Men of their Word

Collected from my exploits on the internet: This was taken from a discussion of George Carlin's suggestion that if soldiers were to stop "showing up" to wars, then war would end. The discussion turned to the oath that every soldier takes to obey his orders, and whether or not a person should be reasonably expected to live up to that oath.

One more point of context, else some of my arguments will likely make no sense: This discussion was taking place in a Libertarian group.

---

"You need to be more specific , as I think an oath to an institution that theoretically exists to protect a collective abstraction is questionable"

What about non-competition or non-disclosure agreements? What about being contracted in any manner? Your signature on a contract is an oath to be bound by the terms of that contract. You ARE honor bound, as well as legally bound to abide by the terms of that contract.

Even if the other party in that contract is some Corporation or Organization or Government or any other "collective abstraction".

If I suddenly "Don't feel like" finishing paving your driveway, for instance, am I justified in leaving? Or are you justified in holding me responsible for *what I said I would do*? At the end of the day, what will a jury say? That a man who doesn't "feel like" being "forced" to be as good as his word should be allowed to just up and walk out; or will they determine that I am somehow responsible for the completion of the work, whether I do it myself or end up paying for someone more responsible than I to do it for me?

Or consider it in terms of something a goodly number of people here are likely familiar with:

"I, [your name here], do hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

Many people here doubtless signed their names to this pledge. Some of them even did so in sound mind and with witnesses. Such an oath is meaningless if people can say:

"Today, I don't feel like abiding by the non-aggression principle. Tomorrow maybe, but today it is inconvenient and perhaps I may even articulate that it is inherently immoral for me to swear such a thing or even for someone to claim that I be even remotely expected to abide by its language"

You simply CAN'T have a civilized culture without people being expected to maintain their oaths. Unless you're one of those "state's rights" folk who considers slavery "civilized". The Responsibility side of "Freedom and Responsibility" comes in many forms: one of those forms is being able to honor a promise, a contract, or an oath.

A Trouncing of a Denialist Truther

I apologize for the spelling errors in this one, but I felt that in the name of integrity I should leave the comments to which I was replying intact. This was a reply to an especially grievously retarded Denialist I encountered in the midst of a debate on 9/11 "Truth".

---

‎"They determind the official report did not add up and they looked at the info they had and tried to see what conclusions could result"

This is the definition of confirmation bias. You just admitted that they knew what conclusion they wante...d to reach, then they actively looked for evidence SPECIFICALLY to support that conclusion. That is not scientific.

"...but nothing is absolute."

If nothing is absolute, then neither is your statement that nothing is absolute.

"Science its self is flawed and almost everything is theory"

Ahhhh yes this one. You hear it from the religious and the magical thinkers all the time, because they don't understand what exactly science is.

Science is not a God-surrogate. Where a god or religion will claim to have all the answers, science readily admits that there are things to learn. The entire point of the process is a constant and cumulative re-assessment of what we claim to know. Science seeks to create a model of the universe, and through a careful - cautious, even - and rigorous process that model gets consistently more accurate.

People use the word "Theory" as though it implies doubt. What people mean when they say "theory" is closer to what a real scientist would call a "hypothesis". Scientists, however, are much more precise with their language. When a scientist says "theory" it means that whatever being discussed is a model for a phenomenon that accurately and consistently predicts the behavior of a system. What we know of gravity is "just a theory," yet I know if I drop my coffee cup IT WILL fall, and while doing so it WILL accelerate at a rate of 32f/s/s until either drag = gravity (which we call terminal velocity) or it hits the ground.

Besides, if science IS indeed flawed - and I will say right here that it is not, because if it were then the scientific process would have discovered such an error and corrected for it - then you must accept that the conclusions reached by Truthers using so-called scientific methods can be flawed, especially as they were constructed by lay-people instead of scientists. To insist upon a margin for error as an argument against one side and to ignore it on your own is not scientific.

