway thingy (don't know what else to call it really).

The last event was a cannon drill, which we assumed was an actual cannon firing. After getting there just in time, we learned that it was only a drilling situation, though a cannon primer was set off, which was satisfyingly loud.

The only part I found obnoxious was the actors, or one of them. I took the following picture of smoke from the primer still inside the cannon.

As I took this, one of the actors asked if I was from New Jersey, then, upon hearing the negative response, told be that if the cannon went off while my head was there, I would be from New Jersey. (The cannon was pointed at that state from across the river in Delaware.)

Ha. Ha Ha. Hilarious.

I don't know if that was his way of telling me not to do that or what, but if it was, I should point out that 1.) there was no powder or ball in the cannon, and no primer 2.) the cannon requires, like, six people to fire, and there were only two, neither of whom is actually qualified to fire the cannon with actual powder, and 3.) I've never fired a cannon, but I know my way around muzzleloaders and other firearms, so even I'm not stupid enough to stick my head, or any other body part, in front of a loaded weapon.

On top of this I was starving, and the snack bar was out of good food.

And I didn't get to see a ghost.

So Fort Delaware was good and all, but I was perfectly happy to leave.

The only other event that day was eating at a place called "The Dog House" in Delaware. They had great cheesesteaks, which I don't get a lot of in Maine.

The next day, we got up to go to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia is the only major city in the United States I've visited that I actually like, (Boston sucks, same for D.C.) and home to several places we visited that day.

Our first stop was Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed. Of course, in order to see it we had to deal with several annoyances. First, there was the idiotic "security zone" we had to go through. Several potential terrorists had to have their bags checked. (Most of the potential terrorists were young to middle-aged women with sinister looking handbags.) When they were done taking away people's Fourth Amendment rights, they let us into Independence Hall, where the Constitution was drafted.

Isn't that ironic?

The second annoyance was the incredibly stupid tourists.

As much as I've called people idiots before, I really think most people are intelligent enough, and are totally capable of independent thought, and want to learn. Most of the time, I'm highlighting individual cases of stupidity because they're remarkable. Most of the time, I don't think the people involved are that stupid.

These people though? They were stupid.

The first question put to us was what had happened in that building in 1787. Frankly, I wouldn't expect most people to know the answer. That would have been okay. What wasn't okay was the answer several people shouted out. "The Declaration of Independence!"

Um... no. That was 1776. Common knowledge. And these weren't kids either. These people were like, eighty.

1787 was the Constitution. I guess I wouldn't hold the average citizen to the standard of knowing that. But I would hold the average citizen to knowing what year the Declaration of Independence was signed, and therefore when it was not signed. There's really no excuse for believing any year with 1 and 7 as the first two digits automatically equals the year the Declaration of Independence was signed.

That being said, many people did know what happened in '87, and indignantly said, "No! The Constitution!" That was kind of a relief.

The tour of the hall included the rooms where founding fathers met to write, sign, and ratify these crucial documents, now famous in art and history.

It was cool to see those rooms, even if it meant all the stupid people and laws. Upstairs, there was even an old map of Maine!

It was, of course, part of Massachusetts at the time. Which is embarrassing, since people from Maine hate Massachusetts...

The tour was fairly short, and, afterward, we saw the Liberty Bell, another artifact which has been taken over by tourists and anti-terror measures.

Actually, though I use the whole 'from Maine' thing quite liberally, I was born in Pennsylvania, and lived in New Jersey for several years before moving here, so I've seen the bell once before, when I was little. I don't remember much, but I do know that it was in a simple glass case. That's all. My parents remember when you could go up to it and touch it. No appointment, no security. It was just the bell.

Now, of course, there's a whole building with armed guards, and you have to wait in a huge line. Plus, everyone wants their kids next to it like it's a giant mascot at Disneyland, and not a historical artifact. Still, it was pretty cool to see, and I got pictures of it as best I could.

Our Revolutionary history excursion being over, it was now time to eat real Chinese food. (Chinese food in Maine is a joke, much like cheeseteaks and subs.) To this end we went to Chinatown, Philadelphia.

The restaurant we went to had something called Dim Sum (I don't know if that's spelled right; whatever) where they bring carts of weird Chinese food to you and you eat it. Then they tally up the total and you pay. It's great because you don't really know what you're eating sometimes, and tend to try new things. And it's actually cheaper, believe it or not.

My personal favorite was this pork dumpling thingy. It was basically barbecue pork, but in a really soft pastry. Steamed, I think. Anyway, it was great, whatever it was called.

After leaving Philadelphia, we went to Fort Mifflin, another Civil War fort, whose history actually extended back to the Revolution. In fact, the Revolutionary history is more famous. Basically, it held the British at bay for a long while, until it ran out of ammo. Then it held them at bay for a while by firing back British cannonballs which fell in the fort. Then it ran out of powder, and its garrison set it on fire and abondoned it. (They did leave the flag there though, because, you know, God forbid the British think they surrendered. They didn't surrender. They burned down the fort and retreated. So take that King George!)

