The Reluctant Revolutionary.

If I get to choose how history remembers me, I would rather it be for something fun, like a game designer of the caliber of Gary Gygax or Richard Garfield. Or maybe as an author of a science fiction or fantasy novel (yes, I actually wrote one, once), like Robert Heinlein, or Carol Berg. But I’m really going to be quite content just being remembered by my family as a loving husband, father, grandfather, etc. I need no other recognition in history.

I say this, because it is important to me that people understand that it is not out of a need to be noticed that I’ve been writing my essays recently. The message I write is what is important, not the man behind the message. America is at a crossroads, and it is time for the common man to realize what is important, what built this great country, and stand up for what is right and just.

I am a common man.

I am simply standing up for what I believe is right and just.

Were a revolution to happen tomorrow, I would prefer to be remembered for my role in it as Peter Van Dusen is remembered for his role in the American Revolution back in the 1770s. Who was Peter Van Dusen, you ask? I don’t know. It’s very likely you don’t either, unless perhaps you’re one of his ancestors. And that’s exactly the point. His was a name I pulled off the first census in 1790. A little research on his name turns up a number of modern Peter Van Dusens, and a couple of genealogical links. And nothing more – he may have participated in the Revolutionary War, but that is not what he is known for.

So I would prefer to be a Peter Van Dusen than a Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin. I have no desire to incite a revolution. But like Jefferson and Franklin, I am frustrated by what is going on around me with our government and my fellow citizens, and I feel it is time to speak up.

I am, so to speak, a reluctant revolutionary. You should be, too.

It feels like I am a lone voice in the wilderness. But I know I am not. I know that among my friends, family, acquaintances and neighbors are many who feel the same as I do, who have similar critical thinking skills, and have reached many of the same conclusions. We are at a time of crisis in America, and it is time for cooler heads and common sense to prevail.

Unfortunately, common sense and cooler heads aren’t all that common in America these days. We can’t stand silent, and expect things to get any better. I can stand here and shout, but my voice can only carry so far. America needs us to stand up and cry out together, to speak up, even though we have not yet been affected by what tyrannies may or may not be to come.

Alone, we are single voices. Together, amassed, we are a mighty chorus. My single vote means no more than yours does. That's why some think a single vote is unimportant, that individual votes don't matter. But a single vote is no more unimportant to the future of our cities, states and country than a single penny is to making a purchase. When making a purchase, every penny counts, even if the source of those pennies doesn't matter, because being even one penny short can prevent the sale. Likewise in an election – every vote counts. My vote – or yours – could be the one that tips an election.

We must cry out, we must group our votes together, and do something about the state of the nation.

We cannot do this by continuing to vote in the people who currently represent us. We cannot do this by concentrating on the top executives. We've been doing that too long. It is time to focus on the smaller elections, the ones that we as individuals have a better chance of influencing. It is time to start concentrating on getting the representation we want in the State legislatures, and in the US Congress.

Furthermore, I believe we should stop voting for those who want to represent us so badly they're willing to spend tens of thousands, even millions of dollars to run for office. One thing I learned over the years, is that those who seek to lead are often the worst of leaders. People who are thrust into leadership roles unwillingly often tend to be better leaders overall. People who seek leadership often wish to control others, while people who reluctantly accept leadership roles often do not – they merely accept the responsibility and move forward while trying to do the best job they can.

Look around you for that guy or gal you know is a good leader, and convince them to run for office. The more they resist, the better they will probably be for the job. If you don't have a friend like that, look for the smaller third party candidates. Most of them don't really believe they will win, and knowing that, they probably don't have an overwhelming desire to lead. If they did, they would likely be seeking parties or elections where they have a better chance of leading – like an HOA, or city council. But the ones we want leading us are the ones who don't want to control us.

If you're reading this, you're probably a common man (or woman), like me. Step up, raise your voice, and become a reluctant revolutionary.

And look for the reluctant leaders among us. We need them now more than ever.

Dealing with the Absurdity of a Pop Tart Gun

Many years ago, during my time as a junior petty officer in the Navy, our division got a new senior chief, and almost immediately, everyone in the division hated him. Yet, by the time I left there, he was my favorite chief. To this day, he still is, because of the many leadership lessons he instilled in me, mostly by example.

