In about 60 hours, we begin our yearlong adventure, Step One in what we hope will be a lifelong discovery of this magnificent planet we all share.
Getting to this point was a true labor of love and only possible with the determination and support of my wife Pen and our two lovely daughters, Abigail and Eleanor. Walking away from a 23 year radio and music career was a difficult decision. But this grand plan of ours, to journey first to Mexico to write the novel and screenplay about a subject near and dear to my heart, to take a little time in Mexico to better understand the social complexities and to drink in the fabulous culture and history of this wonderful country and to explore fair trade opportununities that can create real, long term prosperity for people in their home countries, has become an all consuming passion.
On Friday, we will close on the sale of our house, head north to Ocracoke Island for a weekend of spiritual strengthening and recommitment. We will take about a week to travel in the southern U.S., saying goodbye to friends and family, bear witness to the devastation still evident from Hurricane Katrina and cross the border at Brownsville, Texas and Matamores, Mexico. We'll continue south along the gulf coast and head west into the interior to Patzcuaro in Michocan Province.
My hope is to keep a daily journal of our travels and experiences. Keep up with us we explore Southern Mexico, Belize and Guatemala as time and finances allow. We'll be seeking out family owned coffee plantations and taking many side trips to the countless villages throughout the region, each specializing in some unique textile or craft.
Check often and learn more about this beautiful continent of ours.
60 Hours and Counting!
Geography and geopolitics have been my passions since childhood. I consider myself fortunate that, despite criticisms to the contrary, I can credit an excellent public school education. Maybe it was my good fortune to be the product of a small suburban California school district of the 70's but even now I think back to those excellent teachers who inspired me to study history and to be endlessly fascinated with foreign and unfamiliar places. To this day I still have to read the paper to start my day and check Reuters and CNN constantly throughout the day to stay informed.
As I've mentioned previously, I count myself among the few who actually enjoys reading the steady stream of government reports that are generated by our federal government. While it can be tedious to sift through multi-hundreds of pages from a standard government study, at times you stumble across real nuggets of information that put political or social issues into context that no one in the media bothers to report. This has often been to my advantage in my weekly radio show, currently on hiatus as I venture off to write this novel. It is amazing to me that we pay billions of dollars a year to have dedicated professionals analyze countless aspects of life and report their findings that few people will read yet are critical aspects of our constitutional form of government.
It is also amazing how often statements by our elected and appointed representatives are in complete contradiction to published facts from their own departments suggesting that they either don't bother reading their own data or have confidence that any misinformation they put forth as fact will never be verfied or called into question by a passive media. It is an important statement on the state of modern politics and media. When the framers devised our unique "experimental" form of government, it was obvious how skeptical they were of power and how meticulously they crafted a system of checks and balances to assure that none of the three formal branches of government would ever amass a monopoloy of power. Even more interesting was how skeptical we, the people were of those framers by insisting in our first amendment that the assurance of a free and independent press always be at the ready to call into question the actions of our government. Since the John Adams administration, the executive and the congress have attempted to rein in the media, starting with the passage, and eventual repeal, of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. Throughout the 225 years of our history, the government has made repeated attempts to put the "fourth estate" in its place with mixed results. But the most successful of these was the Communications Act of 1934 which placed the electronic media under the auspices of the Federal Government. The government argues that the airwaves, at that time specifically radio, belongs to the public and thus fell under the authority of the federal government. It gave itself the power to put forth an
"ACT To provide for the regulation of interstate and foreign communication by wire or
radio, and for other purposes". This act eventually led to the creation of the Federal Communications Commission whose purpose was to guarantee "a rapid, efficient, Nationwide,
and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable
charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and
property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several a gencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication." While benign in wording, in truth, the FCC was empowered with choosing who would be legally acceptable to broadcast messages over the air. Through licensure, broadcasters underwent the scrutiny of the government every few years to detemine if whether or not their right to broadcast was in the "public interest." This power over the media assured that only the most compliant and mainstream of individuals and companies would withstand the application process and be granted a license to broadcast.
