I'll take hope over fear any day

Today on Marketplace, Kai Ryysdal was speaking with Edward Miguel who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book is called "Economic Gangsters." Miguel's commentary on the new appointment for health secretary was focused on how difficult Republicans might make it for Obama's administration to get heath care reforms passed in congress.

One has to wonder if there are more than economic ideology differences at work on either side. Even Rush Limbaugh said about the stimulus plan: "I don't think it's designed to stimulate anything but the Democrat Party." Recent economics research suggests Limbaugh may be right on the politics.

Miguel says that in a recent economic study he conducted in democratic Uruguay, people who directly benefited from government programs enacted during a similar economic crisis were "15 percentage points more likely to voice support for the political party implementing the program." It's certainly not surprising that people would vote for a political party that has made their life better. And isn't that the whole point?

Republican majorities in Congress passed the largest expansion of federal government health spending in decades with the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003, with strong support from President Bush.

The party who bangs the small government drum and cries "socialism!" at the mention of government funded programs? Did they pass this legislation to secure the votes of elderly Americans in the 2008 election? This explains all the animosity, finger-pointing and name-calling towards Obama by the Republicans. They're peeved because the Democrats are poised to steer this ship in a direction the American public might actually be happy about and want to continue on. They're pissed because their guy fucked up and they couldn't come up with anyone genuine enough to make us believe they care.

If Obama's reforms work, it's not just the economy that will get a boost. People will recognize the role government played in their ability to secure benefits like health insurance and reward his party at the ballot box later on. Millions of Americans who came of age in the Great Depression became loyal Democrats for life, rewarding the party that created the New Deal. President Obama promises a new set of programs, starting with the stimulus and extending into health care and beyond.

It starts to become clear, now, what the truth is behind the ugly rantings of Rush Limbaugh. He has said that he hopes the socialistic policies of Obama will fail but contends that he doesn't mean he wants our economy to fail. In the middle of an economic crisis, two wars and impending environmental doom, how is it possible for our President's "policies" to fail without it also adversely affecting everyone in America?

Socialism is a red herring. It's nothing more than a scary word that most Americans don't understand but have been taught to fear. The Republicans have usurped the word and are attaching it to anything Obama does. What is really going on is that the Republicans are afraid that Obama's policies won't fail and that they will make better the lives of millions of Republican Americans who may reward the Democrats with votes for years to come. This is why he can't be trusted.

We should be frightened, Limbaugh says, of someone who is this popular the world over. (Would he say the same thing if he was the subject of so much adoration and optimistic enthusiasm?) Obama is only trying to improve our lives so that we will continue to support him! We should fear a politician who cares what we think, a man who calls for hope, hard work and thoughtful, intelligent solutions.

Naturally the party that was willing to manufacture information about the threat Iraq posed ito launch a costly and unsupported invasion and occupation would be suspicious of someone who seems to be doing what is best for Americans. The same people who ran on a platform of staying in Iraq and Afghanistan for as long as necessary are now criticizing Obama for staying for two more years, calling him a war monger. They are continuing their ever so effective campaign tactic of calling the other guy exactly what they are.

Both parties will tell you that the other lies, cheats and steals to win and has ulterior motives. It seems that by politicians' own admission, none of them can be trusted to care about us. So let's say that all politicians only care about their careers, their party and their reelection and whoever speaks for either party is a willing and eager accomplice. Let's agree that both sides are equal in their motives – pursuing their own ideology at whatever cost to the American people. We are left with two parties, one that is pushing fear and another that is pushing hope. Which do you think will be more productive for our country and our souls? The Republican party is apparently led by Limbaugh, a man who believes our President is violating everything we hold sacred and intends to turn us into a slave state. He preaches fear and hatred and divisiveness.

The other, the Democratic party, is currently led by a Obama, a man who preaches hope and our ability to make the world a better place. He asks us to look into the future and imagine the world we want to live in and then work with each other to make it so. The more the Republicans try to expose the ugliness behind the motives and tactics of the Democrats, the more it just shows us how untrustworthy all politicians are. What they don't understand is that the election of Obama was not about a man, it never is. Americans don't vote for people, we vote for ideas, we vote with our hearts. Fear will never win out over hope. If they tear down Obama, the only thing they can accomplish is to tear down our belief in the government. If they do that, the result will not be Americans rushing to the polls to vote Republican. It may, however, prompt the even more feared specter of a third-party candidate swooping in and stealing our attention and our loyalty. Then things will really get interesting.

