The greatest danger

As much as people complain about the bitter partisan environment in Washington, the alternative to disagreeing about everything is that some important issues get no attention, as seems to be the case with military spending. Neither party wants to make any serious cuts to military spending and as a result we are hurling towards bankruptcy, default and possibly worse; a world war with the U.S. as the main agitator.

Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in WWII, 34th President of the United States

In 1961 Dwight Eisenhower, veteran of 2 World Wars, Supreme Commander of allied forces in the second, and a Republican President, warned of the danger of an ever more powerful "Military Industrial Complex" in his farewell address. Although he had arguably done more to create this problem than any other previous president, he surely recognized the danger at the end of his administration. The military and it's suppliers exist in every state in the Union, as intended. Some have argued that the military growth of WWII, rather than Roosevelt's New Deal and the improved world economy was what really propelled us out of the Great Depression. Whatever you choose to believe about history though, it is irrefutable that our government now sees military spending as essential to keep our economy running. It would be a death sentence for any President, Senator or Representative to propose significant military spending cuts because jobs would be lost and we would be less safe. I beg to disagree.

First, we cannot afford our military. It makes no sense to me that with a national debt of over $16 trillion, so few people even mention military spending cuts. We spend over $711 billion annually on our military, almost 5 times the amount of  the #2 spender, China (a country with almost 4 times our population). That is $2,260 per capita every year as opposed to China's $102 per capita. This comes out to a full 20% of our annual budget, ten times what we spend on education. It makes no sense to me that Republicans whine about government spending so much but never mention the biggest thing we spend money on, which also happens to be the most bloated, bureaucratic and federalized department.

Although I would argue that our military leadership has too much power over our elected representatives, they are in most ways not the problem. In many instances they haven't even asked for the things we want to give them. In fact, Congress continues to approve one unnecessary military expenditure after another, from battleships to tanks to who knows what else that the Military doesn't even want. I'm not suggesting that we just hand the military a blank check, only that they might have a better understanding of what we actually need than our Congressmen that see military spending as little more than delicious pork.

Of course, Democrats are only slightly less hypocritical. Maybe Democrats would rather see money go to "social safety net" programs than tax cuts for the rich, but that money still has to come from somewhere and I don't hear too may Democrats talking about defense cuts either. In fact, military spending is up under Obama and despite Obama's debate comments about "less bayonets and battleships", we actually have more battleships under Obama than we did under Bush. Maybe it's because there are military bases and jet manufacturers in Democratic districts too or maybe it's just because they are too afraid of being called pussies if they suggest any such cuts. And though most Democrats seem to prefer being engaged in the international community to always "going it alone", none seem to so much as suggest that a military spending that equates to the total spending of the next 13 countries combined, a military presence in 130 other countries and drones flying overhead, bombing innocent civilians might actually make us less safe?

Kaiser Wilhelm II helped foster a militaristic culture in Germany before WWI

World War I was the biggest war in history, at least until World War II. Of course, many would argue that the second World War was but an inevitable continuation of the first. As we approach the centennial of the war that kicked off a century of large and small world conflicts, historians still struggle to understand the causes. Though the assassination of Franz Ferdinand may have been the spark, the Great War would not have happened had it not been for a militaristic culture in many of the Great Powers, an entangled set of alliances and militaristic doctrines that emphasized fast, decisive blows before the enemy had time to prepare. Ironically, the first World War was a defensive war, with battle after battle ending in stalemate and nearly every attempt at breakthrough ending in disaster. Maybe I am paranoid but I don't have to stretch my imagination too much to see how it could happen again. History has shown that when nations make great armies and great weapons they find ways to use them. The alliances today between the U.S. and Israel, between Iran and Syria remind me of the alliances between Germany and the Austrio-Hungarian Empires and Russia and Serbia 100 years ago. And though it no longer takes our military months to mobilize, we still have a doctrine of "attack first, ask questions later" in a world where urban and guerrilla warfare allow a small force to defend against a larger, stronger force and it's hard to tell when, if ever, a military victory is actually accomplished.

Britain and Germany were engaged in a naval arms race before the WWI but there was only one major Naval battle in the war. Maybe they should have saved their money to develop tanks and bomber planes instead?

Se let's say we do enter a major conflict. So much of our defense spending is justified by this possibility, I think it's our job to ask the question. Are we really better off? Again, I don't think so. When WWII broke out in 1939, the U.S. army ranked a puny 17th in the world and when Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941 only one American division was on full war footing. Should we have been better prepared? Surely, yes. But stockpiling tanks, planes, bombs and rifles would most likely have hurt our ability to ultimately win the war. Just as in World War I 20 years earlier and many other major conflicts, the military technology that evolved during the war quickly made old weapons obsolete. In the first World War, both Britain and Germany invested heavily in "Dreadnaughts", giant battleships, thinking that wars of the future would be Naval wars. Yet there was only one major naval battle in the entire war. The fact that the U.S. was not invested in old, soon to be obsolete military technology at the start of the war was actually a benefit because it allowed us to concentrate fully on research, development and production of the newest technologies.