"They have limited information to go off of"

So do scientists. Nobody happened to have any equipment set up in the towers to record the event - no high speed cameras, no accelerometers, nothing. Yet the scientific community has overwhelmingly supported the orthodox view of the events of that day. Of course, there are always outliers, even in the scientific community, but to focus on the extremes of the bell curve is to ignore the whole. And excluding evidence in favor of using a couple of outliers out of context is the epitome of "not scientific"

"the government is capable of getting away with anything" and "The government is not going to give free reign to anyone"

I love this one. This line of thought proves beyond any other how much more Truther thinking aligns with religious rather than scientific thought, because while in scientfic thought we don't generally see absolutes, we encounter such characters all the time in religion. I call this particular character the Omnipotent Malefactor, and this is what reason does to him:

The Omnipotent Malefactor takes many guises in conspiracist thought - the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, the Lizard People, Zenu - but most are forms of "The Government" or "The Man". The Omnipotent Malefactor has these qualities: it is infinitely powerful, it is monolithic, it is impersonal, and it thrives on acts of evil and hubris. It is responsible for all the evil in the world and yet, despite its power, it tends to prefer to work in secret. It can do anything, it can prevent anything, and it commands millions - if not billions - of thralls. And interestingly, despite its infinite power, money, and influence, it always makes some mistake which reveals its hand in the evil in the world; some little details that only a small group of miraculously enlightened and free people recognize and will use to fight this all-powerful, all-evil being.

Examine that construction closely. We have an all powerful entity for some reason intimately interested in and connected to the events of our dust mote in the cosmos and a small group of people who have recieved "Truth". Stripped of names, dates, places, you would be right in assuming that conspiracism is a religion, the same in content, methodology, and mindset as any of the Abrahamic faiths. There is God, steering world events for good or ill, his angels and ministers to help work his will (for some reason) and a church, who despite never seeing, nor hearing, nor having ANY evidence whatsoever for his existence claims to not only KNOW he exists, but to know his nature, his methods, and sometimes even his innermost thoughts.

And I'll say it here, as an aside, to keep with the theme of my essay: Religion is NOT scientific.

But like many religious constructs, we reach an interesting conclusion. Like all ideas centering on omnipotence, we have the inevitable issue of how one reconciles free-agency with that power. That is, if our Omnipotent Malefactor really is so powerful that it can "get away with anything" then it is powerful enough that nothing exceeds its will.

If the Omnipotent Malefactor makes "mistakes" then it is surely not all powerful - id est, not omnipotent - and cannot "get away with anything" and the entire argument falls on its face. A simple and effective way to prove that line of thought wrong, but not very entertaining. What it means, of course, is that if this entity makes mistakes, then we have to examine the entire Malevolent enterprise with an eye for error.

What happens when you allow such massive mistakes that even an idiot like Alex Jones can see them? The entire thing falls apart. There would be no conspiracy, because the sheer scale of the conspiracy would require that at some point PRIOR to execution that a mistake would occur that would doom the entire thing. We see this in conspiracies MUCH smaller ALL THE TIME - at some point the payoff for selling out the conspiracy outweighs the payoff for carrying it out. The larger and more complex the conspiracy, the more time it takes to pull off, the more likely a traitor becomes. Even if there is not a traitor, simple human nature, expressed so well in Murphy's Law, is such that the more complex an enterprise of any kind becomes, the more likely it is that somebody or something will screw up. While smaller conspiracies can and sometimes do manage to avoid or survive such mistakes, a conspiracy as large as the one that the Omnipotent Malefactor would have had to construct in order to make it appear that Muslim Fundamentalists hijacked planes and flew them into three buildings (for some yet unknown, yet highly conjectured and delightfully malevolent ends) would have suffered BOTH problems MULTIPLE times and the conspiracy would have collapsed in upon itself.

Since it evidentally did not, as no traitors have come forward nor were any mistakes apparently made in the preparatory phase, we must assume that either the Omnipotent Malefactor actually IS Omnipotent, in the full and literal sense, or does not exist at all.

