Clinton v. Trump I: The Harangue at Hofstra.

Welcome to Hofstra University and the first of three debates between Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump!  It's the first of three debates, and both contenders are looking to take the first game of the series.  First blood!

The stakes are....well, there will be a lot of people watching, that's for sure.  I know for me there is literally nothing that Trump can do that will make me vote for him, but if he can at least appear sane for 90 minutes, well, job done, I guess.  The stakes are higher for Clinton: she somehow has to convince people of her superiority to Trump without appearing superior.  Like, she has to put him to the sword, but she can't go all Hermione Granger on Trump's ass, because no one likes Hermione.  It's like asking Lionel Messi to score a hat trick, but not to do it too beautifully.  Three ugly goals.  It's a tough ask.

Tonight we will be scoring according to a secret set of criteria that I am not telling anyone about, lest I tip off my enemies.  Points will be posted to Ravenclaw House when Clinton scores; likewise when Trump scores points will go Gryffindor.

Gryffindor you say?  Yes! You might think he would go to Slytherin.  Yes, he could have been great at Slytherin....but he was so bold and so beautiful, so courageous, that he went to Gryffindor.  Yeah, admittedly, he's a Gryffindor gone to seed.  But he's still a Gryffindor.

So the rules are established, the stage is set, it's all to do for Clinton, and here we go....

8:30 seconds to go:  I've selected the You Tube feed from CNN, which I am not happy about.  I really think that CNN has made this election worse, with their panels and never ending discussion of this long, long election.  Maybe there is something better.

There we go.  Good old NBC.  Much less talk.  We seen to be in some sort of pre-game ceremony here.  I know many people around the country are pre-gaming as well.

My kindle has only 75% battery.  I hope that it makes it through the debate.  I have about 50% battery myself.

The families are being seated.  Here comes Lester Holt.  It's a full house here at Hofstra.  Last chance for the restrooms, last chance for a quick beer.  Lester Holt clears his throat.  The atmosphere is tense.  Very tense.  It seems as thought Lester Holt is taking a phone call, and the person on the other end is breaking up. Is it Trump calling to cancel?  Or is it his wife wishing him luck?

Somewhere in the distance, a dog barks....the candidates come out on to the stage and....

...And there was a long debate, and I wrote during it, stream of consciousness.  But I lost interest, and I thought that Donald Trump was an idiot.

It was not as interesting as we would have hoped - until the end, when it got quite raucous.  I thought Clinton put him to the sword. To the sword! I scored it like Ravenclaw - 9, Gryffindor - 2.  Trump seemed rather dickish, and immature, and non-presidential, and did not show one iota of the acumen necessary to be President.  Hillary did land a few low blows, perhaps went a few places that she should not have gone.  Trump elected to not really answer a number of questions, notably on the birther issue.  He may be a "great" businessman, but otherwise I don't think he has a clue.  I think he will find it very hard to govern if he wins. Clinton was cool, incredulous, and I think she just ran rough-shod over him, and she was organized.  Trump was all over the place, and got less orgnaized as he went on.  I think his plan to defeat ISIS somehow involves these guys below.

Yeah.  Those guys could do it.  I think that's probably what Trump's plan is, in a nutshell. One does not simply defeat ISIS.

And that's it for me, for this election.  For me it's over.  I don't want to hear another word, from Mr. Trump. I hope he loses big in November, because if he wins the presidency we will be in big, big trouble.  But even worse, I will have to listen to him talk for at least 4 years.  That seems to me a fate worse than....well, not death, but its still bad.  

This was a waste of life.  Next up:  the War in Washington.  But I wonder what else could possibly be said?


  

In which Nick reads "The First World War", by John Keegan, for the Second Time

As this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Somme and the Battle of Verdun, I figured the least I could do was read a book about World War I this summer.

So I selected John Keegan's summary history of the conflict, aptly titled "The First World War".  I had actually read it once before, about 11 years ago during my senior in college. I remember it being something of a slog, which was strange because other Keegan books I had read had been on point.

But the devil you know, right?  So rather than spend money on a different summary history I decided to spend money on a digital copy of a book that I had already read once before.  Funny old world, eh?