All joking aside, the actions the soldiers took were pretty amazing. And what was more amazing was that Fort Mifflin wasn't a total tourist trap! The only guide there actually cared about history, didn't give us really obvious information, and seemed to actually know what he was talking about.

There was a guided tour, which included the barracks, casemates (underground rooms used for storing such items as: ammo, powder, and captured Confederate prisoners), and the only open-air artillery storage shed in the United States.

One interesting location was "Casemate Eleven" where William Howe, a prisioner charged with desertation and murder (a Union soldier actually) was held and escaped from. He was later captured and hanged.

Mr. Howe was kind enough to leave his initials on the wall as proof he'd been held there,

(lower left hand corner, "W.H.H.")

as well as this lovely message, which reads, in gentlemany handwriting, "Go to hell."

Mr. Howe clearly was not pleased with his imprisonment.

Interestingly enough, a lot of people think Mr. Howe still isn't happy with his imprisonment. I didn't see anything, but occasionally people see a face peeking out around the casemate wall. And voices have, in fact, been recorded inside the casemate. Disembodied ones.

Personally, I don't believe all the stories surronding the place. A lot of them are ridicolous. One was about a dead soldier who gives people tours. Yeah right. From what I understand, that would pretty much never happen. But the face thing wouldn't surprise me, and actually, I have heard the recording of the voice. It was on the show I mentioned earlier.

That all makes the fort very interesting, but a historical tour wouldn't be complete without a musket demonstration. Luckily we got to see that too.

That reminds me, I solved the ramrod mystery. (If you don't know what I mean, see last post. About the whole, one ram versus ramming multiple times.) I asked, and, apparently, you only have to ram several times if the paper cartridge gets stuck. Otherwise, it's one ram, then you're done. So that solves that problem.

If there was one bad thing about the fort, it's that it's situated near an airport, resulting in this anachronistic photo.

I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said 35 planes flew over while we were there. And that's a conservative estimate. They weren't flying very high either, and they weren't very quiet.

Well, that's it for now. The last two days didn't suck, which is good, and hopefully, the rest will be as pleasant. I'll let you know. Until then.

Selfish Vacation Post # 1 (Series Two!)

2008-07-08T22:02:00.000-04:00

I have once again embarked on my annual vacation. People, for one reason or another, seem to be interested in these things when I record them on my blog. At least I like to think so. Therefore, I will write a series of posts detailing my vacation, as I did last year in my series of "Selfish Vacation Posts." I don't know what the interest level will be, and I can't promise that it will be quite as in-depth.

I say so because, for some reason, I haven't found this vacation quite as interesting as the last. I don't know whether this is because this vacation's subject matter is less interesting personally, or because I'll be going to college in two months, and am finding the routine fairly old in anticipation of new experience, but if anything looks to be of interest, feel free to read on.

So, to begin.

Our first stop this vacation was Concord, Massachusetts. I'd been there before, and, in fact, anyone interested in this subject should refer to my previous post on the subject. In any case, Concord is an excellent town for historical tourism. Not only was it the center of America's first religion, American Transcendentalism, but the first real battle of the American Revolution took place there. It is essentially the center of historical American libertarianism.

Our first stop in Concord was Walden Pond, made famous in Henry David Thoreau's classic work Walden. It attracts people with interesting philosophies from all over the world. While I was there, I saw several hippies and a Buddhist, as well as this bathroom graffiti, which kind of says it all.

I had to put this through Photoshop to make it visible. It was written in brown (I decided not to touch it), and doesn't show up well. In any case, if you can't read it, it says "Fuck Civilization".

Quaint.

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I'd already been there, so I didn't bother to take many pictures. I got these two of the lake,

as well as this one.

The latter is interesting to those who have studied Thoreau. The railroad tracks which ran behind his house are mentioned many times in his journal, as are the telegraph wires, (which I suspect are now telephone or electric wires). Thoreau particularly liked the sound the wind made when it blew through the wire, and mentions it extensively.

One interesting part of the train tracks, was this piece of broken fence, as viewed from the trail.

My brothers and I had some questions as to what caused the hole in the fence that close to a railroad track. Naturally, we had several morbid opinions, almost all involving derailed locomotives.

After Walden Pond, we visited the Emerson House, which was fairly interesting. Personally, I'm not terribly fond of Emerson. Emerson preached Transcendentalism, but he never really practiced it. His house is large and impressive, and features many comforts not found in the sparse hut Thoreau built, as seen here.

That, of course, is a replica, but it's accurate. Emerson's house was much nicer, and even featured a bust of himself, which I found incredibly tacky. Apparently, it was done while he was still living, which speaks volumes.

One interesting story we learned, which involved the Transcendentalists was that of Emerson using the excuse that he could not find his gloves, and as a result, being frequently late to church. Thoreau, who worked for Emerson for a number of years, therefore built a drawer into a chair in the household for the purpose of holding the gloves in question. Emerson used the chair, but was still late to church.

