Kneeling

People have been bombarding me with my opinion on NFL players kneeling during the national anthem. My response, expectedly, left both sides of the debate unhappy.

My first issue is that I am being hunted down to be asked at all. I don't know about everyone, but I didn't join the military to be some special class of citizen that needs to be babied constantly. My opinion on this is no more important than any American's opinion. I would beware anyone telling you that this or that is demeaning to veterans. Not that it doesn't happen. One that comes to mind is the woman who pictured herself yelling at Arlington Cemetary. That is disrespecting the military. That woman also paid dearly for that error in judgment. Case closed in my opinion. I wish her no ill will.

But when it is a point of patriotism, that affects me no more than it does any other citizen. "But I had friends who came home under that flag!" says the angry Facebook veterans. "I have sacrificed more!". So have I. But I am not taking their sacrifice to make everything about me. I lost friends, those men were lost to their wives, their children, their parents, and much more. We lost them as a country, not just me or just veterans.

Also, the reasons we were supposed to be out there was to protect those very rights that these NFL players were expressing. If you are going to fight to defend those rights, then use your status as a veteran to suppress them when you get home, I don't know what exactly you were fighting for. Don't think the US is the first country in the world to use our veterans as a means to suppress the rights of their people. This was a critical element that our founding fathers were against.

Now to piss off the other side. I am not a fan of the kneeling. Not because my feelings are hurt, or because I think forced patriotism is a sign of a healthy country. But because I believe in the goal the NFL players are striving toward, and I think this is taking them further and further from it.

To be clear, I do think that our country has serious problems with race relations, and those problems are more serious than just a cab not picking someone up or people crossing the street to walk. It's issues that suppress a large segment of our population, causes them grief and suffering, and can easily lead to their death. Even from a selfish viewpoint, millions upon millions of Americans before trampled upon effects all of us, even if we aren't the ones with boots on our backs.

"So you think cops hate black people and are just looking for excuses to murder them?!?"

No. I think police officers are incredible people with very difficult jobs that many of us could not handle. I think your average officer wakes up every morning wanting to go out, do their job which is keeping us safe, and go home to their family at the end of their shift. I also think they are critical elements of our society.

But, as one of my First Sergeants used to say, there are dirtbags in every group. He called it the rule of 10%s. 10% of the military is dirtbags who need to be found and thrown out, 10% are the heroes that will save the day, and 80% are the average joes that need to be lead. I'm a Marine, and I guarantee if you ask me or any other Marine, we can tell you stories of dirtbags who should have never been in uniform and never put behind a rifle. Marines who were idiots. Marines who were racists. Marines who needed to be thrown out. That realization doesn't mean I hate Marines. Not at all. That's just being honest. I got to be one of the detainee guards who escorted The Pendleton 8 out of Iraq. I sure as hell don't feel bad about that.

That is where I am sitting with police officers. The vast majority of them are awesome people. But there is scum that needs to be thrown out, and it terrifies me when they not only aren't but when wagons get circled for officers who don't deserve the backup. It's because the police are such important and essential parts of our government and our life that we have to hold them to the highest standards. Not low standards because the job is difficult.

Which brings me back to why I am not a fan of the kneeling. When I discuss the issue of US police with people, including people who are completely against my position, the best way I bring them around to understand is changing the issue from a civil rights issue, to a government overreach issue. These are American citizens being killed by government officials, and we need to do something to curb that.

But in brief, I think that kneeling of NFL players isn't the best method to further their goals. But I think it would be wrong of me as a fellow American to ignore my neighbor's plights because they didn't bring it up to me in a manner I felt comfortable with. I also think it's ridiculous that the kneeling is being portrayed as insulting to veterans. I have asked many, many people, and I can't find a single instance in American history where kneeling before something is insulting. Many, many examples of the opposite though. Beyond that, nothing about the flag or National Anthem should mean any more to me as a veteran than any American civilian. I think our founding fathers would be disgusted by the government using veterans as a shield to suppress civilians' speech.

Stranger Danger

One thing I have noticed about parenting is the balance between teaching my children what I think will make them happiest, with what I think will keep them safest. There is a cost for security, both financially, socially, and mentally. But the benefits are there too.

A subject that comes to mind is the current fear of "Stranger Danger" in the US and perhaps much of the world. It isn't mysterious where it came from. There have been very public cases of children being hurt or taken by a stranger, and all of us grieve for those kids and parents and hate to imagine ourselves in their shoes.

It is also a balance between the rarity of the crime and the severity of them. I can list statistics all day long that the vast majority of abductions is committed by friends and family. Most of those by noncustodial parents. The out of tens of millions of kids in the US, the number abducted by strangers can be counted in the double digits. That isn't the feeling you get when the news has a new story every day and your phone has Amber alerts going off. But even if it is rare, the terror of it happening to your child puts you on guard.

My question is how much is the cost of that security. Back when I lived in Tennessee I remember a local debate over a shooting of an old man. The short story is the old man had Alzheimer's and got lost while walking his dog late at night. He knocked on a door while lost, and the occupant snuck around the back of the house and shot the old man to death. His story was he felt fearful that it was a home invasion and protected himself and his family. Could it have been a home invasion? I don't have any statistics on how many murders were committed by senior citizens with the family dog in tow, but I guess it's a possibility.

What does it cost my kids to live their lives believing everyone they meet is a criminal until further notice? As a parent I want my kids to be safe, but how much am I damaging their lives and damaging their future communities if all of us teach our kids to live that way? I don't believe that security comes for free. We pay in our own way, possibly by alienating people that could have been our friends or depriving my children of social interactions that could have been healthy for them.

On the flip side of the coin, I have had great experiences with strangers stepping forward to take care of my children. When my son snuck out of school to try and walk home from school alone and found out the hard way he has his father's sense of direction, strangers stopped him, comforted him, and contacted the police to get him back to us. When my son used his sister as an outboard motor to pull him on his skate shoes and fell and busted his face, it was the local mothers who we had never met before who stopped and dressed his wounds and took care of him, their immediate action calming down both of my kids and were critical of him healing up just fine and leaving no scars.

What I really want to do is teach them that the vast, vast majority of people are kind people who are dealing with their own lives just like they are. That just about everyone will lend a hand if asked, and just about everyone has knowledge or virtues to pass to them if they are just willing to learn from them. Even the people who are cruel or mean are usually just kind people who have been damaged throughout their life and are responding in ways that aren't healthy for them.

Not that I want them to be open to abuse. There have been times in my life where I have known generally good people who I've had to remove from my life because they were too damaged to help, and either were damaging my own life, or we just did not want to see them continue to damage their own. That doesn't make them evil or criminals.

But then again, I have to balance those wants with the horror of how extreme that me being wrong is. I really don't want to be the one on the news telling people that the reason my kid trusted that person was that I wanted to protect how future communities interacted. Or consoling my wife with how rare these things are, we just got unlucky. This is one of those many times as a parent the answer isn't clear or easy. I think my best shot is teaching my kids honestly about this and letting them make the decisions of how to interact with the world on their own. I just have to have faith in their intelligence over my wants and hopes, and see where it takes me. Maybe not the best solution, but an honest one.

Thank you for opposing the president.

Three days after the events of the Charlottesville Nazi rally and I was numb.  I was not shocked or surprised or confused.  Just numb, which is weird because I knew all of this was quite likely.  It makes everything make sense.  Why Trump would support a country that actively halts the rights of its minority groups and has an authoritarian leader.  Why he could not immediately disavow David Duke on the campaign trail.  Why he was so comfortable attacking a Muslim family of a fallen military veteran.  Why he pushes for a trans ban, Muslim ban, and policies that are constantly regressive in all aspects:  Trump's ideology lines up with that of the white supremacy movement.