A freedom-fighting power-grabbing maverick

A few thoughts on the debate last night:
1) The whole maverick thing is baffling to me. The dictionary defines a maverick as a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates. Our current president is a maverick and look where that has landed us. McCain keeps talking about Obama's liberal voting record and wondering how he can possibly "reach across the aisle from that far left." I wonder, how does a maverick reach across the aisle? It would seem to me that a maverick doesn't give a fuck about the aisle at all, or about bridging differences. Palin said that she never compromised when she was governor, somehow things just worked out and she also said that McCain would give up nothing to accommodate the bailout plan. Both of those sound like statements made by a person who gets what they want (what THEY want) no matter what. No one likes compromising but we all know that to get anything done in politics (and in life), compromises have to be made. And with a nation as ideologically divided as we are right now, I sure don't want someone in office who is going to tell us all to fuck off while they get their way. Last but not least, let's have a chuckle over her description of herself, McCain and the rest of their camp as a "team of mavericks." Sounds like an oxymoron to me, a team of individualists? Interesting.

2) When she started the Reagan quote that "freedom is always just one generation away from extinction," it made me think about watching the mini-series John Adams, and how concerned our founders were about freedom. It's what our country was founded on, why people fought and died and why the constitution was so vital to establishing the new government. What they warned against and what our government is set up to prevent is a consolidation of power. They knew that unchecked power is the single biggest threat to freedom. We've seen that freedom eroded by the unchecked power of Bush and the most indicting examination into the record of Sarah Palin is how she has wielded power in ways that go beyond the boundaries of her office. But then she continued, saying that "We don't pass it to our children in the bloodstream" and there was something about the use of the word blood that made me think "yes, but we do pass it to them in a stream of blood." Her and McCain's rants about how we're WINNING in Iraq but those damn liberals want to pull us out waving "the white flag of surrender" before we've had a chance to really fully kick some ass made me queasy. Fighting for freedom to me means fighting against the corruption of power in our own government, not killing people thousands of miles away.

3) Speaking of power, did you catch this statement by Palin? "I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are." I don't know what the last half of that is supposed to mean but holy shit, the woman's already power-grabbing and she's not even there yet! Did you see the twinkle in her eye when she said it? They're combing the constitution looking for loopholes that extend the executive branch even farther into the other branches than Bush did. God help us. She's a shark in the skin of a kindergarten teacher (with the vernacular of Ned Flanders) determined to have history remember Dick Cheney as a pussycat.

4) Last but not least, Palin said many times said government should get out of our way and let us live our lives but still believes it has the authority to deny gays the right to marriage? Actually, I was pretty dismayed that this was one of the only issues both parties agreed upon. How does shrinking the role of government and defending freedom fit into a belief that people should be denied the legal right of union? She said "Ameerican peeople" eleven times in the debate but I still don't believe for a second that she cares one iota about me. And what about her confusion between government and Wall Street? She mentioned the greed and corruption on Wall Street every time she made reference to how government has failed us. Unbelievable that she still can't make sense of the issue. You can't say you stand for smaller government and bash the players running the deregulated markets at the same time, jeez!

Biden, I think, came across like a guy just as capable as Obama of being president, who has his own opinions but is also committed to supporting Obama's agenda. He seemed comfortable and natural while Palin was running on such a high level of adrenalin, I thought she might collapse at the end of it. Did anyone else notice how red her eyes were? I guess she's probably been practicing twelve hours a day for a week and hadn't had much sleep. About half-way through, the whole thing turned into a big love-in with those two swapping comments about how much they admired and respected each other. Biden was definitely under her spell. Did you see Palin's husband hovering over her shoulder at the end when she was chatting with Biden? Hilarious! He doesn't trust her any further than he can throw her and, I'm sure, rightfully so.

Building a more secure world, with guns

The industrial war machine is one of those things that the people in power like to say is too complicated for us, mere citizens of the world, to understand. I've heard that wars boost the economy, or at least that's what we're told in the U.S., although I imagine it only works if your country is involved in a war elsewhere. War on a nation's own soil doesn't seem to boost anything except the death toll. The U.S. had made it a special kind of a habit to be continuously involved in a war somewhere, anywhere but here.