Thoreau, of course, was more honest. When he didn't want to go to church, he just didn't.

It was around this time that I found something about Massachusetts I actually liked. In the area of Maine where I live, your best bet for any kind of quality product is the internet, because you won't find anything better than Wal-Mart for general needs. So when I wanted to buy an ultimate grade disc ("Frisbee") to supplement the one I got at Gettysburg College during a visit (it's starting to get old, and has been liberally chewed on by a dog), I couldn't. All Wal-Mart carries in my area are Wham-o Frisbees, which suck. Luckily, in Massachusetts, you can get quality goods. Walking back to the car, I saw, through a sporting goods store window, a 175-gram Discraft Ultra-Star, which is not only what my friends and I tend to play with, but is also the official UPA disc, and the disc most college-level ultimate teams play with.

Naturally, I bought this one, and we continued on our way.

After this happy discovery, we visited a house which was owned by Emerson grandfather at the time of the American Revolution, and, later, by Nathanial Hawthorne. The official name of the house is and was "The Old Manse," but since I find that name personally irritating (certain words irritate me for no reason at all, go figure), I'll probably refer to it as just, "the house."

Actually, if anything was irritating about the house, it was the people who ran it. The tour required, for preservation purposes, that we put "booties" (another word that annoys me) over our shoes. It seemed like a joke at first, and I found it distasteful. I mean, I'm all for preservation, but how about buying some rugs instead? Narrow ones you can throw down as a sort of path. I've seen that before, and it's a lot easier and less annoying than asking visitors to put medical scrubs over their shoes.

The tour guide wasn't much better. She was a ditzy wort of woman who enthusiastically, and without any sort of historical background, called the house "the most famous in America, next to the White House." Maybe it's just me, but I can think of at least five houses more famous than "the Old Manse." Besides the White House, Monticello, Mount Vernon, the Winchester house, and the Lizzie Borden house all come to mind. And if the clueless tour guide wasn't bad enough, there was also this little kid who was continually trying to appear intelligent, without actually having to be so. Her primary tactic was to ask questions, even if they made no sense, or weren't relevant to the tour. I guess she thought it gave here a good image or something. But, let's face it, "what's that painting for?" doesn't inspire others to think you're the most brilliant first-grader in the world. As we were ending the tour, completely out of the blue, she mentioned that she knew what a nearby butter churn was for, and explained it to everyone. Even though everyone else knew what it was too, which is probably why the tour guide didn't mention it.

Thankfully, we left the house and headed to the Concord battleground. Mostly this consists of what is known as "the Old North Bridge." It was near this bridge that the first intentional shots of the Revolution were fired. Again, I'd been here before, so I didn't take many pictures. The post linked in this one has some of the bridge, as well as the famous Minuteman monument.

(One annoyance at this attraction, if anyone wants to know, was a little eighth grade couple carving their initials into the bridge. Vandalism. How cute.)

Our campsite for the night was a state park, which, true to form for government establishments, sucked. It didn't have any running water or electricity, which was fine, since that's typical of state parks. However, this park had two things which made it worse than many I've been to. One was the so-called "Environmental Police." These were rangers in pickups who patrolled the camp doing... well, I don't actually know. Environmental policing I guess. I'm not even sure what that entails. Slapping people who burn garbage I guess. (I would have littered to find out what would happen, but I'm not that type of person.) And of course, the vehicle of choice for the "Environmental Police" was a comparatively inefficient Ford F-150. (I guess Priuses just don't get the job done back in the woods.) Therefore, the Environmental Police were doubly irritating. Not only were they police with an environmental twist, they also drove Fords.

One would think, however, that a park with such amenities as Environmental Police would also have a janitor. But this was either not the case, or he was one lazy bum, because the bathrooms were disgusting.

I'm not saying I can't deal with a little grime, I'm just saying that when there's part of a beer box and a coffee lid in the shower for two days straight, and the men's room isn't restocked with toilet paper, there might be a problem. Instead of spending money on Environmental Police, the camp could look into spending money on an industrial sized bottle of 409. And some toilet paper.

Real showers would have been nice too. Instead, probably to save water and help "mother earth" (who frequently nurtures ungrateful mortals as we with such motherly comforts as tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, thunderstorms, snowstorms, sandstorms, firestorms, etc. etc.). Basically, you push a button and get semi-hot water, for a minute. Literally. I counted. Naturally, you have to push the button fifteen times to take a decent shower, and it gets old fast.

The next day, after sleep and a "shower," the destination was Concord again, and some of Lexington.

As was the case in Concord, I didn't take many pictures in Lexington. There really wasn't that much I felt was important to photograph.

At first, we headed to the visitors' center of the Lexington battlefield, where we planned to meet my cousin, who lives in Massachusetts, and her boyfriend. While waiting, we heard about a live musket demonstration, and decided to meet at that event instead.

Speaking of my cousin, who is in college to be an electrical engineer, and is a complete tech geek, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce you to my new computer, which she helped me pick out, and in fact, is extremely jealous of.

