Memorial Day: the Big Picture

I noticed this piece on the CATO institute website by David Boaz. I think the author is sincere in his sentiments toward the fallen on Memorial Day but clearly thinks certain conflicts don't count. He wonders if "...all wars are necessary to American freedom?" He uses World War I to highlight poor decisions (I suspect because it is less controversial than Iraq or Afghanistan).

       World War I was the worst mistake of the 20th century, the mistake that set in motion all the tragedies of the century.           The deaths of those who fell at the Marne are all the more tragic when we reflect that they did not in fact serve to                   protect our lives and all that we value.

I won't argue the merits of Word War I  but the reason we acknowledge those who have fallen is because of what the military represents to a free society, and by extension their sacrifice. It doesn’t matter that in certain cases (World War I for instance) we can't draw a straight line between a particular battle and our freedoms. We recognize that having a military or defense or national guard is essential to our way of life. It is a huge mistake to examine specific conflicts as not necessary or not critical to American peace and security.

Try using this logic on tax policy. It would be easy to point to wasteful programs and declare that taxes were theft in a particular case and therefore immoral. Not only wasteful spending but spending one just didn’t like. I could certainly come up with a quick list. Collected taxes go to a variety of necessary and unnecessary civil projects and we collectively change it on the margins. Poor policy means big changes are in store, possible radical ones. The voting public understands the connection between taxes and roads, bridges, unemployment…etc. No serious person rejects taxes as a practical matter.

We have a tax policy. It is messy and frequently wasteful. Cities, states and the federal government still need a plan for collecting and redistributing. 

Wars that aren’t popular with the public because they stray too far from our principles or suggest imperial overreach are just part of a larger philosophical debate. The larger debate we can have since our military makes it possible.  We debate the merits but never question the foundational importance of a having a military (some do). Those with freedoms like speech and voting rights only have it in areas where national defense is formidable. Countries in Europe without standing armies benefit from an umbrella policy like NATO (Lichtenstein, Monaco)  that obligate members to support one another.

Mr. Boaz doesn't say the military isn't important, but by connecting specific conflicts to our way of life he asks the wrong question about the nature of defense. Instead of 'Was this necessary for our way of life?' he should say 'Is our national defense any less important because of this?'

Don’t get sidetracked on what is and isn’t a necessary battle or war. Free people show thanks for those lives given in support of the larger cause of liberty and not the specific conflict.

Chris Cornell: The Days He Tried to Live

The easiest way to cover artists/writers/musicians who die too soon is autobiographically-or ‘how I remember it’ style. I could rehash current arguments about drug abuse and depression or whether or not artistic types are more prone than others but I won’t.

Anytime someone commits suicide we feel a little sick that they didn’t confide in anyone close to them, if they even have anyone close. His death wasn't a total surprise to a long -time fans of Cornell and his music (I even liked his first solo album despite the lack of even one catchy tune). Chris didn’t do catchy tunes, the exception might be “Spoonman” the tone and lyrics were mostly ominous. For me it was the voice, that amazing voice. I never saw him live so my opinion is based mostly on videos and CDs I grew up with. Most reviews of Soundgarden acknowledge his superb range even when criticizing the overall albums. His music was dark and internal where others like Pearl Jam are dark and external. Cornell’s idea for lyrics came from an internal struggle of depression either created by substance abuse or pushed along by it. Pearl Jam from a sense of injustice in the world.

Most believe the biggest turn in his life was the death of his friend Andrew Wood of Mother Love Bone (early grunge pioneers) It set the direction in his melancholic singing/writing career but it is tough for me to believe it caused his later problems with alcohol and drugs. I didn’t discover the essential Seattle band until after Superunknown hit the stores. Back then you could get a cassette but if you were a tech head only the CD would do, all the rage you see. My knowledge of that piece is pretty good despite not having listened to it in years. I don’t remember even one sort of fun jam piece on the whole record. Much of it seemed dark to an outsized degree. Here are just a couple of the popular tracks: “Fell On Black Days” “Black Hole Sun” “The Day I Tried to Live”. To be fair they had a few songs that sounded fluffier, “Fresh Tendrills” and “4^th of July” I assure you they aren’t.

 That voice though. He could bounce on a single note like a trampoline. He also did his share of obsessing about the end of the world. I’m sure other rock stars have gone down that ‘how-does-it-end’ road but to me it was new. Eighties metal was mostly a gratuitous sex and booze fest in both the song writing and lifestyle until this ‘grunge’ thing. Grunge was ONLY different in that its bands took themselves seriously, hence the weightier topics, suicide, depression, apostasy.  Cornell had a power ballad voice and rode his high “Aaaaahhhhh”s like a wave, a remnant of sunnier vocalists Steven Tyler and Steve Perry. His talent was obvious, but when did this ‘inner-pain’ and focus on ecological catastrophe get going? What did twenty eight year olds have to be so sad about?

