Hospital Visit

On Sunday my health went bad again, I ended up in bed during the day.   Monday I consulted with a GP who put me on medication, then I went to the hospital, INOVA Alexandria, for two days.   Fortunately I managed to get released on Wednesday and was able to attend the Dead & Company concert at Jiffy Lube Live that evening with my buddy Ed. 

I was in a room with another patient, and had access to the TV to watch A&E.   The nursing staff came by testing my blood pressure and provide medication as necessary.   I didn’t sleep that well until I got home.   They had a large stand hooked up to me making going to the bathroom a pain in the ass, fortunately I didn’t have to sleep with it.  It had a line for saline solution. 

The ultimate issue with something I ate screwing up my tongue, which made me throw up on Saturday night and made my Sunday highly unpleasant.   By Wednesday I’d picked up some medical mouthwash which is slowly but surely healing the issue.  I still haven’t gotten back to eating solid food, though. 

My brother came by and helped out immensely.   Thank God his job involves programming with a laptop so he could do much of it there at the hospital with me.  Bar none he was the #1 help for me for those days.   Fortunately I’m generally very healthy and don’t require medical attention, much less a hospital visit.  This is one my rare times having to spend any time at all in a hospital. 

My tongue is still messed up but seems to be getting better gradually.   Sleeping is OK.   I have a follow up with a specialist the following week, so hopefully that should clarify what’s going on.  Being able to escape the hospital and see the concert was my main concern.  

The War of 1812

Recently I’ve had occasion to visit some sites relevant to this otherwise obscure war.   I’d been to Baltimore countless times but never actually stopped by Fort McHenry…although I have driven through the tunnel a few times, less often than the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel which runs parallel to it and shares the same function of allowing traffic on I-95 to bypass Baltimore.

By 1812, James Madison was the US President (#4).   Napoleon was Emperor of France and dominating Europe.  England was at war with France, and the US was trying to remain neutral.  By this time we’d added Vermont and Kentucky as states, so we were up to 15.   Amidst the European war, the Brits were preventing us from trading with the French, AND forcibly drafting US seamen into the Royal Navy.  So we declared war on England that summer.

Our own army and navy were microscopic, our Air Force grounded because aircraft didn’t yet exist.  Fortunately for us, Napoleon was keeping the Brits busy for the most part, until 1814.  We tried invading Canada, but that didn’t go very well.  For their part, the Brits managed to attack Alexandria, Washington, and Baltimore.

The British fleet coming up the Potomac towards Washington was supposed to be stopped by Fort Washington, but its commander, Dyson, decided discretion was the better part of valor and abandoned the fort without a fight (though they did blow it up), leaving Alexandria to be looted by the British.   East of Washington, our brave and mighty Capital defense force (mostly militia) was routed at Bladensburg, in Maryland, leaving the Brits free to occupy Washington, looting it, burning the White House and Capitol Building, and generally being rude and unpleasant.  (“Be seeing you…”)

Fortunately for the people of Baltimore, Armistead had better luck with Fort McHenry.   The British bombardment fleet had to remain out of range of the fort’s guns, which compromised its accuracy to the point of making it almost useless for the September 13 shelling – during the rain, no less.  So the morning of September 14, 1814, Francis Scott Key, watching from a British warship with the main invasion fleet further south, could observe the 15 state US flag (actually, a deliberately huge one) still flying over the fort, meaning the battle was won and Baltimore would have to wait for a Civil War riot in 1861 for the true unpleasantness to occur.  

Meanwhile, he wrote a famous song about it – which remains the most substantial legacy of this war in 2019.  “The Star Spangled Banner” only became our national anthem in 1931, though, with other songs such as “Hail, Columbia”, “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” (same melody as “God Save The Queen”), and my favorite, “America the Beautiful” acting as de facto anthems until 1931.  If I were Supreme Leader, I’d make “America the Beautiful” our anthem, BUT grandfather in Baltimore for the “Star Spangled Banner” to be played at Orioles and Ravens games. 