This is my Toshiba Satellite X205 SLi-5. Toshiba is actually a very morally irresponsible company. They sold secrets to the Soviets during the Cold War. Despite that, they make extremely dependable and powerful computers, so I decided to forgive them, especially seeing as I can run Call of Duty 4 and Oblivion on the highest graphics settings without any lag. This is due to the SLi cabability. Basically, the laptop hooks up two Nvidia GeForce 8600 graphics cards and runs them in sync. Add that to 320 gigabytes of memory and 2.4 GHz processor, to say nothing of a 17" widescreen and four high definition speakers, and you have a pretty sweet gaming platform.

I did need a computer for college after all.

Anyway, back to the musket demo. Unlike many of the people we'd seen before, the musket guy was interesting and knowledgeable. He was a little too patriotic, but not to the point of being offensive, and he actually described the circumstances leading up to the battle and the battle itself. Then, of course, came the fun part.

The ranger also had some experience firing muskets it seems. What impressed me most was the fact that he didn't shove the ramrod in multiple times, like in the movies. From what I understand, you're not supposed to do that; it can mess up the barrel. I've also seen it done by actual people before, even on the History Channel, and it's sort of painful to watch.

One thing that struck me was how comparatively quiet the shot was. I was holding the camera, so I couldn't plug my ears, which isn't exactly wise. I was expecting a fairly loud blast. Actually, it was pretty loud, and several of the tourists jumped back when they heard it. However, I'm used to shooting a blackpowder pistol, which seems to be quite a bit louder. Even with ear protection, my revolver is extremely noisy, so the muffled musket shot was actually anticlimactic for me where noise was concerned.

After the musket demonstration, we went to the site where Paul Revere was captured, which was basically a monument by the road. It wasn't terribly impressive, but it wasn't bad either I suppose.

At this point, we went back into town for lunch. We ate at a good restaurant which was relatively cheap, and, as an added bonus, there was a candy store nearby. I bought nearly a pound of Jelly Bellies, and my cousin's friend bought candy cigarettes which he handed out.

This brought up a discussion about that particular product, and how you don't see them very often anymore, probably because they have a negative image, and might influence kids to use real cigarettes. That's ridiculous, though. Just for fun, I shortened mine and made it a candy joint; yet I don't smoke either cigarettes or marijuana.

The next event was Lexington Green, where the first actual shots of the Revolution were fired, albeit most probably accidentally. There was a person there who explained the events to us, and I suppose it was alright. I did note that she repeated the historical inaccuracy about the whole "if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!" quote John Parker, leader of the Lexington militiamen, is supposed to have said. As far as I knew, Parker never actually said that; it was added on later as part of the story, as so many historical quotes often are.

Later, we took a tour of the tavern the militia waited in while the British marched towards the town. It was okay, but not great. There were some interesting bits of information. Apparently, the term "post," meaning to put up (i.e. posting on a blog), came from when innkeepers put interesting articles up on the posts of the tavern, sometimes including your personal correspondences, if you hadn't paid your innkeeper, and he also happened to be the postal worker of the town.

The last stop of the day was Dorchester Heights, in Boston, where Henry Knox dragged cannons, after having moved all of them from Fort Ticonderoga, near Lake Champlain in Vermont. In the middle of winter. On giant sleds.

Needless to say, people found that fairly impressive, especially since the maneuver drove the British out of Boston, and this monument was put up.

After that, my cousin and her friend left, and, the next day, we headed to White Plains, New York. I was kind of glad to get out of New England. I don't follow baseball, so I don't know if the Red Sox had just won something or what, but everyone in Massachusetts seemed to have some kind of stupid Red Sox paraphernalia on their truck, car, or home. We stopped at a Dunkin' Donuts, and, lo and behold, they were using none other than the Red Sox as a promotional tool.

Not to rag on what so many people seem to be obsessed with, but what is the big deal? I mean, okay, they hit a ball. With a stick. Good for them. Great. And that takes a lot of skill and all, and I'm sure they have fun doing it, especially since they earn large sums of money in the process, but it's not something that deserves worship for God's sake (no pun intended). I have some bumper stickers on my car, but they promote people and ideas that try to make a difference for the most part. The only one that doesn't is my off-roading sticker, but even that's something I personally enjoy doing. I mean, the people with Red Sox stickers aren't even playing. They're just watching. How is that fun?

In any case, I was glad to get into New York, where they hate the Red Sox, just so I didn't have to see any more of their merchandise. However, White Plains turned out to be a total disaster.

I don't know that much about the details of the Revolution; I'm a Civil War kind of guy. However, I gathered that White Plains was a at least a fairly important event, since, apparently, two battles happened there. One would think that New York would take the time to preserve parts of it. And, of course, they have. Here is a photo of the White Plains battlefield park.

Oh, did you think I meant like, a historical park or something? Haha, no. No, see, now the White Plains battlefield is a children's park in a suburban neighborhood. They do have interpretive plaques though. Barely.