Maybe it is because I am more mature, but this time I found the book to be much more compelling.  Keegan does an able job of summarizing the start of the war and the opening battles.  I think something we often forget is that the first two months of the war were very fluid and dynamic, with some as room yet for heroism and initiative.

As things settle into stalemate and the fruitless trench warfare that most of us think of as we think of WWI, Keegan struggles to give the war some perspective, some meaning, though even he admits for a military historian charting the course of the war is very depressing indeed.

It actually makes the most sense if you look at it from the German perspective, which Keegan does well.  After the Schlieffen Plan fails (Keegan argues that even the architects of the plan knew it could never really work) the Germans basically realize that their best bet is to hold out on the Western Front and try to win against their weaker Russian enemies to the east.  If they can once again fight a one front war they might be able to amass enough men in the west to defeat a weakened France and a resolute Britain, before their country itself is exhausted.  With the exception of the aberration of Verdun, it is a plan the Germans stick to as the years go by, and it might have worked if...

You guessed it, those pesky Americans!  Over Thereeeeee....Over Thereeeee.....USA!  USA!  USA! USA!  Get me a Twinkie and buy me some steak, the Americans save those sorry French asses for the first time.  Sort of.

In 1918 the Germans have won the war in the east and are transferring men into the west for some massive offensives using new tactics (that presaged the Blitzkrieg of the second world war)...and they work to an extent.  But here they meet the Americans, an army of a million dough-boys who fight with an utter disregard for casualties because they have not spent years in the trenches watching their friends die in a landscape that resembles the inner circle of hell.  Most important they (and their British and French allies, who still fight tenaciously in defense) inflict casualties on the Germans that they simply cannot replace, particularly with regards to their non-commissioned officers, and as 1918 wears on their war effort simply implodes.  They simply cannot match the sudden influx of Americans.  It wasn't particularly their fighting skills (though Keegan gives props to the Marines at Belleau Wood), but more so the fact that they were there, and there were a lot of them, and there were more coming, and everybody knew this.

Keegan also does an excellent job of explaining why the war turned out the way it did, with neither side really able to make a breakthrough.  It seems that technology had advanced to the point where the battlefield was hopelessly lethal but had not advanced far enough to coordinate those different lethal technologies.

Look - today, if you come under fire, chances are you know where you are and you have communications back to someone who also knows where you are.  That person can dial in artillery and air strikes to obliterate thine enemy into tiny bits.  I'm sure it's not that simple, but you get the idea.  Communications are incredibly advanced, and allow for leadership (in theory) to coordinate efforts in the battle space and deliver lethality where it is needed most.

Not so in WWI.  You may be fighting with the most advanced weaponry yet devised, but you are relying on telephones for comms with wires that often don't survive the initial bombardments that open any battle of the war.  Now you are relying on runners, which chances are will not make it to their destination.  Your infantry are in some place far away where you cannot see them, they have advanced but are now under counterattack.  They have no comms and cannot call in pinpoint artillery to engage the enemy.  They are alone, and they are at a disadvantage as the enemy gathers for the counter strike.

This a You Tube video that I think shows the problem very well.  It's a little long, but I think it's worth it. Leave it to the British to make a World War I documentary somewhat cheeky and fun.  I guessed they earned that right, at least.

Along the same lines, Keegan also argues that the generals were not quite as heartless and clueless as we thought.  Some of them did learn and adapt, if not overcome.  New techniques were tried to break the deadlock, and as the wore won the British in particular found that it was possible, through careful planning and a combination of mines, bombardment, tanks, and infantry supporting each other in assault, to make an initial attack with relatively (relatively being the key word) minor casualties, all things considered.  But such gains could never be consolidated, as the German counter attack (which was their tactic of choice for much of the war) would inevitably stall any offensive.  It's not a universal truth, and the late example of the waste at Passchendale sort of suggests otherwise, but its still true that commanders on both sides were able to make small improvements that did show some promise.  But the communication breakthrough that was really needed was never realized.

So - if you were wanting to come to grips with the conflict, I can think of no better way.  On the first reading, a decent book.  On the second reading, an excellent one.  Do yourself a favor and get a good book for maps or find some online...the military historian's penchant for Corps designations is alive and well.