Our country has been at war with one country or another since its inception with only short 5,10 or 15 year breaks, not including all the covert activities. In fact, the longest period of "peace" was after the Civil War, probably only because we were too broke and had too few young men to fight anyone. Not since the Civil War has there been war waged against the U.S., which probably makes us one of safest countries on the planet. We've never been invaded and yet our military spending far exceeds that of any other country. The entire world spent $1.2 trillion last year and the U.S. accounted for almost half of that. Apparently, though, we're so rich that it doesn't even constitute 4% of our GDP, putting us pretty low on the list of spending as a percentage of GDP. North Korea tops that list at a whopping 22%, yikes!

In the last two years, the U.S. has tripled the number of tanks, helicopters, missiles, jets and warships sold to the international community. At about $32 billion (so far this year), it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to the $583 billion we're spending, but likely represents quite a hike for the buyers. The biggest sales were to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Iraq and Pakistan. The Pentagon says the deals are to solidify relationships and make the world safer. We can only assume the arms to Afghanistan are to help fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda but 2008 has been the deadliest year yet for U.S. troops there. We've already lost more soldiers this year than all of last year so the proliferation of weapons doesn't appear to making anyone safer. (Poor Australia has probably had to stock up because they're sitting next to Indonesia, which is now a terrorist hot spot.)


Just as I don't believe violence as a strategy leads to peace, it's also hard to believe that having more weapons in the world makes it a safer place. Even a child could figure that one out. It does, however, seem to ensure that there is always a war going on. It would be difficult to wage war on your neighbors without weaponry. Selling our technology to other countries also ensures the need to keep innovating better weapons, to stay ahead of the curve, thus keeping the war machine alive. We have managed to lose far less soldiers in each war but the death toll remains frighteningly high for those whose country we occupy. The U.S. does not keep that count and the whole world is trying to figure out how many Iraqis have died since the invasion. The figures inhabit a terrifying range of 90,000 to 1.5 million civilians and combatants. The Bush administration maintains the lowest number, of course. "Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure" of 29,000 per year making our occupation more dangerous than Saddam's.

This latest round of wars, however, are different for the U.S. than previous ones. For one thing, we don't really know who the enemy is which makes it difficult to determine whether we're succeeding to defeat that enemy. Especially as this new kind of war seems to generate a steady supply of new enemies as it progresses; more effective war insurance! Another difference is the number of people who die from non-combat related causes. I just read that 16 soldiers were electrocuted to death because of faulty wiring in their living quarters. One while taking a shower, another while washing the humvee! The contractor responsible, KBR of Houston, who I have no doubt is boosting our economy, was paid "despite the problems, and was hired as recently as 2007 to repair its own faulty electrical work." Finally, because of the duration of the war and the relatively low death toll, most of young men and women are coming home and are physically handicapped and/or mentally damaged. What will be the long-term effect on that generation?

How do we know that the weapons we're selling to those countries will not fall into enemy hands and be used against us? How many times have we supported governments that have later become our enemies? We all know the story of how Osama Bin Laden came to power in the aftermath of being trained by the U.S. as a rebel to fight the Soviet invasion. Haven't we learned that lesson yet? It seems like the best way to defeat an enemy would be to disarm them by stopping the flow of weapons in their direction. Is that not something the international community is capable of?

No, apparently not. Russia and other European countries are also vying for big ticket sales to India and Brazil. In addition to the numbers above for "sophisticated" weapons, the U.S. also sells less sophisticated weapons and those numbers are already $96 billion this year, up from $58 billion in 2005. Then, added to that is the $4.5 billion in aid given to countries to buy weapons (presumably from us) and doesn't include the weapons we give away. According to this article, "The United States has long been the top arms supplier to the world. In the past several years, however, the list of nations that rely on the United States as a primary source of major weapons systems has greatly expanded." Expanded? Clearly, the world is buying because we're selling, not the other way around.

Again, I ask: Isn't it possible that the world would be safer if the U.S. didn't sell weapons to everyone else? It seems that we are in a unique position to stem the flow but the response from the Pentagon is if they don't buy from us, they'll buy from someone else. But countries are buying from us because we make the best and because we're selling. And what exactly would be the harm in the arms being bought from someone else? I would love to know. I think Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it best when he told a congressional committee Wednesday that the U.S. is "running out of time" to win the war in Afghanistan. "We can't kill our way to victory," he said, "and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone. It requires teamwork and cooperation."