Perhaps, like Jehovah, this Omnipotent Malefactor is a vain entity. In that case, then the Truthers are also its unwitting servants, thralls and sheep like the rest of us, whose purpose is to point at the Omnipotent Malefactor and say "Oh you! I see what you did there! Gee Whiz, was that a grand show of power! By Golly, was that evil! But Darn, you are so good at being secret that nobody caught you! That must be because you're SO powerful!" I especially like this idea, because it makes conspiracists the biggest shills of all. But unfortunately, I do not believe in the Omnipotent Malefactor, and so the conspiracists are simply idiots.

But there is yet another layer in this Malevolent onion, and the one most likely to draw a tear. In order for there to BE a conspiracy of the type proponed by Truthers there MUST be an Omnipotent Malefactor behind it. Because of the capacity for error otherwise introduced, the Omnipotent Malefactor MUST be at least functionally Omnipotent to such a degree that nothing escapes its will. Without such an entity, we are forced to believe less extraordinary explanations for the events of early September, 2001, because without such an entity such a complex conspiracy could not come to fruition. Without an Omnipotent Malefactor, the Truth movement is simply wrong. But if the Omnipotent Malefactor exists, then by definiton nothing - absolutely nothing - can be done about it. Even the Truthers are part of its evil plan.

Yes, the last layer is that the inescapable conclusion that we reach when looking at conspiracists is that they are either hopeless - subjects all to the whims of the Omnipotent Malefactor - or they are wrong.

Anti-Theism and Evangelical Atheism

Collected from my exploits elsewhere on the internet; this was in response to a discussion about this article and in particular it was in response to some who agreed that Atheists should perhaps "tone it down" a little.

---

I'm certainly not an "Evangelical Atheist", though at the same time I make no secret of my viewpoint. There is another way of defining "Anti-Theist" which is advocated by Christopher Hitchens, which is the meaning I use when I refer to myself as such. Rather than being the sort to seek out and pester those of faith and to actively seek to destroy a person's belief in god or gods (since you cannot destroy something that does not exist, sorry, had to get that jab in), an Anti-Theist - in my parlance - is someone who, rather than being an Atheist who wishes that god was true, is someone who is actually quite glad that the proposition is increasingly absurd.


It seems readily apparent to me that these complaints about people who are openly, publicly and unapologetically atheist is that are based in the recognition that since the Enlightenment religion has done nothing but lose ground. It has had to give up its place as a political authority, and an educational authority, and a scientific authority, and now it is losing its place as a moral authority. The idea of god has been continually modified to be just outside the reach of our knowledge, as our knowledge has invaded god's domain and found him to be absent. He used to live on top of the mountain, then on the clouds, then in space, and now he has been pushed back to the farthest reaches of the universe, to particles so small or so dense or so fleeting that we are just barely learning to recognize their existence. The apologies for Gods absence have made him from a being which was actively and personally invested in the world, who spoke in human language, to a mere spectre of its former self in order that the description of what it is does not rouse peals of laughter from anyone who hears them. Some part of them, it seems, also recognizes the absurdity of their beliefs, and in order to shelter them from the harsh truth (as has always been the motivation and purpose of religion) god has been pushed into the most obscure corners of science and philosophy in the vain hope that he might be safe there.


The Non-Religious, Atheists and Agnostics, considered together, now equal Christians in number worldwide, and that number is growing. Religionists recognize, perhaps not consciously, that god is finally losing its hold on the world, and because they are afraid of the tables being turned, of the world where a presidential candidate believing in god is viewed as a dangerous and unstable relic from a bygone age; where churches are no longer allowed to exist, free from taxes or threats of eminent domain, simply for being churches; where THEIR children will be ridiculed by other children for still believing in god, as children today are ridiculed above a certain age for still believing in Santa Claus. In a debate with Sam Harris, Rabbi Wolpe, and Rabbi Shavit, Christopher Hitchens made the following statement:

"One of the reasons I like doing this - some people say "don't I ever get tired of debating with the religious?" No, absolutely I don't because you never know what they're going to say next.

