The Bear in the Funny Hat Riding a Bicycle in the Circus

Last night, teasing with a newer friend, the conversation went, jokingly, to a dark place.  I'm fine with dark humor, but objectively it can become terrifically unfunny because of who I am and the fact that I'm saying it. I sent the note below this morning.  I share because this is a recurring issue with folks who've met me since my time in the army and lose sight of my bigger picture sometimes.

Soo....

I like to say all sorts of things, true and otherwise. I like to say true things as though they're complete fabrications and I like to say complete fabrications as though they're true. I do my best to say both with the same delivery. I enjoy seeing what people fall for. I'm usually testing even as I'm trying to entertain. That's my schtick.  

I also am relatively unafraid to lead a conversation to a bizarro place or to prod someone else there and see if they keep up. I am definitely unafraid to be awkward or weird. That's how any number of vulgar/outrageous/ridiculous conversations I've managed to have with you.

You've proven pretty adept at knowing that most of the things I say are b.s. or, even if "true" are framed just off ("fibbing" as you say) and clearly you're willing to follow or lead conversations to bizarro places. So, you're fun.

One of my other schticks, which is intimately tied to the above, is being the hawaiian-shirt-wearing goofball who doesn't take anything seriously. He can get away with saying all manner of things and it's taken with a grain of salt and, even when it comes out poorly (often), it's generally understood the intent is playful or joking.

However,

I'm also a 6'2", 200+lbs. army officer who's been to war in Iraq and who went as a contractor to Afghanistan.

Sometimes a conversation (like last night's) will get a little too close to that and then it's a bit like when you see a bear in a funny hat riding a bicycle at the circus. Every once in a while, it does something that makes you intimately aware that you're trapped in a tent with, you know, a bear.
 

It's hard for me to joke in regards to war/death/killing, not because I'm against gallow's humor (far from it), but unless the other person knows me very well, it's not really funny because, as I do with most everything else, I *may* not be joking. Then it's less black humor about war/death/killing and more potentially psychopathic ranting or mentally tortured war-vet rambling. Actual psychopath or tortured war-vet are not images I'm trying to cultivate.

So we're on the same page: I'm an Army Captain. I was in for four years and have remained on inactive reserves for the past 8 years (they can call me back if there's an emergency). I was stationed in Germany. I went to Iraq. There, because I'm an artilleryman (cannons) and an officer, I was a firebase commander.

All soldiers are trained to kill, technically. We don't shoot automatic weapons for trophies. However, as an artillery officer, my duty was less shoot-people-with-my-M16 and more supervise/direct/order-my-soldiers-to-launch-95lbs-projectiles-upwards-of-18-miles in order to support or protect the infantrymen or tankers that were out on patrol (or to protect the main base from the enemy launching rockets and mortars at them).

I drew my rifle a number of times over there, but never had to fire it in anger. Fortunately, I was never put in a position where I had to. That said, it's not that I'm thankful because I was afraid; it's because I'd much rather not have to have killed anyone, regardless of whether they were the "enemy".

At the same time, um, it's a bit weird (and seems awful) to tell civilians, but, yeah, I'd kill someone if it were required. I don't need particular training for that, just an awareness that it may needs be done and the will to follow through.

I'm a soldier; it's an ingrained part of who I am, and has been for all of my life (my family is super-military). I've always understood violence and killing as (regrettable) facts regardless that I'm personally a pacifist.

Simply put, I don't fight. I've taken my fair share of punches before. I wouldn't fight if what were at stake were a butt-whuppin'. But I would kill if it were required. And I hope I'm never in a situation that requires.

All of that said, I much prefer being the hawaiian shirt wearing goofball who doesn't take things seriously. I'm a Christian. I try to be "good". I try to be honorable. I try to be kind.

Now that's all cleared up, I'd like to go back to wearing the funny hat and riding the bicycle in circles (awkwardly/weirdly) for your entertainment.

The World is a Dangerous Place (and it always has been)

Life has gotten in the damn way of an awful lot of things for me lately.  One of them has been this post, one I've wanted to get put together for five or six months.

I was out with my friends.  As I'm 34, most of my friends are now married or definitively coupled-up or whatever the living-in-sin-without-the-judgment-of-others is called these days.  Of that group of friends, one of the four couples is kinda/sorta trying to have kids.  One of the others will, and two of the others are a flat-out HELL NO on the subject.  It surprised me that it was the women who were vehemently opposed.

Who are these anti-progeny ladies?  Merry has an Ivy League PhD and is my age.  Lauren was summa cum laude in law school and just turned thirty.