That's the most informative one they have. The others go along the lines of:

'General George Washington: Commander of the Continental Army, had wooden teeth'.

Something like that anyway.

So, basically, we drove four hours to see a children's park, and wasted an entire day. The only thing that made it even marginally okay was the KOA we stayed at in Newburgh, New York.

The KOA was where we saw this behemoth, which is a huge bus full of Germans that, apperently shows up every year. Big things appear to be quite common in Newburgh, as was evidenced by the town's Wal-Mart.

My dad, seen here, was clearly shocked by the size of the place...

Maybe a huge Wal-Mart shouldn't be that impressive. But, I live in Maine; this Wal-Mart is bigger than some towns in that state. It seemed to go on forever! Despite this, however, they didn't have bathing suits in the men's section, so I had to buy one from the kid's section, which was rather embarrassing.

Speaking of embarrassing, we also saw some wierd stuff in that Wal-Mart, like this Ritz guy.

I'm not sure what he's doing exactly, but whatever it is, it looks like he's really enjoying it.

After the White Plains fiasco, we headed for another destination: Monmouth, New Jersey, several hours away.

Monmouth was another large Revolutionary War battle, and another huge disappointment. Not that that should be surprising; almost anything found in New Jersey usually is. Apparently, the state won't give the battlefield any money, even though it would be extremely cheap to maintain, and New Jersey puts a huge, huge tax burden on its citizens. Actually, no one seems to be getting any of the tax money in New Jersey. Weird! Where does it all go? (Anyone who has ever lived in New Jersey should know the answer. Hint: it starts with a 'c' and rhymes with 'forruption'.) Any liberal who believes in taxation to help people should live in New Jersey for a year or two. It certainly does help people. Too bad it's always the corrupt politicians it helps, not the citizens. This example also shows why historical preservation shouldn't be in the hands of the government.

The upshot was that Monmouth Battlefield is maintained by about six people, who, of course, can't maintain it at all. It has few signs, no real trails, and no information worth looking at, really. It has to be leased to farmers to make any money, so it's not even close to what it looked like in the 18th century. But it does have lovely cornfields,

which obscure the view of the battlefield, but I'll bet the corn is darn tasty.

They had a cool statue of Baron Von Steuben, however, a Prussian, who trained and fought with the Americans, despite not speaking a word of English.

The only interesting part of the whole thing was a Revolutionary era graveyard at a nearby church, which was used as a field hospital.

Some gravestones were interesting, such as this one, to a British soldier, and another to a Scotsman.

None of them topped this one gravestone I saw in Boston on a field trip about a year ago, though.

It's a good, solid English name from what I understand...

So Monmouth was a write-off as well, which sucked. We salvaged the day by eating real sandwiches, with real sandwich materials (the ones you get in Maine are a joke), and I salvaged it by spotting what I believe to be a Jeep CJ-5 Renegade.

So, right now we're in another KOA, and tomorrow shouldn't suck as much. I'll write about that then; hopefully this time there's an actual battlefield involved. Until then.

$4.11 and Change

2008-06-17T10:32:00.016-04:00

We live in an age wherein our primary mode of transportation will soon become a luxury.

Hello, I'm back after a month. Sorry about that. I had AP tests, graduation, and hanging out with my friends. As proof to back up my excuse, here's me driving through a large puddle at the gravel pits near where I live.

(Since Gettysburg College reads my blog, I'd just like to say that this was totally legal. Really. I swear.)

As frequent readers know, that's my beloved Jeep ZJ (for non-Jeep officianados ZJ refers to the 1993 - 1998 Grand Cherokee; my Grand Cherokee is a 1994 model). As frequent readers also know, I talk about it way too much. But bear with me, it ties in this time.

I love this car. I love it more than some people. (Usually the ones I don't like to begin with, but still...) It's reliable, well-built, and easy to maintain. Unfortunately, it also has one of the best engines ever built.

I say unfortunately because "one of the best engines ever built" happens to be the Chrysler 318ci, 5.2 litre V8. The result of having one of these is that your vehicle will tow anything, go up hills without even trying, and go from 0 - 60 quite rapidly, even in a heavy SUV. The other result is 14 miles per gallon average fuel economy.

Let's take a step back here so I can stop talking about my car, and people can actually pay attention without falling asleep. Gas is currently $4.11 a gallon in my area. It isn't much better anywhere else as far as I know. I bring up my Jeep because I'm not the only kid with a decent vehicle who can't afford to drive it. In fact, now, it's not only kids who can't afford to drive large trucks and SUVs, it's everyone!

When I go to my camp, 40 minutes away, there's a 35 mile or so stretch of highway involved. Strung along this highway, as someone pointed out to me and I myself observed, last time my family and I went to the camp, are inordinate numbers of vehicles for sale. On the way to the camp, we pass perhaps 15 -20 such vehicles.