The base we were at had an absurd rule regarding when and where command baseball caps vs traditional naval white hats could be worn. I don't know how long the rule had actually been in place, but from at least before I got there. For the most part, the sailors most affected by the rule ignored it, as did those who should have enforced it. Everyone was happy.

Until this senior chief showed up. Almost immediately, he began requiring strict enforcement of all the rules in his division, including this absurd one. Most of us in the division were pretty understanding of the enforcement of most of the other rules, but the one about the baseball caps really, really rankled us. It didn't take long for us to hate our new senior chief over it.

After some time – probably only a couple of weeks, but it seemed like months at the time – he confessed to us that he, too, thought the rule was absurd. “Then why are you enforcing it!?!”, we practically screamed at him.

His answer was enlightening. Because sometimes the best way to deal with an absurd rule is not to complain about how absurd it is while ignoring it, but to show how absurd it is while enforcing it. That was the gist of his explanation. And with that explanation, the rest of the division got on board, and the rule began being enforced outside our division as well, to the point that no one liked our new senior chief. Not too long after that, the base commander changed the rule to a more realistic one we could all live with.

That lesson has stuck with me. I've rarely had need to use that method since, but when the story of the schoolboy disciplined for chewing his pop tart into a gun shape came about, I realized it's another great place to apply that lesson.

In case you hadn't heard the story, a 7 yr old in Maryland was suspended from school when a teacher overreacted to him chewing his pop tart into a gun shape. There has been a lot of various outraged reaction to it in the media, but it got me to thinking about how I would react if it were to happen to any of the children at my kid's school.

I've decided that my old senior chief's example is the best way to proceed. Let the school have their way, with the only response from me being “you realize you're setting a precedent with this absurdity, don't you? I will use that precedent against you in the future, and you will not like it.”

Then wait for the opportunity to arise, and because it's a school, it surely will. The teacher sends home an assignment with a map of Florida or Oklahoma on it? There's an opportunity (because those two states are as obviously as gun shaped as a pop tart can be) to storm into the school and demand that they apply equivalent disciplinary procedures to the teacher as they did to the child for sending home “images of guns.” Or show outrage at a student assignment or teacher handout that shows an image of the flag of West Virginia (which has guns upon it), or the Virginia state flag, (which could be considered worse, because it has a man standing with one foot upon the chest of a fallen (slain?) foe.)

The cool thing about being educated or just knowing how to do a little research is that you can find these things within their curriculum pretty easily. Things that should be right under a teacher's nose, that they should be aware of, but never, ever consider when they become a little too overzealous.

Situations like this highlight the problem with zero-tolerance policies, and over-zealous political correctness. But it can almost always be used against the very people applying the policies, if someone can remain calm enough to realize it. And frequently, until it's used against them, most of these types of people won't ever realize when they've crossed the line into absurdity. Indignant outrage rarely moves them, but a decent helping of common sense and critical thinking applied against them in the same manner they used almost always gets their attention.Or the attention of someone in a position to do something about them.

Never be afraid to fight absurdity with well-reasoned absurdity.

A quick footnote:

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not ranting against teachers, or school administrators here. In my experience, for every teacher or school administrator who does this, there are a hundred more whom are reasonable people, have common sense, and are good people. But given the multitude of educators that a child comes in contact with through out their school years, it's inevitable that most parents will encounter at least one like this. In most cases, another adult within the school will already be on your side, but just in case – remember, you can fight absurdity by taking it to the next level!

What makes a criminal?

I've mentioned before that after my term of service in the Navy, I became a student of US History, particularly the events surrounding the adoption of the US Constitution. But there is another period of US History I find fascinating because of its parallels to modern times.

Prohibition.

On January 17^th, 1920, the 18^th Amendment went into effect, and the United States officially became a dry nation, where alcohol was outlawed. Prohibition and the ratification of the 18^th Amendment was not something that had simply crept up on us overnight – the temperance movement had been pushing for it for nearly 100 years in the United States, and various regional pushes well before that for centuries. They finally succeeded with the 18^th Amendment, and thus began what was supposed to be a new era in the US.

Except that history shows us it failed. And failed miserably. While initially it did reduce alcohol usage, after a short while, alcohol usage actually went up. Otherwise law abiding citizens began deliberately breaking laws. Criminal organizations rose, and violent crime along with them. The tax-free profit of illegal alcohol was too tempting, and being illegal, territory and business disputes had no legal recourse to resolve them, leading to them being resolved with “might makes right” policies. In other words, violence. And lots of it.

