Author: thewriterinblack

I had originally planned to do another gun control post today based on something that popped up on my feed in another forum.  But that kind of thing is always coming up and for various reasons I decided to do something different today.

So today it’s the Batman rant.

As I mentioned before, I grew up on comic books, stretching from when I was in the single digit age range up into just after the mid ’80s.  I read anything I could get my hands on.  I’d even read my sister’s “Young Love” and “Young Romance” type comics.  Yes, I’d even read the Archie comics.  But my first love was superheroes.

One of those heroes was Batman.  Now, the Batman I knew was quite a bit different from what most people seem to think of the character these days.  My reading spanned the late Silver Age and into the Bronze age and just a bit into the Modern Age which is where I started losing interest.  The Batman of this period was not, generally the costumed psychopath and certainly not the control freak who “refuses to play well with others” that I saw later.  Nor was it a Batman whose sole motivation is some kind of displaced revenge for the death of his parents.

Let’s take that “displaced revenge” part.  The Batman I grew up with had largely come to terms with his parents’ deaths.  He hadn’t gotten over it.  You never really get over something like that.  There are much lesser traumas that I still struggle with.  But you can come to terms with it and move on with your life.  The Batman I knew had.  This was a Batman who could laugh and joke with Robin (Dick Grayson then).  This was a Batman who, when Dick Grayson decided he had outgrown the “Robin” identity and passed it on to a younger protege (Jason Todd, at that time another circus performer whose parents were murdered–in one letter column a writer commented on the similiarity to Dick’s origin and in a later letter column another writer pointed out “where else are you going to find someone with the kind of acrobatic ability to be a “Robin”?), was able to accept that decision calmly. (A later retcon not only changed Jason’s origin so it didn’t make any sense at all but also had Batman “fire” Dick as “Robin” as if Dick couldn’t move out, put on the costume and go out on his own anyway.) This was a Batman who could be a close friend of Superman–with each of them respecting the others strengths and understanding their weaknesses–and a valued contributing member of the Justice League, working well with others.

Sure, Batman would have started with displaced revenge.  He would have started looking to enact revenge on criminals with his own hands for the deaths of his parents.  And the rampant corruption throughout politics and law enforcement in Gotham City would have seemed to shut off “conventional” means of fighting crime.  But only started.  By the point in his career when I came in he had other reasons reasons that could be summed up as that he was just that good at it.  He saved lives and protected people, whether it was stopping muggings in Crime Alley or fighting off world-threatening foes with the Justice League.  “The World’s Greatest Detective” in story was not hubris.  He simply was.

One of the common complaints people make about Batman is that he could do more to help people, and reduce crime, through his wealth than dressing up in a bat-motif costume and punching out a few criminals.  What these people apparently never realized is that the Batman I crew up with, in his “Bruce Wayne” guise did exactly that.  The Wayne Foundation was its own force for good in Gotham City.   Bruce Wayne used his wealth both to finance his activities as Batman and to help the people of Gotham in other ways, all while maintaining his “playboy” guise in an effort (that would never work in reality, but just go with it for story purposes) to keep his nocturnal activities secret.

The simple truth was that Bruce “Batman” Wayne was a good man who did a lot of good (at least within the strictures the story format and the writers allowed–popular villains could never be permanently removed).  He certainly didn’t keep other heroes from operating in Gotham City out of some territorialism.  Rather, those other heroes weren’t in Gotham City because they had their own areas, and their own problems, to deal with. (Yes, Superman could probably have swept the whole planet clean of crime in an afternoon if he exerted himself but, well, that’s another thing you just had to go with for the story.)

That’s the Batman I grew up with.

But then Frank Miller wrote the mini-series “The Dark Knight Returns.” It was an excellent story.  It was an excellent version of Batman–both returning in some ways to Batman’s more violent “Golden Age” roots and in others taking it in new directions.  An excellent version.  And in the comics Batman started getting a little bit of split personality.  The “Batman” we saw working in Gotham City with Jason Todd was more the Batman I grew up with.  The Batman working on the West Coast with the hero group he’d just formed “The Outsiders” was becoming more as one letter writer termed it “a cowled psychopath,” more the Batman from TDKR.