The truth is better than the lie

I find myself thinking a lot about terrorism lately as if I’m going to solve the problem. The way we’re going about it isn’t working, and it doesn’t even make sense. It’s like the 58-year old calling the teenager sick for getting whacked out over their affair. He takes no responsibility for her state and will further destroy her in his “defense.”

I think there most definitely is a problem. As we near doubling our population, our world grows increasingly smaller and I for one don’t want the human race to go out in a hail of gunfire. It’s romantic in the movies but in real life, it’s just sad if we can’t find a way to get along. But real change requires understanding, work and sacrifice; it’s not just a matter of pushing someone back in line and telling them to shut up. If we wanted to make an impact on those who finance Al-Qaeda, we should have stopped the flow of money. Immediately. Stop driving cars if we have to and spend the billions of dollars being spent on the war to float the economy.

My family went overseas for the first time in 1984. I was just about to start high school when I met my English family. My cousins, a couple of years younger than me, wanted nothing more than to go to America. They thought it was the coolest place on earth. Twenty something years later, the Brits no longer love America and after decades of being our biggest fans outside of ourselves, they don’t even like Americans anymore. They think we’re ignorant, selfish, stupid and lazy and our President is all the proof they need.

When my friend was visiting from London, we were talking about something and I said, “people always think they’re doing the right thing.” I said that even George Bush thinks he’s doing the right thing. “Really,” he asked, “because I think he’s just taking a piss.” He referenced the comments he makes and how flippant and arrogant they are, how it seems he just doesn’t even care. I was too embarrassed to admit that I don’t listen to him anymore and because, frankly, it's difficult to imagine the magnitude of lying and deceit if he knows what he's doing.

I read an article in the New York Times a while back about plastic surgery in Iran. It’s so prevalent, apparently, that even men now are getting multiple surgeries done: nose jobs, chin implants, and cheek implants. A Persian friend of mine commented on it during her last trip there. She said every woman had a nose job and no one was the least bit bothered by a girl with bandages and bruises. There was a photo in the article of a woman, a beautiful woman, whose whole family has had a nose job. She didn’t even look Persian, she looked like a generic white woman. It was sad.

If I were Iranian, I think I would be livid. I would be outraged by the idea of a whole culture changing what makes them unique, succumbing to the idea that there is an ideal beauty, and that it is Western. I don’t want to live in an American world. Droves of people move here from other countries, looking for a better life, but they are all loyal to their homeland, their culture, their language, their food, their music, and their country. What would America be without that diversity?

Even Canada, our neighbors to the north, and the country that is probably most like ours in language, culture and history, is sensitive to not becoming Americanized and losing their identity. It’s easy then to imagine how massively offensive and threatening the export of our culture is to countries that share none of those things with us. Our culture isn’t just television and clothes. It’s language, policy, business, and yes, even our ideals. Just because we say something is important, doesn’t make it so. It has to appeal in a way that’s relevant and it has to be translated.

I remember reading in college about the family planning movement in Bangladesh. It was a critical program designed to reduce the poverty by decreasing the birthrate but it would require female empowerment, something just as new and delicate. While Western organizations could provide support, education and resources, it was essential that the actual outreach be done by local Bangladeshi women. Women who understood the culture and what they were up against but also, why it would work. And it did. Between 1975 and 1994, the fertility rate dropped from 6.3 to 3.3 and is now at 3 (children per family).

My mom told me a disturbing story that she read in the paper. The government of the Dominican Republic, in an effort to make their country more appealing to tourists, is cutting down hundred-year old shade trees that line their streets and replacing them with palm trees. The idea is that the tourists expect palm trees in a tropical country and they're trying to justify this massacre by saying the trees they're chopping are non-native. Meanwhile, the poor residents lose shade, cooler temperatures, fresh air and oxygen that these trees create, in addition to their history and the beauty of their town. Once again, a whole country suffers in the pursuit of a false ideal.

Europe, perhaps because of its smaller size, has always been much more concerned about keeping things clean, quiet and efficient, than the United States. In Sweden, apartment buildings have grass on the roof to contribute oxygen to the air and help insulate. In Britain, gas lawn mowers have been made illegal because of the noise and everyone uses nearly-silent electric mowers. In Paris, an electric train and public bicycles provide everyone with clean, quiet and efficient transportation. The cars are smaller, the houses are smaller, appliances are compact, and it’s always been like that.