Now some might notice I did not call him a Nazi.  I won't because despite everything he has said and done he still gets the benefit of the doubt.  He is still an American and the American president.  He still get's the respect of being elected.  It is at a time when punching Nazis and getting them fired would be the easiest to do that we must resist these urges.  Due process does not hold as an ideology if at our lowest it does not hold.

That being understood, what we can do is assess the event that has already transpired and make sense of what got us here.  From there, we do what our enemy can't and won't do.  We strive to be better. So let us examine the actions of our president when his first major national crisis arose.

On Saturday, August 12th of 2017, when a Nazi rally attended by people with shields, body armor and weapons held under the conservative banner went awry the president did not condemn Nazism by name.  This was so apparent prominent sources of white supremacy media repeatedly said it was good he did not do so.  In fact, after 2 days of continued pressure from politicians and the media, when he finally came around to condemning it he was pressured by CNN reporters to respond as to why the delay and his response was to condemn them right then and there.  This is not a confusing or ambiguous moment.  We are all adults here.  The president was uncomfortable.

And we know we cannot take his word.  This is a man who literally lied about getting a call from the Boy Scouts.  There is a rhythm of poetic justice here.  He lied about the size of his inauguration crowd.  He lied about Mexico paying for the wall.  He still won't show his taxes.  There is an investigation currently dogging him and his entire campaign.  A campaign which was constantly criticized for its dubious morality.  The trail is so obvious I already feel silly for putting these thoughts in this order this late in the game.  But I had to be absolutely certain.  These are not accusations that should be made lightly.  It should be very hard and definite to say a man might side with any kind of supremacy.  We are now at that point because of all these proof line up.  President Donald Trump appears to side with white supremacy.

So before we start the long, difficult and brutal road ahead we must pause like all the wise must.  We must gather our will and courage for the people we will clash with.  The president, unknowingly or knowingly, shot the blatant first volley in the war against American principles.  Presidents are men whose power and past require us to value their omissions just as seriously as their inclusions and admissions and all of his now clearly lean pro-white supremacy.  We know that Fox News will continue to carry his banner with very few criticisms.  We know some conservatives who are not racist will side with him just because they still believe the Democrats would be worst, despite all evidence to the clear contrary.  Some will even know all this to be true but have too much of their pride wrapped up in supporting the wrong side of history, unable to suppress their ego enough to do the right thing.  This is quite normal in historical context.  That is how you get a group of people to intentionally put an entire group of people into gas chambers and ovens and still walk away feeling morally superior.

Before we do this a lot of gratitude is in order.  To Americans that are still peacefully fighting for unity.  To Americans going against their better, selfish interests for the greater ideal of compassion and community.  To conservatives who see the wrong and condemn their own brothers and sisters for this immoral stance.  For people engaging their neighbors and friends in the incredibly important daily conversation to reinforce why we hold American ideals high.  To those that challenge pathos with logos and ethos.  Thank you.  None of this would be possible if not for you holding true and strong in your local community.  We are doing very well.  We still have a long way to go but I have nothing but faith in the system the forefathers implemented.  Even at this low end, we have managed to stave off violence and bloodshed on a grander scale.  Many have done much worst for much less.  But we do not hold ourselves to basic standards.  We hold ourselves to the ideal of freedom, equality, liberty, and justice for all.  As long as we fight for those ideals then we are the best Americans we can be.  Failure is a possibility but never an option.  Oorah.

They better act like Americans!

This is an interesting situation where I disagree with at least the motivations of an idea, but I have a solution that will not only work for my ideals, but the ideals I disagree with. A fun instance where the solution to both of our opposing problems is solved the same way.

The one I am talking about is the idea that if someone moves to the US, they should act like Americans.

Now, off the bat, I can see the appeal of this and I understand that there are a lot of people who this seems like common sense. I mean, if you go into someone else's home, you abide by their standards. Why should moving to another country be different?

But here are my issues. First, which Americans are they supposed to act like? Americans are wildly varied, not only because of the sheer size of the US means that there are very distant locations that are still in the same country. A walk from California to Maine leaves you in the same country the entire time. That same walk east from Israel would take you through Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and into Tibet. Imagine how varied all of those cultures are in that same distance. But like any country, Americans vary even in the same locations. Which one of these Americans should they act like?

Also, I don't want immigrants to give up their culture just to move here. Anything that is "American" was brought over by the various cultures and coopted by us. Our culture was built brick by brick by the immigrants that came here. That isn't ancient history either, we are still doing it. Anyone had a sushi burrito yet? I am no food historian, but I would bet good money that started here and I appreciate it. I had a Pakistani burger not too long ago, and I know the people who invented it. Guess what everyone, it was a white guy and his Pakistani wife. Who'd have guessed? How many good things in America would we not have if we didn't allow immigrants to express themselves? How different would the America we know and love be?

My last issue with the above statement is being an American is about doing what you want with your life. That is why we love this country, that is why immigrants come to us. It's unamerican to force a fellow American to bend to suit you. 

But let's say you entirely disagree with me. You think if immigrants want to build a life here, they should ditch their baggage and become Americans. I've even heard that statement made by immigrants. One man I was talking to about why he didn't teach his kids his and his wife's native language. He said that they came here to be Americans and if he wanted to still be Chinese he would have stayed in China. He and his wife both refused to speak Chinese to each other and only did on occasions when they talked to family members who couldn't speak English. That is a powerful statement and one I certainly didn't argue with at the time.

So what is the magical solution that appeases both sets of people? Convert those immigrants yourself. Let me explain before people start building re-education centers.

Converting people unwillingly is ridiculously difficult. Have you ever tried to show a teenager why their boy/girlfriend is terrible for them? Any point you make is going to make them cling tighter to each other, and put them in the position of "it's us against the world!!!!". If there is anything all of us humans are not short of, it's ego. You put most people in that position and they are going to fight tooth and nail. You are going to lose that battle, or the costs are going to be too high.

Here's how you defeat them and convert them to Americans: Treat them like fellow Americans.

I am at an interesting position that seems to be getting a lot more common. I have a Pakistani wife (my in-laws were the burger inventors). I also have an African brother and his Mexican wife. So from my seat, I can see the inner workings of three different kinds of immigrant families. And you know what? America is winning. 

A big issue for some of the older generations of those families is their kids being "Americanized". My argument the whole time has been, "yeah, big damn surprise". Of course, when you bring your young children to another country or have kids in that other country, those kids are going to adopt the traits of their only known country. You came to America for a reason, and those kids aren't choosing whether or not to adopt the local culture, they are being forged by it. They are as much a part of it as you were when you were built by your culture.

The proof is in the pudding. Those families are all "Americanizing". The kids are intermarrying with other American races. They are adopting American mannerisms, American clothing, American music, the works. Whether they wanted to, or their parents wanted them to, they were becoming every bit as American as someone whose family has been here for generations.

So what can you do as Americans on both sides of the issue? Be these immigrants' neighbors. Invite them over for dinner, and join a dinner with them*. Take them out to the ball game. Take the most exotic immigrant you know, put some fireworks and a lighter in their hands on Fourth of July, and they'll be Americans before the last M80 goes off and the police break everything up. Many times I have taken immigrants and their kids out shooting and camping and riding dirt bikes. All American fun and they loved it.

You don't convert people to your culture by force. You convert them by dragging them along with you and making them feel like they already belong to your culture. Just be aware, they won't be the only ones changing.