Then came the Crisis on Infinite Earths.  DC eliminated their multiverse with various versions of Batman, Superman, and others leaving only a single Earth behind.  That meant no different versions of Batman.  And when DC had Miller write “Batman:  Year One” it became clear that, while the events might not play out that way the Batman of TDKR was where that Batman was headed.  The erasing–it never happened–of the Superman/Batman friendship was another bit.  The retcon where Dick Grayson was “fired” instead of moving on with life and passing the mantle of Robin to Jason Todd, who know instead of being a circus acrobat was a street punk Batman found trying to boost the wheels from the Batmobile. This was a Batman who disliked and distrusted anybody who was not under his direct control (such as the series of “Robins” that would follow Dick’s departure).

This was not the Batman I knew and loved.

Look, Gotham City was a dark place.  The crime and corruption made it so.  Batman’s villains, where even the most “normal” of them was a little on the crazy side (Selina and her obsession with all things feline) and the worst (Joker and Two Face–’nuff said), were dark.  Batman’s costume was dark.

Batman was not dark.  On the contrary, Batman was a beacon of light in that sea of darkness.  Perhaps I’m in the minority in thinking this, but that’s the Batman I knew and loved.  I caught a glimpse of him in the cartoon Batman:  The Animated Series.  For the most part, though, he’s been missing in action.

I kind of miss him.

And that ends The Batman Rant.

No, not the coal miner of song, but John Adams who is rapidly becoming one of my personal heroes as I learn more about him.

The public schools I attended did a great disservice in selling this man short.  All I learned there was that he was Vice President under George Washington, the second President after him, and the father of the sixth president, John Quincy Adams (and all I knew about him was that he was the son of the second president).  Some years later I learned that he was also the lawyer who defended the British officer and soldiers involved in the riot that became known as the Boston Massacre.

But he was involved in so much more.  He was a delegate to the Second Continental Congress, and one of the major voices in the call for Independence.  While the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson there is good reason to believe that a lot of the ideas within it came from the mind of John Adams.  Although his mission to France was, perhaps less than stellar in terms of accomplishment, he served an important role in moderating the extreme antipathy between Arthur Lee and Benjamin Franklin until Lee’s recall in 1779. (According to McCullough’s biography of John Adams, the documents recalling Lee and confirming Franklin as the Continental Congress’ representative to France did not mention Adams.  He chose to interpret that as what I would call a passive-aggressive recall).  And on Adams’ return from France he drafted the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the oldest functioning written Constitution in the world today.

After the American War for Independence, John Adams was the first ambassador to Great Britain.  Due, perhaps in part to is overseas assignment at the time (like Thomas Jefferson), Adams was not able to take part in the Constitutional Convention that led to the drafting of the United States Constitution.

But of all Adams’ accomplishments it is perhaps is “Thoughts on Government” that loom largest.  While there are items to disagree with here, the recommendation of one year terms would soon prove to be impractical and Adams’ endorsement of “sumptuary laws” (laws restraining luxury or extravagance) should be anathema to anyone who truly endorces liberty.  Still, here in embryonic form we see much of what would find its way into the United States Constitution.

Thoughts on Government

John Adams

My dear Sir,
If I was equal to the task of forming a plan for the government of a colony, I should be flattered with your request, and very happy to comply with it; because, as the divine science of politics is the science of social happiness, and the blessings of society depend entirely on the constitutions of government, which are generally institutions that last for many generations, there can be no employment more agreeable to a benevolent mind than a research after the best.

Pope flattered tyrants too much when he said,

“For forms of government let fools contest, That which is best administered is best.”

Nothing can be more fallacious than this. But poets read history to collect flowers, not fruits; they attend to fanciful images, not the effects of social institutions. Nothing is more certain, from the history of nations and nature of man, than that some forms of government are better fitted for being well administered than others.

We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.

All sober inquirers after truth, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue. Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this.

If there is a form of government, then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?
Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

Honor is truly sacred, but holds a lower rank in the scale of moral excellence than virtue. Indeed, the former is but a part of the latter, and consequently has not equal pretensions to support a frame of government productive of human happiness. The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature, then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government.

A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern Englishmen, to mention in their company the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke, Milton, Nedham, Neville, Burnet, and Hoadly. No small fortitude is necessary to confess that one has read them. The wretched condition of this country, however, for ten or fifteen years past, has frequently reminded me of their principles and reasonings. They will convince any candid mind, that there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is “an empire of laws, and not of men.” That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of republics.