I playfully needled, but I meant what I was saying.  What was I needling/saying?  It's simple:

The stupid are outbreeding the intelligent.  It's smart folks' DUTY TO HUMANITY to reproduce.  Outside of that though, it's practically a license to print money (though, I must admit, my being smart has not resulted in my printing money...yet).

Merry got pissed. And she didn't get pissed because I was needling her when she'd made up her mind on the subject.  No, she was pissed because HOW ON EARTH COULD I FATHOM PUNISHING A CHILD BY BRINGING IT INTO EXISTENCE WHEN THE WORLD IS FALLING APART AND GETTING WORSE ALL THE TIME?!?!?!?

Then there was the addendum of "I really respected your intelligence, Ajax, but I can't believe you think that it's responsible to bring a child into this world!"

Lauren didn't have too much to add because she 100% agreed with Merry.

As we'd been out and gotten into the wine a bit much, I didn't have too much to retort with other than "every generation thinks the world is going to hell."  I do know history, though, and didn't want to drunkenly conflate and ruin my argument, so, months later, here goes:
_________________________________________________________
 My name is Ajax DuBose Carpenter. By direct lineage, I'm 9 generations removed from the Ajax Carpenter who started the Carpenter family line here in North America:

Ajax Carpenter b.1660-1736
Ajax II b. 1687-1721
Ajax III b. 1717-1775
Abijah 1743-1805
James English 1800-1883
Edward James 1828-1897
George Robert 1875-1913
David Hopkins 1908-1991
James Aldrich Wyman 1939-
Ajax DuBose 1979-

Let's look at the past 300 years and the environments these men produced children:

Ajax Carpenter b.1660-1736:  Born a protestant in the foothills of the Alps in Dauphiné, Ajax and his wife fled France upon the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (an "irrevocable" edict of religious toleration).  They crossed the ocean in a wooden boat and arrived in 15-year-old Charleston knowing zero English.  They built a homestead in the Huguenot township of Jamestown (historical; no longer exists).  They had given up their homes, their families, and their country, to live amongst their historical enemies, the English, and in fear of new enemies, the Native Americans in a time of rampant disease and high-infant mortality rates.  Verdict: MUCH WORSE THAN TODAY

Ajax II b. 1687-1721:  The man died at 34...my age.  Living at the dawn of the 18th century was far from a healthy time to be alive.  While he didn't cross an ocean like his mama and daddy did, he did get to live during the Yemassee War, when the Natives rose up and slaughtered a good many colonials.  Yeah. So there's that.  We have war and terrorism.  Agreed.  We don't have individual terrorists burning down our homes or raping and/or killing us.  Verdict: MUCH WORSE THAN TODAY

Ajax III b. 1717-1775: III lasted longer.  He still was not living in a super-safe time, nor a healthy one.  He was around for the Cherokee War, but I can't say he participated. He had it better than his forebears, but that's not saying much.  Verdict: WORSE THAN TODAY

Abijah b.1743-1805: Well, this is where it gets embarrassing from a modern perspective.  Abijah died owning a great deal of land and "negroes" by his will.  According to his will he was able to leave land and "negroes" to many of his children.  So, it was a crappy time to live because owning humans was a thing, but for him personally, perhaps it was a perfectly wonderful time. Other than that whole, "Revolution" thing and SC having more battles fought in it than any other colony.   So as not to skew my point, I'll say Verdict: NOT BAD IF YOU WERE A SOUTHERN WHITE MALE OF SLAVEHOLDING STOCK; OTHERWISE, WORSE THAN TODAY

James English b.1800-1883:  Gonna be honest, I don't have a whole lot of info on Jimmy, other than that he was "Colonel James English Carpenter".  Was that from the War Twixt the States?  No idea, but I kinda doubt it.  Perhaps it was the Mexican American War? Wars against Indians?  Dunno.  I'll give him the worse than his daddy because his entire way of life was upended (not saying it shouldn't have been).  Verdict: NOT BAD, AT FIRST, IF YOU WERE A SOUTHERN WHITE MALE OF SLAVEHOLDING STOCK, THEN IT GOT CONSIDERABLY WORSE; OTHERWISE, WORSE THAN TODAY.

Edward James b. 1828-1897:  Yeah, so his life was pretty much divided by pre/post slavery.  He was a doctor, so good for him, but then he was one of the first recorded divorces in SC history so...way to lead the way great-great-grandpa! (Dammit).  Late 1800s SC was not a thriving place.  Verdict: NOT BAD, AT FIRST, IF YOU WERE A SOUTHERN WHITE MALE OF SLAVEHOLDING STOCK, THEN IT GOT CONSIDERABLY WORSE; OTHERWISE, WORSE THAN TODAY.

