Blogging and Facing Your Fears

This is hard. If you’ve ever tried this before you may know what I’m talking about. Otherwise, let me enlighten you.

I am a good writer. I’ve been writing for years, not just on this blog either. I’ve had people in stitches over my scathing satire. I’ve made people think long and hard about core beliefs. I’ve done this all, and cavalierly, and it was fun.

Then it stopped. Somehow, I let my fear get the best of me. Things you say will come back to haunt you, I was told. What if you want to run for public office? What if someone in the military chain of command sees that you oppose women in combat and flags you for it?

I managed to subdue that little voice in my head that said, well if I run for public office at least I won’t have to cover up that time I blew some dude in a bathroom stall in the San Franscisco airport, like half of Washington. Because that never happened. In the grand scheme of things, an online gaffe is not the end of the world. Even if the media treats it as such. And hell, people who oppose women in combat are a dime a dozen. You don’t exactly stand out.

This is rational, but I am not. All the time. So I stopped writing. And then I would toss and turn at night, yell at my own windshield reflection, because the bullshit had to come out and since it wasn’t going online, well…

You see what I’m getting at. Therefore, I’m back. I will regularly contribute. It will be awesome. Trust me.

J


Political Correctness – What Is It Good For?

Political correctness is one of those deaths by a thousand cuts that you don’t really notice until it’s already eaten you alive and you can’t go back. It starts with making a concession that you really shouldn’t have to make—for instance, saying “African-American” instead of “black.” Really, it’s what they are. If you can call me white, I can call you black. End of story. Plus, not all black people are African, nor are they all American. But you start calling them African-American because, OMG, how hard is it? It’s just two words, and if two words can help eliminate centuries and centuries of racism, slavery and injustice…

Next thing I know, I’m being told that I can’t publicly disagree with feminism or I won’t be able to get a job.

If I’m a store owner, and a black man robs my store, and the police come and ask me what the scumbag who robbed my store looked like, I will tell them he was black. Same as if he was white. If he was brown, I might say that, or since it’s less distinctive, I’ll probably say he looked Middle Eastern or Hispanic. But when in doubt I’ll say brown. If he had slanted eyes and was kind of short I’ll say he looked Asian.

I know that at least half of you have now vomited your post-work chicken noodle soup all over your keyboard in shock that I would ever be so crass as to say that slanted eyes make people look Asian PLEASE CAN WE WHISPER A BIT MORE QUIETLY but no. Your dramatic opprobrium is duly noted and ignored, since you’re a spoiled Western child. Hang with me here and you just might learn something about the real world.

Now we move on to the women, and the biggest first-world problem of them all: feminism.

The only reason feminism even had the intellectual space to germinate and sprout is because a thousand years ago, Western civilization came up with this unprecedented idea called chivalry: the idea that men should protect women because they can. The only reason Western women ever felt comfortable and secure enough to ask for things like jobs and the right to vote was because a thousand years ago, we laid the foundation for the type of society where women would be valued, protected, listened to, and cooperated with in certain very important ventures like raising a family. This particular venture, I know, tends to be considered cruel and unusual punishment these days, but only because we’re categorically stupid and have no sense of responsibility. Also because killing millions of children while they’re still in the womb tends to desensitize you to the value of human life, not to mention the basic economics of a replacement birth rate.

But anyway. Chivalry. Men in certain cultures trade camels for 9-year-old girls. Men in other cultures sit and drink while their women do ALL the work, even the outside stuff. Here in Western culture, we hold doors open for women…so they can turn around and call us “benevolent sexists.” We date women, woo them, do our best to be romantic, sensitive, and caring…and Western, feminist women reject us because we aren’t dangerous and exciting enough and they deserve better. So then we date Asian or Latin women unaccustomed to chivalry, and they love and appreciate us for it…and Western feminists bitterly shriek across the ocean that we’re bottom feeders who had to settle for desperate women who can only score losers.