The pacifist in me would love to see our military spending reduce to somewhere around $30 Billion annually, or the size of Brazil or South Korea. In my opinion, the $681 Billion we save every year could be used to improve our social safety net, improve education, repair our infrastructure, save social security, pay for health care, start to pay off the national debt and even reduce taxes. And in my opinion, a smaller military would actually make us safer because we wouldn't seem like such a threat to the world. In my opinion, a smaller military would actually improve our ability to defend ourselves in the eventuality of a major conflict. But I am a realist. I don't see that happening any time soon. Most importantly, I just want to make sure that we don't start World War III.

If anything is to change, there have to be more voices that speak out. I don't see any reason why this can't come from either side of the aisle, but if we all consent to continued military escalation we all help to push ourselves closer and closer towards the abyss. The optimist in me thinks that if more people speak out in voices of peace and just plain common sense, reducing military spending could actually be popular. I don't really think that most of us want war, even if we're not quite as afraid of it as we should be.

Hyper Individualism

I think that a lot of our problems as a society come from a culture of hyper individualism. Basically a Rand-ian attitude of "Fuck everyone else", "I'm gonna get mine". For some, even the suggestion of any other alternative can seem like an endorsement of socialism.

Let's look at the gun control issue that has been talked about so much lately. I think that the most compelling point that "anti-gun control people" make is that if you were there when a robbery, rape, mass shooting or whatever was taking place, wouldn't you rather have a gun than not have a gun? A well publicized article in the Atlantic (published a couple weeks before Newtown) articulated this well, though you don't have to read any further than the second half of the title of the article to see that it makes a case for more gun control. Even Bill Maher admits to owning a gun for his protection. The idea is that "responsible" gun owners are not the problem (and some would take that argument to the next step... they are actually the solution to the problem). But if you look at the statistics...

- Thousands of children die from self-inflicted gun injuries (suicides) and accidents every year. Many of these are because "responsible gun owners" don't properly lock up their firearms to keep them out of the hands of their children or their children's friends.
- Introducing a firearm to a problem can often make the problem worse. Example: someone gets mugged. They pull out a gun to "defend themselves" and the bullets start flying. Which is worse, giving up the cash in your wallet or a high probability that someone gets shot?
- Even when "responsible gun owners" legally own firearms and use them for their own protection, mistakes happen.
- Mother Jones did some research on mass shootings that is very interesting. Note that there wasn't a single example where a gun was used to stop the shooting. Even when the shooter was stopped by someone that was armed, the firearm was not used.
- When people use a gun to settle a dispute, it's not gonna end well.

I think what people are saying (from the left and from the right) is that we are responsible enough to own weapons and we will make sure that no accidents happen, our guns won't fall into the wrong hands and we would never lose our temper and use our gun in an irresponsible manner but we need to be careful about what we allow for other people though, whether we advocate stricter background checks and assault weapons bans or better recognition and treatment of mental health issues. There is a clear difference between what we believe is acceptable for other people vs. what is acceptable for ourselves. This seems arrogant to me. Or maybe we are just to far removed from seeing ourselves as a member of society that we are unable to recognize the hypocrisy.

It's a similar issue with government help and the need for a "social safety net". In short, people that benefit from these programs are "moochers" and by supporting these programs we enable an ongoing refusal to take personal responsibility. But when we ourselves need the help, these programs are necessary to help us get back on our feet and contribute to society again. This hypocrisy was most hilariously exemplified by Paul Ryan and Craig T Nelson.

I think that we need to get rid of the stigma around the word "socialism". In my opinion, we need some socialism to help democracy and capitalism survive. Without it, we will inevitably end up with all of the power in the hands of a few, which will eventually result in violent revolution. It's a broader issue than just gun control and a social safety net. We have to start seeing ourselves as members of a society, not just individuals. In this society, we should have the expectation that we will be offered a helping hand if we fall upon (or are born upon) bad luck or hard times, and we have a responsibility to help others out. A rising tide raises all boats.

Every time I get in my car, I note the driving habits of people in Philadelphia. What I am always most amused by is when drivers go out of their way to cut people off or stop them from going where they want to go for no reason except possibly out of spite. It doesn't help them get anywhere any faster, and in many cases they actually slow themselves down int the long run. If I am completely honest, I fall into this trap too. And that's the point. I consider myself a competent and responsible driver, but I still act in ways that do not benefit the system sometimes. In a dog eat dog world it's hard to be a vegetarian.