What the federal government was able to assure was that electronic media would continually censor itself so as to not fall out of favor with the government. To broadcasters it was a trade off. The government would give them limitless access to make billions of dollars in advertising revenue provided that the airwaves did not put the government under too poweful of a microscope. Yes, they could criticize but, were they to get to close to reporting the "sausage making process" of government, and, in the process, incur the wrath of the executive. legislative or judicial branch that provides various mechanisms of oversight, those commissioners who periodically review those licenses to broadcast... and, literally, print money... could have licenses revoked. This Damacles Sword of regulation assured that license holders would be highly unlikely to broadcast or airwave access to broadcasters who would provide too close of scrutiny to the governmental process. Rather, the electronic media invests the vast amount of its broadcast time to "entertainment." While political statements and positions may leak out periodically masked in music and entertainment themes, while news may report actions of the government that may not give the most positive reflection and while pundits and commentators may spout positions on both the left and the right, for the most part, little that is imparted ever casts so critical of a shadow as to be perceived as a threat to those who have the power of licensure. As the electronic media has, for the most part, been treated as a business, broadcasters have throughout the decades opted to use this vast power to do little more than entertain their audiences. Thus, through successive generations, the average viewer or listener of television and radio have an expectation of entertainment versus education or enlightenment. What passes for "news" more often than not are short, easy to digest segments that give little analysis so as to not overwhelm the short attention span of the audience. And, in an era of instant ratings and endless analysis of the viewing and listening habits of Americans, anything that resonates as incomprehensible or unentertaining by the target is an immediate red flag to change content or direction.
There was a time when, despite the overwhelming amount of "entertainment" content on the air, there was a certain amount of assurance that, in an era of 500 channel cable television, tens of thousands of radio stations, both commercial and non-commercial, thousands of broadcast television stations and hundreds of satellite radio channels. there would always be at least one source or another of real, content based, hard news. Yet, as an experiment, scoll through the channel listings of your cable source, or page through the channels of XM or Sirius or scan through the countless FM and AM signals that reach your radio and try to find just one station that focuses on real international news. Granted, during a time of tragedy, be it war or natural disaster, the "news" media may do wall-to-wall coverage of the event for a few days but, as it drags on and ratings analysis reflects viewer fatigue, you can rest assured that in short order, the "news" returns to its reguarly scheduled programming of missing teens, sex scandals, pop iconography and talking head, back-and forth punditry full of opinion and short on substance.
Is it any wonder that we are so devoid of awareness of worldwide suffering that goes on every single day? Is it any surprise that the typical American can't identifyIraq, Afghanistan, Israel or Sudan on a map? And is it any wonder that America, with all its power, with all its economic might, with all its potential and, at times, inspirational capacity of compassion, is so mocked and reviled around the world ? Almost a year ago, our Gulf Coast was devasted by the most powerful natural disaster in the nation's recent history that shocked, horrified and angered us in ways few expected. And yet, in just a few weeks, the biggest stories in the news were Natalee Hollaway and Cindy Sheehan and not the hundred and thousands of decomposing bodies still being pulled from the rubble of New Orleans or the tens of thousands who STILL don't have a permanent place to call home. While bodies were still being plucked from the waterlogged devastation of the 9th Ward, tens of millions of us were on pins and needles as to who would be the ultimate champion of American Idol.
Is this the best we can expect from the fourth estate and the democracy it is supposed to serve?
One of the cornerstones of the Pax Gaea philosophy is to increase the awareness of the people and places that make this world of ours such a fascinating place. While highlighting the unique aspects of nations and cultures it is a hope that, by showing our diversity, what really rings true is our commonality. Ours may be a world of strife, conflict and suffering, but none of this occurs in a vacuum and those struggles and yearnings of others greatly and directly affect those of us who may not understand how our privileged lives make a dramatic and traumatic impact on others. The human instinct to survive and thrive often makes those who have endured extreme suffering seek out the actual or perceived source of their pain. At their best, those who have endured communicate in ways that make us rethink our actions that may have contributed to that great misfortune. At their worst, those survivors seek out vengence and retribution on those who they perceive as their source of torment with the determination to respond in kind.
Our hope is that we can consciously seek out the former so that we do not have to one day face the latter.
In an effort to accomplish this lofty ambition, it will be one of the goals of this blog to cull the vast resources of the internet and the aforementioned tax payer generated reports to tell our readers a little more about the world beyond your horizon. The format of there entries will be in a quick to read question and answer structure that will focus on a few key points about each nation:
Who are these people?This section will be a short and concise snapshot of the nation as it is today. Its people, its language, its structure.
What's their story?We'll concentrate on the history of this nation and how they got to be where they are today. Think of this as a one minute (okay, maybe two or three) run down of their known existence up to now.
Okay... I can find them, where, on a map?Geography... the one thing so many suffer from. We'll attempt to make this easy to remember so when anybody asks, you can say, oh yes, just south of.. wherever.