*Beware fellow white people. That food is likely going to be very spicy. Take necessary precautions. 

In defense of empathy.

I have a fear about the worth of our words.  Now before I go down this path it should be clear I have no diploma or specialized education in this area.  If there is any reason for my appreciation of words I would guess that my mother being an English teacher would be the genesis of this respect.  This does extend to grammar and all its written and vocal requirements but though I do appreciate phrasing and such things what I really enjoy is just words.

Now as in all things of admiration that one is not directly involved in, you do at the minimum a cursory job of learning the gist of it and as in most things that people try to do for the first time with an audience, I am bound to screw it up a little. But I say all this not as a cop-out, but as a petition for your patience to understand my point.

Back to the subject of words, this philosophy has led me to a simple concept that everyone assumes but no one seems to encourage.  Words mean things for a reason.  Seems obvious I know, but let me give you an example.  The comedian Doug Stanhope in one of his more recent specials said a brilliant joke about the differently abled.  Something along the lines of nomenclature had changed several times and each time it was to adjust a negative perception that people had associated with it.

First, retarded was a professional name for this challenge.  Then mentally disabled, then mentally challenged, and now differently abled.  His point was we should stick with one because no matter which nomenclature we used humanity would still make the implicit connotation that it meant an individual with specific difficulties and would use this in jest to their buddies that they were differently abled and this for some reason would lower the person's status or dignity or whatever.  I think this is a brilliant example of the power of words.  One can take a word and use its meaning as a weapon to drag others into a mentality that can help or harm another.  That's some intense stuff right there.

But I fear too many are toying around with this power in a dangerous way.  They are using it to make complex points blaze because of instant gratification.  This is a concept that is difficult to convey but i will try.  I remember for years during the Bush presidency I heard people refer to him and/or Cheney as Nazis or devils.  I thought those were pretty fucking harsh criticism for a job you and I could never understand, but I also saw the appeal for the use.  A quick tool to convey all of your shock and foreboding that does not require a long explanation for the nuances of opinion that fuel your anger.  When that was not enough, we use our last ditch strategy at dragging social situations in our favor, lying.

If we just pause for a second we might notice that the danger is when we get real Nazi situations (like a political leader who can galvanize crowds into a negative violent frenzy with his words.  Who calls the nation's press that disagrees with him fake and holds his nation on an exaggerated standard of supremacy.  A nation that is powerful enough to challenge the world) and we can no longer use it to demonstrate the danger because we diluted its meaning by including either a lesser perceived villain for a quick social advantage of some sort.

Now we are in a predicament.  Since people usually comprehend things in their bias, you now have at least a group of people you are challenging who see only the attack and not the reasoning and this is why it benefits us to have succinct points using the right words.  Now as living things we already have our guard up just for basic survival on the day to day no matter how minimal the danger. But complexities like intentional misinformation and inaccurate explanation just makes things worse.  So a lot of people will react hostile with a stranger rather than cordial, just as a preemptive strike to deter or even take advantage before the other does.  This is before you add people in the mix that do all this for an intentional benefit.

Now imagine we do the opposite.  We promote a message of kindness and tolerance even when our gut tells us otherwise.  A message that says: "We will give you the benefit of the doubt up to a clear point but even at that point we will not kill you.  You knowing this can attempt to use that fact against me, and if I lose you automatically lose your life".

Yeah, as I said not an expert.  It's not graceful, catchy, clever and there's that tricky I give my life as far as I can while defending myself to stop you but don't plan on taking yours.  The statement itself can even be taken as an open challenge to show you that your philosophy will fail the first time your life is threatened, but I actually think failure is perfectly acceptable.  In fact, we absolutely get why failure seems so obvious.  We don't want to die.  All we ask is that you try it to the best of your ability.  We will work to make sure we are as healthy physically and mentally as we can be so if you try to take advantage of us we are as prepared to take you down without killing you (that's our motivation to stay healthy in mind and body).  We understand that to feed the mind some might need belief so they can keep their drive.  Some might need routine.  Some might even just want to be left to consume and we will work at it as a whole, even if you do not want to.  We will even reduce our level of living for your sloth and benefit if need be.  We will take it as an added challenge to our intellect and will push through because improvement of our offspring is a challenge we should proudly accept.

That sounds like a crazy statement until you pause and wonder if we actually know the percentage of humanity that is lazy.  Just looking objectively it wouldn't be far fetched to say most of the planet is gainfully engage or/and employed in one way or another.  So why are we so confident if we bet on humanity we will end up in a Wall-e type of future?  Some of the most common things you hear from top athletes and celebrities in football, basketball, soccer,  politics, entertainment adult and otherwise are that they are just happy to do the thing they love.  I can't count the number of times I've heard a UFC fighter say "I couldn't imagine doing anything else for a living" in a victory after months of intense training, dieting, and concentration.  Everybody knows one of the hardest things a human can do is diet and exercise and that is why we prize the physical characteristics so much.  We will buy pills and equipment or hire individuals to help us do something we could just do with repetitious bodyweight exercises we can get online for free.  Do we just assume given the opportunity those guys would just stay at home?  They could have worked at McDonald's or even worse, much higher paying and more respectable options but that appealed to them so little they chose to get hit in the face.  That is a person that loves that life.

So I actually think if we bet the opposite way we actually have a real chance at saving humanity.  Because we are already betting the other way and have been for a while.  We see that it will always end in massive conflict and loss of life because it is designed to defend by attacking.  There is always bound to be a misread threat or an itchy trigger finger and any veteran has seen at least one or two of those.  So let's give defending by defending a try.  I think with a little curiosity you might notice it has more of a chance than it looks like on the surface (or at the very least that humanity just based on what we have already achieved is something worth betting on).  I guess this was a really long way to say that as crazy as it sounds i think the hippies had it right.  All we do need is love.

No Kids Allowed

The movie Logan is going to make your life better in the future. Hear me out.

When we laugh about the regulations of TV shows back in the 60s, such as I Dream of Jeannie not being allowed to show Jeannie's bellybutton on screen, we fail to realize that those regulations are still having their effect today. So many production companies want to make a movie for adults, but also hit that coveted PG-13 rating so that more people can buy tickets! Our movies and entertainment get dumbed down and de-intensified so that it can hit the magical PG-13 rating. Especially movies that normally are directed towards kids, like comic book movies such as Logan.

Is it so much to ask for movies made just for the 76% of the country that is adults? Of course rated R movies have already been out, but the big budget films are rarely rated R. The extremely costly movies always seem to be PG-13 movies, because those investors want to hit the biggest possible market. But I think starting with Deadpool, and confirmed by Logan, we might start seeing big budget rated R movies made just for adults. Sure, having a PG-13 rating opens up to more customers, but catering specifically to adults works wonders.

I don't think this movement is solely in Hollywood either. I'm starting to see a number of restaurants and other venues that are banning kids and are getting slammed by happy customers. I remember seeing an incident in Tennessee where this awful woman got kicked out of a nice restaurant because she decided to bring in McDonalds for her kid and threw a fit with the managers when they told her to get it the hell out of there. She started making social media posts about how the restaurant was NOT kid friendly, and the community responded by filling the place up with reservations.

Now, before I get slammed for hating kids or some crap, that isn't the point. I have kids. I take them with me to restaurants all the time. But if a venue doesn't allow kids, guess what? I don't take my damn kids there. I am not a fan of how everything continues to get dumbed down just to accommodate everyone's children. There are places that is not appropriate for your kids. I understand that is a downer at times, but it's just a part of life. Not every movie, every restaurant, every form of entertainment has to be kid friendly too. "But that means I can't go out if I can't find a babysitter!!!". You're exactly right. That's part of being a parent, you have to make sacrifices for your kids at times. Get used to it.