Of republics there is an inexhaustible variety, because the possible combinations of the powers of society are capable of innumerable variations.

As good government is an empire of laws, how shall your laws be made? In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good. But by what rules shall you choose your representatives? Agree upon the number and qualifications of persons who shall have the benefit of choosing, or annex this privilege to the inhabitants of a certain extent of ground.

The principle difficulty lies, and the greatest care should be employed in constituting this representative assembly. It should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason and act like them. That it may be the interest of this assembly to do strict justice at all times, it should be an equal representation, or, in other words, equal interests among the people should have equal interests in it. Great care should be taken to effect this, and to prevent unfair, partial, and corrupt elections. Such regulations, however, may be better made in times of greater tranquility than the present; and they will spring up themselves naturally, when all the powers of government come to be in the hands of the people’s friends. At present, it will be safest to proceed in all established modes, to which the people have been familiarized by habit.

A representation of the people in one assembly being obtained, a question arises, whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one assembly. My reasons for this opinion are as follow:—
1. A single assembly is liable to all the vices, follies, and frailties of an individual; subject to fits of humor, starts of passion, flights of enthusiasm, partialities, or prejudice, and consequently productive of hasty results and absurd judgments. And all these errors ought to be corrected and defects supplied by some controlling power.
2. A single assembly is apt to be avaricious, and in time will not scruple to exempt itself from burdens, which it will lay, without compunction, on its constituents.
3. A single assembly is apt to grow ambitious, and after a time will not hesitate to vote itself perpetual. This was one fault of the Long Parliament; but more remarkably of Holland, whose assembly first voted themselves from annual to septennial, then for life, and after a course of years, that all vacancies happening by death or otherwise, should be filled by themselves, without any application to constituents at all.
4. A representative assembly, although extremely well qualified, and absolutely necessary, as a branch of the legislative, is unfit to exercise the executive power, for want of two essential properties, secrecy and dispatch.
5. A representative assembly is still less qualified for the judicial power, because it is too numerous, too slow, and too little skilled in the laws.
6. Because a single assembly, possessed of all the powers of government, would make arbitrary laws for their own interest, execute all laws arbitrarily for their own interest, and adjudge all controversies in their own favor.

But shall the whole power of legislation rest in one assembly? Most of the foregoing reasons apply equally to prove that the legislative power ought to be more complex; to which we may add, that if the legislative power is wholly in one assembly, and the executive in another, or in a single person, these two powers will oppose and encroach upon each other, until the contest shall end in war, and the whole power, legislative and executive, be usurped by the strongest.

The judicial power, in such case, could not mediate, or hold the balance between the two contending powers, because the legislative would undermine it. And this shows the necessity, too, of giving the executive power a negative upon the legislative, otherwise this will be continually encroaching upon that.

To avoid these dangers, let a distinct assembly be constituted, as a mediator between the two extreme branches of the legislature, that which represents the people, and that which is vested with the executive power.

Let the representative assembly then elect by ballot, from among themselves or their constituents, or both, a distinct assembly, which, for the sake of perspicuity, we will call a council. It may consist of any number you please, say twenty or thirty, and should have a free and independent exercise of its judgment, and consequently a negative voice in the legislature.

These two bodies, thus constituted, and made integral parts of the legislature, let them unite, and by joint ballot choose a governor, who, after being stripped of most of those badges of domination, called prerogatives, should have a free and independent exercise of his judgment, and be made also an integral part of the legislature. This, I know, is liable to objections; and, if you please, you may make him only president of the council, as in Connecticut. But as the governor is to be invested with the executive power, with consent of council, I think he ought to have a negative upon the legislative. If he is annually elective, as he ought to be, he will always have so much reverence and affection for the people, their representatives and counselors, that, although you give him an independent exercise of his judgment, he will seldom use it in opposition to the two houses, except in cases the public utility of which would be conspicuous; and some such cases would happen.

In the present exigency of American affairs, when, by an act of Parliament, we are put out of the royal protection, and consequently discharged from our allegiance, and it has become necessary to assume government for our immediate security, the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary, treasurer, commissary, attorney-general, should be chosen by joint ballot of both houses. And these and all other elections, especially of representatives and counselors, should be annual, there not being in the whole circle of the sciences a maxim more infallible than this, “where annual elections end, there slavery begins.”