What makes them so interesting?Where we are in the world affects how we look at things. Each nation is a whole only by the sum of its parts. By understanding how each group of people encountered and interacted with the other explains the current fusion that makes that nation distinct.
How does knowing this make any difference in my life?Everything you eat, wear, drive, believe and use as a source of entertainment, information and sustenance is like a nation's people, the sum of its parts. The things we take for granted in our everyday lives most likely can be traced back to the toil and trouble of some far off distant place. By understanding how someplace else affects our lives makes each of us more conscious of the map point and brings it home to us.
Okay... so how do I find out more?Once upon a time, the only way you ever learned about a distant place was to either wile away your day in a dusty library poring over some scholarly tome or mustering up the money and courage to go there and find out for yourself. Then modern science brought us the internet and now, with a click, you can have links for government websites, opposition parties, maps, travel and tourism information and that day's daily press. We'll put in as many relevent links as we can to give you an overview of that nation and, hopefully, inspire you to break out the passport and find out more.
With over 200 nations, choosing the order to present is a challenge. So, we have opten to follow the pangeaic pattern, starting with America and radiating out to our most distant neighbors. We will also provide periodic updates of previously profiled nations when significant events occur that may dramatically alter the present view from the past and provide a continuity to this exploration of our fellow humans.
We hope you will enjoy these profiles and join us on this journey of national exploration. Likewise, as we are only human, please feel free to contribute your own impressions or personal experiences and to correct us should we err. While we will certainly be relying on public data, our personal opinions or observations and, yes, periodic hopes, aspirations and biases may creep in every now and again. We will make every effort to discern between the two.
And with that, let us begin.
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?The United States of America is a
constitution-based federal republic with strong democratic institution, representing 2998,444, 215 people (est. July 2006), comprised of 50 self governing states, 14 self-governing overseas dependent states and 1 self-government administrative capital in
Washington D.C. The Federal Government is comprised of three co-equal branches of government; the executive headed by President
George W. Bush, The Legislative, a bi-cameral Congress comprised of a 100 Seat Senate and 435 Seat House of Representatives and a Judicial, headed by a nine-mmeber Supreme Court and lower level Federal and State Courts. The President is elected to a four year term with no more than two terms in office. The Senate is comprised of two representatives per states elected in six year terms and the House of Representatives who members are reprresentative of a proportionate population of each state and directly elected for two years. Two major parties, the Republican and Democratic Party, make up the vast number of elected offices with the Libertarian and Green Party recognized but unrepresented in either the Executive or Legislative Branches. The Supreme Court members are appointed by the President for life with confirmation by the Senate. The nation has a long standing tradition of immigration primarily of European origin, owing to their majority status of 81.7% of the population, however small remnant numbers of indigenous people (1.2%) , a 400 year history of slavery and indentured servitude (12.9% African and 4.2% Asian) and absorption of former Spanish and French territories account for the largest percentage of minority population. While English is the most widely spoken language of the population (82.1%) government and commerce, there is no official language. As an immigrant nation, virtually every language can be heard spoken in America however Spanish (10.7%) Indo-European (3.8%) and Asian and Pacific Island (2.7%) are the most common. While the United States has no official religion, the vast majority of citizens are Christian (Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%) with approximately equal Jewish and Muslim adherents (1%) a panoply of world religions (10%) and a sizeable portion of non-religious (10%). The United States enjoys a 99% literacy rate, universal suffrage, and the largest, most technologically powerful economy in the world but with it a developing economic disparity. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.
What's Their Story?Until Columbus' discovery of the New World, The area now known as the United States was, like the rest of North and South America,peopled solely by hundreds of indigenous tribes numbering anywhere from
8.4 million to 112.5 million people who had migrated from Asiaas nomadic hunter across a land bridge of ice across the Bering Sea approximately 10,000 B.C. or earlier. They had developed
extensive agriculture and civilization prior to the arrival of the first Columbian era explorers. While Spain explored and laid claim to the Caribbean area and Pacific Coast, England, France and Holland launched their own expeditions in the northern regions fo the continent. A series of conflicts between the French and their Indian allies left England as the principle settlers of the easter rigion of the north American Continent. Further exploration by Russia led to their claims of the Pacific Coast region as far south as Northern California. The English Crown and House of Lords commissioned corporations and individuals to settle the Atlantic region, creating self-governing colonies. With the growth of European immigration and the introduction of Western weaponry and diseases, the native populations originally pressed into service began to reduce to near extinction within the first 100 years of European contact. Recent exploration and conquering of indigenous African populations provided a much needed and lucrative slave labor trade. Britain's American colonies broke with the mother country in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation of the United States of America following the Treaty of Paris in 1783. During the 19th and 20th centuries, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions through conquest of Spanish lands and purchase of French and Russian territories. The two most traumatic experiences in the nation's history were the Civil War (1861-65) , which brought an end to slavery and the Great Depression of the 1930s. Buoyed by victories in World Wars I and II and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the US remains the world's most powerful nation state. The economy is marked by steady growth, low unemployment and inflation, and rapid advances in technology.