Just like that restaurant, I am betting on production companies realizing that catering to adults, while losing you some children's tickets, will make up for it in spades by more adults getting to go out and enjoy adult movies. Imagine Avengers with an R rating. Instead of us having to believe that Captain American, who has been killing Nazis since the elevators were still ran by people is ALSO against cursing, we can hear him in all his foul mouthed, military glory. Getting to actually experience these characters make hard decisions that wouldn't be understandable to a 12 year old. Or go through pain that only adults can comprehend.

I'm excited for this change. Disney will keep pumping out movies for kids and Ice Cube will continue starring in family pictures, so I think the children will be just fine. The only change is the biggest age demographic in the US finally starts getting catered to.

Land of The Free, BECAUSE We Are The Home of The Brave

I am going to go ahead and run off the assumption that anyone reading my blog already knows about the Executive Order Trump signed just a few days ago. The country erupted into debate about it and about what it actually entailed. Even White House Chief of Staff seemed to not understand exactly what the order entailed and was forced to reverse himself. So us as citizens are going to have a tough time.

Now, to cut through the lies being told on the Trump side, and on the anti-Trump side fairly quickly. First, no, this isn't a "Muslim ban". The ban applies only to certain countries, which both Republican and Democrats have agreed on (at separate times) are hotbeds of dangerous activities. You'll see a lot of posts showing that none of these countries' nationals have ever committed terrorist acts on US civilians, which is true. You'll also see people pointing out that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not on that list despite being huge state sponsors of terrorism. While it's easy to point out The Trump Org has business in a lot of these hotbed countries that he didn't list, it wasn't just him that has routinely ignored those countries. Saudi Arabia is probably one of the worst offenders but the US has ignored their acts for decades, likely because of our huge oil interests in the area. Not just Trump, but a bipartisan blindness of their crimes.

Now, things that point toward it being a "Muslim ban" is it is specified in those orders that people of minority religions will be given priority to skip the ban. Of course, since they are all Muslim majority countries, that effectively tells Muslims they will be in the back of the line. If made a law preferring minority religions in the US, you can be damn sure Christians would quickly (and correctly) point out that law is harassment against them. That part of the order is one that could possibly be unConstitutional. Possibly. An argument for that line is those minority religions are the ones in the most danger, which while I don't have sources to prove that, sounds likely.

Another thing you'll hear is "But, but, but, Obama did it in 2011 and you guys didn't complain". This is garbage. Obama's order did not specify religions and did not affect people who were already legally allowed to travel to the US, such as dual nationals, visa holders, and green card holders. The two orders are worlds apart, and being pissed about one and not the other doesn't make anyone a hypocrite. Though while Obama didn't write a ban like Trump's, he did murder many, many innocent Muslims with drone strikes and bombings, which I'd say is worse. Of course, Trump's first raid as a president killed many innocent Muslims, including women and children. So it doesn't look like Trump is going to stop Obama's civilian killing legacy.

Is Trump's EO unConstitutional? Listen ladies and gentlemen, that question cannot be answered by some idiot in a Facebook comment section, or some idiot on a Reddit post, or some idiot that is paying $12/month to have his own blog to bitch in (yours truly). That question is going to have to be hashed out in court by teams of lawyers and likely decided by Supreme Court Justices. I know people want an answer now, but no one can give you one. And likely even after the SC decides we'll still have people hotly debating it.

But beyond the legality of the order that we're not qualified to decide, how do I feel about the order? Well, that comes in parts. First, I know more than most Trump supporters how dangerous this terrorism we are fighting is. I've seen the people murdered over it. I've spoken to the people who have been brutally tortured and disfigured by it and seen their scars. I've seen children rigged with bombs and I've gotten to clean pieces of little girl off the side of our Humvee after an attack. I've left friends behind in Iraq, and brought back friends whose lives were ruined by their injuries and PTSD. This is serious stuff people, and the thought of it making it to our country and my wife and my kids having to see it too horrifies me. I understand the people who want to prevent something like that, and are willing to go to lengths, even unpopular ones, to prevent it.

I didn't just see horror out there however. I also saw courage of not only my fellow soldiers, but of the Muslims living in conditions few people can understand. Being caught aiding American forces to clear out the remnants of Saddam's regime could easily get you and your family executed in terrifying ways, but they still did it. We were trained by Iraqis who could show the the bullet wounds or the torture scars that it had cost them to aid US troops, but they still came out with us and did it. And one of their biggest awards for doing so? Being allowed to come to the US and be Americans along with us. People, I'm an American by chance of birth as likely are most of you. Can you imagine how few of us would be Americans if we had to be shot at, tortured, and your family killed to make it? And by the way, those Muslims who have been aiding our troops like they aided me are banned by this new EO. Men and women who have risked their lives for months or years got to learn that the US was not good on it's promises. And our troops get to have an even more difficult time recruiting more people to help now that their word has been proven to mean nothing.

This also ignores the fact that it is really easy to point out the Muslim terrorist groups who hate us, but we all seem to ignore that those same terrorist groups hate other Muslims. ISIS and al Qaeda murder far, far more Muslims than any other group and Muslims are the ones killing and forcing back the most ISIS members and al Qaeda members by far also. Muslims are the single biggest allies in our fight against Islamic terrorism, and it isn't surprising. Who do you think would be the people most pissed about someone bastardizing their religion? Who would be the people most affected by someone turning their country into a warzone? We see it on TV, these people live it.

This isn't the first time we have had that issue in The US. Back in WWII, we denied entry to thousands upon thousands of Jews because we saw them as Germans that could possibly attack us from inside. Thousands died as a result of our inability to differentiate between our allies and our enemies. It was a permanent black eye in our history and one we were and are rightfully embarrassed and ashamed for.

Lastly, my issue with the EO is I see it as a power grab by our government, and I am really sensitive to this. Just months ago when I would complain about EOs and government overreach I had Conservatives on my side agreeing with me and demanding executive powers be curtailed and Liberals telling me it has to be this way because of our do nothing Congress. Now when I make the same complaints, it's Liberals on my side demanding the same things and Conservatives shouting us down as unpatriotic. People, take notice of how limited our founding fathers made these powers even though it was practically assured that they would be the first ones to hold them. They did that because they knew they would not always be the people holding those powers, and they would have to limit them in the very real chance that someone would have them that they didn't agree with. Since 9/11, the powers of our government has increased by leaps and bounds because we fail to look very far into the future. Sure, Trump might be your guy and you trust him with all the powers we can give, but what happens if he isn't re elected in 2020 and it is someone you hate as president. Those powers don't vanish with Trump, they get moved to the next president. Still comfortable with it?

If Islamic terrorism's goals is to fundamentally change our country, they are succeeding at an unprecedented rate. One of the most basic rules of warfare is to not do what your enemy wants you to do, and us Americans have forgotten that. Of course ISIS wants us and the rest of the world to ban Muslims. Not only does that entrap people in their strongholds, allowing them to have more money, more people to terrorize and abuse, and more children to indoctrinate and recruit.

Does that mean I think we should throw our doors open and take everyone that asks? No, but I do think considering how little Islamic terrorism (and virtually none by these refugees) we have in the US that our existing vetting process is capable and successful. But could this Muslim ban prevent an act, or could a more serious one do that job even better? Possibly, but I bet us all giving up our Fourth Amendment rights would also make us "safer". How many criminals have been able to abuse aspects of our Constitution to complete their heinous acts? How many obviously guilty people have walked free because of the sheer amount of rights afforded to them? How many cops and prosecutors have had valid evidence thrown out because how it was attained was against the 4th Amendment?