The reason for this phenomonon is obvious: no one can afford to drive. I'm lucky, I won't be driving much for the next four years. (In fact, I won't be driving at all next year, thanks to my college no longer allowing freshmen to have cars on campus. And, again, since Gettysburg reads this, I'm eternally grateful guys, for saving me all that gas. Really. I swear.) Gettysburg is a great town, and entirely traversable on foot. But for commuters, who have to travel to work each day by car, 14 mpg is not an option.

I know none of this is news; my question, however, is, why are we putting up with this? I won't make any friends here, since my readers are primarily Republicans, but has anyone noticed that gas started jumping dramatically in 2003 and hasn't stopped since? Maybe this is just me, but does anyone also notice that 2003 was the year we invaded Iraq?

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I know my history. The Mexican War was primary fought for profit and private interests. It was fought to grab land for the United States, which promoted the expansion of slavery, which, in turn promoted profits for slaveholders. That was the idea anyway. This is historically arguable, and strong evidence exists to back this very point up.

Why is it so difficult then to admit what's going on? The two most powerful men in Washington have interests in the oil industry, and every time something (or someone, not to put too fine a point on it) blows up in the Middle East, where we essentially started a war, gas jumps a nickel per gallon.

Meanwhile, liberals use the situation to pretend that the search for alternative fuels is a mass movement against so-called global warming, not the result of an economic crises, and we have to listen to Al Gore and his ilk. When they start legislating this stuff, it's just going to get worse.

Similarly, as people can't drive, they also can't vote. Ironically, while we live in an age where anyone of any color and sex can vote (and rightly so), we have voter turnout at a percentage less that of what it was in the nineteenth century, when primarily white men voted. Why? Because no one is offering anything good or new. Even Obama, while pretending to be the agent of change, says nothing, and means nothing, and is nothing. When he wins, as I think he shall, it won't be because he's any good; it will be because McCain is so bad.

My only question is, why aren't we doing anything about it? In the words of Henry David Thoreau,

"All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75."

This is one of my favorite Thoreau quotes primarily because it's so true to any time period. Our founding fathers were so angered by high taxes and government intervention, which today we still have, and arguably in more intolerable ways, that they took up arms and defied the British crown. Yet in Thoreau's time, when many were opposed to slavery and the Mexican War, no one cared, and today, when we have our own Mexican War in Iraq, and our leaders are not representatives, but tyrants, we do even less.

Am I advocating taking up arms against the government? Don't go out and buy a CAR-15 just yet. (Well actually, go ahead if you want. Get one for me too while you're at it.) I'm not saying we need to march to Washington and blow up the White House. What I'm saying is stop playing the game. At least stop voting for "the lesser of two evils."

Yeah, I know, I harp on that too much. But it's a big libertarian point you know. As long as you're voting for what you don't believe in, you're not helping anyone but the big players in the system we currently live under. If you vote for McCain because you hate Obama more, you're still voting for someone you don't really want as president. Why would you do that? If you're voting for Obama, because McCain is worse, you're doing the same thing. Why?

Imagine for a moment that the American government reorganized today and had its citizens vote for either a communist or fascist state. What would the reaction be? (I sincerely hope the shotshell manufacturing business would suddenly become a wise investment, but with today's spineless voters who knows?) Yet, that's what Americans do every four years to a lesser extent, and then complain the country is polarized!

Anyone who thinks Obama (or McCain) wants change is a few billion brain cells short. Real change has to be through a rejection of the two-party monarchy, and a move towards some kind of protest of the status quo. That's what change is. This election will not see that change. But if it doesn't show up soon, we are all, if I may use the term without irony, royally screwed.

Notes on the Maine Republican State Convention

2008-05-03T19:53:00.032-04:00

Guess what I'm doing tomorrow?

And it's a good thing I get to have a relaxing day shooting people in the face too, because Friday was what one might call... stressful.

On Friday, I attended the Republican state convention in Augusta, Maine. I'd liken it to the circus, except sometimes circuses are fun.

It was pretty easy to find the place. After that, nothing was easy. First, I had to get what are called "credentials." Basically, it's a name tag that gets you into the convention. It's on my right coat lapel in the photo above. In any case, before I even got in the room where they gave them out, some officious Republican guy was shouting for everyone to leave because they weren't ready yet. What took so long I can't imagine. Basically, they were handing out envelopes with names on them. Pretty simple, or it should be in any case.

Apparently it wasn't though, because even though they had my mother's (who was also a delegate), they didn't have mine. I had to go to the central office to pick it up, where I was subjected to the indignity of some loud guy trying to explain that those were only for delegates. We had to explain that I was a delegate. (I'm sure this had nothing to do with my age.)

Eventually I got them, which was good. (Funny though, having someone's credentials all ready, but not that person's son's. I'm not saying it was because I filled out a survey saying I was voting for Ron Paul, and my mother didn't; I'm just saying that it wouldn't be surprising, because there was definitely an anti-Ron Paul agenda there. More on that later.) Afterwards, I entered the convention and hung out near the Ron Paul booth.