  

The Relevance of Poetry

If you want to gain a little perspective, then I'd highly recommend you find a local open mike poetry night.

The group I am a part of (more or less) had it's 8th anniversary open mike a week and a half ago, and it was....pretty incredible.  So many different voices: perspectives from blacks, whites, latinos, believers, non-believers, liberals, conservatives. There is nothing really quite like it, where you have people who are so willing to share their experience so openly, and you have people who more importantly are willing to quietly, respectfully listen.

Listening breeds understanding, understanding empathy, and empathy?  Peace.  Nothing could be more relevant today.

Here are a couple of excellent poets that were good enough to share with the group.  First is Dayana Lee,  the current young poet Laureate of Hampton Roads, an award winning international poet.  The other is her mentor and coach, Nathan Richardson.  Check it out, support your local poets, and gain a different perspective.  I don't think you will be sorry. 

In Muted Praise of Kaepernick, and Thoughts on the Anthem as a National Symbol

The fracas over the National Anthem continues to grow as more NFL players, some whole NFL teams, and even Megan Rapinoe all participate or contemplate participating in Colin Kaepernick's "I ain't standing up during the National Anthem" protest.

There is, naturally, a pretty wicked backlash on social media.  We apparently were all willing to accept the idea that maybe one guy, this Colin Kaepernick, would not stand up provided he showed reverence to the armed forces by taking a knee.  But now that more than one person wishes to exercise their right to free speech?  Clearly that is a little too much for the Constitution and our Country to bear.

Watching all of this transpire, there is something that bothers me.  How is it that all of our national symbols have become synonymous with respect for the military?  It's as if there is nothing else our nation stands for.

It's a free country of course.  If you want to make the anthem a symbol of the sacrifice given by so many soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines then I suppose you can go right ahead.  Veterans and those presently serving exemplify some of the best impulses of our culture, and if you choose to venerate them by placing your hand over your heart and facing the flag as the anthem is played or sung, it's your right to do so.

That....is a pretty big flag.

But we never collectively decided that this is the case, that that is what our National Anthem is supposed to mean for everyone.  I don't remember having a national convention in which we decided that "heretofore from this date the National Anthem shall be an icon through which we remember the sacrifice of our nation's armed forces".  No one gets to say definitively what a piece of our culture represents.  So you can't expect everyone to view the national anthem in the same way.

I don't see it that way.  I'm not sure how I see it, honestly.  Sometimes, sure, I think of the troops.  Sometimes I think of all the blessings that I have as an American, and how lucky I am to be one.  Sometimes I think of the promise of our nation and the fact that our anthem (the verse we sing, at least) ends intriguingly in a question, as if asking us if we have done all we can to live up to the promise of our nation.  But there are other times I think of how the tune is a British drinking song, and how hard it is to sing as a result, and how not good the person singing it is at singing it, and whether that person is lip synching or not.  Then there are other times where I think how interesting it is that our anthem (the verse we sing, at least) ends intriguingly in a question, as if suggesting that we have not gone far enough, as if to suggest that we are a long way from living up to the promise of our nation, a truth held self evident that All Men are Created Equal.

So I can never quite bring myself to place my hand over my heart while it is sung.   We've done some amazing, wonderful things as a nation.  But like so many others, we have also done some horrible things, sometimes perhaps by not doing enough.  We have much to answer for.  America is my home, and I love it so, and yet....

...Reflexive patriotism bothers me, a bit.  It's almost like going to Church and getting your sins forgiven, accepting the grace without reckoning with how in fact you have erred, and what you might learn from it.

 We, as a nation, owe an incredible debt, an almost unpayable debt, to those who have served our country.

But I wonder if going through these rituals of national respect satisfies the collective guilt that some of us must feel about sending other people to die and kill for us.  Anthem sung and penance paid, we go on with our merry lives until the next football game, using our symbols to build a wall of separation between our normal lives and the wars we fight.