These great men, in this respect, should be, once a year, “Like bubbles on the sea of matter borne, They rise, they break, and to that sea return.”

This will teach them the great political virtues of humility, patience, and moderation, without which every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey.

This mode of constituting the great offices of state will answer very well for the present; but if by experiment it should be found inconvenient, the legislature may, at its leisure, devise other methods of creating them, by elections of the people at large, as in Connecticut, or it may enlarge the term for which they shall be chosen to seven years, or three years, or for life, or make any other alterations which the society shall find productive of its ease, its safety, its freedom, or, in one word, its happiness.

A rotation of all offices, as well as of representatives and counselors, has many advocates, and is contended for with many plausible arguments. It would be attended, no doubt, with many advantages; and if the society has a sufficient number of suitable characters to supply the great number of vacancies which would be made by such a rotation, I can see no objection to it. These persons may be allowed to serve for three years, and then be excluded three years, or for any longer or shorter term.

Any seven or nine of the legislative council may be made a quorum, for doing business as a privy council, to advise the governor in the exercise of the executive branch of power, and in all acts of state.

The governor should have the command of the militia and of all your armies. The power of pardons should be with the governor and council.

Judges, justices, and all other officers, civil and military, should be nominated and appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of council, unless you choose to have a government more popular; if you do, all officers, civil and military, may be chosen by joint ballot of both houses; or, in order to preserve the independence and importance of each house, by ballot of one house, concurred in by the other. Sheriffs should be chosen by the freeholders of counties; so should registers of deeds and clerks of counties.

All officers should have commissions, under the hand of the governor and seal of the colony.

The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that. The judges, therefore, should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men. To these ends, they should hold estates for life in their offices; or, in other words, their commissions should be during good behavior, and their salaries ascertained and established by law. For misbehavior, the grand inquest of the colony, the house of representatives, should impeach them before the governor and council, where they should have time and opportunist y to make their defense; but, if convicted, should be removed from their offices, and subjected to such other punishment as shall be proper.

A militia law, requiring all men, or with very few exceptions besides cases of conscience, to be provided with arms and ammunition, to be trained at certain seasons; and requiring counties, towns, or other small districts, to be provided with public stocks of ammunition and entrenching utensils, and with some settled plans for transporting provisions after the militia, when.marched to defend their country against sudden invasions; and requiring certain districts to be provided with field-pieces, companies of matrosses, and perhaps some regiments of light-horse, is always a wise institution, and, in the present circumstances of our country, indispensable.

Laws for liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.

The very mention of sumptuary laws will excite a smile. Whether our countrymen have wisdom and virtue enough to submit to them, I know not; but the happiness of the people might be greatly promoted by them, and a revenue saved sufficient to carry on this war forever. Frugality is a great revenue, besides curing us of vanities, levities, and fopperies, which are real antidotes to all great, manly, and warlike virtues.

But must not all commissions run in the name of a king? No. Why may they not as well run thus, “The colony of to A.B. greeting,” and be tested by the governor?

Why may not writs, instead of running in the name of the king, run thus, “The colony of —to the sheriff,” &c., and be tested by the chief justice?

Why may not indictments conclude, “against the peace of the colony of — and the dignity of the same?”

A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious, and frugal. You will find among them some elegance, perhaps, but more solidity; a little pleasure, but a great deal of business; some politeness, but more civility. If you compare such a country with the regions of domination, whether monarchical or aristocratical, you will fancy yourself in Arcadia or Elysium.

If the colonies should assume governments separately, they should be left entirely to their own choice of the forms; and if a continental constitution should be formed, it should be a congress, containing a fair and adequate representation of the colonies, and its authority should sacredly be confined to those cases, namely, war, trade, disputes between colony and colony, the post-office, and the unappropriated lands of the crown, as they used to be called.

These colonies, under such forms of government, and in such a union, would be
unconquerable by all the monarchies of Europe.