Women are physically weaker than men. Shriek as loudly and shrilly as you want and this will never change. Western society, by means of chivalry, structured itself in such a way as to take advantage of men’s strength and use it for the protection and good of society. Other cultures didn’t—and yet we’re the oppressors. Bullshit. Raging bullshit.

Bottom line is this. I’m a white heterosexual male. God did not give me a vote on whether or not to be any of these things. I’ve never stolen anybody’s land. I’ve never owned slaves. I’ve never raped a woman. In fact, throughout most of my life I’ve erred on the side of caution with women and thus found myself single most of the time. I’ve never had any benefits extended to me because I was white, or male, or heterosexual. I was born in a trailer. We had scorpions. We had to ration our maple syrup. My parents went into assloads of debt to put me through college. I have relatives that have been homeless and incarcerated.

And yet I live in a society where I can’t even say that men and women are different without being looked at like I’m a zombie choking on a garden hatchet. I can’t say that discrimination against white heterosexual men is a real thing without the accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia falling like Idaho hail. I go into the job market at a demonstrable disadvantage because by hiring me, a company increases its risk of being raked over the coals for being a patriarchal, monolithic good-ol’-boy club. A company will never be able to tout itself as a haven of diversity by releasing a press statement announcing my hire. The job board of the United Nations explicitly states, “Applications from women candidates are strongly encouraged as the United Nations supports gender equality in the workplace.”

Why should I waste my time applying to such an organization? What is the difference between what a black person felt when seeing a sign saying “Negroes need not apply” and what I feel when I see an organization “strongly encouraging” applications from a sex I am not? Why am I shushed and told that my opinions are too “controversial” while a video of gay people kissing goes viral?

I’m done. I have nothing to gain from political correctness. It’s like a feminist girlfriend—always demanding, always demeaning, never satisfied. I’m done. I will speak my mind as God intended free men to do. If you don’t want to hire me, be my friend, whatever—fine. It’ll hurt, but no more than that fucking banner on the U.N. site does.

What a mess.


That’s Awfully Rational for a Parasite

They tell me that science has increased our knowledge and thus improved our lives. That our greater understanding has enabled us to throw out the outdated, insensitive, dehumanizing ideals of the past. That never before in human history have we had a better grasp on our identity as human beings.

And what are we?

We used to believe that we were unique, rational animals, created in the image of God, the caretakers of his creation and possessed of the ability to know, to ask, to understand, to seek and discover truth. Now, we know that we are actually parasites, the terminal cancer of planet Earth, insatiable life-forms that do nothing but consume, with only two possible futures: one, eventual extinction once we have consumed all our planet’s resources, or eventual spread to other planets to prey on their ecosystems.

Forgive me if I don’t consider this an “improvement” in the technical sense.

This is the atheistic equivalent of Calvinism – an intolerable conclusion that proponents adopt mainly for the purpose of proving their intellectual acumen and their ability to divorce emotion from their reasoning processes. Which is a very ironic thing for a parasite to be concerned with.

How does it feel to be a parasite? Do you take pride in being a consumer? Do you wake up and, during your morning calisthenics, say to your mirrored self, “I am a parasite. I have been designed to consume this planet into extinction. I am a special and unique snowflake”?

Once again ironically, it is environmentalists who accuse the human race of being parasites, in an effort to reduce consumption and increase conservation. It’s like they haven’t even considered the ramifications of what it means to be a parasite.

If we are parasites, if that is our fundamental nature, then that is exactly what we should be. We shouldn’t feel the slightest bit of guilt about irresponsible consumption. We should take pride in our parasitism and consume as much as possible. And we should rejoice in our eventual cathartic starvation after we have attained our ultimate triumph – the decimation of our home planet. To do otherwise, to conserve resources, would be a fundamental transgression against our very natures, against the essence of who we are. It would, essentially, be sin.