We signed a peace treaty at Ghent in December 1814, but word didn’t get around to Andrew Jackson down at New Orleans fast enough, so we had a nice victory down there to cap off everything.  The treaty mostly brought everyone back to the status quo ante bellum (everyone just goes back to where we were before the war), though England backed off any claims west of our colonies and we left Canada alone. 

Strictly speaking, the war was a draw.  We beat the Brits in New Orleans, lost up in Canada, and the British managed to burn Washington, with our troops going nowhere near London.   But for taking on the battle-hardened British military, which had just defeated Napoleon, and coming this close, induces many on our side to declare it a de facto US victory, like a college football team playing the New England Patriots to a tie.  Given that we didn't come close to sacking and burning London, I'm not so sure I agree with considering this war a draw, except perhaps with regard to the peace terms as noted above.

    

“Those are regulars, by God!”  In the US Embassy in Paris there was a print showing US troops at the Battle of Chippewa, up in Canada, in 1814.  The British commander, Riall, believed he was up against militia (most of the blue uniforms went to units elsewhere, leaving grey material, usually associated with militia, for these regulars to wear), but when US forces held steady under fire and continued to attack in good order, he realized they were trained regulars, and uttered this expression.   The US commander was Winfield Scott, who later served in the US Civil War. 

Uniforms.   By 1812 we’d gone from tricorner hats to the truly awful and ugly shakos which prevailed in the Napoleonic wars.  Seriously, who was responsible for “military fashion” back then? (“Serge!” “Axel!”)  We were supposed to be wearing dark blue, but some troops only got grey.  The shakos were decorative but not expected to protect anyone – it wasn’t until WWI that steel helmets came around, though even in WWII some units still wore cloth hats (e.g. German Afrika Korps and mountain troops, and a US rescue mission on a Japanese POW camp in the Philippines).  

 I managed to get the Osprey Men-At-Arms book on the US Army in the War of 1812, which came in after I had originally written this.  In addition to this business of ugly hats, the uniforms are also remarkably fancy, with lace, stripes, facings, etc. which, when you think about it, are strange on what is a combat uniform.  However, back then tactics mandated attacks in formation, essentially a parade with live ammunition.  Even in the Civil War, Union forces - and both sides in the Franco-Prussian War - were wearing dark blue coats.  It wasn't until WWI that armies finally got the idea to clothe their troops in earth-colored uniforms.   Certainly the 1812-15 US Army was light years away from that - as were their redcoated British adversaries.

Military technology was pretty much the same as the Revolutionary War: muzzle loading muskets (smoothbore) or rifles (rifled barrels giving three times the range of muskets), breechloading not coming around for decades later.   Warships were decades away from steam or armor.  Nothing cool like poison gas or tanks, much less nuclear weapons. 

Bottom line:  Star Spangled Banner + no major victories + Washington BURN! + those damn shakos = War of 1812.      

Bad Behavior

Following up after Satan with some relevant issues.  In this case, poor behavior which is supposedly excused by certain factors which I consider NOT excuses.  The general topic is revisiting "things which piss me off."

Religious Nuts.   I go to church on Sunday.   Mass takes about an hour, then you’re done for Sunday and the rest of the week.  Are you only on your best behavior for that hour?   Or did you pay your dues by listening to a sermon and donating something to the basket, so you’re free to screw with people everywhere outside the church for the rest of the week, until you come back to church and apologize for all the crap you did?  Come on.

OH, and after we get communion, the remarks should be short and simple.   My dad considered us within our rights to leave after communion, but I prefer to wait until we’re excused (“Mass is ended, go in peace to love and serve the Lord”).  That being the case, I’d hope the pastor has the common sense not to ramble on.  Sadly, he didn’t get the memo.  SMH.

Being religious isn't a carte blanche to behave poorly.   Obviously Muslim suicide bombers are at the top of the list, but there are plenty of Christians who misbehave and have the nerve to expect us to excuse them because their religion induces them to behave this way.  If the behavior would be unacceptable from an atheist, it's unacceptable from you.  