George Robert b. 1875-1913: So, my grandaddy's daddy.  He left the family stead (former plantation) and went to law school.  He joined in the Spanish American War and caught tuberculosis.  He was elected to the state legislature.  He was on James Tillman's defense team for the Trial of the Century (After the Lt. Governor shot and killed N.G. Gonzalez, the editor of The State in broad daylight).  He died young because of the disease he'd contracted at war, leaving a young widow and orphans. Verdict: THINGS WERE PRETTY GOOD UP UNTIL THEY ENDED BADLY BECAUSE OF DISEASE; FINE, BETTER THAN RIGHT NOW...EXCEPT NO. WORSE.

David Hopkins b. 1908-1991: His father died when he was five.  His father's business partner stole the estate so the children were left destitute.  He got to go through WWI and the Spanish Flu as a child.  Then, as he was in college, the Great Depression hit.  Then he got to go through WWII.  Then, the Cold War, where at any moment everyone could have died by nuclear apocalypse.  He gritted his teeth, built a company from the ground up and succeeded anyway, having three children of his own along the way.  Verdict: The mid-1900s were the most dangerous time anyone has ever lived EVER.  Theoretically mankind could have ended in a day. WAY WORSE.

James Aldrich Wyman b. 1939-: WWII as a boy; cold war through the majority of his adult life. Oh, and there was Vietnam (though he did not go despite being in the army at the time).  He got a decade of relative peace and security until September 11th, but, hey, he already reproduced twice by then. Verdict: The mid-1900s were the most dangerous time anyone has ever lived EVER.  Theoretically mankind could have ended in a day. Not as bad as his daddy's time, but still a majority of his life in the spectre of annihilation at any moment. WORSE.

Ajax b. 1979-: The world had a population half the current size only thirty years ago.  Terrorism, long an issue in the rest of the world, reared its head in 1993 in NYC, Oklahoma in 1995 (homegrown even!), and, of course, September 11th, when I had been a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army for all of three months.  I went to Iraq as a soldier.  I went through the Great Recession.  I went to Afghanistan as a civilian contractor.  Neither of those wars is worse than the wars of the 20th century.  Terrorism, while, you know, terrifying, will not end life on the planet in a day (fingers crossed...knock on wood).  Medical advances have mostly stemmed epidemics (that will affect Americans, the most blessed, fortunate people on the planet) and the issue of overpopulation will ruin the under-developed world long before it affects me or my putative children.  Global Warming as a reason not to have children, when considered from a historical perspective, is ludicrous/bizarre/laughable. Verdict: The best time in the past 300 years (aka ever) to have children.
______________________________________________________________________________
Aside from just "is now a reasonable time to have children?", historically, the issue of the intelligent/leading classes not having enough children is one that has plagued humanity for over 2000 years. 


Augustus Caesar, master of the known world, addressed members his "knightly" class in this manner, according to Cassius Dio in his history (book 56) because there were so many of them who would not have children:

"A strange experience has been mine, O — what shall I call you? Men? But you are not performing any of the offices of men. Citizens? But for all that you are doing, the city is perishing. Romans? But you are undertaking to blot out this name altogether. 3 Well, at any rate, whatever you are and by whatever name you delight to be called, mine has been an astonishing experience; for though I am always doing everything to promote an increase of population among you and am now about to rebuke you, I grieve to see that there are a great many of you. I could rather have wished that those to whom I have just spoken were as numerous as you prove to be, and that preferably you were ranged with them, or otherwise did not exist at all.  4 For you, heedless alike of the providence of the gods and of the watchful care of your forefathers, are bent upon annihilating our entire race and making it in truth mortal, are bent upon destroying and bringing to an end the entire Roman nation. For what seed of human beings would be left, if all the rest of mankind should do what you are doing? For you have become their leaders, and so would rightly bear the responsibility for the universal destruction. 5 And even if no others emulate you, would you not be justly hated for the very reason that you overlook what no one else would overlook, and neglect what no one else would neglect, introducing customs and practices which, if imitated, p13would lead to the extermination of all mankind, and, if abhorred, would end in your own punishment? 6 We do not spare murderers, you know, because not every man commits murder, nor do we let temple-robbers go because not everyone robs temples; but anybody who is convicted of committing a forbidden act is punished for the very reason that he alone or in company with a few others does something that no one else would do. 5 Yet, if one were to name over all the worst crimes, the others are as naught in comparison with this one you are now committing, whether you consider them crime for crime or even set all of them together over against this single crime of yours. 2 For you are committing murder in not begetting in the first place those who ought to be your descendants; you are committing sacrilege in putting an end to the names and honours of your ancestors; and you are guilty of impiety in that you are abolishing your families, which were instituted by the gods, and destroying the greatest of offerings to them, — human life, — thus overthrowing their rites and their temples. 3 Moreover, you are destroying the State by disobeying its laws, and you are betraying your country by rendering her barren and childless; nay more, you are laying her even with the dust by making her destitute of future inhabitants. For it is human beings that constitute a city, we are told, not houses or porticos or market-places empty of men. 