"Sam [Harris] and I don't mind being called predictable it's very easy: We know what we think, we say straight out what we think we know and what we think is not possible to know, why we don't think there's a supernatural and so on. But this evening already we've had [Rabbi Bradley Artson Shavit's] suggestion that God is only really a guru, a friend when you're in need, I mean, he wouldn't do anything like bugger around with Job to prove a point. And, which if I now tell you that "Well, that must mean that THAT book is NOT the word of God" You'd say "Well whoever believed that that was the word of God?"

"Let me just tell you something: For hundreds and thousands of years, this kind of discussion in most places would have been impossible to have, or Sam and I would have been having it at the risk of our lives. Religion now comes to us in this smiley-face ingratiating way because it's had to give so much ground, and because we know so much more. But you've no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had God on its side."

Religion's death knell has been sounded, and in their fear they are trying to shut us up. They would keep their "John 3:16" t-shirts and their Fish magnets and their "National Atheists Day - April 1st" bumper stickers, but for some reason our equivalent expressions are "offensive" and we are lesser people for making them openly. Well I say this: This is a free country, with free thought, and we will proudly compete in the marketplace of ideas that OUR Enlightenment made possible for all of us, instead of the Inquisitions that STILL exist anywhere that God rules, and if you find that the primitive fear-mongering of religion cannot hold up among people who want to be free then it is no fault of ours.


Fortunately for us, we have no dogma that forbids us from being "out" about our faith, as the Christians do:

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men.

Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." Matthew 6:1-8

For those that are paying attention to such things, those words aren't just any jerk from the Bible, but are as a point of faith the very words of the Christ Jesus himself. And so I repeat my challenge: OUR openness and public statement of our stance is offensive to you, and we are to respect YOUR feelings, but you are to be given license to not only call us fools and damn us to hell, but you are allowed to disobey your God when you do it?


Bollocks. I'll not put up with it and no sane and freedom loving person will.

Do You Want to Live Longer?

Collected from my exploits elsewhere on the internet.

---

"Want to live longer? Eat a Mediterranean diet. The Florentine - Elixir of Life?

It takes time to plan and execute a meal. It takes even more time to learn how to cook, and on top of that there are all the mistakes and what-have-you that inevitably come with learning a skill. People seem always to be looking for a quick and easy solution rather than putting forth the effort needed for a gauranteed result. Want to lose weight, get healthy and live longer? You could eat well (which requires planning and preparation) and exercise daily (which requires, well, exercise). OR you could take a gamble on three easy payments ...

For what it's worth, it is actually less expensive to eat well. Take a look at this survey of families from around the world. Each picture is of a family, the food they buy in a week, and what they spend on it (translated into USD where necessary):
One Week's Worth of Food Around Our Planet

Notice anything? There's a sweet spot right around the $200 mark where the people are both well off AND not spending a fortune on food. How do they achieve it? Lots of grains, lots of produce, a fresh meat meal and minimal microwave goods. Surprise, surprise.

The thing is, the culture of convenience is attacking our lifespans in more ways than just our diets. The post which began this discussion was presented with the question "Want to live longer?" and there are many factors that go into a long and healthy life (because who wants to spend the last 20 years out of 100 bedridden?) that are all put in jeopardy by the demands of modern life. Not only is the home-cooked meal now the exception rather than the rule, but so have the morning constitutional, the family game night, and in many cases life-long friends started to become exceedingly rare things. If you want to live to be 100 - and be hale and hardy, too - here's a video ya'll should watch. The presenter found several communities with an unusual number of centegenarians (Yes, one of them was in Italy) and set out to find out what they had in common. The answers may surprise you.

