Are we the chosen ones?

There is (and has been) a sense of American destiny. The sense that this country is the one and only model for enlightened government, culture and all else. Whether it is the "Shining City on a Hill", "Manifest Destiny" or the more current scents of American imperialism, there is a deeply held belief among much of the American population that we are the example for the rest of the world to follow.

I'm not going to enumerate the ways that world culture can influence this country for the better. Frankly, to me, when it comes to matters of culture, the more the better. Be it music, food, movies or other forms of art, I think the mixing different cultures inevitably create more than the sums of their parts. So, let me put paid to American cultural imperialism once and for all. It is in our best interest to revel in the various world cultures that reach our shores, not to try and override them with mass produced generic Americana.

Now, as for political and economic destiny . . . there is a question. Is corporate capitalism the best economic model for everyone? Is representative democracy the best governmental model for everyone? These are tough questions made tougher still by my lack of in-depth understanding of various world cultures where these questions are more open for debate than others.

As for me, here is what I think. Corporate capitalism is not the best economic model for everyone. In fact, I would go so far as to say it the not the best model for much of anyone. In purer forms of capitalism, the markets exert power over the various entities participating in them. When all forces on the markets are more or less equal, the "invisible hand" works its magic and things tend to work out according to the preferences of consumers as expressed by their buying decisions. I think, though, that large corporations warp that. Perhaps the best analogue I can offer is one of gravitational theory. All bodies exert some gravitational pull. The larger the body, the greater the pull. Thus the Sun has a greater pull than Jupiter which has a greater pull than Earth and so on. Scientists demonstrate this using the idea of bends in the space-time continuum. Imagine empty space as a flat plane. Every celestial body that exists on that plane dimples it to some extent. I might make a barely noticeable dent while the Sun makes a huge one. I think enormous sums of money act in much the same way on the fabrics of markets. Mega-corporations deform the evenhandedness of markets in many ways. Examples of this are purchasing political influence, using their capital as leverage against competitors, using their money to buy prime locations and so on. When these large sums of money are used to overwhelm market obstacles, the invisible hand is tied.

Beyond this, though, there are cultural considerations to economics. The culture of America is a can-do sort of thing. Be it hardscrabble pioneers, lone cowboys, the Horatio Alger stories, or the modern multi-millionaire, we have always valued independence and self-reliance. Given that cultural motif, it is no wonder that capitalism flourished here. What then of economies not based in such a cultural tradition? Could it be that some cultures are more suited to an economic system that promotes collective effort instead of individualism? Could it be that some cultures are more suited to a more top-down ordering? I do not know - this is the sort of deep cultural knowledge I lack, but my gut tells me that this could be the case. If it is, then economic imperialism on the part of America is the wrong thing to do. It is an interesting thought, and one that I'm not sure I have the requisite cultural background to speak to. I think, though, it is worth keeping in mind as we seek to find our way in this world.

As for political destiny, I think much the same logic applies. As Americans, we are, to a large degree, shaped by our culture. As such, certain ideas are inculcated in us by our very exposure to that culture. If a person is not exposed to that same culture, can we assume that they may have different ways of looking at the world? That their idea of good government might be very different from ours?

I think where I'm going with this is a sort of "Prime Directive" for American foreign policy. Politics, economics and culture are three sides of the same coin if you will (hmm, a three sided coin). Any foreign policy which fails to take in to account all three of these is a policy that is likely bad for the countries on which we apply it, but also it is likely doomed to failure as the backlash from the ignored part (usually the culture) will create tremendous dissatisfaction with the other parts. While it is possible to attempt to force a political system or an economic system onto a nation, trying to force a cultural shift has never gone well. The people of a nation have to realize for themselves what they want. The agents for change in any country must always be the citizens of that country. It is unwise in the extreme to effect change in a country from the outside - ultimately the citizenry MUST decide for themselves what they want. So, a wise foreign policy might be a "Hands Off" policy.

There are two major arguments to that. First of all, the world is a quilt of nations, and to imagine each as an independent entity without any influence on its neighbors (for good or ill) is wrong. If our neighbor starts to play with bombs in his back yard, that must cause us to respond - it would be irresponsible not to. So, at some point, the rule of self protection/preservation must overtake the "hands-off" rule. Second, what about grave violations of human rights? In cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing and so on, do we not have a responsibility to act? Is there some overarching principle that says that we must intervene in cases of grave human suffering?