You and I, my dear friend, have been sent into life at a time when the greatest lawgivers of antiquity would have wished to live. How few of the human race have ever enjoyed an opportunity of making an election of government, more than of air, soil, or climate, for themselves or their children! When, before the present epocha, had three millions of people full power and a fair opportunity to form and establish the wisest and happiest government that human wisdom can contrive? I hope you will avail yourself and your country of that extensive learning and indefatigable industry which you possess, to assist her in the formation of the happiest governments and the best character of a great people. For myself, I must beg you to keep my name out of sight; for this feeble attempt, if it should be known to be mine, would oblige me to apply to myself those lines of the immortal John Milton, in one of his sonnets:—

“I did but prompt the age to quit their clogs
By the known rules of ancient liberty,
When straight a barbarous noise environs me
Of owls and cuckoos, asses, apes, and dogs.”

Corn dogs are a traditional fair food, something many of us loved as kids making them a familiar taste of summer. (I know, it’s not summer right now.  Work with me here, people.) However, the thick breading is anathema to those of us on low carb diets.

Fortunately, there are alternatives.  Here’s one I cooked up.

Ingredients:

• 1 pack hot dogs.  I used Hebrew Nation all beef franks (6 hot dogs)
• 2 eggs beaten
• about 1/4 cup almond flour
• Seasoning to taste.  I like a little salt, pepper, and garlic powder, and only a little letting the hot dogs themselves carry the flavor.

Heat the deep frier to 350.

Skewer the hot dogs.  I had bamboo skewers available so that’s what I used, but any food safe skewer would work.

Pour the beaten eggs into a shallow dish.  Mix the seasoning with the almond flour and spread in another shallow dish.  Given the cost of almond flour, I recommend you minimize waste by mixing up a small batch with your seasoning and mixing up more if you need it for all the hot dogs.   Better to have to mix up more than mix up too much and end up throwing it out.

Double coat the hot dogs as follows:  Roll in the egg.  Roll in the almond flour until completely covered.  Return and roll in the egg.  Then roll again in the almond flour.  This should provide a thick coating of egg and seasoned almond flour over the hot dog.

Put the coated hot dogs in the deep frier, leaving the skewers extended out of the oil, and cook for about 5 minutes or until the coating is nicely browned.  Depending on the size and depth of your deep frier you may need to rotate the corn dogs periodically to evenly cook them.

Remove from the oil and drain for a minute or so.  Enjoy them hot.

 

My daughter, Athena had her first ice skating lesson today.  She wanted to do it as an add on to her ballet training and I was certainly willing.

So…pictures (She’s the one wearing the white pullover):

One of the things they did was have the kids sit on the ice and practice getting up.  I guess this is like in Judo we learned how to fall without getting hurt.   You’re going to fall, might as well get used to getting back up.

And some video of the little bit of “skating” they were doing at the end.  Unfortunately, there was that big guy at the wall for much of it.  I’ll try to get better video next time.

 

Well, everybody knows.  I’m not going to do a long post detailing the events leading to and around Pearl Harbor.  Instead, I’m simply going to watch one of the better movies about the Pearl Harbor attack, available for $3.99 to rent of $6.99 to buy from Amazon Instant Video

https://www.amazon.com/Tora-Martin-Balsam/dp/B00DW3GAEC/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1544226856&sr=1-1&keywords=tora+tora+tora

 

I’m going to ramble here a bit.

When I first started exploring Goth subculture I saw posts that said that Goths come from all walks of life and all political persuasions.  However, in my own experience I’ve seen more of a left-wing bent.  One link I found (not going to link to it) that purported in a forum to be to “right-wing goths” and had an appropriate sounding URL but led to a porn site (in any case, domain is now for sale).  Apparently the poster thought that was a prank worthy of a giggle.  I supposed a kinder interpretation might be that the registration on an old domain had expired and a porn site had bought it up invalidating the old link.

In either case, it wasn’t what I was looking for.

I went looking online searching for other libertarian (the lack of capitalization matters) Goth’s.  Found one person on twitter from the UK who identifies as Libertarian Goth.  A couple of passing references to individuals here and there some of which were at least “used to”. (Goths like to say “it’s not just a phase” but for some people it is.  Young people go through phases as they try out different things to find which “fit” them.  For some that final fit is “goth”.  For others, they try it and it’s not.  For them it is “just a phase.”)  That pretty much summed up what I found on Google.  Both Bing and Duckduckgo had an earlier iteration of this post as the number two item (which may tie more to some cookie on my computer than to the actual search position) but otherwise was the same.

There just doesn’t seem to be any significant presence out there for libertarian or politically conservative goths.