TED.com - "How To Live To be 100" by Dan Buettner

We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service to Anyone (and TSA Agents)

Collected from my exploits elsewhere on the internet. The following comments are in reply to the support a certain establishment had garnered with its refusal to serve TSA Agents.

---

"If policy told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?"

Granted, my condition is quite a bit different than that of a TSA agent, but as a soldier, the answer is "Yes". You can't refuse a dangerous order or a lawful order, and the kicker... is that the definition of "lawful" is up to a military tribunal. I repeat, it's a different situation, but it does render your argument somewhat invalid.

"no one is forcing the tsa agent to grope me before i get on an airplane"

Yes they are. It's their job vs. your comfort. In the same situation, I know what I'd pick. Similarly, do you have any idea what would happen to the TSA agent who lets a bomb through because s/he was squeamish about a pat down? The public, once so adamantly against the screenings, would then be calling for strict enforcement of the rule and the immediate, severe and preferably public castigation of the negligent agent. It's a Catch-22, and one that puts severe pressure on the agents. You act as though they have a choice, when really, they do not.

"harming people even though you know its unethical for a paycheck"

"Harming" is hyperbole and you know it. As for the paycheck, you are certainly aware that there is a recession on. It's not just that "this job is as good as any other", it's that if they don't have this job, it is extremely likely that they won't have ANY. In case you ain't noticed, we're not talking about highly trained and educated people when we talk about TSA. And when I walk into a Waffle House and get served by a waitress trainee who used to be a realtor, as I did this last December in Tucson, you begin to realize that when it comes to a roof over your head and food in your stomach, and the same for your family, you don't get to be choosy about your employment anymore. These folks are NOT going to put their jobs at risk for some mouthy stranger who knew what was likely to happen and decided to fly anyway. Especially when it won't accomplish anything, since the instant they walk out the door there will be ten people clamoring to replace them. Ten people who will either do their jobs or likewise get canned until TSA finds someone who will.

So is it really such a pain to get a little felt up? Ask yourself honestly. TSA's job is certainly important, if a little overinflated, and the "groping" is less invasive as a rule than a trip to the doctor, the locker room at the gym, or one of those men's restrooms with a trough urinal. The same search is performed by police officers regularly and people take it as a matter of course.

Consider it from another viewpoint: Let's say you have a job towing cars. Your bread and butter is impounding cars parked by red curbs, across two parking spaces, or in private lots. It's not a pleasant job, because every single time you take a car in, it means you probably have to deal with that car's owner later on. An owner which, by the way, is now having a bad day thanks in no small part to people like you.

You do your job because it's a paycheck. You went to school to learn acupuncture, but in this economy there's no work because people don't have money to waste on medicine that doesn't work. But you do your job honestly, by the book, and you try to make the process as painless for everyone involved as you can, because you understand: getting your car towed sucks. But its a part of life, and you don't make the laws.

At the end of one day you walk into a bar, still wearing your coveralls, and the barkeep has you shown out. "We don't serve your kind here," the bouncer sneers, "We don't appreciate what you do." You try to protest, but they'll hear none of it. "You didn't have to take that job, and you don't have to do that work. You're just as evil as the gummint that says I can't double park across the handicapped spaces. And I'll hear none of that Nazi talk about orders" he concludes as the door slams coldly in your face.

The barkeep doesn't know about your mortgage, your car payment, and your three kids. Apparently he doesn't understand that if your boss didn't send you out on these City jobs he wouldn't have enough revenue to run the business. More than that, he and his bouncer simply don't care. You slink away across the cold, dark parking lot and drive home, rejected, ostracised, alone, and dead sober.