If you feel uncomfortable with this argument, or suppose that, nevertheless, irresponsible consumption is wrong, perhaps you should stop and think. Perhaps the ability to morally protest irresponsible consumption is a sign that we are not parasites. Perhaps your passionate impulse to conserve is a sign that we are not parasites. Perhaps sitting around fretting about the consequences of our runaway consumption is a decidedly un-parasitical thing to do, and it would be passing strange were parasites to do it.

So maybe you should tell science to shove it and admit that it doesn’t have all the answers. Just saying.


Marriage isn’t for you – Except when it is

Jumping on the viral e-grenade like my old dog on dead cicadas in the backyard. Get it while it’s hot!

Trending: Mormon writer Seth Adam Smith’s post on his father’s marriage advice right before he married his childhood friend/sweetheart/(dare I say it) other half of an awkward religious quasi-courtship entitled “Marriage Isn’t For You.”

Seth has characterized marriage as a completely unselfish endeavor, describing its purpose as 180 degrees removed from the “Walmart philosophy” of today – “if it doesn’t make you happy, you can take it back and get a new one.” Rather, “marriage isn’t for you. No true relationship of love is for you. Love is about the person you love.”

And why has this simple proposition been so controversial? Because it’s polarizing.

On the one hand is the idea that you can’t love others until you love yourself, a cornerstone of the modern self-help industry. On the other hand is Seth’s view, that loving yourself matters not a whit and the key to happiness is forgetting your own and making others happy. With the implication that if you trust others to make you happy, they will.

I have spent the last few weeks railing against the shallowness of our culture. I believe our willingness to fling away traditional values and practices at the drop of a hat because somebody somewhere called them hateful is wrong-headed and is leading our civilization to ruin. But I can’t completely endorse Seth’s view because it reeks of dependency and triggered my Nice Guy alarm.

The truth is that neither complete self-absorption nor complete self-abandonment is the answer. Self-absorption has led us where we are today in Western culture: a place where people seem unable to commit because commitment, by definition, involves a significant moral act of unselfishness. It is, essentially, a statement that one will not ALWAYS esteem one’s needs and desires of prime importance. It is an agreement to hold another’s needs and desires in equal esteem. It is the idea that another’s well-being will become of selfish importance to you and ultimately indistinguishable from your own well-being.

That’s scary. It’s also necessary. It’s a moral achievement that used to be expected of young people. Now it’s not, and that’s unfortunate. In that Seth is absolutely right.

However, Seth manifests a particular Achilles heel that I’ve noticed in the religious: a pendulum swing to the opposite side of the spectrum, where one freely neglects one’s own needs and wraps themselves up in trying to please another. Such self-abandonment is a recipe for disaster.

Real life unfortunately dictates that nice people don’t always get treated nicely in return. You are free, and encouraged, to treat others as you would like to be treated, but that doesn’t mean they will do the same. Expecting them to will create resentment when they don’t act as you think they should. This is a time-bomb that I think Seth and Kim might encounter should they continue with their experiment of radical self-abandonment.

The answer is communication. You cannot expect others to know what you want unless you are bold enough to ask them for it. And you cannot ask others for what you want unless you know what you want. And if you constantly try to excise all thoughts of what you want from your brain, you will eventually reach a point where you are unaware of what you want. At this point you will be totally dependent on the other person and they will most likely be thoroughly tired of you.

So my advice to Seth and Kim is as follows: continue to sacrifice for each other in love. Continue to be cognizant of each other’s thoughts, wants, and needs. But don’t lose sight of your own. Be thoroughly mutual in your generosity; verbalize your wants and needs to each other and give your loved one the ability to meet those needs and feel validated in their generous spirit. Your identities as people who can both give AND receive gracefully will be confirmed, and your love will grow.


The Hatred Narrative

All of us see the world through a particular lens which is colored by experience, education, and emotion. These lenses are called worldviews, paradigms, or narratives. Some of these can be better than others.

Perhaps the most popular narrative in the U.S. today is the Hatred Narrative.