Okay... I can find them, where, on the map?
The United States is located in North America, bordered by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. 48 of the 50 states andthe District of Columbia are contiguous and situated between Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Alaska is situated on the Northwest border of Canada and Hawaii is situated in the Central Pacific Ocan approximately 2,500 miles off the United States west coast.
How does knowing this make any difference in my life?As the world's largest economy and the sole ramaining superpower, the influence of the United States in world affairs is immeasurable. While much criticism is levied on its interventionist policies, influences in entertainment and popular culture, ignorance or insensitivity of foreign cultures and domestic issues of race, poverty, crime and healthcare that reflect poorly on its stated policies abroad, America has arguably been the most influential nation of the last 200 years. Prior to its war for independence, few nations had successfully achieved and maintained democratic structures prior to its war for independence. Many of the progressive movements of the last 200 years, from free speech to a free press, to religious freedom to temperance to abolition, to universal suffrage to civil rights to human rights can all trace their origins to U.S. policies and activism. While America may dedicate a proportionately smaller percentage of its Gross Domestic Product to aid then most western and developed nations, likewise no other nation can lay claim to the sheer amounts of aid and assistance, particularly in time of tragedy. The very structure of the American political system provides for a natural and predictable ebb and flo in policies and priorities which, good or bad, send ripples worldwide with every fluctuation. America's preeminence may one day suffer the same fate as all previous great powers but, in it's short existence few nations have made such a dramatic impact on human events and will continue to do so for much time to come.
Okay... so how do I find out more?There are tens of millions of potential links to dig into the intricacies of American life, government and culture but the following are a few that cover some of the most prominent aspects of American life:
Government and Politics:http://www.firstgov.gov The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal
http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party
http://www.gp.org/ Green Party
http://www.republicans.org Republican Party
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ Official Web Site of the President of the United States
http://www.senate.gov/ U.S. Senate
http://www.house.gov/ House of Representatives
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ Supreme Court
News and Information:http://www.wsj.com/ Wall Street Journal
http://www.nytimes.com/ New York Times
http://www.cnn.com/ CNN
http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ CIA World Factbook 2006
Libérer Oblige
Despite my five year war of words with the Bush administration over their lack of foresight and planning, I must confess that I am sorry that they have been so absolutely and completely wrong in their rosy predictions for the Afghan and Iraq Wars.
In absolute candor, I wish that I had been totally wrong in my foreswearings of doom about these two military ventures. While opposing the war, I had hoped that routing the Taliban and destroying Al Qaeda would be followed up with battalions of plumbers, electricians, teachers and tractors to rebuild that desperate nation. Before the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan was on the way to becoming one of the most modern countries in the region. The decade long war left the nation in ruins but put America high in the esteem of the Mujahadeen whom we had recruited to fight as our proxy against the Soviets. Both the foreign islamic fighters who flocked to Afghanistan to fight the "godless" communists and the Afghan resisters were provided with state-of-the-art American weapons and promises that, once the Soviets were gone, America would be there to make a new and great Afghanistan.
But no sooner than the miles of Soviet Tanks fled north, our advisors and promises went south leaving a vacuum of leadership rapidly filled by Osama Bin Laden's dollars and ideals. This provded the philosophical and material proving ground for Bin Laden's extremist ideals that inevitably resulted in the attacks on 9/11.
I had hoped that, once we neutralized the Taliban and routed Al Qaeda we would finally fulfill our promise to the Afghan people, bringing to them all the access and opportunities found in the modern world. And I sincerely believe we could have if an invasion of Iraq had not been in the planning stages long before 9/11 and long before Bush was the Republican nominee for President.
Since 1998 the Project for a New American Century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/ , had a stated purpose of toppling Saddam Hussein's regime. In their statement of principles they offered much of their criticism to Conservatives, To quote,
"Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century".