From what you know about human nature, how do you think you would react when, early the next week, you respond to a call requesting that you tow a car carelessly sprawled between a red curb and an expired parking meter. As you are filling out some forms, preparing to leave, a flustered looking man comes running out, yelling the usual obscentities you almost always hear from the owners of towed vehicles coming across you in the commission of your duties. As the red-faced man's visage resolves, you slowly recognize him as the bartender. That mean bartender who cares not a jot or tittle for you as a human because you took a job he doesn't like. That jerk who doesn't understand the demands of having a house and a family, who doesn't even care to understand what it is to be bound to something beyond yourself. Look at him, screaming and flailing his arms, knowing full well what conversations will ensue, here, and later at the impound lot, and ask yourself, "Do I have any sympathy and mercy for this man? I know that my job visits unpleasantness upon people, but does this man deserve my cooperation and professional insight and aid? Will I, perhaps, cut him a deal so he can get his car home just a little faster or cheaper, at a detriment to my boss but at a benefit to overall goodwill? Or will I make his life just a little more difficult in kind?"

THAT'S why refusing to serve TSA agents is a bad idea.

---

The following comment was made later in the conversation.

---

"i also cant agree with the economic argument. so if the economy is... strong and opportunity is rampant, than its ok to oppose unethical behavior in the name of a paycheck?"

That's not the argument we're making. It's that things aren't all... black and white, and sometimes you actually DO have to weigh one evil against another. When the choice comes down to the wellbeing of my family and the comfort of strangers, then you can't really hold it against people for making certain decisions. When the economy improves and people are again able to choose their employment, then the paradigm will have changed.

In any case, I'm glad most of us are agreed that punishing the workers is not the way to be creating the changes we want. If anything, we should be finding ways to get TSA agents on our side.

It reminds me of my experience at MEPS (er ...don't know how many vets are here. That's "Military Entrance Processing Station") which is a generally unpleasant experience for everyone involved. I felt especially sorry for the doctors there, whose jobs, despite a decade of medical school, consisted of checking an endless parade of men for hernias and hemorhoids. I figure that the folks at TSA aren't (as a rule) much happier about having to look at the Backscatter Images or feel people up. Especially when you think back on all the times you've flown and the truly, um, "aesthetically unfortunate" people that are on every flight. I think that a sympathetic rather than hostile approach would be more fruitful.

Bob Kramer Knives

As an actor at Renaissance Faires, I've seen my share of smithys and forges. I've always been impressed by the patience and skill required to produce anything with little more than fire and a hammer. To produce a working blade is an amazing feat in and of itself. Bob Kramer is a Master of such feats.



Mr. Kramer is accessible online via his website, which also showcases some of his work and collaborations: Bob Kramer Knives

While my own tastes and research disincline me from wanting a Damascus blade for culinary work, I would not be opposed to commissioning a razor of that steel, as the constant honing would likely mitigate the unique serrating properties of Damascus steel it wears.

Mr. Kramer is not currently accepting orders, but you can add yourself to his mailing list to be informed of when his schedule opens up. I would also recommend doing a little reading yourself on the properties of blades and steel, since it is always adviseable to have some cursory knowledge of most things, and especially those thing in which we invest or choose to associate or immerse ourselves, and it is fascinating reading anyhow.

A Daily Dose of Darwinism

I would like, for a brief interlude, to turn my attentions from the external violence in which we so often here immerse ourselves to a more personal, private contemplation of individual import. This is a matter of seemingly little significance which, I believe, may have far reaching consequence for the society of men at large. This is a matter rarely discussed for it's percieved lack of weight, however, a knowledge of a man's choices in this minute regard of his daily life can inform you more of his character than any gross achievement, failure, or undertaking. Like the universe about us, this seemingly small decision has as much, if not greater, an impact as great spectacles of either man or nature.

I refer here, of course, to shaving.

Of course there is no argument as to the percieved pettiness of the subject. Shaving has been for some time little more than a chore, a necessary evil to be undertaken for to fit with the norms of common hygiene in as quick and simple a manner as possible, that we might continue our day with more purposeful activities.

This is the era of rush hour, freeways and carpools; of drive-through eateries, microwaved dinners and skipped breakfasts; of stylists instead of barbers, electric shavers and disposable triple-bladed razors.


