May 11

(Though many don’t want to believe it, the world is getting safer. There will be an end to war, someday, if the world works towards it. To read the rest of our posts on “The World is Getting Safer”, click here.)

We had so many links about the world getting safer, that we had to split last week’s post into two. Here’s the second set of updates...

Steven Pinker, Yet Again, Makes the Case the World is Getting Safer

Stephen Pinker’s first TED talk on the decreasing likelihood of war turned us on to this topic, and helped make it a passion. (Same with John Horgan’s research from a Radiolab episode.) But it never hurts to re-review the evidence.

And Pinker does this in this Slate article published in December, “The World is Not Falling Apart”. Most relevantly, Pinker and co-writer Andrew Mack admonish us to ignore the headlines. They explain that headlines, especially in a cable news and Twitter world, focus on violent events much more than non-violent events. They point out that homicides in the US, UK and worldwide have dropped, violence against women is at historic lows, and wars are increasingly less likely.

Here’s our favorite quote (from the conclusion):

Too much of our impression of the world comes from a misleading formula of journalistic narration. Reporters give lavish coverage to gun bursts, explosions, and viral videos, oblivious to how representative they are and apparently innocent of the fact that many were contrived as journalist bait. Then come sound bites from “experts” with vested interests in maximizing the impression of mayhem: generals, politicians, security officials, moral activists. The talking heads on cable news filibuster about the event, desperately hoping to avoid dead air. Newspaper columnists instruct their readers on what emotions to feel.

"There is a better way to understand the world. Commentators can brush up their history—not by rummaging through Bartlett’s for a quote from Clausewitz, but by recounting the events of the recent past that put the events of the present in an intelligible context. And they could consult the analyses of quantitative data sets on violence that are now just a few clicks away.

John Horgan responded to Pinker, arguing that America needs to do more to make the world safer. (This may have inspired a debate between Eric C and myself. Coming soon.)

And Vox Also Makes the Case

Not much more to say than this, but Vox has a article “26 charts and maps that show the world is getting much, much better” that, like other posts, pretty convincingly makes the argument that the world is, indeed, getting much, much better.

My personal favorite graphs are:

1. The worldwide deaths from war per capita. It’s down to almost nothing.

2. Comparing European homicide rates through the ages.

And the World is More Democratic

And here’s another compilation of evidence that the world is getting better. It relates to the comments section of one of our last posts on the world getting safer. A reader pushed back, citing North Korea as an example of a violent nation, because it isn’t democratic. The people of North Korea, he argued, live under a constant threat of violence from the state.

We actually agree. Dictatorships are inherently violent. A peaceful world that consists of only dictatorships? That’s not progress. But it turns out this is the world is getting more democratic as well.

If you want to debunk the world is getting safer argument, you need to avoid obvious logical fallacies. Don’t cite anecdotes, cite statistics. You can’t say, “The world isn’t getting safer because X event happened.” (In this case, North Korea being undemocratic.) You have to research whether the world is becoming less democratic overall.

Will Global Warming Cause More War?

Indeed, some have even blamed the conflict in Syria on global warming. As the climate changes, this will disturb populations, the thinking goes, spreading conflict. A paper even came out showing a causal link! Wonkblog’s Brad Plumer says not so fast, the evidence isn’t all quite in.

Finally, a “Quote Behaving Well”

In our post, “The Best Comment On Violence Has Ever Received”, we simply reposted a commenter’s thoughts--”Martin”--verbatim. He spoke about de-escalating a conflict with troublesome students, and we applied it to another future war in the Middle East (Israel, the U.S. and Iran). Stephen Walt echoed a similar theme when he relayed an amazing Churchill quote along these lines. (Not a quote behaving badly because Walt included the link to the actual book passage where Churchill wrote this.)

“In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Goodwill."

May 07

(Though many don’t want to believe it, the world is getting safer. There will be an end to war, someday, if the world works towards it. To read the rest of our posts on “The World is Getting Safer”, click here.)

As we promised last week, we’ve got links and links and links arguing that, yes, the world is getting safer. (A second post is coming Monday...)

The Demise of Ares

The article “The Demise of Ares” by Bruno Tertais is so good we had to make it the sub-title for this section.