Having been dismissed out of hand by President Clinton in their appeal and flush with freshly minted oil dollars, the so called "neo-conservatives" went candidate shopping and found their ideal in George Bush. Their influence was obvious as you view the list of PNAC members and signatories that made up the ranks of White House staffers and advisers...Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Bill Bennett, James Woolsey, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jeb Bush. These plus dozens of others who were motivated by a return to Reaganist approaches to foreign policy and militarism were determined to take down Saddam Hussein and to expand the U.S. footprint in the Middle East.
The initial success of the attack on Afghanistan and the overarching support of the American people and a cowed media made their dreams of invading Iraq such an easy case to make. To this day, I am firmly convinced that they knew that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat to the United States. What they did know for certain was that Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric, that the United States' military presence in Saudi Arabia was a a sacrilege in the shadow of Islam's most holy of places, was resounding within the region and that the Saudi's would soon evict the U.S. from their bases in an effort to appease their radical religious elements. That, combined with a vast untapped resource of crude oil was a strong pretext for invading within their frame of thinking but too abstract for compliance from the American people. So they lied... but, in their idealistic viewpoint, for a good cause.
Not only would the United States have a vast, exclusive resource to oil but, with a democratized Iraq, a grateful new location for their soon-to-be evicted military assets. In the months leading up to the Iraq war, I pored through thousands of pages of UNSCOM and IAEA data, perused press reports from dozens of domestic anf foreign news sources and, what kept coming back to me time and time again was that, according to every report, there was absolutely no evidence for weapons of mass destruction.
Because we were being led into a war on a politically motivated lie, I had to oppose this war. Ironically, if they had stated their case honestly, that our need for permanent, strategically located air bases and the desire to bring democracy to Iraq was their true goal, I would likely have been less resistant. What their lies and painfully obvious deception told me was that they sincerely believed that, without painting Iraq as a clear and present danger to America and without any link to terrorism and Al Qaeda and 9/11, they could never convince the American people that there was a noble, albeit naive, motive to their argument.
As a proud Marine, I can not put myself in the category of anti-war. I believe we have a constitutional requirement to "provide for the common defense" and believe we all have an obligation to take arms to defend our nation and our constitution. I also believe we have a moral responsibility to physically intercede in cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing and cross border assaults. But I also believe that as many days of diplomacy as are required to stave off armed conflict are days well spent and war and armed conflict must always, always be the absolute last resort.
I also believe that, as free people, we have an obligation to help any and all people who are struggling for their own freedom. This noble experiment that was put in play with our own revolution was firmly anchored in the self evident truth that all people are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". We provide those opportunities by being true to our principles and, first and foremost, by refusing to do business with people and nations who don't reflect our values. While that may dismissed by many as fluffy idealism and not akin to the realpolitick that dictates our business and diplomatic dealings, it is this bowing to realpolitick that makes us so hated, reviled, feared and despised by so many in this world.
Imagine if we used our military and economic power to draw a line in the sand and refuse to do business with nations who did not embrace our ideals. What if we told Saudi Arabia that we are not buying another drop of oil or China another electronic good until they implemented real democratic reform in their nation? What if, instead, we rewarded nations that were tangible democratic strides with real economic opportunity? What if we told every developing nation with more people and debt than jobs and infrastructure that speeding democratic reforms will lead to lucrative economic development that will enrich their nation and inspire people to stay in their home countries to make their own nation's great? What if, today, we all opted to not buy another product from any retailer that relies upon slavery and tyranny as a source of retail goods? Think it can't happen? Think about how it worked for South Africa. Think about how many jobs would return to America if we told Wal-Mart that we don't mind spending a few more dollars or cutting back on a few more lattes if that meant that products would start once again bearing the "Made In the USA" label or those labels from foreign countries bore "Fair Trade" or "Free Made".
In the days before huge welfare and entitlement programs, charitable endeavors were funded greatly by the very rich under the principle of noblesse oblige. Theere was an understanding that the wealthy had a moral obligation to provide for those less fortunate. Likewise, I feel that free people are morally required to a notion I call libérer oblige, an obligation to put their power and resources to work for the liberation of oppressed people.
Were America to take the moral lead that, as a nation we not only condemn, but refuse to do business with nations that tyranically and despotically rule their people but likewise, refuse to business with nations who do business with tyrants and we put our vast media resources behind communicating that message to the world, American would touch off a firestorm of liberation movements, some top down and many bottom up. By making this standard our realpolitick, the rest of the developed world would be forced to adopt our principles and practices in order to maintain their business relationships with us and to likewise protect their images abroad. Were America to truly be the moral standard for the world, to lead by example, the rest of the world would have absolutely no choice but to follow our lead... just like they did with South Africa.