In order for everyone to have these rights, we have to subject ourselves to a certain amount of danger. Which is why I like a slight change to a famous American quote. We are the land of the free BECAUSE we are the home of the brave. Because without bravery, we cannot have these freedoms we enjoy and that makes our country what it is. Be brave Americans. Don't give in to the people who scare you into giving up your rights and fundamentally changing your country for a bit of possible safety. Don't allow Germany, Sweden, Canada, and various other countries show us up in their bravery. 

The D2D Guide To General James Mattis

Retired Marine Corps General James Mattis has been selected by President Elect Trump for Secretary of Defense. That's a lot of official titles right there. General Mattis still has some hurdles to overcome, including getting a waiver from Congress to bypass the National Security Act of 1947. This shouldn't prove too difficult, as Congress granted waivers for that within years of the Act passing.

For me, this has been the first and only cabinet pick by Trump that is remotely acceptable. I'm not special in that sense, that seems to be the running thought of most Americans. But there has been some pushback, mostly because of quotes attributed to General Mattis. Even someone I am a big fan of, Robert Reich made a worried statement on facebook about the pick.

Off the bat, I understand why there is pushback on the pick. First, and likely the biggest reason for the pushback is how horrible virtually every other pick of Trump's has been. In my personal opinion, a democracy lasts only as long as you can keep money from getting infused into politics. The more money that gets put in, the less avenues average citizens have to vent pressure. All governments need pressure valves where regular Joes can let off steam, make noticeable changes, and feel like part of the system and not a subject under it. Someone who doesn't feel like part of a society will either knowingly, or unknowingly work to destroy it. It's human nature. With the long list of billionaires and millionaires that are taking over our executive branch, I am worried along with the rest of you that money will become even a larger part of politics than it was before, and it is hugely incorporated into politics already.

I know, I know. How could we know Hillary would have been any better? I honestly doubt it would have been better. I was right there with the rest of you complaining about her ties to wall street. But that thought doesn't mean I can't complain about what is actually happening now rather than compare it to what would have theoretically happened. Hillary is gone. Unless the DNC is dumber than even I think, she won't be a contender for president again. We need to deal with what is really happening.

But on to the point of this post. General Mattis has some crazy quotes floating out there. We are already a warmongering country. One of the few bipartisan agreements is we need to stop being the world police. How can we be comfortable with a Secretary of Defense that has quotes about loving fighting and killing?

I served under Mattis when I was with 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines and he commanded I MEF. Of course, I was but a filthy Lance Corporal/Corporal, so it's not like him and I were drinking buddies. I managed to get a handshake in with him once. Sadly, he was already out of challenge coins since he was being swamped by Marines. I'm still a little salty about that. But I personally benefitted from working under Mattis. So I am not exactly an unbiased source, but I will do my best.

So why do military and especially Marines love him so much? There is a number of reasons. First, he was an intellectual in a branch that is not exactly known for intellectualism. General Mattis was well known for being an educated and intelligent man. He had a library of over 6000 books that he took with him from post to post from ancient Roman philosophies to modern military tactics. Reading and Marines go together like oil and water, so this is particularly amazing.

But what about those violent and antagonistic quotes?!? Talking about loving to kill people isn't exactly a hallmark of intellectualism. One of his quotes is:

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”

Not exactly politically correct. But there is a couple things you have to remember. First, one of the horrors of our deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan is seeing the horrible treatment of women and girls in those two countries. We've seen women getting the hell beat out of them in public. We've seen little girls rigged with bombs because they were already a burden on their family not being a boy. I've had to clean the remains of a 6 year old girl (guessing her age) off the side of my truck after her parents and Imam rigged her to blow up. She ran away from us, likely because she knew she was sent to kill us. They still detonated her as she ran.

So a General talking about these horrors isn't being callous. He is just speaking from experience that many Americans thankfully don't have. I personally never wanted to kill anyone. When I went to Iraq, it was to try and prevent killing, unless absolutely necessary. My fellow detainee guard and I actually got threatened with NJPs for not killing people, and instead physically restraining them at the risk of our own lives. I have no love of killing people. But I absolutely understand where General Mattis is coming from with that statement. It's not pretty. It's not PC. But it speaks to his men who have these experiences.

There are other quotes by Mattis that aren't getting much air time. But they are supremely important to understanding who this man is:

“You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”

Challenging Marines to think before they fight is a big part of General Mattis. He led the charge on nurturing Marine's minds as much as their bodies. You won't find many leaders in the military who harp on intelligence in their ranks. Mattis was one of the few, and we loved him for it.

“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

This is another quote to show how violent and antagonistic Mattis is. But that is only to people who weren't deployed. As Marines, we have been trained for literally centuries to never be complacent. Complacency kills is painted all around bases in Iraq. We don't know who is out to get us, especially in wars like these where the enemy isn't in uniform, working in ranks. So for us Marines, the "have a plan" part is just business. But the be polite and professional part is new, and different. Under Mattis, we were instructed to not be assholes to Iraqis. Treat these people with respect and politeness isn't how wars are normally fought, but it was the best advice we could have been given. Iraqis had been demoralized and beaten down for decades. Having the strength we did, while still being polite and respectful was a totally new idea. In Iraq and a lot of the world, people who had strength got to do whatever they wanted, and they took advantage of that. A force as strong as the USMC, and still being respectful was a new experience for them, and honestly how all wars should be fought. As Winston Churchill said "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite". Stopping a fight before it happens is more important than winning after you caused it.

“I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”

Another antagonistic quote. But again, and as usual, context is key. This was part of a talk with Iraqi military leaders. As I said above, Iraq had been run with system of "whoever has the strength, makes the rules". Mattis' quote is reminding them strongly that HE had the strength now. A big issue in Iraq is that Iraqis had been trained into being submissive, subversive, or being horrifically murdered. It had been an incredibly dangerous time in Iraq for decades. Saddam's regime had killed an estimated 10% of the Iraqi population. And Iraqis laughed at us for such a low estimate. For comparison's sake, the civil war was the US's highest casualty war, and we lost less than 2% of our population during it. You either hid and lied in Saddam's regime, or you died. Mattis (and all of us) had to deal with rightfully suspicious Iraqis, many who had spent the majority (or entirety) of their lives being beaten down. Mattis had to show strength, and had to be honest here. If those Iraqi commanders had turned on him, he would have had to kill them. It's the nature of doing business. He put it to them straight, not because he wanted to kill them, but because he didn't want to.

“You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”

This quote is important to me, because we are living in a country where information is getting more and more available, but facts are becoming less and less important to us. Our politicians don't even bother with being factual anymore. They know the people who support them won't care if they lied, and the people who don't won't care if they told the truth. Preach to the choir is how we do business now.

Mattis I believe would reject that as SecDef. He is very much a man who values the truth over what he wants to hear. And to be honest, he is the only one in the incoming administration that seems to value that. Being honest and being effective are big parts of who Mattis is. We've needed that for a long time, and it'll be especially valuable now.

Another big part of why you are seeing waves of military and exmilitary supporting him is because he supported us. Mattis put his troops first throughout his career. He even once pulled duty for a Marine so that young guy could spend Christmas with his family. His explanation by General Krulak: “So I said to him, ‘Jim, what are you standing the duty for?’ “And he said, ‘Sir, I looked at the duty roster for today and there was a young major who had it who is married and had a family; and so I’m a bachelor, I thought why should the major miss out on the fun of having Christmas with his family, and so I took the duty for him.’ ". Find me the time Trump or Hillary took over a job for one of their workers on a holiday. I'll wait.