Today is a day where ease is key, where while proper presentation is important, moreso that we are able to achieve such quickly in order to sooner return to work. In a day where it often becomes necessary to be working on your cell phone in traffic on the way to the office, who has time to perform a proper shave - especially when that activity, too, is performed in the car? What possible benefits could such an activity bestow upon a person, much less our high-speed, high-intensity society?

One of the answers is obvious: proper grooming has been a hallmark of desirability in all social fields for centuries. Even bearded men have, with little exception, been expected to keep their facial hair tamed and at a predetermined length. Even at the end of the 19th century, when long - and to our modern sensibilities, unruly - beards were fashionable (see Presidents Ruthorford B. Hayes and James A. Garfield, for instance), there were styling demands upon them that dictated length and shape. All of these dictates demand shaving.


What adherence to certain methods and modes of grooming can indicate, therefore, is a person's mentality, their philosophy or religion, their social status, and even their breeding and etiquette. Whether, what and when a man shaves bespeaks volumes of his character, and rightly so: it is as part of our social presentation that we undergo such grooming. But what of the how of his shave? How can something private, as the act of shaving so often is, create a meaningful effect in and upon society? If the goal is to create a certain appearance, what matter is it the manner in which the effect is achieved?

Herein I propone the practice of straight-razor shaving, a practice which has garnered an interesting reputation in the years since safety and ease overcame what was once a fine and delicate skill common to all groomed men. This reputation - namely, of the use of straight razors as a dangerous, difficult, and time-consuming method delivering the finest shave developed by man - serves both to portray the skill as an archaic and obsolete relic of simpler times as well as to elevate it as a sign of class and luxury that place it, in the communal mind of the common man, well above his reach and station.


That high things - difficult, dangerous, things, things of luxury and class, all such manner of noble things - should be seen as out of reach and above station is, more than any other thing, indicative of the malaise and rot that plagues our so-called modern society. It seems impossible to strive for greatness as a culture when we are not willing to put forth the effort needed to enjoy the best in our daily, personal lives.

There is no doubt that a straight razor is a dangerous implement. Five inches of blade, honed to a nearly microscopic edge, backed by nearly an inch of sturdy steel is perfectly capable of inflicting severe wounds - and when one willingly places this device upon their neck, it is well within the realm of possibility that these wounds could be lethal. Add upon the difficulty of mastering the blade the plethora of other skills necessary to the enjoyment of proper hygiene - honing and stropping the implement yourself, learning to lather and apply real shaving soap, a small understanding of dermatology necessary for to understand the hair and skin you treat - and we have an intimidating amount of knowledge to learn at the risk of almost certain discomfort and possible injury or death.

I argue that these are all good and desirable things.

To begin, I will address the immediate danger of the blade. Of itself, it is harmless. It is safely enclosed in its handle, it neither opens nor moves itself about. The realization of this is a thing which grants a man new insight into his own life, the realization that all tools, all weapons, all skills are merely objects or ideas, that they are worthless and meaningless without his action upon them. To take that razor in his hand and place it upon his neck, he places himself only in as much danger as he allows. Skill dictates whether he can move the blade in the correct way, at the correct angle. In the beginning, we are certain of the occassional nick or cut, which grants the short-term rewards of increasing comfort with increasing skill - nevermind that a stoic (and most important in this regard, unflinching) tolerance of discomfort is a valuable ability and a global signal of masculinity. Skill must be achieved by practice, by dedication to mastery, and what better motivation than the knowledge that a lack of skill in such a case could bring results as disastrous as an untrained driver or marksman?


But, some would say, why must this exercise of mastery over a dangerous implement and a dangerous environment be practiced with a blade upon our flesh? Are there not numerous other dangers to which we may expose ourselves daily, if the goal is to build character through adversity? What of driving and shooting, which you mention?