To be honest, I tend to be pretty much a loner as a Goth.  In Indianapolis, where I live, when I first went looking there was exactly one “Goth Club” and even that is just one night a week at a club that serves other segments of the community the rest of the week. And since I’m older (and need my recovery time) and have to go to work in the mornings, staying out late to party on a weeknight just doesn’t work.  Now we appear to have two:  Spellbound Indy’s “Darkwave DJ Dance Night” (Darkwave–close enough considering the lack of other options)  and Sins of the Flesh Goth Night at the Black Circle Brewing Company.  Both appear to be monthly, one in the middle of the month, one at the end.  I’ll admit that I haven’t had the chance to check them out for various reasons but that may change down the road.

Maybe “Goth-lite” or “Entry-Level-Goth” is a better description for me.  I tried the “Cowboy Goth” look for a while, but in the end it didn’t suit.  Recently I’ve decided that, since my religion of choice is Asatru, I should see if I could create “Viking Goth” as a look.  My results have been mixed.  I’d love to say that adding a sword or an axe to an outfit is always appropriate, it can be a problem when having to deal with mundanes.  For a while I’ve had to back off a little bit for personal reasons but lately I’ve gotten back into experimenting to find my personal “style.”

Let me give you a little bit of my background as it relates to being a “libertarian Goth”.

When I was a child, for a long time, black was my favorite color.  This really wasn’t a Goth thing.  It was late 60’s.  This was before Punk was even a thing, let alone the various post-punk movements which included Dark Wave and Goth.  Still, when you add in that my household were big fans of the original run of Dark Shadows, it was perhaps a sign of things to come.

Time passed, and I just missed the early days of the Goth movement in England in the mid-80’s.  I mean just missed it.  You see, I was in the Air Force at the time and stationed in England from 1983-1985.  I’d finished training and, well, I’d started buying clothes for off-duty wear.  Looking back those clothes were pushing in the direction of what could now be called “trad-goth”.  Being in the military there were limits on what I could do with hair, and piercings were right out.  Being a man in the military with even simple lobe piercings is a great deal of trouble.

About that time, one of my co-workers who was living “on the economy” as we said in the military (meaning he had an apartment off base rather than living in dormitory accommodations).  I don’t know how he managed it since, as I recall he was single and the same rank I was.  His name was Patrick Lince.  Later, at a different posting, we became better friends than we were at this first one.  During that time in England he had a relative, a young woman, a sister or cousin or something like that, visiting him.  He mentioned that she had her hair dyed purple.  I remember thinking to myself “I could never be interested in a woman with purple hair.” Looking back, I think I was in “he doth protest too much” mode on that.  Once, a number of us from the shop were invited over to Pat’s place to socialize and play Trivial Pursuit.  Pat’s relative was there so I got to meet her.  She was a perfectly nice young lady that was a pleasure to be around.  This not being a romance novel, there was no “chemistry” and we certainly didn’t become involved.  I’m not even sure she was even aware of my existence except as “that stranger at the party.” Still, what it did was show me that my preconceptions on unconventional fashion were unfounded.  I couldn’t consider it for myself–not then, not in the Air Force–but it was no longer taboo.

As an aside on that note, I later came across an issue of World’s Finest comics (I was an avid comics fan).  That series features Superman and Batman team-ups.  In this issue they were seeking a lost heiress.  Batman showed Superman a picture of the heiress.

Superman: “She has green hair.  That’s some kind of rebellion thing, isn’t it?”
Batman: “Used to be.  Now it’s just fashion.”
(Today, the “rebellion” aspect seems to be ascendant among certain groups but for many it still remains “just fashion” and their “personal style.”)

As you can see, I was moving in a “goth” direction.  Then someone took me aside and “explained” that if I wanted to be attractive to young women I needed to start wearing bright colors and that my darker ensembles were a put-off.

Being irredeemably heterosexual I took this advice to heart.

It didn’t work.

It really, really didn’t work.

Didn’t help that all the “fashion advice” in the world couldn’t change that I was an “odd”, who suffers from crippling social anxiety and a complete lack of “getting” social cues.

Still, the habits stuck for a long, long time.  I slipped into uncomfortable mundanity. (I don’t care, Spell Check.  That is too a word.)