There was, I have to admit, a bad blunder on the part of the Ron Paul booth. They'd actually let a guy wearing a Confederate States uniform into the booth, and they'd let him set up pictures of Lee, Jackson, and Davis near Ron Paul. Obviously, this isn't the best way to garner support for a candidate. My mother reasonably tried to explain the finer points of public relations to the kid while I looked around. Turns out he was a nice enough guy, just pro-Confederate. (My opinion on the matter, if one should wish to know, is that neither side was right. Taking sides on that particular war may be slightly like taking sides in modern American politics. Everyone involved seems to have had really bad ideas quite consistently.) It was kind of cool when he was insanely envious of my going to Gettysburg College in the fall. (He learned this through my mother, who likes to tell people such. Personally, I always feel like I'm bragging when I tell people that, and I'm not trying to, so I don't mention it.)

In any case, the convention eventually started, which was hilariously Republican. First we had to go through the Pledge of Allegiance, after the main lights dimmed and spotlights lit up the American flag. Then we had to go through the national anthem, with the same dramatic effects.

I do like America. But do I have to pledge allegiance to it? And what's this patriotism thing about anyway? If you don't prove you're okay with America, people may not believe you? It seemed silly to me to watch these solemn-faced people standing, in a darkened room, hand over their hearts, facing a flag, as if a piece of cloth commanded so much respect. Even the idea of America shouldn't command such respect. Again, I like the country, but what is the country but a mere concept, a fiction? I would rather pledge allegiance to a friend, or someone I respected, rather than a fiction. To pledge allegiance to the fiction, then, seems to me disrespectful to what, or who, I would pledge allegiance to.

But that's another post. Anyway, the anti-Ron Paul agenda became evident soon after the start of the convention. After the first order of business, someone from one county (don't ask me which one; the name is American Indian or some such, and rather hard to spell, even if I could remember) made a motion such that, since there were two candidates, and John McCain was represented, someone be allowed to speak on behalf of Ron Paul also. Well, that idea must have been too dangerous to vote on, because the chairwomen immediately called the motion "out of order" and proceeded without even considering the matter, or letting it come to a vote. (If you're reading this whole post, 1.) congratulations on having a lot of patience, and 2.) remember this incident because it comes in later.)

This wasn't the first thing that happened either. When we sat down, we heard some McCain people in front of us whispering about how "Ron Paul people" had "taken over" a convention in Nevada (i.e. won). They had to "stop that" here. That's why the police were here. They were quite serious, sadly, and quite paranoid.

I was amused by this. I thought to ask them, 'do you fear us so much? Is it threatening to you that we vote, merely?' But, of course, I did no such thing; talking to those people is similar to speaking to furniture, only, in some cases, certain pieces of furniture can be very good listeners, and usually, they aren't fascist.

After this censorship, a McCain ~~propaganda~~ campaign video was played, in which, after several seconds of letting us know McCain was a war prisoner (which is weird because that wouldn't necessarily make him a good president...) McCain outlined his (flimsy) platform. Basically it was fiscal responsibility (good) mixed with war-mongering (bad). Still, it wasn't a terrible video. I guess it was well done; I just would've liked to see a Ron Paul video. Equal coverage would have been nice.

There wasn't much worth talking about after this. We ended up eating at a pizza place, which was fun, (and in an added bonus, I saw an old Jeep XJ Wagoneer go by, which was pretty cool) then returned to the convention to witness the next act of censorship.

Apparently someone there wasn't a Republican, because along with the Republican ~~indoctrination papers~~ campaign materials, there was a paper written by James Carville, advocating voting Democratic. Now, obviously, anyone voting Democratic is truly acting the part of their party mascot. However, I think whoever left them there had a perfect right to do so. The Republicans disagreed. They sent pages to collect all of them before we found them. (I sincerely hope, by the way, that someone sent someone to collect the pages before Mark Foley finds them.)

Following this was yet another act of censorship. Remember the first anti-Ron Paul thing? Well, the excuse the chairwoman used to shut that guy down was that the schedule had already been adopted. But, it turns out that might have been inaccurate, because someone was attempting to talk to the chairwoman about how the schedule could be amended. He asked for a microphone, which they wouldn't give him. The chairwoman told him he wasn't a delegate. He then told her he was delegate, from Falmouth, Maine, and that several people would vouch for him. Instead of asking those people, the chairwoman hesitated, then said since he didn't have his credentials on him, he would be removed. The guy then tried to appeal to the audience. He protested he had a right to free speech and assembly, and was promptly physically ejected.

And in the space of five minutes, one man's rights to free speech were erased by the majority. Because, while some of us agreed with that man, the majority did not. Not that it came to a vote; that would be dangerous to the party. Had it, however, the party should not have feared for itself, because, though some of us respected the man, McCain Republicans shouted at him to be quiet, to "throw the bum out." We mentioned to one that it was free speech, only to be told that he could practice his natural rights elsewhere. That's right, 'practice his natural rights elsewhere.'

This is interesting, the idea that natural rights have some places where they can not be practiced.