Could I still like the music and think the writing is overwrought?

I didn’t listen to much Audioslave (Cornell’s other group) or even catch his second solo album. Truthfully I didn’t pay much attention to music in any genre much after the early 2000’s. For some, scavenging old CD stores and anticipating new releases stops being a thing. Can’t explain why but like collecting baseball cards it just doesn’t hold interest after a while. It wasn’t the music, as much I complained about the overtly political direction of countless bands, especially Pearl Jam. But “The music is inseparable from the politics” supporters say. Fair enough, but so is self-importance and I don’t have to like it when I hear it.

 Chris Cornell remains the saddest, loneliest and most likely to have never climbed out of his ‘hole’. Maybe he tried but never found success. From his track “When I’m down” on the Euphoria Morning album:

I know you hold precious little hope for me
And in your happiness
I'm always drowning in my grief
And I only love you when I'm down
And I'm only near you when I'm gone
But one thing for you to keep in mind, you know
I'm down all the time

 I think this is the picture of Chris most of us who liked the music have of him, super talented but down all the time.

 I am sad for his fans but mostly for his family.

Manchester United?

Enough with the silly arm in arm marches against ‘terrorism’. Enough with the hashtag grief signaling and kitschy Facebook memes that cover profile pics. If the West loves liberal democracy it needs to figure out how to defend it without apologizing. 

We don’t need grief and woe we need a serious campaign of intimidation and coercion. No more ‘no-go zones’ in large cities for Muslim populations. It should never be said of terror suspects that they were “known to police”. Taking these bombings in stride is NOT a good thing. It leads to a sense that this is normal, that these attacks happen seasonally like bad weather. “Sure it’s there but what can you do?” The worst part is by not going after kicking in doors and threatening violence against the neighborhoods and mosques protecting these animals, we favor the extremists. They thrive in interconnected communities because they offer protection like Chicago gangsters in the twenties.

 This is not the time for stiff upper lips and shrugs about the nature of living in an international city. The notion that citizens of a nation have to put up with regular terror is “Stuff and nonsense” as the Brits say. None of this acquiesce to fear need happen whether Paris or London or New York. It does take leadership though and clear thinking about the nature of the enemy. Sadly I haven’t seen or heard much of it from our cosmopolitan mayors. I understand a mayor’s role is commerce and attracting new business in the city but at some point law enforcement needs a freer hand.

 I am assuming a lot about what the police know and what they don’t but a couple of things are clear about the Manchester bombing. He is a Libyan (Muslim?) who grew up in Britain. He was likely known to law enforcement at some point. He was likely protected by a network of people who have families and bank accounts. More to come, no doubt. 

The lack of anger and outrage has been washed out of us.

 We are now a society afraid to accuse the wrong man or use the wrong pronoun when talking about the barbaric killer. You can hear it in the interviews with those who witnessed the explosion and ran with the stampeding mob toward safety. Even people who weren’t there, when asked about the incident, focus on crowd danger and avoiding large events. My local radio station had a former police officer on who gave tips on how to avoid the danger spots at large events, “Wait for the main crowd to pass and then head for the exists.” He added unhelpfully. 

Well thanks officer but what if the bastards try to blast their way into a movie theater and shoot up the place like in Aurora. Or unless they drive by that hip café and spray 9 millimeter rounds into the patrons drinking espressos like in Paris. Or the not so crowded airport in Belgium that only took a suitcase packed with metal bits to wreck everyone’s day, ditto for the airport in Istanbul. What advice do we get when just minding our own business. The anger from citizens against the perpetrator is cloudy and rushed like a blurry photo that didn’t develop. Almost as if the attacked don't know how to be upset.

“Where are those SOB’s that did this?!” said with intent becomes “We will not let these criminals tear us apart” spoken softly and carefully. The first response is urgent and active. The second is safe and useless.

Those who are quick to anger over being attacked will make some mistakes in the cause of justice. Call him Elliot (as in Ness). He may break a few eggs but will get justice and settle scores in the cause of law and order. He understand the importance of protecting freedom, the value of secular laws and the true nastiness of an attack against those principles. Elliot understand that an attack on a concert is pure hatred against liberal values and demands a full-throated response. Elliot is often reckless but always sure. Most importantly, He will put measures in place to prevent future atrocities while understanding that every city faces different challenges. He understands that the battle is long and arduous but necessary for survival. 

  

Those quick to passive words and useless phrases about ‘support’ or ‘unity’ can’t be trusted to defend true values. Call him Cosmo (Cosmopolitan). He understands trendy philosophies on the’ roots of terror’; he sees innocents everywhere but won’t name criminals. Cosmo loves slogans and marches. He gets inspired by vague anti-campaigns that encourage togetherness like ‘racism’ ‘violence against women’ ‘poverty’. He thinks the largest problem with Islamic terrorism is the Islamophobia that follows it after a devastating suicide bomb. Cosmo man can’t be trusted to take the fight to enemy or protect the innocent. He understands grief but doesn’t know how to fight against a world where everyone is a victim. He enjoys freedom but doesn’t know what it costs.