He, again, shows that long-term war is decreasing in all fronts. I particularly like the opening paragraph as a rejoinder to Frank Hoffman’s “Plato Was Dead Wrong” (who we debunked here) when Hoffman used the example of Prime Minister William Pitt, who predicted peace in Europe and was proved wrong by the Napoleonic wars, as an argument against the world getting safer. Well…

“In 1990, U.S. political scientist John Mearsheimer predicted that we would soon ‘‘miss the Cold War.’’ In the months and years that followed, the eruption of bloody conflicts in the Balkans and in Africa gave birth to fears of a new era of global chaos and anarchy. Authors such as Robert Kaplan and Benjamin Barber spread a pessimistic vision of the world in which new barbarians, liberated from the disciplines of the East — West conflict, would give a free rein to their ancestral hatreds and religious passions. Journalists James Dale Davidson and William Rees - Mogg chimed in that violence would reassert itself as the common condition of life. Former U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that the planet was about to become a ‘‘pandemonium.’

“These prophets of doom were wrong.”

So well-trained, wise and learned academics, politicians and pundits have both predicted the end of war and the impending epidemic of war. Who should we believe? I say the people with the data.

Sebastian Junger and the Deep Roots of War

John Horgan--who we really don’t link to enough--reviewed Sebastian Junger’s latest documentary, The Last Patrol here. A few On V connections immediately stood out to us. (Check out our reviews of Junger’s previous book and documentary War and Restrepo.)

First, Horgan writes, “[Junger] started traveling to war zones because he hoped war would make him a man, and his hope was fulfilled. ‘I became the man I wanted to be,’ he says.” As we’ve written before, this is a terrible justification for war. Our argument is simple, “...no one should have to prove their self worth by killing someone else.” We’d add, “Or documenting the killing of someone else.”

Next, Horgan takes down the psychological theories behind much of Junger’s work.

“Junger espouses what I call the deep-roots theory of war, which holds that natural selection embedded the urge to wage war in the genes of males. 'The politically incorrect truth,' he once said, 'Is that war is extremely ingrained in us—in our evolution as humans—and we’re hardwired for it.' He expands on this notion in War, citing deep-roots proponents such as chimp researcher Richard Wrangham.

“Ironically, I saw Last Patrol at the Margaret Mead Film Festival in October. Mead, the great anthropologist, rejected the deep-roots theory–and with good reason, because the evidence for the theory is flimsy.”

Horgan’s book The End of War explains why in much greater detail and we highly recommend it.

Are Militaries an “Industry in Decline”?

In a word, yes. The Monkey Cage provides a pretty interesting set of graphs illustrating this phenomena. It turns out that most of the world’s militaries and military populations have shrunk.

Often, pseudo-philosophers caution of World War I, World War II or the Napleonic era to warn that war could break out again. They often ignore that--especially before World War I--Europe had witnessed a multi-decade growth in military spending. A decline in the world’s militaries is only a good thing. (H/T to the now no-longer-blogging Andrew Sullivan.)

It also forces you question those who want us to increase or maintain the size of the American military (especially many of those folks incorrectly believe the world is a dangerous place). As a cautionary note, The Economist wrote in November of last year that spending in Africa on the military had recently spiked.

May 06

Today marks the sixth anniversary of On Violence. Like last year's anniversary, we aren’t really in a reflective mood. We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us. A lot of post ideas and a lot of series. We’re finishing up some topics and moving forwards on others.

Stay tuned!

Apr 20

As we wait for (hopefully) another guest piece to go up somewhere, enjoy this “On V Update to Old Ideas”.

Ebole Updates!

First off, some good news: last year, when we wrote about Ebola--click here and here to read those posts--we repeated a warning from scientists, “Ebola could become more dangerous if it, ironically, becomes less dangerous. If the disease mutates in a way that allows more victims to live and live longer, it could become a pandemic by not burning out too quickly.”

Because the international community took so long to act, we (humanity) increased the risk of making Ebola more dangerous. Turns out, though, we dodged a pathogenic bullet on this one. According to the Los Angeles Times, “...new research published Thursday in the journal Science suggests that the virus is undergoing only limited mutational changes, and is no more virulent than when the outbreak began.”

Just to point it out: we are correcting ourselves. In other words, early reports were too pessimistic. At least the Los Angeles Times corrected the record. Most news outlets, when offered the opportunity to correct the record, don’t. This is also a good warning on general science reporting: early reports are often wrong and inaccurate.