The Hatred Narrative maintains that the single most influential factor that shaped the world we presently live in, through all of human history, was hatred. Mostly the hatred of white males for anybody who wasn’t like them.

For instance, the Hatred Narrative sees gender roles as the product of men’s hatred of women and attempt to keep them subservient. It sees European colonialism as the outgrowth of hatred of native peoples in the Americas, India, Australia, etc. It sees resistance to homosexual marriage as the product of hatred of homosexuals. It sees racism in the American South as the product of hatred of African-Americans. It takes all these individual stories and weaves them into a consistent narrative recognizing hatred as the driving force of civilization.

That sounds dubious because it is. In order for a civilization to grow and flourish, it must have actual virtues deeply embedded in its public consciousness. It is virtue that drives civilization forward, not hatred. We can see this in the real stories of the past that so often get dismissed as hatred.

As with most lies, this one starts with a nugget of truth. Racism against African-Americans (especially AFTER the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery) was truly a form of hatred. It was motivated by fear and anger, and it was utterly without justification. Prejudice in its purest form.

But the others aren’t as clear-cut. The push west after the American Revolution (known as Manifest Destiny), infamous for its callous disregard for the welfare of Native Americans, was not hatred; it was greed. This is not to say that it was morally excusable, or that American colonists could not have migrated west in a more judicious manner; however, the fact remains that it was not motivated by hatred and thus should not feed into the Hatred Narrative. Other instances of colonialism should be similarly qualified.

Where accusations of hatred get the most outrageous is in the cases of homosexual marriage and gender roles. Homosexual marriage has never been a thing, but not because people hate homosexuals. The reason marriage evolved as a heterosexual (and later, monogamous) institution is because of its society-building potential. At the most basic level, society moves forward when people create and shape the next generation in the values of the society. In a society before birth control and artificial insemination, homosexuality made no contribution and therefore was never institutionalized. That’s it. It wasn’t hatred; it was logic. Homosexuals did not get married because there was no reason for them to get married. The reason they are clamoring for marriage now is because we’ve turned marriage into this happily-ever-after fantasy that is supposed to be the ultimate culmination of romantic love, which makes it a right, which makes it an equality issue. But from a societal perspective, marriage wasn’t about love; it was about the capacity to build society and move it forward. More on that later.

In a similar fashion, gender roles did not arise from men’s hatred of women, let alone from an attempt to institutionalize their exploitation (and create the infamous “rape culture,” one of the most heinously false and damaging mutations of the hatred narrative). Gender roles arose from a simple, logical division of labor in a society where outside threats were much more numerous and in much greater proximity than they are today. Men, by virtue of their physical strength, were given the duty to venture out beyond the safety of the city walls and procure food for the entire society, as well as defend them from invaders and wild beasts, and the privilege of making key decisions (which was logical since they were typically the first ones who would end up in harm’s way as a result of their decisions). Women, by virtue of their maternal instincts as well as biologically critical role in the care of children, were given domestic duties, and the privilege of staying within the relative safety of the city walls except in the most dire of straits. This simple and orderly system served as the model for every successful civilization whose influence has survived into the modern world. It was not built on hatred of women; it was built on a need to protect women, as well as a keen sense of men’s and women’s strengths and weaknesses and the duties and privileges associated with each. It was a marvel of common sense.

Definitely more on that later.

The Hatred Narrative, as you can see, is not only wrong but profoundly damaging. It is eroding the very foundations of our society by dismissing millenia of honorable men protecting honorable women; sweating, fighting, and dying to build a better life for these women and their children; and the consequent values and ideals that have been built into our Western concept of gender, and calling it all hatred. It is a sweeping and callous dismissal of the values that have made us great. Men should be proud of the legacy of their fathers and grandfathers and stand against those who lash out at them and accuse that sacred legacy of being motivated by hatred. It’s a damn lie.

And by the way, hatred is a noun. Hate is a verb. Get it right.