Then you get these a-holes who argue that “’separation of church and state’ isn’t in the Constitution.”  Yes it is, and for making that argument I’ll put you in the same category as those who argue that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, the world is flat, vaccines don’t work, or 9/11 was an inside job, etc.   And guess which orange asshole they voted for?  Hint, it wasn’t Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson. 

  

Mean Drunks.   What’s astonishing about these people is that they KNOW how alcohol affects them and they STILL get drunk and cause problems.   If it were possible to reinstate Prohibition selectively for these people I’d say make it so.   Drunk driving, spousal abuse, starting fights, the list of negative externalities caused by alcohol goes on.  Or maybe send them all off to a village by themselves.  After so many DUIs or A&B’s due to alcohol, we’ll send you to a special village or town exclusively for assholes like them. 

Similar are those who misbehave but blame their behavior on the drugs they do, as if that excuses them.  Again, if you KNOW drugs make you an asshole and you do them anyway, that still makes you an asshole for doing drugs.  Get clean.

Stoners.   Not stoners in general, but those who aren’t cool.  My first exposure to stoners were some jackasses in college who would go to class stoned and treat me like shit because I didn’t smoke weed.   Too many people think that blazing up entitles them to act like a dick because they’re “cool”.  No, you’re an asshole who smokes weed.   By now weed is so prevalent that smoking it is no longer noteworthy, much less an excuse to be a jerk.   Nothing about smoking it gives you ANY excuse to treat people poorly.   In fact, given weed’s tendency to mellow out and increase tolerance, if you’re an asshole on weed, or an asshole who smokes weed, that makes it that much worse.  NO BUD FOR YOU.

While I’m on the topic of things which piss me off, it’s becomes readily apparent that opposition to legalizing marijuana is motivated not by any good faith or legitimate concern for the effects of the drug itself, but pure spite.  The majority of stoners seem to be liberal Democrats or further left on the spectrum, so “screw them”:  let’s keep marijuana illegal just to cause problems for them.  This is why Nixon put it on Schedule I back in the early 70s even though, even then, the scientists and politicians were well aware that pot was less harmful than alcohol.  Do we have a right to ban things simply because we don’t like them?  If you asked Jefferson and Madison they’d tell you to get lost.  “We didn’t fight the British and establish a free country so you could legislate your own personal issues.  Get real.” 

Gym Pigs.  Ah, I didn’t comment on this one yet.  Those who super set with two exercises at once and claim to be using both, AND won’t let you work in.  Or they’re jerking off with their cell phone in between sets, not in between exercises.   Is your name GOLD?  Is this YOUR gym?  I didn’t think so.

The Satanic Bible

As promised, here is my analysis of this book.  It was published in 1969 by Anton LaVey, the founder of modern Satanism.  I originally read this in college (UMCP, 1986-90) at which time I was also reading another author, Ayn Rand.  The two authors are very similar, and LaVey admitted being influenced by Atlas Shrugged, Rand’s famous novel – which I’ve read three times.  This is certainly shorter and more concise than her book.  I’ve noted earlier that Satanism, as advocated by LaVey, could more accurately be described as a deliberately provocative form of atheism.  Re-reading it again as a 50 year old with almost 30 years of experience since finishing college, how does it hold up?

First Off, the Nine Satanic Statements.

1.         Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!

2.         Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3.         Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-denial!

4.         Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5.         Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!

6.         Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7.         Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those which walk on all fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual developments”, has become the most vicious animal of all!

8.         Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

9.         Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!

Bravo, huh?  Here are a few more tidbits…

Book of Satan, Chapter III, Paragraph 4 states, “Are we all not predatory animals by instinct?  If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?”

Chapter IV, Paragraph 2 states, “There is no heaven of glory bright, and no hell where sinners roast.  Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy! Here and now is our opportunity! Choose ye this day, for no redeemer liveth!”

In the next chapter, LaVey claims that “it is a popular misconception that the Satanist dos not believe in God.”  He then proceeds to describe a system best known as “deism”, which means “I believe in God, but this God is passive and does not interfere in – or care about – the lives of Men.”  By this definition, the Founding Fathers were Satanists.   Go figure.  In any case, we’re on our own to live, love, fight, die, etc. with no expectation of forgiveness or salvation from any higher power.  Deism is, for all practical purposes, another word for atheism.