As we mentioned earlier and in our original posts, the international community took way too long to react to Ebola. But the bigger concern is our country’s focus on reactive policies, instead of proactive policies. Julia Belluz at Vox (linking to the New York Times) has great article describing how America’s reaction--impromptu treatment facilities in affected countries--has utterly failed.

Too Many Munich Moments!

The day after we finished writing about Ebola last December, Michael C wrote, “How Do We Stop the Worst Analogy in Foreign Policy?” in which he joined the chorus of pundits asking that the “Munich” analogy be killed. Of course, we failed to convince a few politicians complaining about the new Iran agreement on nuclear weapons, including...

    - Ted Cruz

    - Mark Kirk

    - Tom Cotton

    - John Bolton

    - Victor Davis Hanson (The Washington Times)

    - Michael Markovsky (The Weekly Standard)

    - William Kristol (The Weekly Standard)

    - Roger Simon (PJ Media)

    - Joel Pollak (Breitbart)

    - Thomas Sowell (National Review)

Each of the above pundits and politicians, arguing against a deal with Iran, immediately argued, “This is Munich!” How rhetorically depressing is this? It’s as unsurprising as it is disappointing.

To highlight the good news, some writers pushed back, including Paul Waldmen in The Washington Post, Jim Newell at Salon, Dominic Tierney at The Atlantic, and Amanda Taub at Vox. It’s a point that can’t be remade enough.

Rick Perry Hates Isolationism...and Foreign Aid

Another fun fact, related to rhetoric and foreign policy: as Michael C wrote in “I’m an Isolationist?”, some politicians accuse people who don’t want to invade foreign countries of being isolationists. In July last year, Rick Perry wrote a Washington Post op-ed stating just that, “Isolationist policies make the threat of terrorism even greater”.

But what’s rick Perry’s stance on foreign aid spending?

A quick google search reveals this headline, “Perry: My foreign aid budget starts at zero” from the Republican primary in 2012. So he isn’t an isolationist, but he wants the U.S. to isolate itself from all other countries with zero foreign aid spending. To be fair, Rick Perry’s position was more nuanced than that--after cutting the budget to zero, he wants to re-analyze all foreign aid allocations on a yearly basis, which is beyond impractical--but the overall message is the same: fighting wars abroad is fine, supporting other countries peacefully is not a priority.

Saudi Arabia Sucks Compared to Iran

America does not get along with Iran...because they’re evil. After President Obama wrote a letter to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last year, Mitt Romney “...was frankly stunned that the president of the United States would write a letter of that nature and in effect, legitimize a nation and a leadership which is violating international norms and is threatening the world.

As we’ve written before--and discussed in the comments section of our Iran post two weeks ago--these norms are incredibly inconsistent. Take, for example, Saudi Arabia. Did you know they’ve outlawed movie theaters? Did you know saudi Arabia awarded a prize to an Islamic scholar who called 9/11 an inside job? Did you know they still behead people? And they’re beheading people at a faster rate this year than last year.

Speaking of Self-Interest…

In January 2014, Zack Beauchamp had a great article on Henry Kissinger, “The Toxic Cult of Henry Kissinger”. First, Zack breaks down the actual divide in American politics is “not the split between Left and Right, or civil libertarians and security state hawks, or interventionists and non-interventionists. It's between those who buy into the cult of America's national interest and those who don't.”

This is an awesome way to look at American foreign policy, and how to fix it.

More importantly, Zach describes Kissinger’s many war crimes and how that doesn’t seem to affect either his esteem or celebrity. Why? Because the American security establishment supports Kissinger’s actions because they supported America, no matter how shorted or immoral.

Mar 16

We should have a number of updates coming over the next month, starting with today...

Update to Gratitude Theory

In our post, “Don’t Burn Korans, Kill Children or Drop Bomblets That Look Like Candy”, I failed to mention another key “don’t” in a counter-insurgency:

“Don’t pee on the dead bodies of your enemy, take pictures of it and post them on Youtube.”

Marine Sergeant Joseph Chamberlain who did those actions--and got fellow marines and soldiers killed because of it--says he has no regrets. Marines with his attitude have helped lose the war in Afghanistan, and they doesn’t even realize it. Yes, this is a very old update (though we never commented on the “urinating on dead bodies scandal” at the time), so this is that comment: bad marines/soldiers pee on the bodies of their enemies. Their defenders are defending actions that kill Americans.

Also, do these action count as barbaric or savage?

More “Isolationism” Bashing

The National Journal had an excellent article on the specter of “isolationism”. “Phantom Menace: The myth of American isolationism”, by Peter Beinart, just nails the problems with modern politician’s use of “isolationism”. (Check out our take on the term here.) Among a number of great points--from rebutting the idea that America was isolationist in the 20s and 30s to breaking down Rand Paul’s “isolationism”--he closes with this:

“Hawks worried that Barack Obama, or Rand Paul, or the American people have not defended American interests forcefully enough in Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, or Iran can make plenty of legitimate arguments. Calling their opponents “isolationists” isn’t one of them. It’s time journalists greet that slur with the same derision they currently reserve for epithets like “socialist,” “fascist,” and “totalitarian.” Then, perhaps, we can have the foreign policy debate America deserves."

Well put.

Remember, China and Russia have spies too…

The New York Review of Books reminds us that--despite the gads of news coverage the media showered on them--Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning and Edward Snowden had nowhere near the reach, support, and logistics of good old fashioned espionage. Anne Applebaum’s review of Deception should remind Americans clearly of this threat.

Everyday, Russian and Chinese spies attempt to flip U.S. government and business workers to spill secrets and access to U.S. information systems. As we’ve written before, unlike Manning and Snowden and Wikileaks, Russian and Chinese spies don’t publicly release the information they’ve stolen. They’re also much more effective because they’re professionals.

On V Update to PowerPoint

Man, I hate PowerPoint. At this point, it is more irrational than rational. And Jeff Bezos agrees with me. (From Wonkblog, h/t War on the Rocks):

“Here are a few things I’ve learned in the past two weeks. When Jeff holds meetings at Amazon he asks people not to use Powerpoints but to write an essay about their product or program or what the meeting is to be about. For the first 10 or 15 minutes everyone sits and reads the essay. His point is that if you write at length, you have to think first, and he feels the quality of thought you have to do to write at length is greater than the quality of thought to put a Powerpoint together.”

An interesting side note: Michael C now works for Amazon Studios, the original content production arm of Amazon. Michael C don’t miss PowerPoint at all.

Another Call to Purge the Generals

I’ve written before that we don’t hold our bureaucrats in Washington accountable. Most small government Republicans would agree with me on that point. Unlike them, though, I also list the generals and admirals in our military as Washington bureaucrats. Daniel Davis, writing in both the Armed Forces Journal and The Guardian, agrees with me. (He also proposes a novel change in military organization and theory, which I need to research further.)

Mar 02

More updates, this time on the state of America’s security state.

Militarization of Police Forces

According to Sarah Stillman at The New Yorker, before 1990, law enforcement conducted at most, “several hundred paramilitary-style drug” raids each year. Now, across America, police forces routinely conduct tens of thousands of such raids. (H/T to the now retired Andrew Sullivan.) We’ve been following this trend since our posts a couple of years ago comparing this to Robocop’s prediction of militarized future to the present.

And now the police have military-style equipment. Partly in response to the events of Ferguson, the Obama administration researched and released a report on police militarization that came in the beginning of December last year. Some critics pointed out that only 4% of the gear is actual combat equipment. Reason debates that point:

“But the report does also show how big that four percent is in real numbers:

“‘To date, approximately 460,000 pieces of controlled property are currently in the possession of LEAs. Examples of controlled property provided include: 92,442 small arms, 44,275 night vision devices, 5,235 high mobility, multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs), 617 mine resistant ambush protected vehicles and 616 aircraft.’”

“Mine resistant vehicles?” you ask. Yeah, like this one. I mean, listen, I don’t like Ohio State, but I’m sure their fans aren’t planting IEDs around their own stadium. (Maybe the Michigan fans are terrorists?)

Violent Crime is Down, But...

Unfortunately, our police forces don’t need military equipment. The job is safer than it has been since the 1960s (and the increase in heavy weaponry and equipment had little to do with it). It turns out that assaults on police officers have just plummeted overall. Articles in the Huffington Post and The Atlantic both push back a narrative of a “war on cops” that some media outlets have pushed.

As multiple, multiple media outlets have covered post-Ferguson, violent crime is at its lowest level in decades. Ironically--and the records are incomplete, because the government doesn’t track all police shootings--civilian deaths by police are on the rise.

Sigh.

Our Awesomely Privatized Prison System

Why does America have such a large prison population compared to the rest of the world? One reason is that we’ve privatized prisons. Fareed Zakaria, in his “What in the World?” segment, explains the problem:

“Believe it or not, many of our prisons are run by private companies that then lobby state legislatures massively for bigger prisons, larger budgets, and of course more prisoners.

“According to the non-profit Justice Policy Institute, the two largest private prison companies in America together generate revenues of $3 billion a year – paid by taxpayers, of course. These private prison companies also happen to be major donors to a number of state campaigns, lobbying for more resources.”

We’ve haven’t touched on the deplorable state of our prisons before. (Consider it one of many issues like gun violence, war films, and COIN board games, which we’d write about more if we had more time.) But we have written about privatizing law enforcement, which we absolutely oppose.

Also, Leon Neyfakh, over at Slate, offers a new theory for the America’s developed-country-leading incarceration rate: overly aggressive prosecutors. Stay tuned for more on this.

A Good Plan for the Department of Homeland Security: Shut it Down!

We’ve read two persuasive articles on this in the last two years. This article in Bloomberg Business, by Charles Kenny of the New America Foundation, advocates for shutting down the entire Department of Homeland Security as an over-reaction to 9/11 and the terrorism threat. This week, with Republicans threatening DHS funding, we agree with Dara Lind at Vox to just let it go. We still hold the hope that libertarian-minded Republicans will one day consider national security spending as wasteful as other government spending.

Al Qaeda FBI Continues to Lead All Al Qaeda Branches in Planned Attacks

Journalist Trevor Aaronson (we’ve written about his work here) has an entire book, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism, on how the FBI plans, launches and captures suspected terrorists. While these stings bring us no closer to stopping actual Al Qaeda terrorists, they do waste the FBI’s time convincing people to launch “terror attacks”. The last supposed domestic terrorist was an exemplar of FBI agents encouraging, motivating, funding and training an otherwise harmless person.

Jan 05

If you read our post on “The Most Thought Provoking Events of the Year So Far: Bowe Bergdahl and Boko Haram”, then you read this:

“Then Iraq fell apart. (Spoiler alert: that’s our most thought-provoking event of the year. Unless some absolutely devastating catastrophe occurs between now and then.)”

And then we found out--or more accurately, Congress confirmed--that our country tortured detainees during the war on terror, including rectal feeding, the killing of prisoners, the capture and detention of innocent men, and many other war crimes and human rights abuses.

We both consider the torture report an “absolutely devastating catastrophe”. Not in terms of a foreign policy crisis, but a catastrophe of constitutional proportions; a revelation that America had, in response to 9/11, violated its core principles in a way that ranks with the worst sins in American history, like internment, the Sedition Act and Watergate.

For Michael C, the torture report was bad, but not bad enough to displace Iraq as the most thought provoking event of the year. For Eric C, it was all he could think, read or write about for a week. Frankly, we still don’t agree. To quote Intelligence Squared, “Well, that sounds like the makings of a debate, so let’s have it”: what mattered more in 2014: Iraq Redux or the Torture Report?

Eric C’s Argument:

I’ll concede one point early on: I certainly think both events are thought-provoking. (Though on a technical, behind-the-scenes level, I don’t feel as confident as Michael C writing about Iraq as I do writing about torture.) But the torture report matters more than America intervening again in Iraq, because of what it represents symbolically.

With Iraq, America just ended up making the same mistakes, again. With the torture report, at least we’re trying to learn from our mistakes. In short, Iraq represents more of the same; the torture report represents a country trying to move forward. At least there was a debate.

And that, to me, is what truly matters. After 9/11, our country made mistakes, and if we write about the torture report, I feel that On Violence can add to the chorus of people, pundits and writers trying to make our country better; with Iraq, I don’t feel like the lessons will be learned.

Michael C’s Argument:

Each year Eric C and I pick the most “thought-provoking” event of the year--the event that inspires the most unique thoughts or ideas--then we write about that for a week (or two). On that front, Iraq Redux just inspires more unique, On-V-esque ideas than the torture report.

Iraq Redux had poor media coverage (the constant threat of invading Baghdad; over-hyping of the threat of ISIS), fearmongering on terrorism (the beheadings of Western journalists), discussion of counter-insurgency theory (the debate on airstrikes or more troops in Baghdad), the ramifications of international relations theory (including the duty to protect innocents versus realism versus liberalism) to start.

This isn’t to say the release of the Senate’s report on torture isn’t thought-provoking. It pretty soundly took over the media for a cycle. It also unites certain conservatives and liberals. And it shows the uniqueness of democracies: how often in history have rulers of a country willingly admitted they committed war crimes?

But most of our post ideas aren’t unique, but more filled with outrage that it happened in the first place. That isn’t unique or thought provoking per se, just morally outraging.

Eric C’s Conclusion:

I’ve decided to concede this argument, for two reasons. The first is practical, but intellectually not admirable: we’re mostly done with a whole bunch of posts on Iraq and we (the Cummings Bros) have a very busy month ahead of us.

But on a thematic, what-this-blog-is-working-towards level, in discussing torture (the release of the torture report), Iraq (the rise of ISIS and America “needing” to engage Iraq militarily for the fourth time in four decades), and the NSA (the release of Citizen 4 and more revelations of citizen snooping), a new theme emerged:

America has begun pushing back on our collective over-reaction to 9/11.

Altogether, the outlines of a new series and an essay or two emerged, which we plan/hope to finish in the next few months, after we write about Iraq and a bunch of other random topics. A number of themes of the blog--the dehumanization of our enemies, the world is getting safer, an unquestioning faith in the national security establishment--help explain America’s overreaction to 9/11, and we want to explore it.

So enjoy our series on Iraq Redux, which begins tomorrow. But expect much, much more in the year ahead.

Dec 22

(Before we begin, as happens every holiday season, On V will be “On-V-cation” until January fifth.)

Welcome to our 700th post. Though we’ve been posting less frequently, we’re still adding to the collection. As we like to do every hundred posts, we’re sharing our best/favorite posts from the last 100.

To read more “Best of On V” collections, check out the sidebar or click here.

By the far the biggest, most popular series we’ve ever done was our “debunking/getting the facts out” about the Lone Survivor film and memoir. First off, find the comprehensive, 4,000-plus word comparison article here. We jumped at the chance to shrink that post down and sent it to Slate. In December, we analyzed Luttrell’s 60 Minutes interview, where he repeated many of the mistakes in the book, and we discovered a new mistake: that Ahmad Shah “killed 20 Marines the week before”. Finally, we detailed the appalling media coverage of the film’s release.

We also took on the mishandling of COIN in both the book and the movie.

To read all of our Luttrell/Lone Survivor articles, click here.

We finally got around to creating a home page for our “Getting Orwellian” series, now collected here. Our two favorite language posts were “Haters Gonna Hate, Hate, Hate: Getting Orwellian on Hate Speech” and  “Islamo-Nazi-Facists: Getting Orwellian on Islamofascism”.

We also wrote about two wars that never happened in North Korea and Syria. On Syria, our favorite posts were “Syria-sly? or: the Media Coverage on Syria So Far” and “An Open Letter to Our Representatives on Syria”. Finally, Michael C wrote “I'm an Isolationist?”. Expect us to hit this theme hard next year.

On V's Most Thought Provoking Event of 2013” last year was the NSA. Unfortunately, the government’s still fighting terrorism ineffectively and violating our civil liberties, so expect more on this as well.

Other prominent series included our “Our Belated Week (or Month) on the 2013 Oscars”, Eric C’s series on how “COIN is Boring”. And Michael C started, but hasn’t finished, “The (Opportunity) Costs of Security”.

To close, some of our favorite individual posts were “The Non-Traditional On Violence Reading List” and Michael C’s not-nearly-read-enough guest post “The Officer as Manager Reading List” at “The Best Defense”. We also like “(Non-Time Travel) Thoughts on "Looper"”, “America Looks Gross Naked” and “The Moral Argument Against War Validating One's Existence”.

Enjoy, and once again, thank you for everyone’s support.