The answer is, to both parts, yes. I think, though, the burden must be on those who wish to intervene to prove that this intervention is necessary. It should be the policy to stand aside and let a nation's culture, economy and politics evolve under its own terms. That is the essence of freedom, to be freed from someone else's belief of how you should be.

They Were the Breast of Times, They Were the Worst of Times

Long time, no blog, eh? Well, with Christmas, a nascent county commission campaign and the Panther's run to the Superbowl, I kinda lost track of things. But, I'm back.

First topic up? What else, boob/breast/nipple-gate. And, I'll be quick and to the point. Don't we have something better to do with our time?

• There's a presidential primary.


• The new budget, with a deficit of $500 billion (not including Mars missions, funds for Iraq or Afghanistan) is out there.


• Some homegrown terrorists in Texas built a cyanide bomb.


• Ricin, a deadly poison was found in the Senate office building.


• Our vice-president went on a cushy hunting trip with one of the judges (Antonin Scalia) in his upcoming trial about secrecy.


• Serious questions about our president having been derelict in his duty to the National Guard keep popping up.


• The WMD Intel Investigation chair is a judge with ties to the October Surprise scandal, the Iran Contra scandal and was none too impartial in his treatment of Bill Clinton.


• A staffer in the Senate Majority Leader's office allegedly stole hundreds of memos from the Senate Democrats' file server. His defense was that a) they should have patched the hole and b) the evidence that the Dems consulted with outside officials regarding judicial appointments is the end that justified the means.


• The Valerie Plame outing investigation appears to be nearing conclusion with indictments expected soon against a VERY senior staffer in our vice-president's office.


• Another VERY mediocre job growth report from January, which has been trumpeted as the sign from above that the economy is good.

I could go on, but I think my point is clear. We, as a nation, have a lot to think about, and wasting a week on a two second flash of breast on TV is ludicrous.

And let's stop for a second and consider that flash. I was watching (I'm ashamed to admit) the halftime show. Ashamed because that means I was abetting this ridiculous example of flash and style. Anyway, I was watching when the incident happened. It was shown for maybe two seconds. My reaction was, "Huh? What was that?" And it was gone before I could double check to see if I saw what I thought I saw. Now, I was at a party for the game. There were around twenty-five or so folks there, and as far as I could tell, I was one of only two who thought they saw something. Now one must wonder how much damage a two second flash could to to ANYONE, particularly a flash from long range. I find all these accounts of horrifying damage to the fabric of our nation to be a bit (okay, a lot) overwrought.

Secondly, let's stop for a moment and think about this. It's a breast. Half of us come equipped with them, the other half have likely seen them at some point. It's not something that's earth-shattering by any means. What is so all-fired EVIL about a two second, long range, flash of a human breast.

Now, if folks want to complain not so much about the breast, but the general tone of the show, then, perhaps, there is something to talk about. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to the content of entertainment, but I can see that the halftime show was not exactly G-rated fare, and that the halftime show of the Superbowl perhaps should be. That is a discussion worth having. I hope that all the folks out there who are upset by that content recognize that this is, to a large extent, the sort of stuff that is the staple of popular music today. The performances were no real surprise for me - I own Kid Rock's last album, and I've heard enough Nelly and P. Diddy to know what their material is like. Do I think it is suitable for all ages? Nope. Should it have been? Yep - since the Superbowl is, in theory, an all ages affair. Of course, I think the advertisements on sporting events have been bordering on PG for a while anyway, and the fixation on erectile dysfunction remedies certainly wasn't exactly family fare. And, in terms of square inches and close looks, I saw more of the Patriot cheerleaders' cleavage than I did Janet's.

Of course, I am a football fan. To me, all halftime shows should be a couple of marching bands and enough time to get snacks and drinks. Extended halftimes tear up fields, interrupt the flow of the game, and also present problems of staying loose for the athletes. That is, to me, enough reason to stop this sort of thing.

So, if you were offended by the halftime show, speak up. Once you have registered your displeasure, let's drop it and get on with more meaningful topics. Also, take the time to realize that the music and lyrics that so offended you are precisely the sort of thing found on mainstream radio today. That means the country is buying the records and listening to the music. Perhaps a more constructive dialogue would be with our children about why they like this music and why you do not. Maybe we can all learn something from interacting with our children.

Nah - let's run over to the internet and check out the extreme close up of the breast seen round the world again.