Libérer oblige is one of the cornerstones of the Pax Gaea philosophy. While not endorsing any specific religious viewpoint, Pax Gaea does embrace the spiritual intent of all the great religious leaders of human history and the common theme that resounds in all of their messages... that all are entitled to be free and that we all are obliged to struggle on behalf of the libertation and freedom of our fellow man.
Why Mexico's Presidential Election Matters To America Category:
News and PoliticsIn the closest election ever, Mexico is in the process of recounting the ballots from last week's Presidential Election. For political watchers like me this is a very exciting event on a number of levels.
First and foremost, this recount of the ballots harks back to our own 2000 Presidential Election. The two major contestants, Felipe Calderon of the National Action Party (PAN) and the heir apparent of Vincente Fox, Manuel Lopez Obrador of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), may very well be heading to a showdown in court over the narrow difference in votes, 80,000 or 0.2f the vote counted. There have been numerous accusations of voting irregularities. To boil down how close this vote is, the contested difference is 35.5f the vote for Obrador versus 35.7or Calderon. The story that is being overlooked is the third most popular of the five candidates running for President. Roberto Madrazo, of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that, until the election of Vincente Fox in 2000, had controlled the Mexican presidency for 71 years, garnered only 22.27 percent of the vote. The Mexican people have pronounced loud and clear that they want progress and change. The question is ... what is the meaning of progress and change to the Mexican people?
Calderon is appealing to Obrador not to take this to the courts and has suggested bring Obrador into his cabinet so that the unified voice of the Mexican majority would be represented in the executive. Were that to be possible, what that would say for the Mexican people is that the interests of business and economic progress -- the hallmarks of the Calderon PAN Party -- and the interests of the common and poor people, -- as expressed in Obrador's PRD -- would unite in one common administration, and the potential of real reform could be possible in Mexico.
The concern, of course, is that, in the six years of a a Calderon presidency, Obrador and the PRD would be marginalized and the interests of the peasant and lower middle classes would be compromised for the sake of business. Vincente Fox's victory over the PRI was to bring modern practices to the business environment and transparency and reform to a very corrupt political system.There was great faith that Fox would put his vast exective experience (he was the President of Coca Cola Mexico prior to entering politics) would help make NAFTA of true, tangible value to the Mexican worker. With the election of George Bush to the United States presidency, there was great faith that real economic opportunity would come to Mexican business. Had not 9/11 occurred, there is solid evidence to suggest that those reforms and opportunities would have been realized and this heated fight over immigration would not be occurring today in the United States.
Unlike Fox, Calderon, a Harvard educated Attorney, has spent nearly his entire career in politics, most recently as Secretary of Energy and the President of a development bank in Mexico. While solid in administrative functions, there are questions as to whether or not he possesses the vision and insight to relate to the common Mexican.
Obrador, too, is a professional politician but enjoys great popularity as the Mayor of Mexico City. When Fox's Attorney General attempted to impeach him over a minor land dispute and bring an end to his presidential candidacy, hundred of thousands took to the streets to support him. In the end, the legal action was stopped and Fox was forced to dismiss his Attorney General, thus providing a major populist victory for Obrador. He has been branded as anti-capitalist as he has stressed a priority to increasing social spending, recognizing indigenous rights including land reforms and crack downs on tax evasion, a common accusation toward the Mexican elite.
Politically, Calderon and Obrador are polemics, so could a national coalition government be possible? Would conceding the loss to Calderon put Obrador in favorable standing with those who so adamently oppose his policies and be viewed as an olive branch -- or would it be viewed as a sign of weakness and that olive branch snatched from his hand to be used as a beating switch? And, would Obrador really be given any voice in a Calderon administration, or would his presence be used to weaken the PRD and its populists stance and secure a victory for PAN in 2012? Would this not set up the Mexican people to be dominated by one party for years to come and, thus, re-empower the PRI who would be viewed not as the previous overlords of Mexico, but, ironically, as the sole opposition party to power?