During all this time, I nurtured a deep and abiding distrust of government.  It started when I was very young but especially blossomed in the years post-Air-Force.  I’d always been a fairly small-government conservative.  I didn’t so much change as think through my positions more and try to make them more consistent. (Do I still have inconsistencies?  Since I’m human that’s going to happen.  I try to work things through and make them consistent but that’s an ongoing process which will likely continue to my dying day.)

Fast Forward.  Some years back, however, I came across several books by John Ringo.  He introduced me to music that didn’t so much drag me out of the musical rut I’d been stuck in as blast me out of it with a cannon.  Dragonforce.  Nightwish.  And this group called The Cruxshadows.

Oh.  My.  God.

The Cruxshadows.  Some sources called them “Dark Wave”.  Others called them “Goth.” Well, I’m not really clear on the difference.  But…wow.  Dark music, but music that honors concepts like self-sacrifice and martial virtue that resonated with my own political philosophy.

I expanded from that starting point exploring other bands.  Within Temptation.  More Nightwish.  Evanescence and their “spin off” band We are the Fallen.  Bauhaus. The Cure.  Souxie & the Banshees (in an interview she swore up and down she was not Goth, but others drop her in that category).  Lacuna Coil.  Epica.

Well, I could go on and on.

I find Goth Rock (Bauhaus for instance) a pleasant change of pace, but most of what I listen to these days is Gothic and Symphonic Metal (Nightwish, Within Temptation, Epica, etc.)

And, at the moment, I’m fixing a hole in my musical history knowledge and exploring groups Sisters of Mercy, the 69 Eyes, and others.

A lot of the music fits with my personal philosophies surprisingly well.  And a lot doesn’t but it’s still good music.

But, I encounter so very few people out there who combine both my philosophy of “leave government out of things, and no, there ought not be a law” with the enjoyment of the darker side that I get from Goth/Gothic Metal music and subculture that I often feel very much alone.

But that’s okay.  Being alone in a crowd that does not understand…is Goth.

Athena plays cello in the high school orchestra.  Yesterday was their “Holiday Concert”.  The Freshman Orchestra (the one Athena is in) did three pieces.  Here they are:

I didn’t sleep at all the night before last so I crashed early yesterday and didn’t get anything posted.  Sorry.

Some people, on both the “Left” and “Right” have been talking about revolution.  Whether it’s “We need to get rid of those fascist right-winging KKK Nazis” or “we need to get rid of those liberal commie pinko hippies” or whatever, the idea of using widespread violence to overthrow the existing order and impose ones own has been gaining steam.

I have discussed why this would be a bad thing elsewhere.

But, let’s presume that people don’t listen (and given just how much influence I don’t have–thank all the gods I’m not the only voice crying out about that–I would not be surprised).  Suppose we get the violent insurrection that grew into civil war.  And suppose one side finally won.

Now what?

If it’s the side that wants more and more expansive government power, more control over people’s lives, and a more intrusive bureaucracy, no problem.  You’ve won.  And a government imposed by force of arms generally has no problem using force to expand its power.

But what if it’s the side that wants less government intrusion into people’s lives, less control, and less bureaucracy, you have a real problem.  How do you set that up so it sticks past even one election cycle (presuming you have elections in whatever you set up)?

So, are you going to have a Constitution?  How will you establish that Constitution?  Will you just write it and impose it on the population or will you use some mechanism, any mechanism, to give the people some voice in the Constitution you establish?  If you don’t have a Constitution, how are you going to limit the government, not just now but in the future?

High level decision:  are you going to let the people have a say in their own government or are you just going to force on them the government (strong or weak) which you want them to have?  If the latter, how are you any better than the people who wanted to impose their government on the people?  (And if you say “no government” then how do you prevent someone else from coming along and establishing their own choice of government on you?)

And if, instead, you allow the people to choose, the same people that voted in the government you just overthrew, what is to stop them from just voting back the same thing once more, rendering that whole insurrection and civil war an exercise in futility with the blood being shed for nothing.

I have had people, when this issue is pointed out to them, refer back to the American War of Independence.  The argument is along the line of “They did it, so we can do it.” But you need to consider what they actually did.