The reason for shaving as the ideal method is derived from it's privacy. This privacy, first and foremost, prevents the ungentlemanly endangerment of others. In any driving situation the risk of killing another due to a lack of aptitude is at least equal to the risk of killing yourself. In firearms, the risk of endangering another is almost invariably greater, as it takes a remarkable stupidity to unintentionally harm the self by way of a properly functioning bullet and piece, and even when shooting alone in a secluded area, bullets are capable of travelling extreme distances to fall upon more populated locales. Further, expertise in these fields is readily exhibited to society, and there are external influences to motivate the practice and proficiency of them. It can be said that driving or shooting in a responsible, skillful manner is often not motivated by a personal desire for excellence, but rather due to fear of appearing incompetent.

Shaving, on the other hand, takes place within the privacy of the home, within the bedroom or bath, and often without observation by even intimate cohabitants. It grants several minutes of quiet excercise and disciplined activity which is undertaken for no reason other than a personal desire to not only be socially presentable, true, but to do so in the most exacting manner - as it is shown that a straight razor, properly wielded, offers the closest and least irritating shave available. It is also worth noting that the few minutes of meditative activity afforded by the privacy and discipline of a proper shave help to calm and clear the mind, invigorating and honing it for excellence in the day's myriad endeavors.

In a way, the proper shave takes a place akin to meditation or prayer within a day. I do not mean public spectacles masquerading as meditation or prayer, of course, but that intimate piece of calm and reflection that so often accompanies ritual contemplation. In fact, it has many elements in common with such rituals - the shaver first bathes, either in whole or facially, then stands before the basin as an altar arrayed with his blade, his soap, his brush, his strop, and his water. The precise, repetitive act of stropping, the preparation of the brush and soap, careful creation and application of a fine lather, not to mention the practiced movements of the razor itself all have a refreshing, comfortable, yet vivid and intense effect on a person's mind. At the completion of a shave, after the final washing of the face and perhaps even the anointing with colognes we often find ourselves new men, baptised by steel into the mastery of our own small universes.


Then again, many of these contemplations are purely speculative, placed forward by myself as an admitted amateur psychologist and sociologist. To this end, I proffer a more physical, biological, mathematical advantage made by the straight razor upon the institution of our greater society. While my aforementioned conclusions are speculative, the danger posed by a razor in untrained hands is absolute and undeniable. What, then, would the consequence be if all of man woke to his toilet on the morrow to find that all of his modern, electrical or disposable facility were replaced by the blade and brush? Suppose further that to remain completely unshorn were not an option. Surely there would be those who, in their haste and arrogance, and failing to appreciate the nature of their activity, would perish before their basins by their own hands. Silly idealistic notions about the value of human life must be departed with here: what use is a man who cannot master a blade? What use is a man who imagines his endeavors so lofty as not to trouble himself with the very substance of his life and being? While we may mourn the loss of acquantances, those survivors would doubtless be of the magnitude of man who understands and appreciates his abilities, his tools, and his place in and effect upon the world. Doubtless that, even should such qualities not breed true, they would be bestowed upon the following generations as an acknowledged part of the proper rearing of boys into men. True, such a time already once was.


There was a time, and it ended not too long ago, when all shorn men had achieved mastery of these skills. In this time, every man started his day faced with danger, every man looked at the prospect of death in his own reflection and stoicly, skillfully defeated it for no reason other than to take pride in his own appearance. Men with great names marked the tail end of this era, men who were known for gallantry, dignity and valor: men like Ernest Hemingway, Theodore Roosevelt, and Manfred von Richthofen, better known as the Red Baron. While there were doubtless many factors that went into the production of such greatness, there is a stoutness of character that is granted by a daily brush with death. It is often said that the best meals are those taken after enduring a life-threatening situation. To survive by an act of will is a dose of Darwinism that brings out the best in a man - he knows that it is his skill and mastery of his body, the tools in his hands, and world about him that permits his existence. It imbues him with the confidence to face down adversity and the quiet contemplation to view the world in a more romantic light and with more passionate vigor. It is his daily proof that a thing worth doing, is worth doing well.