4 "Bethink you, therefore, what wrath would justly seize the great Romulus, the founder of our race, if p15he could reflect on the circumstances of his own birth and then upon your conduct in refusing to beget children even by lawful marriages! 5 How wrathful would the Romans who were his followers be, if they could realize that after they themselves had even seized foreign girls, you are not satisfied even with those of your own race, and after they had got children even by enemy wives, you will not beget them even of women who are citizens! How angry would Curtius be, who was willing to die that the married men might not be bereft of their wives! How indignant Hersilia, who attended her daughter at her wedding and instituted for us all the rites of marriage! 6 Nay, our fathers even fought the Sabines to obtain brides and made peace through the intercession of their wives and children; they administered oaths and made sundry treaties for this very purpose; but you are bringing all their efforts to naught. 7 And why? Do you desire to live apart from women always, even as the Vestal Virgins live apart from men? Then you should also be punished as they are if you are guilty of any lewdness. 

6 "I know that I seem to you to speak bitterly and harshly. But reflect, in the first place, that physicians, too, treat many patients by cautery and surgery, when they cannot be cured in any other way; 2 and, in the second place, that it is not my wish or my pleasure to speak thus. Hence I have this further reproach to bring against you, that you have provoked me to this discourse. As for yourselves, if you do not like what I say, do not continue this conduct for which you are being and must ever be reproached. If my words do wound some of you, how much more do your actions wound both me and p17all the rest of the Romans! 3 Accordingly, if you are vexed in very truth, change your course, so that I may praise and recompense you; for that I am not harsh by nature and that I have accomplished, subject to human limitations, everything it was proper for a good law-giver to do, even you cannot fail to realize. 

4 "Indeed, it was never permitted to any man, even in olden times, to neglect marriage and the begetting of children; but from the very outset, when the government was first established, strict laws were made regarding these matters, and subsequently many decrees were passed by both the senate and the people, which it would be superfluous to enumerate here. 5 I, now, have increased the penalties for the disobedient, in order that through fear of becoming liable to them you might be brought to your senses; and to the obedient I have offered a more numerous and greater prizes than are given for any other display of excellence, in order that for this reason, if for no other, you might be persuaded to marry and beget children. 6 Yet you have not striven for any of the recompenses nor feared any of the penalties, but have shown contempt for all these measures and have trodden them all underfoot, as if you were not living in a civilized community. You talk, forsooth, about this 'free' and 'untrammelled' life that you have adopted, without wives and without children; but you are not a whit better than brigands or the most savage of beasts. 7 For surely it is not your delight in a solitary existence that leads you to live without wives, nor is there one of you who either eats alone or sleeps alone; no, what you want is to have full liberty for wantonness and p19licentiousness. 2 Yet I allowed you to pay your court to girls still of tender years and not yet ripe for marriage, in order that, classed as prospective bridegrooms, you might live as family men should; and I permitted those not in the senatorial order to wed freedwomen, so that, if anyone through love or intimacy of any sort should be disposed to such a course, he might go about it lawfully. 3 And I did not limit you rigidly even to this, but at first gave you three whole years in which to make your preparations, and later two. Yet not even so, by threatening, or urging, or postponing, or entreating, have I accomplished anything. 4 For you see for yourselves how much more numerous you are than the married men, when you ought by this time to have provided us with as many children besides, or rather with several times your number. How otherwise can families continue? How can the State be preserved, if we neither marry nor have children? 5 For surely you are not expecting men to spring up from the ground to succeed to your goods and to the public interests, as the myths describe! And yet it is neither right nor creditable that our race should cease, and the name of Romans be blotted out with us, and the city be given over to foreigners — Greeks or even barbarians. 6 Do we not free our slaves chiefly for the express purpose of making out of them as many citizens as possible? And do we not give our allies a share in the government in order that our numbers may increase? And do you, then, who are Romans from the beginning and claim as your p21ancestors the famous Marcii, the Fabii, the Quintii, the Valerii, and the Julii, do you desire that your families and names alike shall perish with you? 8 Nay, I for my part am ashamed that I have been forced even to mention such a thing. Have done with your madness, then, and stop at last to reflect, that with many dying all the time by disease and many in war it is impossible for the city to maintain itself, unless its population is continually renewed by those who are ever and anon to be born.

  Smart folks, breed.