Resurrection

I've decided to resurrect this blog after 2 and 1/2 years of hiatus. Why? Well, I just want a forum to formulate my thoughts on things. I have my professional blog, but I want to use that mainly for training advice and articles. I realized when I wrote a couple articles about doping that I might be crossing the line into opinion and analysis that may not be well suited to that blog. Still, I have opinions about things. I don't think that they are that unique, intellectual or even necessarily the best informed. Really, I just feel that the act of writing something helps me to organize my thoughts. Read if you like, comment if you like. I feel very strongly about some issues, but I am a pragmatist. I believe that one of our biggest problems as a country is that we don't try hard enough to see the other side of issues, so we end up arguing constantly about the most decisive parts of issues instead of trying to empathize, find common ground and actually get something done. Real changes doesn't usually happen quickly. Change comes bit by bit; step by step. Sometimes we move one step backwards and two steps forward. Sometimes we sidestep. This is frustrating to progressives but it's the price we pay for Democracy. I am hopeful that the next generation of leaders will understand that.

But one thing is clear. Change doesn't just happen, we have to fight for it. There are always powerful forces that stand to lose when we move forward. Though not all of us are able to be on the front lines of those fights, it is our duty as citizens to at least be informed and educated. This means making an effort to understand the point of view of people that we disagree with. Know your enemy.

Top 10 signs that you may be a master's racer

10. It takes you 2 hours to warm up for any hard efforts
9. It takes you 3 days to recover from any hard efforts
8. Your easiest gear is a 42 x 21
7. You have raced on steel, aluminum, scandium, titanium and carbon frames
6. You look 10 years younger than you actually are
5. You look 50 years older than you actually are
4. Your musette bag has a ham and cheese sandwich and a bottle filled with espresso and rum
3. You have won 36 national championships but you only have one race a year that you can actually wear the jersey
2. Your average cadence on most days is 12
1. Even though you spent most of your career racing on a 12 speed with down tube shifters you now cannot live without DI-2

"33"

Brief examinations of 4 different views on the Universe

When trying to square away the injustice, horror and sheer nonsense of the world, there are a couple different schools of thought that one might turn to.

1. Judeo-Christian: The basic idea is that the universe is good. God is good. People are good. Sure, there may be evil in the world, but that evil is overcome by the good. This is a fight that must be fought but in the end the good will prevail because... well, because it is good. Maybe our lives will be full of suffering but we will be rewarded in heaven or the afterlife. Obviously there are many diverse beliefs encompassed in the Judeo Christian tradition, but they all share a relatively consistent view on morality: don't kill, don't steal, don't lie. Sure, some faiths may be more lenient about some of the "lesser commandments" such as cursing, coveting and not observing the Sabbath but these things are still frowned upon. Why are these rules important? Because the notion that suffering on earth will lead to a reward in heaven keeps the people from rising up. Of course, it also makes it easier for governments to mobilize armies to fight wars for them in the name of their God, their country and their moral beliefs about what is right and wrong.

2. Buddhism: Throw away all judgements you have made because there is no such thing as good and bad or right and wrong. There just is. The best thing we can do is to find acceptance. This is one of the key parts of meditation. Throw away the judgments we have made and just be there in the moment, a part of the universe. We have the habit of classifying everything into 3 categories: good, bad and indifferent. If you really think about it, can you name 5 things that you are not indifferent about but you don't judge as either good or bad? It took me a while to come up with 5. If we judge, we remove our connection withe the universe. The problem is that without judgement we leave ourselves unprotected because we have no control. Are we to just allow ourselves to drift at sea, being washed away into oblivion?

3. Capitalism: The optimists view on Capitalist philosophy is that life should be good. We deserve to live in comfort and ease and if we work hard we can have everything we want. The cynics view is that you need to get yours before someone else does. Either way, the basic goal is the same: accumulate a bunch of stuff that is supposed to make your life easier. The obvious question this begs is "what do we give up in order to attain this stuff?" Perhaps we lose out humanity. Perhaps we lose our own true purpose, whatever that may be. Perhaps we lose nothing. Personally, I see the bigger problem as one of unsustainability. Unless someone is looking out for the health of the system, we are all doomed.

4. Nihilism: For me, it seems a lot easier to make sense of the universe if you throw out any notion of the way things are "supposed to be". Maybe life has no meaning. Maybe it doesn't matter if we treat each other well or treat the environment well. Maybe our whole sense of morality is just a bunch of arbitrary rules that various institutions prescribed upon us in order to ensure their own survival. But there is clearly a danger when we ascribe meaning to absolutely nothing. Even Nietzsche stated this as the "danger of dangers". It doesn't take a whole lot imagination to see how this path could quickly lead to total destruction.

So there we have it: 4 different philosophies, 4 different ways to destroy ourselves.

Best Cover Ever!