Yet they have managed to mind their own business when it comes to America’s disgusting obsession with size and waste. Our compact cars of the same make and model are larger than their European counterparts and use more gas. But most of us aren’t even trying to be fuel-efficient. Our toilets use too much water, our water heaters heat water all day so it’s hot for the half hour that we need it, our food is too big and we throw most of it away. And yet, you don’t hear them telling us how we should live, though I wish they would. It's only a matter of time before the rest of the world starts imposing their views on us.

In the real world, we can’t force an employer to want to hire us, we can’t force a person to fall in love with us, we can’t force our children to be what we want them to be, and we can’t force people to buy our products. So why do we think we can force people to share our beliefs? The only thing we can do is make ourselves the best we can be and hope to be liked for who we really are. In marketing, we focus on making sure the product is something that people want and then making it relevant. If we want to sell democracy and freedom, we first have to practice what we preach and then find a way to make it something the rest of the world wants to buy.

I liken the "War on Terror" to the "War on Drugs," a similarly misguided attempt that failed spectacularly, increasing drug use, increasing drug profits and otherwise making the unwanted behavior more attractive and rewarding. The U.S. government allowed or otherwise participated in drug smuggling in order to fund other covert operations, no doubt justified by saying the actions were "good for the American people." Meanwhile, this country waged war on its own citizens. The land of "freedom lovers" has more people in prison than any country in the world, and nearly a quarter are there on drug charges.

Evolution is more than mere persistence

Something I think about often is evolution. In the context of living creatures, evolution is a process of change, arising as a result of external conditions, that facilitates the survival of the species. Guns, Germs, and Steel (which I’m only halfway done with and I just discovered is available as a movie on DVD!) is an essay about why different peoples evolved at different rates. The impetus is to answer a question of why the haves are the haves and the have-nots are the have-nots (instead of the other way around).

The success of evolution is found in the persistence of a species or group. If the change results in a greater population (and perhaps greater welfare) of the group, the evolution was successful. Jared Diamond goes through a discussion of the evolution of disease, for example. When humans became sedentary and lived in groups large enough for disease to thrive in, we acquired sicknesses evolved from animal diseases. From animals we’d domesticated in large enough numbers to sustain disease. In the beginning, many of these killers wiped out whole populations but soon evolved not to kill, allowing people to carry the disease longer and transmit it to more people.

In answering the have/have-not question though, I think we have to take into consideration that mere persistence through population is not the only measure of success. Now, a tribe that exerts more power, consumes more resources and is more resistant to disease is more “successful” than a tribe with a much larger population that is prone to poverty and disease. (I imagine that Jared Diamond will get there, and I’ll let you know what he says about that.)

But there are other issues that may or may not perpetuate the tribe but seem to me to be part of our evolution. Issues that arise as we pursue liberty and well being, demand tolerance and acceptance and ask for compassion and humanity. They are part of our evolution because of our huge population growth, our collective affect on the environment and the rapid exchange of information around the globe. Just like the right ingredients allowed certain diseases to arise, these conditions brought about these issues.

When looking at the problems of the world, I feel like we’re seeing the old clashing with the new. In the old way of evolution, people killed, displaced and enslaved other populations to perpetuate their tribe. In the new way, we protect other populations, attempt to understand the enemy and promote everyone's participation in making the world. In the old way the earth was to be mined, rivers dammed and mountains flattened for industry, animals raised and killed and crops grown to feed and grow populations. In the new way, we develop industry that gives back what we take from the earth, minimize our exploitation of animals and treat them more humanely.

The rate of change has recently accelerated because we’ve discovered that we can’t afford not to. The old way will destroy us. So how do we appeal to those populations (and leaders) still trying to perpetuate their tribe the old way? In Sudan, Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq, tribes are still killing and displacing. In China, Peru, and the United States, tribes are still raping the land. The new way doesn’t justify killing and displacing. It encourages participation and understanding, asks that we act as a single tribe to find solutions to common problems and use mercy on those who seek to destroy us. That’s our evolution.

Would you like to play a game?