That is why servicemen and servicewomen support him and would follow him into hell. He was a man who didn't demand respect, he earned it. We loved him because he was one of us, not above us. He worked his way up from infantry ranks all the way to General. He knew what life was like as one of us. We learned the hard way what it was like having a General who did not know what it was like as a front line troop when we got General Amos as Commandant. He was the antithesis of Mattis. A man who threw his troops under the bus to protect himself. In other words, a man who emulated US politicians. Few Marines would follow Amos to a Dairy Queen, even if he was buying.

One thing about General Mattis that should make my liberal readers more comfortable is that I don't think Trump understands exactly what he is getting with him. Trump was confident he could force the military to obey even blatantly unlawful orders. He wouldn't even be able to control his own SecDef if he tried it. Mattis would absolutely stand up against that garbage, and what is Trump going to do? Fire the one and only pick that the US is happy about? Can a man who commands far more respect that he ever could? I seriously doubt it. On veterans sites I am already seeing vets asking how many people have to go before Mattis would become president (the answer btw is Mattis would be 6th in line). You think Trump has the grapes to can Mattis for refusing to administer orders that break our laws and treaties? I highly doubt it.

What Marines Dream About

If you were worried about the ignorant things Trump said he'd do with the military, than I highly suggest you think about supporting General Mattis. Don't just trust me. Look into the man's life and talk to people who have served under him. Try as I might, I haven't found a single person who has served under him who don't wholeheartedly support him as SecDef. That should speak volumes about who he is.

In summary, if you want a strong military that is intimidating to forces that want to hurt us, Mattis is a great pick. If you want a military that acts justly and professionally, Mattis is a great pick. If you want someone who will stand up for American values when stupid orders come from above, Mattis is a great pick. He's not perfect. He's not an angel. But he is who can do the job, and likely do it the best. I know his quotes might bother some people, but as General Patton said:

“When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can't run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn't fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag. … As for the types of comments I make, sometimes I just, By God, get carried away with my own eloquence.”

I leave you with a letter sent by Mattis to his Marines. Read this, and see if you can understand why he is so beloved.

P.S. That comic above was taken from www.TerminalLance.com. Max is an great artist, motivating person, and a filthy Marine veteran like yours truly. Please take the time to visit his site and appreciate his work.

You Have To Invite Them In

So this election huh? I have friends in other countries calling me like we just experienced a natural disaster.

"Are you OK?"

"Has anyone you know been hurt?"

"What are things like over there???"

This election has been a tough one. First, because there is a short list of pros, and a seemingly constantly growing list of cons for each candidate. Neither side had to worry about running out of ammunition. If it came close we just had to wait a couple hours and a new Hillary email would surface, or a new Trump recording would be published, and we were all back into the mudpit.

But this happens every four years right? This might make my naiveness show, but I think this election has been unique when you're looking at what was going on in society. We've always had divides in this country. We fought an entire war over it. Now that we have President-elect Trump, of course close to 50% people are going to be angry for awhile. That's just the nature of the beast. Right?

I wouldn't call myself a history buff, but I do enjoy it. Oftentimes I'll see people complaining about how horrible the world is becoming and laugh to myself because those people are forgetting what the world used to be. Even with all the conflicts in the world, the rate of violence has been falling dramatically. I am a OIF veteran. I have seen conflict and some of my friends didn't come back from there. Total deaths of US military between Iraq and Afghanistan come in right under 7,000. That is a terrible loss of life, but let us not forget that in the World Wars, there was tens of thousands of men dying in just a single battle. Even Napoleon had a famous quote "You cannot stop me. I can spend 30,000 men a month". That is terrifying.

Now if you look at our election this month with a more historical perspective, should this be an election that causes this much friction? I'm not pretending that there isn't anything going on. Trump will have to make some serious and divisive decisions while president. But we've held elections during World Wars. We held elections during The Cold War when we were all sitting on the button, waiting to see who called who's bluff first and kill us all. Those were far more important elections, and obviously before my time, but from what I see and read, it still didn't feel as personal for your average American as this election did.

Why is that? While there is a lot of stress in the world, for us Americans it's relatively calm. Economy is doing decent. The wars we are in have lost a lot of their steam. The refugee issue is more of a theoretical problem than a real issue with The US. I don't even know anyone who knows anyone that has met a Syrian refugee. Not exactly life changing. We have so little going on here we argue about Starbucks holiday cups. Or the Kardashians.

The biggest culprit is the media, and both sides are sure that the media is against them. It's the media's fault Trump ever had a chance. It's the media's fault they make Trump look bad. It's always the media's fault. They have a conspiracy one way or another, and they breed in controversy to make themselves money! Or so screams Americans.

I have worked in the military, in government jobs, and for large corporations, and something I have come to realize is there is a lot less thought and planning than everyone assumes. The military and government is almost always like a dog chasing a ball. Little thought, even less planning. Everyone is flying by the seat of their pants. Corporations aren't much different. Every big company I have worked for reminded me very much of a quote that I can't remember well enough to attribute correctly, but it's essence was "It is so disorganized if you kicked it's ass the head won't realize it for a week". Imagining these organizations having these carefully crafted, secretive plans is hilarious to me.

Here is my completely unsubstantiated idea about the media. Are they digging their claws into our lives, making public things personal and causes way more animosity than it should? I believe so. But I don't think it was done intentionally, or even willingly. I think we demanded it, and the media provided the service.

Imagine you are a media executive. You are giving important and relevant news for years, but now you have to be providing fresh material 24 hours a day. So you resort to throwing in some filler crap. Let's toss in something about the candidate's personal life that might intrigue some people, but is barely relevant to the election. But then, holy crap! The public LOVED that filler material. Your ratings jumped, which put more money in your pocket and more stability in your career. You know that the material was junk that held no relevance to important thought, but what are you going to do? Turn down extra money and acclaim?

I would love to believe that I have the constitution to do what is right in that situation, ignore the money and only display important material. But even if I did do you think those shareholders didn't notice? You think they are going to let me go with my morals, or fire me and put someone in who pulls in the ratings and the money?

What I am saying is I really doubt there is some big global conspiracy against us. It's just that we as consumers are demanding this junk news, and all the media is doing is chasing those dollars we are throwing at them to show it. Americans love to be outraged, and we will pay top dollar for it. It reminds me of the Kardashians. You can't go a day in the US without hearing people say how much they hate the Kardashians and how bad they are for America. But we keep throwing money at them don't we? The Kardashians aren't the problem, us buying what they are selling is the problem. If someone would pay me millions to act like an idiot on TV, you better get ready for the Simmons Show. I doubt you would turn down that money either.

We aren't victims people. We are consumers who are demanding this stuff and not liking what we are demanding. We've demanded the media come into our homes, sit at our dinner table, and outrage us all. We've demanded an election convert from "I think this would be the best way, and my opponent thinks this will be the best way" to "If my opponent wins the USA is doomed and if I win it'll be a angelic utopia!!!". If we want the media to change, we need to stop rewarding them for doing us wrong. All they are doing is what we are incentivising them to do, and expecting them to have better morals than we do.

Look Pretty For The Camera

There is ongoing research showing that the way we experience something is at least as important as what we experience. Reading a book rather than seeing a video of something has markedly different ways you process that information. Being at an event affects you differently than seeing it on TV. To what extent it changes, we're not sure yet.