The Cult of the Sexy People

People these days place a lot of emphasis on something they call “health.” If you spend any time on dating websites you will run into a lot of people with a preponderance of bikini/shirtless pics who exercise “5 or more times per week,” have an “athletic and toned” body type, and say something in their profile about how they “believe in the importance of living a healthy lifestyle.” Both men’s and women’s magazines advertise a “healthier you” waiting in the wings of your future, if only you follow their advice for shedding those lbs. and sculpting those abs (Eat kale and raw tuna mixed with Greek yogurt! Do side planks standing on your head! Buy these $500 shoes meant to simulate bare feet!) Testimonials from glistening, tight bodies divulge proprietary secrets of “health” in hushed tones and exclusive coverage.

This is bullshit, of course, since it has nothing to do with health. These people do not believe in the importance of being healthy; they believe in the importance of being sexy.

And in reality, they’re not even concerned with real sexiness. They believe in the importance of being thought of as a sexy person, of being considered sexy by people they’ve never met, of being envied. They believe in the Cult of the Sexy People.

For starters, if they were concerned with health, they wouldn’t drink so goddamned much. Also, healthy people have body fat. Like, maybe 10-15%. Not 3%. Whether or not I can see your abs says little to nothing about your health.

There are (to use the technical term) jacked motherfuckers who can’t run three miles without passing out. They look sexy in Affliction t-shirts, but they can’t pass simple tests of physical endurance. There are women who show up in Maxim magazine with clearly visible ribs. Where I come from, that’s called malnutrition, not health. And frankly, most of the things specimens of so-called “health” have in common have nothing remotely to do with health: large breasts, tanned skin, a certain limited set of facial features, and of course 0% body fat. Which isn’t healthy.

This is what happens to a society awash in the Cult of the Sexy People.

The Cult of the Sexy People is what sells magazines like Maxim. It’s the foundation of Mind the Gap, Hump Day, and FLBP over at the Chive. It’s what gives you that feeling that you ALWAYS have too much body fat or that your girlfriend is NEVER hot enough. It’s not based on real sexiness, because real sexiness is in the eye of the beholder and matures over time. It’s based on a set of narrowly defined standards that are purely arbitrary and are engineered not to trigger your sexual instincts but rather your sensitivities to peer pressure, jealousy, and FOMO.

It’s a stupid, shallow, and unfulfilling way to live.

The Cult of the Sexy People wreaks havoc on men and women with equal vengeance, but I’d like to zero in on its effects on men. One of the reasons men are so obsessed with porn these days is because of the psychological effects of the societal glorification of hotness above all else. Rather than settle for a normal, imperfect relationship with a normal, imperfect human being, men flee to their computers and drench their minds in fantasy while scrolling through airbrushed, made-up, just-the-right-angle photos of glamorous women. Or while watching unrealistic, overdone, unimaginative videos of sex acts. They spend hours and hours in the gym and convince themselves that they are prioritizing “good health,” when in reality they are hoping to drown their low self-worth in protein shakes, hoping that somehow hot women will choose them because of their bulging muscles. They idolize pickup artists who can “score” with models and actresses, rather than husbands and fathers who build homes and shape the next generation. This keeps them obsessed with shallow, one-night “achievements” rather than lifelong ones, and ultimately keeps them extremely lonely.

As our society descends further into this abyss of loneliness and superficiality, consider, and turn. Leave the Sexy People and be a Good Person. You will be much happier. You will have more and better sex. You will experience and give real love, and you will know what it means to be a human being, not a poster. You will be real, not fake. And, believe it or not, in the quiet darkness of the Sexy People’s souls, you will be envied.

(For the record, I’m 5′ 11″, hover around 190 lbs., and can run 3 miles in 21 minutes. Healthy.)


Honor

The drive to put women in combat roles within the U.S. military is perhaps the most abjectly stupid contradiction of common sense at work in our culture today. It could be rationally argued that it is in fact unethical.