Several months ago, I read an article in Wired about a virtual reality game for kids. Apparently kids are addicted to dressing their penguin and decorating their igloos. This little girl stole game money from her brother to buy her penguin a giant screen TV (I think she was eight) and it upset the parents. I thought to myself “if we’re going to go virtual, why not practice doing something valuable?” With millions of people online, we have a real life Petri dish to practice global policy, fighting terrorism, or reducing global warming. Remember War Games?


In fact, it wouldn’t have to be just a game. It could create real awareness, drive real policy and make real change. SimCity lets players design their own city. This would be a MMPOG (massive multi-player online game) in which the players have to cooperate to make the world a better place. What happens to the world if you buy a hybrid and trade in your gas-guzzler? What if you replace your light bulbs with fluorescent? What if you install energy-saving appliances? What if everyone does? Imagine seeing the ACTUAL impact on the earth at the exact moment that it happens. Imagine how many people you could inspire to make change if they could actually see the difference.

Then I got another idea. Instead of getting email from Amnesty International to send a letter to a political prisoner, a request to sign a petition from the Humane Society to save the baby seals, or a plea to send a letter to your congressperson regarding a labor issue from MoveOn, what if it happened in the game? On a world map are issues, hotspots and things going on in the world. When you roll over or click, you get an alert. A monk has just been taken prisoner in China. He spoke out again the government and now he’s in jail. Send a letter! Maybe you pay a dollar and one is sent for you, or you could donate $10. Organize a rally to get other players interested in your cause.

In real-time you monitor the progress. Photos, articles and updates are posted, as they are available. The amount of money being donated and letters sent are displayed, again, in real-time. All over the world, things are happening that you can be a part of. How often have you written a check to an organization, sent it off and then what? Do you know where that money went? What cause it went towards? Do you know the outcome of that cause? This way, we all get to share in the struggle; we get to see our efforts count.

And then this weekend I saw a headline in the paper: “Earth program helps non-profits raise money.” Google Earth Outreach is the formal launch of a program that allows non-profits to utilize Google Earth to raise awareness by letting users visualize issues on a world map. One example mentioned is a Brazilian Indian tribe that wants to stop loggers and miners from deforesting the jungle to dig for gold.

I downloaded Google Earth and so far, it’s not that exciting. It has a long way to go. It’s mostly just a portal to, what else, Google. Another way to find links and images. I've received two form letters that I wasn’t qualified to work there (someone told me they get 2,500 resumes a week as it is, after all, the best company in America to work for) but I have my finger on the pulse and my vision is still way better than what they’ve got going on!

Building a better killing machine

Waiting for my haircut last week, I was reading an article in Rolling Stone called "Soldiers Lost." I think the point was just to humanize the American soldiers by featuring the stories of nine who have died in Iraq. Eight of the nine died by IED, an improvised explosive device, which is the #1 killer there. The massive gas-guzzling Humvees have provided inadequate protection against these devices that kill everyone from civilians to medics.

The other person featured in Rolling Stone was Jeffrey Lucey, a soldier from Massachusetts. He returned home safe but killed himself shortly after by hanging himself with the garden hose. His family had tried to remove everything from the house that he might use to harm himself but hadn't thought of the garden hose. He had spent weeks drinking and taking drugs and repeatedly yelled at his sister "don't you know your brother is a murderer?!" He was haunted by the memory of "the bumps in the road," bodies of children they often had to drive over. In this new war, even children are terrorists and his superiors told him that killing them is included in the new "rules of engagement."

Frankly, I'm surprised that only 1 in 8 soldiers returning are reporting PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). Americans have essentially never gone to war to protect ourselves on our own soil. We fought for our freedom on our soil when we founded the country and fought each other later but our modern wars are fought elsewhere against people who have nothing to lose. Our soldiers have something to live for and can afford to question whether it's right to take a life.

The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has spent 50 years innovating breakthrough technology like the Internet but have only recently ventured into human augmentation - the science of making the human body more powerful. Around the country, the government is funding projects to make soldiers smarter, stronger, need less sleep and food, and give them more energy in life-threatening conditions. One project regulates the body temperature with a special glove that can keep a body from freezing to death or keep a soldier active when his body would normally overheat.

I think this technology is cool, of course, but why aren't we addressing the real problem of war? None of this technology will help the soldier struggling to live with what s/he's done. None of it will help us deal with the fact that war includes killing children. None of it will keep us from going to war. I wonder when we will put our superior brains to work on finding a way not to kill each other instead of killing each other better.