When Europeans settled in the land that would become the United States, one of the first things they did was set up local governments.  These governments derived their authority from the various European governments behind them.  Over time, the local governments grew, often with a governor appointed by the Crown.  And the far-away European Government (English for the thirteen colonies that would become the thirteen original States) exerted greater or lesser control to supersede that of the local governments.  But the local government was there, with continuity going back to their European forebears.

During the lead-up to the American Revolution First Continental Congress and then the Second Continental Congress were formed.  Each of these contained representatives from the Thirteen Colonies that would become the United States. (Note:  The “Stamp Act Congress” was formed before the First Continental Congress but not all of the colonies that would become the United States were represented.) These representatives were sent by their Colonial governments to represent the people of their respective colonies in the Congress.  Since these Congresses were represented by people chosen by their respective colonies, via their Colonial governments, again we had continuity of authority stretching back to their European forebears.

The Second Continental Congress served as the national government during the first part of the American War of Independence.  It passed the Declaration of Independence eschewing outside authority over the thirteen colonies.  Note, however, that it did not renounce the internal Colonial governments already in existence.  It retained continuity of authority from the past.  It passed the Articles of Confederation, the first charter for a national government structure for the nascent United States.  And once again, it did so under authority it already had ceded to it from the existing Colonial governments.  Again, continuity of authority.

The Second Continental Congress gave way to the Congress of the Confederation (Not to be confused with the Congress of the Confederated States of America) under the Articles of Confederation passed by the Second Continental Congress.  This lasted until a new Constitutional Convention was convened, again with representatives chosen by their respective State governments, the Constitution was written, and was ratified by the States.

Note one thing that did not happen:  The Continental Army did not at any point turn and say “you will accept this government that we impose on you.” The people, through their elected representatives, chose their own government.  There was continuity of authority leading back to the very founding of the various colonies.  The military province, the province of the war, was to reject outside control over first the colonies and later the states.  The authority and the government, was established in each step by the actions of the existing government.

Once the new government was established, military force was certainly used to enforce its authority (Whiskey Rebellion et al) but it was not used to establish it in the first place.  Nobody pointed guns at Americans and said “you will be a free nation whether you like it or not.”

This, I think, is where too many would-be “revolutionaries of freedom” break down.  They have no real plan for how to establish freedom after the shooting is done.  Do they have a Constitutional Convention?  If so, how do they keep States from sending exactly the same kind of representatives to the Convention that they are already sending to Congress?  Do they pick and choose their own representatives from each State?  If so, then in what possible way are they “Representative”? Do they go on a massive killing spree, kill enough people who disagree with them until they have a solid majority on “their side”? Can anybody here not see the problem with that?  Or perhaps they let people “vote” but only for candidates approved for ideological purity.  The “election” system in the old Soviet Union provides a good model for that.

None of those are exactly a good start for a “free” society.

That’s the problem.  If you want to create a free nation, you have to change the people first.  You have to convince the people that they want a free nation, that freedom, for all of it’s dangers and problems, is superior to tyranny.  But if you can do that, why not do it before the revolution?  After all, if you can do that, get the people solidly behind the ideal of freedom, the politicians will either fall in line or lose their place.

Once the people are solidly behind the idea of freedom, the only way for would-be tyrants to remain in power is force or such rampant fraud that nobody can deny it.  And while fraud has become increasingly apparent in recent years, particularly this last election, I do not believe we have reached that point.  Too many people are still willing to turn a blind eye to it and pretend it doesn’t happen or isn’t “significant.”

It is only after you have overwhelming support for the ideal of Freedom among the people–actual Freedom, not the so-called “Freedom” of various guarantees and security that some try to use to co-opt the word–can a revolution hope to bring about a free society in its wake.  And once you have that you may find that you don’t need the revolution after all, the ballot box being all the revolution you need.

If you’re an Atheist or Agnostic who doesn’t like “Merry Christmas.”
If you’re a Christian who doesn’t like “Happy Holidays.”
If you’re a Jew who doesn’t like “Blessed be.”
If you’re a Wiccan who doesn’t like “God Be with you.”
If you’re a Muslim who doesn’t like “May Thor hold his hammer between you and harm.”

I have one thing to say to you: Grow. Up. Take these things in the spirit they are offered, one of well wishing, and leave it at that.

And on that note, I wish you “Gud Yule” and “May Thor hold his hammer between you and harm.”

And for those who do not believe in Santa Clause, may I present the United States Marine Corps Reserve: