Afghanistan: The Irrelevance of Race and Nationality in the 21st Century (The Tattoo Question)

I spent some time in Afghanistan...

I read somewhere once that if you could create a single human who is most representative of the entire human race, based on the prevalence of all phenotypes throughout the global population, you would have an Afghani. 

For those who don't know, Afghanis are not Arabs. They are separated from the Arab world by Persia (now Iran . . . which is also not Arab) and are wedged against Pakistan (Indian subconinent) the "-istan" countries (all central Asian, former U.S.S.R.) and China. There are fair skinned, blue eyed Afghanis, distinctly Tibetan-Asian looking Afghanis and very dark, Punjabi looking Afghanis. Of course there are also interesting combinations of all of those.

The complicated racial and tribal composition of Afghanistan has definitely been a challenging factor for anyone who has ever wanted to get anything done there. In the context of my recent whirlwind of travel I find it indicative of a global reality. Race no longer means anything.

We identify with people who look like us. We gravitate toward the familiar. 

The thing that we call "race" is not really a scientific term. The clusters of phenotype expressions that we recognize as race (African, Asian, Latin etc.) are really just strains - variations within a 46-chromosome chassis that all humans share, regardless of how different they may appear.

Why are we so different? 

We're different because for the majority of human history, populations have been isolated to specific regions. Inuit people of the polar North tend to be short, heavy-set and eastern-Asiatic in appearance. Watusi people from the arid plains of Africa tend to be tall and thin. These characteristics are shaped by climate, geography and diet to name a few. Basic evolution dictates that shortness and stoutness will be prevalent among the Inuit because those qualities favor heat retention and the ability to easily convert sparse carbohydrates into fat. The tall, thin Watusi, inversely, are able to easily dissipate heat, and their light construction is well suited to hunting over great distances on foot.

Human strains are products of these simple environmental inputs. For the majority of our history it was impractical if not impossible for people separated by great distances, oceans, mountains and deserts to fan out and contribute to distant gene pools. Therefore, specific geographic regions tended to produce populations whose prevailing characteristics were more and more stark.

Watusi aren’t just tall, thin and black – they’re very tall, very thin and very black.

Since people sharing those characteristics were living among one another - the common appearance, the common language and the resulting common experience lent themselves to the perception of communality. When it all takes place in a specific geographic area, communality becomes nationality.

We identify with people who look like us. We gravitate toward the familiar. It is perhaps an unspoken understanding that those who look like us share our fate, and that conditions which are good for them will be good for us as well. We're cautious and uncertain when it comes to those who do not look like us.

Afghanistan is unique because people from that place look like everyone. It sits at a historical crossroads between east and west. A literal crossroads.

Today, descendants of Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great drive around in wildly painted Chinese flatbed tractor-trailer trucks; speaking Urdu and Dari and praying to the God of Abraham. This is a place where geography allowed people to mingle. That's why the Afghani is the quintessential, generic human.

Leaving Afghanistan I was dropped into Dubai. Suddenly surrounded by families and children. Dubai also sits at a crossroads; a crossroads of ancient shipping lanes whose old port infrastructure still handles everything from palm oil to bats of raw silk. 

Dubai is still a convenient stopping point, but now it's a conduit for people going from Australia to London, Johannesburg to Amsterdam, or Chicago to Lagos. As you pass through the terminal you see just how completely those old barriers that gave humanity it's distinct strains are no longer relevant. People from anywhere can now go anywhere else in a matter of hours. Mountains and valleys no longer confine populations. A shepherd from Wales can meet a shepherd from Morocco at a sheep herding convention in Auckland. This is the way it is. 

Invariably, as people travel unlimited distances, they will meet other people, relationships will form, sex will be had and babies will be born who look a little bit Moroccan and a little bit Kiwi.

Back in the days of compasses and tall ships this happened in small doses, but now the floodgates are open. Now the whole world is a crossroads.

The Inuit and Watusi can meet in a breakfast buffet at the Days Inn by the airport in Charlotte, then run off and make a baby. You know what? . . . The kid will probably be gorgeous.

...it's downright silly for me to ascribe just about anything to my bloodline.

I have been debating a tattoo for quite some time. I think a tattoo should have some meaning. It should suggest something about you. 

When we take stock of who we are we tend to run through some familiar categories. Hobbies, work, family, meaningful experiences and of course . . . ethnicity.

A casual stroll through the Benson-Hurst neighborhood of Brooklyn (or a few episodes of "Jersey Shore") will showcase all of the tattoo options for Italian-Americans. Apparently, this is me. Unfortunately, I am not at all partial to golden bull-horns or Lamborghinis with red, green and white paint schemes so none of those would ever do.

A few years ago, Kasey and I went to Europe. When we were in Rome, we noticed the initials 'SPQR' were stamped into various things like manhole covers and lamp posts. I wasn't sure if it was the name of a foundry or a concrete company at first, but I eventually got the skinny. SPQR stands for "Senatus Populus Que Romanus" or "The Senate and the People of Rome". A Caesarian declaration! It's a remnant of the Roman empire! Cool!

It's smart, it's a little mysterious, it's essentially political, it looks cool as hell in a bold Roman font and it's indicative of my Italian heritage without being too guido. Perfect!

"SPQR" right across my clavicles!

But as is the case with me, certainty led to more questions.

I started really thinking about the whole "Italian heritage" thing. 

Do I love my grandma? Of course. Do I love meatballs? Yes. Would I love to retire in Tuscany? Absolutely Would I love to park my Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano on the glossy white marble floor of my garage, which is behind my retirement villa in Tuscany? Yes, yes, yes!!!

But what about you? Do you love your grandma? Do you like meatballs? How does the villa in Tuscany with the Ferrari on the impossibly clean marble floor sound to you? Are you Italian?

Maybe you are and maybe you aren't, my point is this: Being Italian is not a prerequisite for any of the above, therefore it is silly for me to ascribe my penchant for these things to my bloodline. In fact it's downright silly for me to ascribe just about anything to my bloodline.

Does my family have a distinct character? You better believe it, but how much of that is truly a product of something endemic to the Italian peninsula vs. the natural vibe that emerges due to overlapping generations of unique personalities? What about those who are adopted or are absorbed into the family by marriage? Are they outsiders? Do they struggle to fit in because they can't trace their DNA back to Italy?

The very notion is absurd. Of course they fit in. Of course they're family. If they yell, gesticulate, eat cannolis and swill red wine like an Italian, then I guess those behaviors ultimately have nothing to do with genetic predisposition. I guess those things are learned over years of Sunday dinners and Christmas Eve's at Grandma and Grandpas house. 

So if I declare something about my "heritage" across my clavicles, what am I really saying? I'm saying, 

"This informs my world-view and my perception of truth. This is a component of who I am. This is one thing you don't have to learn about me because I am writing it on my skin."

In a few hundred years, the ability to distinguish yourself as a member of one group or another will become more and more difficult and equally pointless.

I don't suppose there is any real harm in that, but when I consider the merging paths of all strains of the human genome  I fail to see the value or the point.

What we perceive as "race" has always been an affectation of geography and human logistics - two forces that have been overcome with global travel and instant communication. As our gene pools get wider and deeper, these little fantasies that we maintain about the unique cultural experiences that supposedly make us who we are will become less and less plausible. 

Eventually, the differences between the Italian experience, the Irish experience, the Nigerian experience and the Japanese experience will all be revealed as minor variations on the same theme. In a few hundred years, the ability to distinguish yourself as a member of one group or another will become more and more difficult and equally pointless.

Some may say, "But I love the diversity of the human race!"

Well don't worry. It's going to take more than a few generations to manifest itself, but make no mistake - it is the natural course.

Some may say, "My (insert ethnicity here) background is a major component of who I am and it will be a major component of who my children are as well. It's important to be connected to your past."

Your ethnicity is as much a component of your personality as you want it to be. There are members of every ethnic group that defy the stereotype and must constantly field accusations that they are not being true to who they are. In fact, they are exemplary models of being true to oneself. As far as connection to your past is concerned, you will hear no argument from me if you are extolling the virtue of knowing your history and gleaning wisdom from those who have come before you, but if you are suggesting that it is critical to embody something that a previous generation embodied you are wrong.

Who was your maternal great great great great great great grandfather? You can skip the ancestry.com stuff, I don't mean name and occupation, I mean who was he? What was he like? When did he first fall in love? What was his favorite color? What was his dream in life? When was his first kiss? What did he fear most?

Okay, so you really don't know him do you? Do you speak the same language he spoke? How do you think he would feel to know that his great great great great great great grandchild was speaking a foreign language in a foreign country? Does it matter?

How likely is it that your great great great great great great grandchild won't know who the hell you are or speak the same language you speak? Pretty likely . . . and honestly, who cares? 

Some may say, "I am a pure (insert ethnicity) and I can't stand the idea of my pure race being mongrelized!"

You aren't a pure anything except for a pure asshole. You are what's wrong with humanity and you are doomed. Your ilk exist in every strain of the human species and you all labor under the same infantile, simple-minded, ill conceived fantasy that propagation of your phenotype is tantamount to eternal life.

Well too bad you dunce! You're gonna die and your ideas will die with you.

Right, the tattoo...

So even though "SPQR" would look cool, I will refrain from calling upon my ethnicity because I am confronted with the reality that my race doesn't REALLY say anything quintessential about me.

I prefer to take full responsibility for who I am, without attributing anything to a place I've only visited and long dead relatives that I never had a chance to know.

So my new tattoo idea is this:

In bold, Romanesque font across my clavicles I will get "EGO SUM NON CERTUS"

Translation: "I AM NOT SURE"

Person: Is that a tattoo?

Me: Yes

Person: What does it say?

Me: It says Ego sum non certus.

Person: Hmm . . . What does that mean?

Me: I'm not sure

Person: You don't know what it means?

Me: I know exactly what it means.

Person: What does it mean?

Me: I'm not sure

etc.

It will be in latin, so it's a little pretentious (like me). It essentially suggests uncertainty and an eternal receptiveness to alternative versions of reality (that's totally me). It's 100% smart ass (me) and I will have my own private Abbott and Costello joke that I can enjoy at other's expense for the rest of my life.

This will say more about me than any golden bull-horn or red, green and white Murcielago being driven by Super Mario ever could.

Beside, like-a I say . . . I like a de Ferrari on-a de white marble floor in Toscana!!!

Whatsamatta you no listen!?!?!?!?

Year...

A Whole Effing Year

That's how long it's been since I posted here.

How can I expect anyone to follow this blog or keep any interest whatsoever if that's the level of dedication I demonstrate? Shame on me.

I think it's because I'm vain and lazy. My Facebook feed gets headlines from Politico, Drudge, Politifact, the BBC - all the usual suspects, and it's just so easy to blab about something right there on my wall. That's the lazy part.

The vanity comes in the form of friends and followers who then either engage me with a rebuttal or just tell me I'm awesome. I know the truth. I am not awesome, but it's still gratifying to be praised. This blog was started because I wrote something that went viral and resulted in lots of friend requests from people I don't know; people who fell under the impression that I was awesome. I wanted to keep that illusion going by shielding them from my the inane reality of me, but the blog format is just not as conducive to praise, so there we are.

Lazy and vain.

Perhaps I should delete "The Calm Voice of Rage" and re-title this web space "Lazy and Vain"?

Moving Forward

I'm thinking maybe I should pare things down a bit and focus. Maybe I need to concentrate more on what's interesting. I do pretty interesting stuff in the grand scheme of things. I go interesting places and see interesting things, so maybe I'll focus on that for a while. 

The next series of posts will feature places I've been along with some some brilliant, profound philosophical observations about those places. 

That's the plan. If you're reading this you must really care. I owe it to you to give you a reason.

Free Markets and the Individual

Last year I told my wife that I wanted a new piece of furniture.

I wanted something two people could recline on at the same time, but that wasn't a giant 'recliner'. My wife suggested a 'chair and a half' with an ottoman. After some shopping and careful sale timing we purchased just such a set up at Haverty's; a reputable furniture retailer in our area.

We tend to be rather frugal in most cases, but we've also learned through experience that you get what you pay for, so in this instance we allowed ourselves a bit of a reasonable splurge. I won't get into exact figures for the set, but the ottoman alone was more than I'd expect to pay for a love seat, or even many couches of decent quality.

But this was us not compromising. This was us getting what we wanted.

So the handsome dark leather chair and a half, with matching ottoman, came home with us.

Fast forward a year and I come home to a disappointing development. It seems that someone stood upon the ottoman while decorating the Christmas tree and broke the frame beneath the foam padding on it's corner. The smart, dark leather was sunken and depressed above the obvious structural compromise below. Naturally I found this highly annoying. None of us are morbidly obese, so I would think that a piece of furniture designed to be kicked about and sat on could support the weight of a standard human while placing ornaments on a tree.

Perhaps something had just slipped out of place? A support of some type fallen out of a joint maybe?

So I turned the ottoman over and removed the thin felt on it's underside, which exposed it's wooden structure. What I saw made me shake my head is disgust.

Yes, the support was cracked in half, but worse was the fact that this rather expensive ottoman from a reputable retailer, was framed almost entirely out of cheap, pressed, oriented strand board. Not solid wood. Not even high quality plywood. The break, which ran right across one of the supports, resembled a broken cookie.

So I went down to Lowe's, bought some 1x4 pine board, some wood glue and some screws, and set about rebuilding my ottoman to the spec it should've been built to in the first place.

After-market, solid pine support. First of four. Screwed and glued.

As I drove the last screw I started contemplating the situation and thinking about the free market.

Champions of the free market expound upon it's virtue as an institution that empowers and benefits the individual. 

"Damn the intrusive, meddling hand of regulation!" they say. 

"Let the individual human spirit soar unhindered by oppressive chains of bureaucracy!" they say. 

"We're all individuals, therefore we all benefit from a system that emphasizes the will of the individual. The only ones who think otherwise are the LAZY PARASITES OF SOCIETY!!!" they say.

The theory is, that a free market regulates itself.

Competition motivates suppliers to minimize cost and be efficient, which in turn minimizes consumer price. The suppliers who produce their product most efficiently can get that product to the market for less, charge less to the consumer than their less efficient competitor and win the battle for market share.

The best business person wins and the consumer wins. The only loser is the business who couldn't compete because they weren't efficient enough, and nobody's crying over them. The strong survive in the free market and the consumer wins as a result.

But what happens when the supplier decides to cut corners and shave a little off the bottom line?

"One of two things will happen," say the free market champions. "If the changes they make do not compromise quality, then they get higher profits. If the changes do compromise quality, the consumer will stop buying their product and opt for their competitor's product instead. That business will be forced to change or it will fail. See? The market corrects itself!"

It all sounds very tidy, and for the most part it is, but how does this scenario apply to me and my broken ottoman?

Remember, I am the individual in this scenario. The free market is supposed to benefit me.

I purchased a branded item from a reputable retailer. All of the information readily available to me indicated that the item was well built. 

I suppose I could have pulled out my box cutter on the furniture store showroom and inspected the frame prior to purchase, but I doubt the retailer would have permitted that. 

I could have called the manufacturer and asked for detailed information about their manufacturing process, but how would they differentiate me from their competition? How likely is it that they would send me blueprints and specs, or discuss the qualifications of their staff? Can you think of any corporations that share that information routinely?

So this product is in my home at a very early stage of it's useful life, and it fails. Upon closer inspection I see that the failure was due to substandard materials and workmanship. If I am beyond the warranty period, if any, what can I do?

I can go public. 

I can write a blog entry about my ottoman that indicts Haverty's and in doing so, warns my fellow consumers to reconsider any purchases they make from that retailer or it's suppliers. That will put the pressure on Haverty's to change and in doing so demonstrate the efficacy of the self regulated market. 

Hooray, right?

But wait!

The free market is supposed to be all about the individual. All of the measures I can take at this point may potentially serve other consumers, and may potentially compel the supplier to change, but how does that help the individual, who in this instance is ME?

The individual is screwed (and glued . . . so to speak, sorry).

It seems to me that the free market, which is supposed to serve the individual at the expense of every other overblown social ideal, actually casts the individual aside in the name of the free market itself. The real person who suffers real loss within this free market construct is not even afforded any remedy for their real time issue. Instead, their loss becomes 'information' that informs and compels people and decisions that follow, but otherwise does nothing for that individual in that moment.

(I can hear the eyes rolling)

"Okay so what would you suggest?" the free market champions shout in disgust. "Bigger government? That's alllllllways the answer right? Why don't we just become a society full of babies that can't do anything without a big government 'Mommy' getting involved in everything we do!?!"

Oh settle down . . .

I am not going to die because of a busted support in an ottoman. I managed to get out of Lowe's for about $13 in supplies, so I do not consider myself downtrodden by any means.

In fact, there simply is not enough vital gravity connected to most products and services out there, to justify governmental interference with their free exchange. I don't want government bureaucrats complicating the process of me hiring someone to mow my lawn, nor do I think it makes sense to have stacks of laws constraining the parameters by which picture frames are manufactured. It's annoying when you pay someone that winds up doing crappy work, and it's annoying when you buy something that turns out to be junk, but in the vast majority of cases, it's not the end of the world.  I'm not writing my congressman about the ottoman, believe me. I'm gonna be okay.

It is not my aim to decry the usefulness of the free market in theory. Rather, my experience with the ottoman demonstrates the fact that the free market, despite it's billing as a boon to the cause of the individual, often works to his or her disadvantage.

While most products and services have no patent connection to life and death, or equal protection under the law, some do.

Healthcare, defense, fire protection and law enforcement are industries that come to mind right away as examples of services that absolutely do have a patent connection to life, death, and equal protection under the law. 

It stands to reason therefore, that those industries should not be left to the indiscriminate forces that push and pull toward market equilibrium, all the while producing countless, hapless, individual victims in the wake of every statistical 'correction'. 

We must insist on the society that we deserve. If we shrug off the suffering of individuals victimized by a market that does not think or care, then we do not care. If we feel obliged to tolerate an economic system that harms us, then we are enslaving ourselves for it's sake.

Why would people who champion the cause of the individual, so completely embrace a system that requires individual sacrifice in the name of a broad, societal economic construct? Sounds downright egalitarian if you ask me.

It also sounds wrong.

How to Rightfully Blame Obama

At the risk of sounding like a full throttle Obama endorser (which I am not), I feel compelled to distill some truth from the nonsense that I often hear repeated. As we have considerable difficult decisions, and perhaps even more difficult consequences ahead, I thought it was a good time to make a decision tree.

You see, we have a country with complicated problems. That challenge is made harder by the fact that complicated solutions have been put forward to help solve these problems, followed by oversimplified arguments decrying those complicated solutions, all set amongst a populace who barely understands any of it.

For those who are quick to blame everything from the wind direction to the Honey Boo Boo phenomenon on Obama, I present the following helpful guide. It's poster sized so you can mount it on your wall:

This is not absolution of wrongdoing!

I am not suggesting that it is "correct" to do whatever Bernanke and Geithner tell you to do, I'm suggesting that it's no different from what McCain, Romney, Bush I, Bush II or any mainstream Republican would've done. The oft repeated criticism of Obama is that his economic policies are far left or even socialist in nature.

This is simply not true.

The truth is, our economic woes were caused by a reckless, unchecked investment banking industry which cultivated the problem through the Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush administrations. Presidents act on the advice of their council of economic advisers, Treasury Secretary and Fed Chairman. Those are the people who decide when we need to be alarmed, and when they give dire warnings, Presidents of both parties follow consistently.

Obama's stimulus was not the root of the problem, and you can bet your ass that any other President with the exception of Ron Paul would have printed every single dollar that Obama printed. So if you're whole political paradigm is totally based on blaming Obama, you're not being honest with yourself.

A broad view is required in order to understand what went wrong, and if you don't like the remedy that Obama has put forth so far, CONGRATULATIONS! YOU'RE PAYING ATTENTION!

But guess what?!?! Not even Obama likes the solution Obama put forward! That's the nature of a crisis! If it had a clear, indisputable, absolutely bullet-proof solution, it wouldn't be a crisis would it? You think Bush liked TARP?

You think anybody likes any of this?

Be a savvy consumer of information. Simplifying the problem by heaving it all on Obama prevents us from having the kind of national conversation we need to be having. That conversation is not about parties, personalities or conviction. It's not about birth certificates and Big Bird.

It's about having an economic system that works for us instead of the other way around.

Toddler Patriotism

"Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We freed other nations from dictators." - Mitt Romney (3rd debate)

As an American, how does this quote make you feel? Righteous? Proud? Patriotic? Take ten seconds and really ask yourself that question.

What does it MEAN to love your country? Is it blind love? Does it mean you fixate on it with grand mythological notions of perfection and a fierce resistance to any suggestion that it has ever been wrong? That's the way a toddler loves his mommy. It's 100% passion and 0% reason.

Instead of a toddlers love for mommy, consider the love between a husband and wife on their 50th wedding anniversary. How is that love different from the toddler's?

It's an informed love. It's an intentional love. It's a love wrought from a very real and very accurate understanding of who the other truly is as a person. It's seeing that person's strengths and weaknesses, virtues and vices, successes and failures - and through it all, coming away with the conclusion that you truly love this person completely and totally; not just because fate dropped you in each other's lap, but because you chose one another and cultivated that love for 50 years.

See the difference?

Now I invite you to do some reading. Google 'Salvador Allende' and 'Augusto Pinochet'. I'm not posing as a professor, but in order for my point to make sense, you have to know more than I can reasonably type in the time I devote to these little blurbs.

When you're done, google 'Somoza dynasty' and 'Contras'.

Want the Cliff note version? If you insist:

Salvador Allende was a Marxist. He was also the elected President of Chile in 1970, following free, open, completely democratic elections. The people of Chile chose him as their President through their own free will. He was ousted by a military coup in 1973, led by General Augusto Pinochet, with funds from U.S. taxpayers and logistic and military support from the CIA.

Pinochet was a dictator, installed by the United States, in defiance of the free will of the Chilean people who lived under his tyrannical rule until 1990.

I repeat: A military dictatorship, installed by the United States, in complete disregard for the sovereignty of the Chilean people and the democratic process.

The Somoza dynasty was a hereditary dictatorship that ruled Nicaragua from 1936 to 1979. They were overthrown by a revolutionary movement named after Augusto Cesar Sandino. He was a guy who fought the early Somoza dictatorship and the U.S. control of Nicaragua (by proxy) back in the 1920s.

The party that was inspired by Sandino (the Sandinistas) took control of Nicaragua by revolution in 1980. Over the next four years, while it struggled to get a functional government together, it dealt with terrorist attacks from a group that came to be known as the 'Contras' (translation of 'contra' = 'against').

Why do I call them terrorists? I've made a few posts recently about the definition of terrorism. The Contras routinely hit civilian targets for the explicit purpose of creating fear. Innocent, non-military targets were blown up and shot up. People were kidnapped, women were sexually mutilated, etc. . . .

Reagan called the Contra's "Freedom Fighters" and used stooges like Ollie North to organize the sale of American weaponry to Iran (our enemy, then and now) in order to raise funds outside the view of your elected legislators, and funnel that money to the terrorists in Nicaragua. The separation of powers installed by our founding fathers in the US Constitution was pissed on. Your voice in the form of your elected representation in the legislature was silenced. Your money was funneled to terrorists without your approval. But I digress . . .

For 4 years the Contras failed to unseat the revolutionary government. In 1984, internationally monitored, free, open and fair elections were held in Nicaragua. The Sandinista party faired well in the elections, though other parties won seats as well. It was a legitimate election.

Despite the irrefutable results of the democratic process, the Contras continued to launch terrorist attacks against the UN recognized government, with U.S. support, until 1989. Once again, the U.S. defied the will of the sovereign people of a foreign land because they elected leadership that did not favor the economic welfare of the ultra-rich in America. They tried, but they failed. Democracy has won in Nicaragua (so far), not because of America, but in spite of it.

That's enough history for now, but please consider reading up on the following terms: 'Banana wars', 'Monroe Doctrine', 'Hawaiian statehood'. See if you can identify any common foreign policy themes in your research.

How does this little trip down foreign policy memory lane make you feel? Disgusted? Ashamed? Violated? Does it make you feel anger towards me for insulting mommy? Am I guilty of treason for not professing unabashed pride in absolutely everything that my country has ever done?

How is it possible, that someone who's view of his country is seemingly so negative, can call himself a patriot? How can I claim to LOVE my country, if I am so willing to speak candidly about it's transgressions?

Well a little more history if I may. The following quote is from Senator Carl Schurz in his remarks to the Senate in 1872:

"My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."

My country is not just flags and songs and baseball and fireworks and apple pie and the Super Bowl and hot dogs. My country is the product of intelligence.

The great philosophers and political thinkers like Locke, Hume, Bacon, Montesqieu and Hobbes, inspired our forefathers. They lit the fire in the minds of men like Thomas Paine, John Jay and Benjamin Franklin. These were thinking men, and they seized the opportunity presented by history to take the wisdom of those philosophers, which was just academic babbling at that point, and work them into the creed of a new nation. A Constitution was formed that reflected radical new ideas like popular sovereignty and a Bill of Rights.

This was revolutionary shit and it was FUCKING BRILLIANT!!!!!

The Republic that emerged from the rubble of the revolution and confederation was, and still is, the most remarkable piece of collective reason in modern history. This is what my country is, and I love it.

I am not a toddler.

Just as the old couple of 50 years is fully aware of one another's flaws, so too am I aware of my country's flaws. Just as that old couple knows that at many times over their marriage they have argued and done things they are not proud of, so too I am fully cognizant of the fact that my country has, on many occasions, done things I am not proud of.

And yet, as you look at that couple sitting there at that anniversary party, surrounded by children and grandchildren, they smile and hold each others hand. Each sees in the other a whole and honest composition, complete with beauty and flaws all rolled together to form one thing - a person that they love deeply and completely.

This is how I love my country. This is why I hold no punches when describing the horrible things it has done. This is why I am passionate about describing how it's power has been abused by deceptive charlatans who wave flags and thump Bibles to lull my countrymen into misguided fervor and utter complacency.

" . . . if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."

I want my countrymen to be informed. I want them to know all the dirty little details. I want to strip away the red, white and blue veneer so we can see what's rotten underneath. This is the process of seeing what's 'wrong', so that we can proceed on to 'set right'.

This is truly elevated patriotism, and it's foundation is one of deep, meaningful love.

Now let's get back to Governor Romney's quote. Here it is again:

"Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We freed other nations from dictators." 

I have tried, in these few paragraphs, to give you all a few examples of American foreign policy in action over the latter half of the 20th century. I have invited you to do your own research. I've given some key phrases that you can look up without any specific links to biased sources, so you can reach your own conclusions on the topic in the privacy of your own mind, without my overbearing voice demanding that you admit anything.

Based on the information I've shared (which again, I encourage you to scrutinize) is Governor Romney's statement true?

If it is not, why is he saying it?

Does he not know? Has no one ever told him? How can he suggest himself for the office of the President if he does not know these things?

Well friends, the truth is, he knows damn well that what he said is not true. He knows damn well that we install dictators and exert the will of the economic aristocracy all over the world. He knows damn well that American taxpayers have been kept ignorant, while their tax dollars fund illegal wars. He knows damn well that our volunteer military has been confiscated by the wealthy and sent off to obscure little countries to risk their lives and limbs for commerce, all under the guise of 'freedom'.

He knows this because he IS the aristocracy. They are his investments, and the investments of his echelon, that are threatened by popular uprisings and free, fair elections in places like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Egypt. He wants to perpetuate the lie that our presence abroad is all about 'freedom and democracy' because he knows how those words make you feel.

Proud. Righteous. Patriotic. Willing to fight!

He is lying to appeal to the toddler. He does not want you to have the love of the old couple, because that is a love that sometimes puts it's foot down and says, "No!" That is a love that acknowledges what's 'wrong' and endeavors to 'set right'.

Friends, guys like Mitt Romney can't get anything done in THAT America.

He needs toddler patriots who love mommy just because it's mommy. He needs people who get teary eyed when they think of flags and songs and baseball and fireworks and apple pie and the Super Bowl and hot dogs - but otherwise don't know a damn thing about what their country does or why it does it.

He needs to know that if a leader is elected in Peru or Namibia that threatens his investments, he can start telling you tall tales about 'terror' and 'threats to our freedom', and you'll line right up to go fight! This is why he spouts this mockery of true patriotism. This is why he told you something that this evidence and much, much more, shows to be a bold lie. (please keep researching! don't take my word for it!)

I am asking you now, not to be a toddler patriot. Do not allow yourself to think of America as a beacon of righteousness that is beyond reproach. It may seem virtuous at first but it absolutely is not.

I am asking you to know the truth about how your country, which possesses all of the necessary qualities to be amazingly good, has been set wrong by those who are abusing it's will in the pursuit of money and monopolized power. You need to know these things because your willingness to address those flaws is absolutely necessary.

I am asking you to see not just the lie itself, but the ultimate motive behind the lie. See the whole construct. Think of it in historical perspective.

I am asking you to reject those who seek to keep you in the dark, and who try to dress up that ignorance as if it's something to be proud of. They do not respect you. They do not care about you. They see you as capital, over which they seek control. Fuck them.

I respect you enough to think that you SHOULD KNOW the truth, so that we can all make active, meaningful contributions to the process of setting right, that which has been made wrong.

We ARE this great American Republic. We have an obligation to ourselves, our posterity and the rest of the world, to faithfully embody everything that we truly stand for. This is patriotism and this is what I plant my flag in.

I hope you see the virtue in that, and I hope you do the same.

Laitabu

A few videos from Papua New Guinea.

 Video #1 "Laitabu"

A sink hole is discovered in the newly blazed road. The Huli believe this is a place where an ancestor has been trapped by a landslide. They have a specific ritual that must be carried out in such a situation. This is necessary to free the trapped ancestor and ensure everyone's safety.






Video #2 "Coffee, Gardens and Marsupials"

My driver, Tapi, invites me into his clan's enclave to see their garden and sample some Huli hospitality. I pick some coffee, eat some vegetables I've never heard of and nearly bust my ass after slipping on slick mud.

Coffee with the Clan

Spent an interesting afternoon with Tapi's extended clan in their compound. I picked coffee from a tree (which was why Tapi brought me there...he couldn't believe I had never seen a coffee tree), then I ate something called "peet-peet" which was a lot like celery, then I chewed some sugar cane - which, as you might suspect, tasted like sugar.

It was an organic, totally communal subsistence farm that supported a clan of about 20 people. They had mounds of kau-kau, banana trees, avocado, cassava (a.k.a. taro root), pumpkins, pigs, chickens, onions and some kind of berries on a vine. 

Men, women, children, babies and elders . . . all living together. Young mothers nursed infants while the older women kept an eye on the bigger kids. Children probably 8 or 9 years old carried babies around with confidence and sure feet. Naked toddlers chased chickens.

Friends, I'm not stripping down and putting a bone through my nose (yet). I like the comforts of modern society and I am not ashamed to admit it, but this is humanity in it's natural state. We are social creatures. We form communities naturally because we derive benefit from our communities. 

Day care facilities are not natural, nursing homes are not natural, workplaces that demand a complete disconnect from our families for 8 hours a day are not natural. These things are the chains of a people that have enslaved themselves. These institutions are the products of a selfish society that claims to be free, but are we?

Do you want to drop your kids off at a day care at 6:30am on your way to work? Do you like how you feel walking out of a nursing home after visits that are never long enough to make grandma happy? Do you like being too tired to cook at the end of your work day?

Of course not. No one does. It's not normal. We never chose these things because we wanted them, they became normal because they became necessary. Our society is engineered in such a way that we must defy all conventions to avoid exchanging cash for sustenance and the nurturing of our loved ones. 

It's wrong friends. We all know it. We all feel it. We cannot call ourselves "free" if we are compelled by binding societal convention, to accept terms that feel wrong in our marrow. That is the opposite of freedom.

Again, I have no bone in my nose. I am not calling for an agrarian revolution. Here's what I am saying:

We must be intentional in the way we construct our society. There are working societal models all over the world, and while none of them may offer a direct, apples-to-apples, turn-key replacement for ours; they do offer wisdom. They offer examples and clues about how to make the connection between what feels right in our marrow and the choices we must make to get to that place.

Good soil, clean water, good crops, everyone valued, needs met, beauty, togetherness, community . . .

These are clues! This is wisdom!

We can learn something from this if we're smart. We can make our own society better if we take what works and adapt it to our circumstances. We have to try.

Anything that stops us is bullshit.

(Incidentally, I did shoot video of all of this and as soon as I have a stronger internet connection I'll post it . . . And yes, I am aware of the irony of that statement.)