But of course, we knew that about Republicans, and Democrats come to that. From anti-flag burning amendments to political correctness, censorship is the name of the game. And it didn't stop there. The overbearing patriotism of Republicans continued into the speeches. Candidates for state offices were amusing. I'll detail them here.

First there was the obnoxious patriotic guy. He had no platform whatsoever. All he talked about was how he saw an art display in which an American flag was put on the ground and people allowed to walk on it. While in bad taste, the display should, most would agree, be legal, due to the first amendment. Well, this guy didn't think so. In fact, he thought this should literally not be allowed, even though making it illegal would be against the first amendment of the Constitution of the country he proclaims to love so much.

Then there was the woman whose platform was money. Basically she was saying we should vote for her because she knew how to "work the system" and get money for the state. It was buying votes. (One of my mother's friends suggested that instead we keep the money out of the hands of the state in the first place, an excellent idea.)

The worst of all was the guy who wasn't even there. He was a soldier in Iraq, and that was his entire platform. Instead of speaking (as I say, he was in Iraq) he was represented by a light show while "Eye of the Tiger" played, and pictures of him blowing people away with a helicopter-mounted machine gun were projected on the curtains behind the speaker. (Okay, so he wasn't actually shooting anyone. I made that up, but the rest is true, even the helicopter-mounted machine gun.) Sadly, I heard people saying they were going to vote for him, which was pathetic because there was absolutely no platform. None. All that was said was that he was in Iraq. That was it.

Big deal. Lots of people are in Iraq. Should we have rule by the military? (Oops, I'm sorry I said that; it might give Republicans ideas...) Remember Andrew Jackson? He was a war hero. Also a crappy president. In short, voting for someone just because he's a soldier is idiotic, and the fact that people were willing to do this amazed me. (Though if that's the way you think, note that, even though I'm a civy, I do sometimes wear camo and I like to play with guns. I'm even shooting people tomorrow! Anyone wishing me to run their lives can reach me through my email address, provided in my profile.)

There were good candidates though. If you live in Maine, check out John Frary and Linda Bean (no website apparently). They're sympathetic to Ron Paul, and neither was afraid to say so. Frary was the best, I think, though he's actually voting for McCain. He actually said that "since no one is allowed to defend Ron Paul" he would, and that "when he [Paul] swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States, he means it." He doubted McCain would mean it. His speech was thought-provoking, witty, and enjoyable.

It was funny though. All these politicians, Frary and Bean, perhaps, excepted, were essentially begging for their jobs, right after they acted all high and mighty. They acted like big shots, like they had positions of power. Several talked as if they'd already been elected. But, without the people, without appealing to and begging the people to elect them, they'd be nothing.

"I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it."

The most "half-witted" moment, though, came last. The last speaker was the candidate for a national congressional speech. I found the man annoying, arrogant, and irritating. He had a ton of followers with signs, all of whom had to march in with him and stand at the stage. Still, he had a perfect right to speak. But, the Republicans had a rule. At four, the microphone was to go out. So they just cut him off, in the middle of the speech, angering pretty much everyone in the room. Gee, that was smart.

I suppose there's not much more to say. I got four Ron Paul buttons and a bumper sticker, but I think that's the most valuable thing I took away from that place. Or perhaps something more important was taken away: the reminder I always get. The one that, every time I try to do things the "right" and legal and socially proper way, always says, 'forget it, you can't win, not by their rules; not by their terms.' And it's true. Tout democracy and government all you want. The system doesn't work. It's insane, it's a joke, and it's deeply, deeply flawed. If you don't believe me, go to a Republican state convention. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

Dumb Stuff I'm Not Sorry About, Episode I

2008-04-23T10:41:00.014-04:00

Admittedly, this was completely idiotic...

My parents are not amused.

Well, slightly amused perhaps...

I've taken this thing off-road on both dirt and sand, and it performed admirably. Mud... well, let's just say I'm crossing that off the list of terrain I can Jeep over in this particular vehicle.

It probably wasn't a good idea to try it on the way home from track practice in a public nature preserve parking lot either...

Hmm...

Anyway, If all goes well, I should have this thing out by tonight when my dad gets home with the Suburban.

Maybe I won't do this again. Until the mud dries anyway.

UPDATE

Well, here it is again this evening. The tailgate is open because we roped it to our Chevy Suburban and my father needed a place to sit while he rigged it all up.

There it is all hooked up and ready to be towed out.

Finally we got it out and onto (relatively) dry land.

And there she is, on the lawn, ready to be hosed off, complete with all her bumper stickers. "Ron Paul 2008," "Gettysburg College," and, of course, "Paved roads, another fine example of unnecessary government spending."

What a day...

Shooting Day

2008-04-06T14:57:00.007-04:00

I got to shoot my New Model Army replica for the first time in months today. It was fun, but blackpowder sucks to clean up...

Update: After writing this, I heard Charlton Heston, a huge gun rights activist, died today. Coincidental, and ironic. But in honor, I'll dedicate my target shoot to him post-fact. Here's to the NRA and 2nd amendment supporters everywhere!