First off, it is an undisputed axiom of physics and biology that women are physically inferior to men. In almost any situation short of an ICU, the strongest woman is no match for the strongest man. This is undisputed by all except the most radical of feminists.

Less accepted but nonetheless equally true, women are more emotionally sensitive than men. This is an asset in certain situations, such as child-rearing and public relations. It is a woeful liability in combat.

I saw these facts proven true over and over during my years in military service. The women in my units were on light duty far more often than the men, and this isn’t even taking pregnancies into account. Coming out of initial training, women had far more injuries, far more severe injuries, and healed far more slowly than the men. In case you don’t grasp the significance of this, a service member on light duty is non-deployable, which essentially means that he or she is an unproductive drain on military resources.

Women’s emotional sensitivity was a significant issue as well. I knew a male service member who had a problem handling stressful situations; he would occasionally get chewed out (like everyone in the military) and would typically respond by bursting into tears on the spot (unlike most military males). After a few similar episodes demonstrating his inability to function under stress, he was put under review, pronounced mentally unfit for military service, and discharged. Yet, it was a common occurrence, both in my units and many others, for female service members to respond to criticism, unforeseen events, or decisions out of their control in the same way–by bursting into tears and losing their emotional grip, rendering them unable to focus on the mission until they were sufficiently comforted. These women never faced a board of review or the prospect of a discharge for responding to stress with emotional sensitivity. They never faced any kind of disciplinary action whatsoever for responding to stress exactly as women have responded to stress for millennia, exactly as people have always expected women to respond. Instead, their emotional instability generated a tremendous amount of resentment among the men who had to serve with them, knowing that the unit could not encounter a stressful situation without most of the females losing their ability to function in a team-building way and putting everyone’s lives in danger.

This is insanity. All of these factors would be amplified and intensified were women to be placed in combat roles. We are deliberately pushing women into roles that they are deeply unsuited for, where they are a physical and emotional liability, and where such liability costs lives. Moreover, what kind of reckless neglect does it take to throw women into situations where they will bear emotional and physical burdens that have the potential to permanently scar them, when a man could bear the same burdens more easily and without as much permanent damage? Is our society in such dire straits? Do we not have enough real men to bear these burdens? Are there no men left with the honor to defend their homelands and loved ones? Is it no longer the duty of the strong to protect and defend the weak?

Perhaps not.

A nation that sends its women to combat is a nation of weak men.


Conviction

The recent national debate on intervention in Syria was both eye-opening and eyebrow-raising.

The main question on my mind is why we waited so long to even start talking. The civil war in Syria started in March 2011. The death toll had risen to nearly 70,000 by May 2013, many of those civilians even in a war where the difference between a civilian and a combatant was little more than the presence of a weapon.

When chemical weapons hit the deck and the world suddenly woke up to what had been going on in Syria, people threw out all kinds of reasons why we shouldn’t intervene. Mainly that it wasn’t our fight, that our troops and their families have suffered enough over the last ten years. Some said a no-fly zone wouldn’t work. Many wanted to avoid a long, protracted conflict that would drain the economy and wear on our national pride.

Many of these concerns are valid, and I’m not saying that the U.S. should commit troops willy-nilly at the first sign of disquiet anywhere on the globe. But there was one more perspective that was expressed much more frequently, loudly, and unashamedly than it ever should have been among a free, moral people. That sentiment was a giant, pervasive sense of…

Who cares?

It was almost as if our nation had been, not unaware, but actively trying to ignore the situation in Syria, and when the chemical weapons impacted, we were angry not because people were dying, but because we wouldn’t be able to ignore the situation any longer. We were crochety, like a bear awakened from hibernation, and raged to be allowed to return to our stupor in peace.