Mexican politics directly affect American politics in that the feelings of hope and opportunity to the common Mexican helps them make the critical choice to either stay and work for a better Mexico or to flee north for the chance at a better life. If Mexicans are choosing to stay in Mexico and to take advantage of economic opportunities in their own country, our fears of a Mexican invasion and, with it, the power of accompanying political rhetoric to combat it, wither and blow away. Likewise, lower paying, less prestigious jobs on this side of the border are forced, by virtue of an evaporated labor pool, to become better paying and, thus, more attractive to American workers.
Calderon brings hope to a desperate Mexican business community and Obrador brings hope to a desperate segment of the Mexican populace. How this election finally turns out may very well determine whether or not immigration or trade dominate the range of issues in our own election in 2008.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE...
AND INTERDEPENDENCE
Many of us of "a certain age" dream of casting aside our day to day responsibilites and running away to that great big "dream" that always hides just over the horizon. Chalk it up to mid-life crisis or Peter Pan syndrome, the vast majority put off our great ambitions to buckle down, work hard, set aside a portion of our income and hope that, when we finally get the chance to retire, we can live out that dream on those dollars we hopefully wisely invested.
This traditional paradigm had well served the aspirations of previous generations. But in an ever changing economic landscape, with the instability of the financial and job market, with it becoming increasingly difficult for the "little guy" to keep up much less get ahead, that dream of "one day" is growing more and more unlikely for so many of us. Call it a conspiracy or merely economic necessity, politics and business have seemed to come together to make it more difficult for the average person to be able to tangibly benefit from the fruits of their labor and to enjoy those twilight years in relative comfort and security.
This isn't to indict either business or politics as each is doing what it must to assure its livilihood, and that comes from a careful reading of their constituents and customers. Because we aspire, we seeking the trappings of aspiration. While we have all been caught up in pursuing the "American Dream," the interpretation of that dream has dramatically evolved over the years. Once upon a time that may have meant a simple, well built home which, with 20 or 30 years of monthly payments would be ours free and clear in our golden years. Combined with increased responsibility and regular pay raises, frugality and enough savings to put the kids through college and start them along the path of their success, one could expect to have lived that dream in a tangible, traditional way. Yet, either as a result of desire, hubris, or lack of faith in the future, it seems we've become a nation more inclined to demonstrate real or proported wealth by our conspicuous consumption and accumulation.
This reality is clearly illustrated in that we've become a nation of negative savings. As the average American now spends aproximately .5 percent more than we make, attributed to easy, albeit high interest credit, it appears that the little guy is spending his way to lifelong debt and thus, lifelong work in order to pay down that debt. The last time the average American descended into negative savings was in 1933, at the height of the Great Depression.
For anyone who sits back and looks at that crushing reality, it seems that those with loftier ambitions will never get the chance to live out those put off dreams. And yet, when you see the state of the world, particularly underdeveloped countries, it seems to portend a very dark future for nations who do not enjoy a semblance of a democratic voice in their nation or workplace. For the last 200 years, America has been the model for political and economic possibility for peoples and nations with the strength and courage to stand up and demand responsive and responsible business and political leaders. If the model of lifelong economic insecurity and indebtedness is the best that anyone can hope for, what hope is there?
One answer is to realize that hitching your future to someone else's star is the least likely way to buck this hopeless trend. There is no hope for the average worker in the modern business environment no matter what value you may place in your 401-K or payroll deducted stock purchases. While no company succeeds without the hard work and dedication of the rank and file, very little appreciation is given to those who make CEO bonuses and salaries possible. While it may be true that an argument can be made that the shareholder is the true beneficiary of a company's success and that more than half of America's workers are vested in stock portfolios through the aforementioned 401-k and employee stock packages, in truth, except in the most rare of occasions, these investments give employees little or no voice in the direction of their companies nor provide applicable tangible dividends to the average working class shareholder.
One much tauted alternative prospect of wealth accumulation has been the boon of what has been euphamistically dubbed as "cul-de-sac" land barons. For nearly half a decade, many middle class wage earners have taken advantage of foreign cash unleashed into the economy by way of low interest adjustable rate mortgages. Many homeowners had abandoned the traditional American process of buying a home for a low price, shopping for a managable mortgage and working to pay off their home to have a debt free dwelling for those golden years. Rather, because of those low rates, millions have moved their money from savings and purchased second or third homes with the intention of flipping those investment properties within a short period of time for high profits. For those who were fortunate to get in early and flip frequently, there was an unprecedented boost in wealth. Hovering in the shadows, however, was the great foreboding of a real estate bubble, certain to come the moment foreign investment slowed and interest rates were forced to rise just as new construction spread like wildfire. Now, those much desired existing homes were no longer flipping at disproportionately high speed for disproportionately high prices and millions are nursing second and third mortgages with minimal prospect of selling their investment properties for the much promised dollars.