You might say it's the least we can do to show respect for our military, to stand and place our hands over our hearts while the anthem is played.  I would argue that we owe much more than that.  We have to take it upon ourselves to ensure that "from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Sometimes that means taking a stand, in which ever way you can, to show how far away we are from realizing our best aspirations, that we still need to strive boldy towards a better future together, rather than rely on a few brave souls to do it for us. We all have a stake and a responsibility to make our country live up to its promise.

Colin Kaepernick and his band of renown are doing their best to make the most powerful statement they can with that end in mind.

And for that, I have to applaud them.    

Whyfore Gary Johnson?

A number of my friends are supporting Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico and libertarian wunderkind, for President.  Some of them are supporting him, I think, simply because Trump seems to be an unstable bigot while Hillary Clinton seems to be a cold, calculating, dishonest bitch.

But others are supporting him because, I think, they are actual libertarians.

I've always found it interesting that Adolf Hitler and Churchill were both painters.  Hitler in his life before the cataclysm of World War I and II, Churchill as best as I can tell for much of his life as a hobby.

I've also found it interesting that many engineers are libertarians.

It makes sense though.  Engineers are sensible people, who go to school for years and learn incredible amounts of math but then go into the work force and search for the cheapest, easiest, quickest solution that involves the least amount of paperwork and hassle.

A libertarian point of view seems to fit that pretty well.  It's pretty simple after all;  the government is going to be as small as it can be and leave you alone as much as possible.  Solutions to the nation's pressing problems will be left to the free-market and the people will vote with their dollars.  The government will defend the country but not get over involved in foreign entanglements.  And yes, the government doesn't particularly care if you toke up with some buds after binging all week long on pornography and pumpkin sex orgies because....that's your concern.  The Government doesn't care who or what you bring into your bed and, to a certain extent, what you put into your body.  Heroin, probably, is still kind of bad; but instead of tossing you into jail we are probably going to get you into some kind of treatment program.  Good luck paying for it on your own, because taxes have been cut so much there is no government program.

Have you considered the erotic possibilities of yams, but were to afraid of being stigmatized to tell anyone?  Then vote for Mr. Johnson in November.  I say "In November" because I don't know what day Election Day actually is.

Low taxes, separation of Church and State, abortions for everyone, a powerful military that watches those pesky Canadians.  All of the fiscal responsibility of the Republican Party without all their silly moralizing.

And I have to admit...It's kind of attractive.  It's the closest kind of government to what I think the Founders (with a capital F, no less) would have wanted.

But there is that vexing problem of equality.  What do we do with all the people who lose in a free market system?  Do we just let them get by as best as they will?  Do we hope that people are compassionate enough to donate to food banks and soup kitchens and other charities?  Or does the government have some responsibility to provide some base level for those left by the wayside?  A libertarian might say that these are questions all best answered by local governments and state legislatures, and maybe so; but what about something like education?  What if the people of Virginia would rather not fund public schools because they think it's not particularly important, but then the people of Ohio say "you know what, we are going to have some fantastic schools"?  Doesn't that put the kids in Virginia at a disadvantage simply because they live in a state - oh, no, sorry, a commonwealth -  whose people (perhaps the by most narrow of margins) do not want to adequately support public education?

Once you start to grapple with those kind of questions, you find that libertarian thought always needs some modulation and some nuance.  Some might just kind of shrug their shoulders and argue that inequality is not their problem and that people need to take responsibility for themselves.  True to a degree, perhaps, but I find that that sort of thinking lacks compassion.  And a politics without compassion is due to fail (just read your old, battered copy of Antigone- oh wait, you don't have one due to cuts to the public educational system.  Schade.  Do you know what that means?  Probably not, due to cuts to the public educational system).  

So I have questions for Johnson.  I want to see if maybe he can be nuanced enough to get me to buy in.  I'm not sure based on what I know about him and his thoughts that he can.  But I'd be willing to listen if he is given the chance to debate on the stage.  I think he has every right to do so, and I hope that whoever makes the decision on him being in or out will let him participate.  If the GOP and the DEMs really think they are the shit, and that a life of low taxes and unmitigated pumpkin sex is not better than what they have to offer, then they should not be afraid to prove it.    

And maybe, just maybe, if he shows up at the 36th gate with a couple dozen hot Kripsy Kreme donuts (all for me, I ain't sharing them), I will vote for him on Election day.