Just before the debate actually took off, my friend Kristin Wright was in Syria among the broken. She penned an incredible article for the Huffington Post describing the impotent rage she felt when she saw the carnage unleashed by Bashar Assad – before the chemical weapons incident. She tells the stories of a former motorcycle racer who returned to Syria after the civil war began to oversee the distribution of aid, of a 15-year-old girl paralyzed by a sniper, of 24 innocents killed in a bombing campaign that was touted by the regime as a victory against “terrorists.”

And the collective response was the same.

Who cares?

Our attitude is pretty much identical toward another black hole of indecency and human suffering–North Korea. I have been nowhere near Kim Jong-un’s prison camps, which rival anything the Nazis ever did; I have only been to the DMZ, where I saw nothing of value save empty building shells and an enormous NK flag that refused to unfurl for my camera. The world at large sees even less: we prattle on about Dennis Rodman and his pitiful North Korean publicity stunt, about new roller coasters and 3D cinemas in Pyongyang, about how Ri Sol-Ju (Kim’s trophy wife) wears expensive fashions like every other ruthless dictator’s wife ever and how this is somehow a good thing. As if we are so desperate for our responsibility to do something about this human rights nightmare to evaporate that we are willing to consider any remote sign that NK’s leaders are as shallow and selfish as ourselves to be evidence of such.

Who cares?

A nation that thinks war is the greatest evil is a nation that has nothing to fight for.


Nobility

The ancient Greeks sang about the heroic deeds of their most legendary warriors. The medieval bards sang about passionate love between knights and ladies, two enduring archetypes of masculinity and femininity. What do we sing about today?

Dolla dolla bill yo, dolla dolla bill.

I ain’t sayin’ she a gold digga, but she ain’t messin with no broke n—-s.

Imma buy you a draaaaaaank; I got money in the baaaaaaank.

You don’t get them girls loose; you don’t get the world loose; you don’t get money–but I do.

A nation that sings about money is a nation that no longer believes in heroism and love.


Trust

When I was stationed overseas, the only English TV and radio services were provided by the military. They broadcast selected American programming and served as a conduit for command information. But since the government is prohibited from endorsing products, they could not broadcast advertisements. Thus, instead of mind-numbing commercials, we were treated to even more mind-numbing, corny, poorly made and more poorly acted public service announcements during commercial breaks (yes, even during the Super Bowl), covering every minute topic imaginable. Recycle. Don’t binge drink. Hydrate when you exercise. Keep your room clean. Don’t throw things at bus drivers. Look both ways before you cross the street.

Things Barney the Dinosaur told me to do when I was four.

Is this punctilious sanctimony limited to the military? No. I went hiking this morning–to get away from civilization, to enjoy the beauty of nature, to be alone with my thoughts–and was simply dumbfounded at the amount of finger-wagging signs sternly admonishing me to keep my dog on a leash, clean up his defecation, stay on the trail, don’t camp overnight, and my favorite (in a knife-twisting, infuriating kind of way): don’t take shortcuts; it causes erosion.

God forbid I let a wild animal run wild in the wild. God forbid I let him deposit small quantities of biodegradable waste in the biosphere. God forbid I camp somewhere without a bed of concrete and a cable TV hookup. God forbid I place my boots anywhere not graveled and graded when the sanctioned trail is not the most direct route.

Try to buy a drink these days. Hard to screw up, right? Wrong. Gotta make sure you buy it in certain quantities, from a licensed dealer, within certain hours. And make sure you transport it home unopened. Try lighting up a fine cigar. Whoa there tiger. Better not be indoors, or on public property. Try buying a firearm to defend yourself and your family against the astronomical crime rate in America’s cities. Time restricts me from elaborating on the bureaucratic headache you’ll earn yourself.

At every turn, these stern little quips of nannyism are eroding something far more valuable than trails. They’re chipping away at our consciences. Why should we bother to develop moral reasoning when the authorities will make even the most trivial of decisions for us? What right and wrong is there outside of the law if the law covers…well, everything? They say Justice is blind; strange how that doesn’t stop her from incessantly peering over my shoulder.

A nation with an abundance of rules is a nation where no one can be trusted.