We see a lot of parallels in the drug war that began in earnest in 1971, particularly with marijuana. But I digress from the point I want to make. Both situations, as well as other, more recent legislative attempts, beg the question “What makes a criminal?”

Most people agree on certain crimes, like murder, violent assault, rape, theft, etc. They are part of the social contract, and violating them rips the very fabric of society apart, necessitating the branding of those who would violate them as criminals and undesirables. These are fairly clear cut, and there is rarely disagreement about them.

Other crimes aren't so clear cut, like those against laws that basically function as the lubricant for a civilized society. Laws like zoning ordinances, speed limits, etc. As a libertarian, I'd love for there to be no need for these type of laws, because as functioning adults, we should be able to police ourselves, and be able to work things out with our neighbors. Unfortunately, even in the most utopian ideal of societies, where everyone is respectful of everyone else's rights, there will always be a small amount of friction between individuals that society as a whole will need to step in and mediate. Since I recognize that humans are far from perfect, I also recognize that these types of laws will always be a necessary evil.

People that violate these types of laws can also be branded as criminals by society, even though a significant portion of society may not see them as such.

There is another class of crime that is particularly troubling. It's those crimes defined by government as crimes for no other reason than to protect the existence of that government. Wile this would include sedition or treason as defined by the Constitution, I'm primarily talking about the proliferation of laws, proposed legislation and executive policies we've seen since the 1930s. Things like REX84, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, NSPD51, USC 2384, and The Smith Act. Things that often go outside the boundaries of our constitution and attempt to side step the bill of rights.

But even more troubling than those, and more relevant to the point I would like to make are the laws that take formerly legal activities or possessions and make them illegal “for our safety.” Laws like Prohibition.

When something formerly legal is suddenly made illegal to keep us safe, who are the real criminals? When otherwise law abiding citizens are turned into criminals overnight simply because a president or governor or mayor signed a new law, does that truly make that citizen a criminal?

The law says yes, it does.

But is it really that simple. Isn't that kind of a bitter pill to swallow when you or someone you love is suddenly a criminal merely because a signature has been put to a piece of paper?

Now, in some cases, one could argue “well X causes Y harm, and it makes sense for it to be illegal.”

Maybe. Maybe not.

Consider, for a moment, how the first moment of Prohibition must have been like. If a man came home from work, and enjoyed a single beer with dinner every night, or a woman enjoyed the occasional glass of wine before bed, they instantly became criminals if there was any beer or wine left in their household the very moment that law went into effect. Even if they were otherwise 100% law abiding citizens.

Really, truly think about that for a moment. One minute, they're a law abiding citizen, the next minute, through no action of their own, they are criminals.

Yes, yes, I know – they could have made sure to drink or get rid of the alcohol before it became illegal, but that's not the point of this thought exercise. The point is, is it right for nothing more than the signature on some legislation to turn a law abiding citizen into a criminal for something they acquired while it was legal?

I can hear some of you now “Yes, but...” Yes, but nothing. Really think about it. You can use all sorts of examples to justify it all you want, but I'm trying to get you to think outside the box here. Don't think about it in the case of the controversial subjects like guns or drugs or alcohol. For those of you who are married, while you consider my next part, also think about that subtle shift in your opinion once your vows were finalized. Look around your room, or your house and pick a favorite object of yours or a family member. 

How would you feel if, for whatever reason, that object suddenly became illegal?

Would you remain a law abiding citizen and turn it in or destroy it? Or would you keep it, and become a criminal? What lengths might you go to retain it?

What if it's not your object, but that of a spouse or other loved one? Would you insist they get rid of it? Would you aid them in being a criminal? Would you turn them in to remain a law abiding citizen?

Not such a simple problem, is it?

Then consider, if you choose to remain a criminal, to defy the law, what other laws might you be willing to disobey? I mean, you're already a criminal, right?  

In the end, each of us can only answer this type of question for ourselves. Only we really know what will make us a criminal. But something I do know, from my insignificant studies of people and history is that more often than not, most people will choose to become a criminal if they do not agree with the law that suddenly made them one. And that once they are labeled a criminal, they are much more likely to be willing to disobey other laws.

Who's fault is that?