Which makes me wonder how much the way we as people experience things has changed rapidly in the present day. Think about it. How many years of humanity was it the only way I could relay a message to anyone was by speaking it directly to them? The best guess was about 100,000 years and that is constantly in argument. Then how many centuries was it it was solely the written word to relay information to one another? About another 3300 years until the telegraph was invented, and for many decades after the written word stayed king. Now it's cell phones, TVs, radio, internet and many growing new ways. Our bodies have not changed much over the last couple hundred years, but what we do with them has changed drastically.

Now think about experiences we all assume we share. Like being a child and how your parents handled and interacted with you. What being a kid and a teenager is like. We all assume it's by and large the same. But is it anymore, and how will we be impacted by those changes?

A friend of mine posted a video of a little girl having an intimate moment with her mother and little sister. Very cute and heartwarming video that a good amount of us can relate to having with our parents or having with our children. But think of how that little girl saw it. She was having a bonding moment with her family, and she is having a cell phone camera put in her face. She isn't just having a moment anymore, she was performing for the camera, and likely could hardly see her mother.

Don't think I am saying that lady did anything wrong. I have family across the world who want videos and pictures of our kids regularly. I don't want those families left out of important moments with my kids. If I had caught a close moment like that with my kids I would have been ecstatic that I got so lucky and posted it everywhere.

Look at my kids damn it!

But am I fundamentally changing how my kids are having experiences by shoving a camera into the equation? You go to a kids' school event these days and look at the parents, it's just a wall of the backs of their phones. Maybe an actual real camera or two for those folks who really went all out. The amount of parents' faces those kids can see can be counted on one hand. I remember having school events when I was a kid. I was a kid in the early nineties, not that long ago. There were cell phones, but few people had them and you were lucky if they actually could make a call, little on take 4K video and high definition pictures. When I would look out from those events I was doing what every other kid was doing. Seeking out my family. Can my kid do that with me? Only if they can recognize my cell phone case. They certainly can't see if I am looking enthusiastic, or happy, or proud.

Beyond even lack of facial recognition, how does putting an audience in the room change how kids interact? Now my kids aren't just adjusting how they are acting because of me, but also because of people viewing it on Facebook. My six year old knows how Facebook works and that videos of her get posted there. She has asked me to video her doing something and post it. How does her interaction with me change when she knows she is performing for the camera? I really doubt it has no effect. Think about those times you whipped out your camera to take a picture of something that the front facing camera was on. Not being prepared to be photographed makes you look ridiculous. 

It's not exactly unknown that we adjust how we pose, act, and talk when a camera is on. Run up to a table full of people with a camera and watch the conversation stop and everyone adjust and straighten out for the camera. Take the picture and put it away and you can literally hear the sighs of relief from everyone as they relax again, stop sucking in their gut and pushing out their chest, and continue being human beings. That's with grown adults, many of whom grew up without a camera waiting around every corner. How is this affecting our impressionable kids getting cameras shoved in their faces from the time they are in diapers until the time they can own their own camera phones.

Lastly, what about the person holding the camera? Are they getting to be a part of the experience too? When I watch my favorite shows or events, whoever is holding the camera is not even part of the equation in my mind. You can probably think up a couple famous news anchors, how many of you can think of the name of a famous cameraman? I sure can't. Am I removing myself or my wife from important experiences with our children because we have been regulated to camera duty? Will my kids remember the person interacting with them, or the person whose head has been replaced by a camera phone?

Please don't take this as me chastising you or anyone else about how you raise your children. I don't know if it's a current issue, but it seems lately that parents can't talk to one another about possible issues without coming across as pretentious or stuck up. This article (and practically all the articles that I write) is based around me questioning myself, and how I am parenting. I have no evidence that putting a camera in family events makes things better or worse. I certainly understand why parents do it. Not only to be able to let family be a part of their kids' lives, but also to be able to go back to these videos and reminiscence as my wife and I do on occasion. My worry is that I definitely am seeing a change, and I am wondering what the long term consequences of these changes are. Are they really worth the trade off, or should I toss the damn phone and just enjoy the moment with the people who are most important to me?

To Pledge or Not To Pledge

Colin Kaepernick is making headlines by refusing to stand up for the national anthem recently. Not going to lie. When I heard something an NFL player did was making waves, I was bracing myself for something terrible. Did he beat his wife? Did he rape a woman? Did he torture and abuse animals? Did he beat his son in the testicles with a switch? Did he kill some people and get away with it? I shudder to think what could have the nation more embroiled than all of the above incidents did.

Well, it turns out this is seriously the bigger issue than the formers. How dare he? Doesn't he know that the country made him a millionaire? If it wasn't for people fighting for his freedoms, he'd be speaking German! Or is it Chinese now? Russian? Hard to keep up with who is the threat lurking right outside of the US anymore.

But this Kaepernick debate has been going on for longer than him. It has been recurring in our classrooms too. Should students be forced to stand for the pledge? Are the children who don't awful? Are their parents awful? What's the most creative way we should punish or intimidate children into doing the pledge? Does it count if they don't say "under god"? How can I use the image of wounded veterans to make my point?!?!

Nailed it!

One of the most underrated benefits of being a veteran is getting used as cannon fodder (again) for other people's debates. It's seriously the best thing ever, please everyone keep it up. 

Now, for me, I absolutely do stand for the national anthem, and intend to do so for the rest of my days. But do I do it because I feel obligated to, or because I think I owe my country? I don't make millions like Kaepernick, but whatever money I do have is thanks to my country right? It has nothing to do with the work I put in personally.

The weird thing is when Obama made his infamous "You didn't build that" quote, the same people who said he was taking away from hard working business owners are the same ones implying that Kaepernick owes his fortune to the country. He didn't make that money due to his talent and hard work, but every business owner owes practically nothing to the country? How do these two thoughts coexist?

Now, I think there is an element of truth to both Obama's quote and the people saying the same about Kaepernick. He is making millions because we are a country that made his talents valuable, and gave him the opportunity to work his way up. If he was born in North Korea, he'd be the fastest running laborer a task master ever had. But he'd be far from a millionaire.

But something that is important to me is that these symbols have their own meaning for people. What "country" means can mean something totally different to me than it does to you. To me, the flag is a representation to the hard work of Americans past and present. A representation to the mythology of the US. That we support democracy. We support the downtrodden and the weak. That every person is equal and should have equal opportunities. But do we live up to those myths as a country? Whenever the CIA knocks over another democracy, When we ally with totalitarian governments like Saudi Arabia and enable them to torture their citizens? When our own citizens get treated unfairly and abused by the system?

But if I am unhappy about these issues, why do I still stand for the flag? Because for me, the flag doesn't represent our government, it represents you and I. Personally, I think those ideals were very separate not too long ago. When we talked about the flag and the US it didn't represent the government or politicians. It represented us as citizens. Our ideals, our visions, our beliefs. I believe that during the Cold War the government did it's best to tie itself to the flag, to use it as a shield. Any complaints about the government means you are complaining about America and thus you are a traitor. That didn't just end with the Cold War. Who remembers just after 9/11 and anyone calling out Bush Jr. for being the crap we all know he is now were called unAmerican or traitors? "If you don't respect the man at least respect the position".

That's why even though I am not ignorant to the many issues plaguing the US, I still will rise for the flag and salute it. I am proud of Americans, not of our government for the most part. I do believe we have lost a lot of control of our government, and we need to correct that. But giving them the flag isn't my way to fix it. That flag is ours, not theirs.