These were many of the driving factors behind my bold decision to abandon my well paying, middle management job, put my home on the market, and give in to my plan to pack up the family, relocate to Southern Mexico and write the Great American Novel and Screenplay. Having invested the last 22 years of my life on behalf of a number of multi-national entertainment and broadcast companies, it has become painfully obvious that, because of my ethics, because of my refusal to dehumanize the management process for the sake of saving the company a dollar or two and my firm conviction that corporations disproportionately benefit the few while exploiting the masses and for willingly playing their part to maintain the cycle of debt of servitude through low wages, minimum benefits and increasing costs to the rank and file for the sole purpose of enriching the few at the top, it was time to check out and put my economic and political theories into action.
I am a firm adherent to the belief that all power structures, government, business and religion, have evolved into tyrannical structures with the sole intent of controlling the masses and enriching and entrenching the power of the leadership. That noble notion of democracy, as so eloquently voiced and penned by America's forefathers, and bled for by the patriots who suffered the deprivation of our Revolutionary War, are systematically being stripped from us by a merger of the three magisteria of power. The average American has always faced the attempts by the one of more of the powers attempting to dominate our thoughts, minds and wallets, but never before have we seen such a malicious alignment of all three with the sole intent of establishing a modern form of vassal servitude.
President Eisenhower admonished us to beware the military-industrial complex. I think he only got it half right. I believe since the first vestiges of human civilization, an endless battle to subjucate the masses has been waged against the common man. I think that, in order for a very elite few to control the overwhelming masses, it has been their driving ambition to divide and sub-divide segments of the population to breed hate, fear and discontent and to instill a belief that it is the sole purpose of the so-called "other" to defeat, convert and destroy you. Without fear and chaos, the masses have no reason to need leadership so they convolute and manipulate the random, the coincidental, the impersonal and the natural into constructs of malevolent planning, sinister intent and supernatural design set in motion to personally assault those who are the source of displeasure to that construct. We see this played out daily in the proclamations from Wall Street and in quarterly conference calls, on the floors of congress and from the sabbath dais. The sole purpose of these proclamations of absolutism is to fuel discontent in any perceived other and to entrust the proclaimer in our unquestioning trust and fealty.
Thus the very foundation of
Pax Gaea. While the name does suggest the lofty ideal of "Peace On Earth", the intent goes much further towards the greater ideal of establishing a basis of universal humanity that confronts and questions the agenda, need, futility and counter-productivity of centralized power. Based on the scientific theory of
Pangaea, which puts forth the notion that all of earth's land masses were, at one time, a super-continent, forced apart by plate tectonics, Pax Gaea proceeds forth from the notion that mankind, by nature, is one body forced apart by mighty forces. Whether that dividing force was natural, supernatural or manmade is a point of debate, but one undeniable truth is that profit and power rises from those voids of division and disunity.
Pax Gaea has the sole ambitious goal of bringing the people of the world together. In our natural state humankind is united through our commonality. It has become obvious as the body of knowledge grows that, even in isolation, mankind developed language, math, art and science upon a fairly consistent timeline. So what unseen forces drove us apart and what can we do to combat those negative forces that bar us from our natural state of unity?
In my choice to unplug from "The Matrix," I am allowing myself and my family to enter into the unfamiliar with the firm belief that I will discover the truly familiar. This novel that took shape in my mind 14 years ago as I drank in the two hour crossing of the Pamlico Sound for my first time, was rooted in this sense that I had been there before. I have had similar experiences in all my travels throughout my life and have puzzled over that tendency of familiarity in a new and strange place. While there may be a number of sound theories to put forth on the subject, my insatiable apetite for reading, my love for maps, my inherent curiosity in everything, perhaps there is some deeper, more spiritual explanation that make me seek and find that sense of place wherever I may roam.
This story has lived in my mind for all these years awaiting me to take the time to bring it to life. While based upon a particularly swashbuckling part of our early American history, the underlying theme provides a basis to show that, through our demands to be free from monarchial dominance, we set in motion the belief that the common man is the greatest force of nature. It is a story that needs to be told and will provide the impetus and resources needed to begin that process of bringing first the American people, and with them, our far flung fellow humans together. For once we are inspired to come together, we will set in motion a gravitational force that nothing can tear apart.