With every terrorist bombing, shooting, knifing or threatening act the West slides a little closer on the scale to Cosmo and away from Elliot. These terrorists are not part of a civilized society and should be treated like cancer, an unwelcome invader that demands surgery. Until Western cities get serious about who they let in this will continue to metastasize until the threat owns entire sections of your city.

We need more Elliots; we have enough Cosmos. 

  

  

"Greatest Show on Earth"

Institutions that surrender control over part of their industry give up direction for all of it.

 The University of Illinois in Champagne underwent a sustained attack against their Native American mascot more than a decade ago. The result was total capitulation from the school. The mascot was retired and the school’s branding no longer includes Indian images, just a big goofy capital “I”. A supposedly socially conscious minority of students assumed (or imagined) the school’s chief mascot was offensive to Indian tribes and must be stopped. As a public university their ability to fight the charge was limited, their funds rely heavily on state and federal grants. Students who sympathized with the mascot, seeing no problem with the Native American mascot and taking no offence were poorly organized.

This situation plays out too often in life and reasonable people don’t take simple stands against it. In most cases a vigorous push back is the last thing needed. A straightforward easily articulated message is the most effective response to campaign of attack. The Chick-fil-A model is textbook for opposing an assault from organized protesters. A few years ago the CEO of the restaurant gave an interview to a magazine where he stated his support for marriage between one man and one woman. The Cathy family support pro-family groups that belief in the biblical definition of marriage. Large cities like Boston and Chicago (in 2012) refused to give the chain approval for zoning because of pressure from outside groups. The outrage against Chick-fil-A was not proportional to the statements made by Cathy and Christians seemed to understand what was happening in the culture. Mike Huckabee started Chick-fil-A appreciation day on August 1 2012 allowing supporters to line up for sandwiches all over the country. The response worked because of the simplicity of the message: a Christian group is under attack for supporting a biblical version of marriage, now go support them with your dollars.

Cities backed down and the restaurant received zoning approval.

Enter Ringling bros. and the attempt by animal groups (not public attitudes) to shut down the elephant portion of the circus, a key draw. The circus without elephants is like a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert without “Freebird”; people still go but the event is a lot less fun. More than a year ago Ringling Bros did away with the elephants. Constant attacks from activists disguised as animal welfare groups started to pay dividends. Excuses like ‘shifting public opinion’ are cited in news stories about Ringling’s decision to eliminate the elephant shows. What determines public opinion better than ticket sales? Polls are rarely cited as evidence of the so-called public disinterest.

When the elephants went away so did the spectators. Ringling Bros and Barnum and Bailey made a rational decision  based on cities like Oakland passing ordinances that restricted live animal shows, a measure meant specifically for circus acts. Once a few cities essentially outlaw your business the only option is to get out of the business. The main attraction was the elephant show.

“The Greatest Show on Earth” didn’t realize it until it was too late.

Would it have mattered anyway? The sharp instruments used to control the animals (called bullhooks) became the symbol of everything wrong with elephant training methods. Never mind that Asian elephants can weigh as much as 6 tons and stand 8 feet at the shoulders. How do critics propose to handle the great behemoths, with conflict resolution? How about positive reinforcement? Opposition to a part becomes hatred of the whole. So it is with groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that occasionally stumble into a legitimate animal cruelty story.  The entire circus became an object of scorn and ridicule, the training methods supposedly barbaric. But acquiescing to the mob only pushed away the customers, those who came for elephants. The message from the offended parties is clear, change your ways or expect a PR assault.

Cities got pressured into passing laws against using bullhooks. Governor Brown signed SB 1062 restricting traveling shows from using those instruments and effectively putting the elephant performances out of business. The iconic circus owners issued a statement citing ‘changing public opinion’ in the decision to get rid of elephants but no popular vote was taken on the issue. The Rhode Island ban against bullhooks only applied to the traveling shows and circuses. If the device was cruel and unnecessary why only restrict the circuses? Shouldn’t the local zoos also find another way? Ringling Bros, Shriners and others stopped using elephants because of the impossibility of controlling the animals with kind words only. Even for the iconic circuses the future of live animal shows looked murky despite all the ‘shifting public opinion’ nonsense they churned out for press releases.

When institutions and businesses give up control of their livelihood everyone loses. The circuses didn’t stand much chance in the long run; their industry was increasingly controlled by petty outside interests and malcontents. I am no great lover of the circus but I hate the idea that historic and cultural treasures are subjected to a public inquisition by activists claiming to speak for them. The circus may have disappeared as a milestone for kids growing up in America anyway. Going out like this, neutered and shamed, is an unfitting end for the “Greatest Show on Earth”.  Like the University of Illinois it let a small group determine its culture and drive its future. A shorter future than anyone realized.