So does that mean I hate Kaepernick for not standing? No. His idea of what the flag represents can be different from mine. He could have bought into that Cold War rhetoric that government = America, and his opinion is just as valid as mine. While I disagree with him singling out the flag rather than directing his protest more accurately, I do respect any man for taking a strong stand like that. Even if it isn't something I totally agree with, our country was born from strong Americans making difficult and controversial stands. Often to quite a bit of disagreement from other Americans. They estimate that 20% of Americans were loyalists during our revolution. Another large percentage didn't want Britain, but weren't willing to fight a war over it. Where would we be without those Americans who made a stand?

Beyond Kaepernick, I see the battleground over our schools and the Pledge of Allegiance. Again, I intend to talk to my kids about what my idea is of the symbols of America. I hope they will stand for the pledge as I did as a child, and as I do now as an adult. But if any school tries to force it, or harass the children that don't stand, I would be furious. What good is it to recite some empty words to a piece of cloth if when we are tested, we are so excited about taking away rights from other Americans? Save your breath, it means nothing.

Us Americans have gotten too divided. We're getting too involved with how other Americans decide to live their lives. Our business should not be to make cookie cutters out of everyone, but defend their rights to live as they want to, and hopefully they'll defend our rights to live as we want to. 

Unbreakable

Considering the movie Unbreakable has been out for 15 years now, I don't think I should have to warn you about spoilers. But in case you haven't seen it, but still want to see it SPOILER ALERT! Samuel L. Jackson's character has been causing catastrophes in the hopes of finding heroes among us. He ends up finding Bruce Willis' character who is virtually invincible, and I guess a psychic? I don't know, not important for this article. But keep this in mind.

This year has been slammed with tragedy across the world. We've seen various types of people commit atrocities for various reasons. Really one of the biggest unifiers in the world is that virtually every group has been attacked in some way. Whether it is the huge attack killing over a hundred people in Paris. In the US have the San Bernardino attack, the Charleston Church shooting, the Planned Parenthood shooting, the Roseburg shooting, and various others. Worldwide we've seen the mass killings in Beirut, Turkey, Yemen, Nigeria, and many more. It is easy to start thinking the world is devolving into some horrible, deadly place filled with evil people.

One thing that always stands out to me is while there are these few evil people harming so many, one thing that gets lost in the shuffle is the many people responding to the situations so heroically. When the modern world talks about heroes, so much of our attention gets sidetracked to famous people doing relatively mediocre things. Not saying that the things they do are unimportant. But I will always put people who risk their lives in real, serious danger above anyone else.

Examples of this are easy to come by. In San Bernardino we have Shannon Johnson who used his body as a shield to defend the lives of his coworker. He died in that shooting to give her the chance to live. In Beirut we have Adel Termos who tackled a suicide bomber, sacrificing his life to save untold amounts of people. In Paris a man going only by Sébastien risked his life to run out of hiding into gunfire to stop a pregnant woman from falling off a balcony during the chaos. Lassana Bathily is credited with saving 15 lives when he hid people to protect them from the gunman who came in shortly afterwards.

These are just the credited acts of heroism. Many people reported seeing people risking their lives in various ways for complete strangers during virtually every one of these attacks. A lot of these people were never identified. This story played out again, and again, and again. A few people doing horrific things, while many more people doing heroic things in these times of chaos.

So back to my point at the beginning. Samuel L Jackson's character in Unbreakable was creating catastrophes trying to find a hero. I contest that he would have found them every time if he was actually looking. A hero isn't Superman who is invincible, or Bruce Willis who is unbreakable. A hero is someone who is put in a deadly situation, and still follows their morals and beliefs and does the right thing while at ridiculous risk. That is why the majority of Medal of Honor recipients did not survive the situation where they won the medal. Being a real hero, you just might not make it. But you will live on in other people's minds forever.

New Fantastic Four

It's 6 o'clock in the morning, I haven't slept yet. But this damn move got me so angry I had to write this down. Either that or I have to continuing throwing a fit at my wife, and she is not having it.

I was warned away from watching the remake of Fantastic Four from a friend of mine whose opinion I fully planned on following. I love my sci fi, but because bro said it sucked, I didn't even bother with it. Turn to today and the wife wants to watch this movie, and I get the worse end of a bargain where I agree to watch it with her. I regret this decision, and this just goes to show why you shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

What pissed me off about Fantastic Four is not that it's a bad movie. To be clear, it is a bad movie. Within the first 30 minutes, after my wife wheeling and dealing to get me to watch this damn movie, she wanted to turn it off and watch something else. And Mrs. Alone In The Dark is not a movie snob. She will watch some terrible movies, and enjoy them. She will embarrassedly ask me to get crappy movies for her, even though she knows they will suck. She couldn't take Fantastic Four even at the expense of ending up at the bad end of our deal (and any of you that are married, know that is a big deal). I refused her request though, and forced us through the rest of the movie. I am definitely the type of guy to cut off my nose to spite my face, so we are going to burn together baby.

But just being a bad movie is acceptable. Sometimes even commendable. But Fantastic Four couldn't even do that. This damn movie had some of the worst casting I've ever seen. Really? The asshole from Divergent is supposed to make me believe he is a boy genius? Kate Mara is beautiful and all, but no one is buying that she is a goddamn teenager. Even by Hollywood standards she doesn't look a day under 30. Some people are going to take that like I care that she looks over 30. If she was playing a grown woman I would totally love to have her in the movie, she's been great in everything I've seen her in. The only reason I care is because her character is a damn teenager. They put an $18 wig on this broad and called her an 18 year old. Did the producer start out as a cheap "teen" porno director? Having her play teenaged Sue Storm is like having Chris Pratt get a tan and play Ray Charles. I don't care if you're a enjoyable actor, that is still a terrible part to play.

Now we all know movie cliches. This one tried to avoid them... by going meta about them. At one point Important Old Dude is obviously about to give them an encouraging speech. We all know it's coming like the most telegraphed punch in the world. Instead of doing something different so as to not fall in that cliche, the movie instead has the other characters chanting that IOD is going to do the speech. Instead of just going through the cliche and calling it a day, they thought it'd look better if they made sure we knew they did it on purpose. It did not work well. This trope can be found in some measure in about all of the dialog throughout the movie.

Whatever, though. It's a bad movie. Let it be bad. BUT THEN stuff happens and they get their powers. Out of the blue the movie goes with a somewhat original idea. Instead of portraying the getting of supernatural powers as a couple moments of silly awkwardness then outright joy, the movie actually goes through showing this ruining their loves for a significant amount of time. The pain and confusion of them as they try and just survive. Slow progress toward mastering their powers. Especially sweet was Reid's rightful guilt over what happened. Most times movies will make the heroes either not to blame, or if they are to blame and feeling guilty, surprise! Sudden revelation shows that it wasn't the hero's fault after all! That doesn't happen here. It is Reid's fault. He should feel like shit. He risked his friends' lives (especially Ben who couldn't have known what the risks were) and got them permanently injured and disfigured. The bad guys didn't do it to them. Reid did. These blows weren't pulled or even softened. We just got to see the destruction they caused.

Afterwards, the movie had some interesting things, but mostly reverted to the idioticness of the beginning. But that short bit in the middle was like seeing for a moment what potential the entire movie had. It's like looking at an old, beat up car and opening the door or trunk and seeing one part of the paint and body that have been protected from time. You see the paint looking like it did when it was new and no damage and you imagine what that old car would look like with that paint all over. Seeing that little bit of actual deep, emotional dialog in the middle of that garbage movie just made the entire thing worse than it was before. You had a good story! You had a great situation! And you ruined it and made one of the worst movies I have seen this decade. Shame on you.