Indeed, he says, “all religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of Man.”  That being the case, why bother with Satanism?   LaVey answers that “man needs ceremony and ritual, fantasy and enchantment.  Psychiatry, despite all the good it has done, has robbed man of wonder and fantasy which religion, in the past, has provided.  Satanism, realizing the current needs of man, fills the large void between religion and psychiatry. The Satanic philosophy combines the fundamental of psychology and good, honest emotionalizing of dogma.  It provides man with his much needed fantasy.  There is nothing wrong with dogma, providing it is not based on ideas and actions which go completely against human nature.”   I suppose you could call it hedonism wrapped in ritual, rational self-interest provocatively flavored with historically taboo imagery but with no actual belief in a dark lord of evil downstairs.

Sex.  I’m too young to remember when LaVey and his gang were more famous and notorious – presumably this was during the late 1960s – but there is a chapter here about sex.  And it’s fairly common sense.  Satanism welcomes any and all sexual desires and activities but exclusively with consenting sexual partners.  This includes homosexuality, sadism-masochism, and group sex, but excludes children, animals, or partners who otherwise do not or cannot consent.  Masturbation, which presumably does not invoke issues of consent, is perfectly fine. 

Overall, the gist of this is pretty much the same as Ayn Rand’s Objectivism:  what we do with our 80-odd years on this planet before we die is our own business so long as we don’t hurt anyone else.   Aside from his brief reference to “preying”, which suggests deliberately abusing others, LaVey appears to echo the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) which Libertarians center upon, which is “don’t initiate the use of force on others, but if attacked you are privileged to defend yourself appropriately.”

The second half of the book is absolute bullshit about Satanic rituals and the Enochian Keys, which I recall from the half-assed Necronomicon of days gone by.   The sole element of the book which makes any real, practical sense winds up, as I said before, being simply rational self-interest provocatively dressed in anti-Christian rhetoric.

The truly stupid thing about this whole thing is this.   There are TWO possibilities on this planet.  #1 is that there IS a Good Guy Upstairs and a Good Place, and a Bad Guy Downstairs and a Bad Place (as “The Good Place” TV show seems to show us, with Kristen Bell and Ted Danson, among many others).   #2 is that there is NO Good Guy Upstairs, no Good Place, nor any Bad Guy Downstairs nor any Bad Place.   When we die, whether we were the nicest person on the planet who died saving children, or the nastiest bastard who existed who murdered millions, is exactly the same:  permanent oblivion.

Let me address the second scenario first.   Classic Rock Magazine, up until 2018, had this Q&A thing at the end of the magazine in which they ask rock stars a bunch of deep questions.  “What can you do better than anyone else?”  “Any regrets?”  and 80% of the time, “do you believe in God?”  A surprising minority flat out state that they don’t believe in God.  A similar proportion, also a minority, state that they DO believe in God and identify as Christian.  The rest tend to say something like “I believe in a higher power, but not an old guy in a white beard, or organized religion per se.”  George Thorogood joked that “I pray when I fly”.  

One particular guy, who I can’t recall, said something remarkably different: “Logically, I know there is no God and no afterlife.  But emotionally I can’t accept a world without a God or an afterlife.  So I’ll choose to believe in them anyway.”   To me, that was the best and most honest answer anyone gave.

If scenario #2 is the true situation, then all this nonsense about Satanism, dogma, ritual, etc. is just that: nonsense.  Ayn Rand, who essentially believed and argued the same things as LaVey did – and as noted earlier, clearly influenced LaVey – avoided all that and kept things real.  For all her arrogance and hypocrisy, she didn’t give us this idiocy.   If there is nothing wrong with consensual sex, with masturbation, with enjoying yourself while you live without hurting anyone else, why accept the mantle of evil, of Satan?  “If good’s on the left, I’m sticking to the right.”  Rand wouldn’t accept that.  And neither should anyone else.

And if scenario #1 is the true situation, LaVey, who died in 1997, must be rather warm right now….