Suicidal maniacs

Last week, a young man in Portland, Oregon took his own life. But before doing so, this unlikely murderer bought a semi-automatic weapon and went on a shooting spree that left two teens dead and seven wounded. One of the dead and five of the injured were foreign exchange students from Peru, Ecuador, Guatemala, Taiwan, Italy and France. The dead girl's parents will fly to the United States to pick up their daughter's body. Can you imagine the horror these families must feel at the insanity that is our country?

Other countries issue traveler's alerts if there's been recent war or terrorist activity but there is never an alert issued for traveling in the U.S. "Warning: you may be gunned down at any moment by a suicidal maniac." We live in a country that finds it totally acceptable to lock people up without rights if they are suspected to know anything about terrorist activity but vehemently defend the individual's right to buy a gun designed for killing lots of people in a short period of time and using it indiscriminately against U.S. and foreign citizens.

While the Republicans are hammering at Obama's every move, no one is even talking about this ever present assault on our mental, moral and physical well-being. Imagine the sorrow of the family of this young man who never expected him to become a killer and yet having found a note left to his roommate explaining how to sell his belongings for cash and "sorry," can only now remember their son as a murderer in the first degree. All during the presidential campaign, the Republicans painted Obama as a crazy hammer and sickle wielding liberal while they waved the constitution in one hand and a semi-automatic in the other.

It's no wonder the rest of the world thinks we're gun crazy. My cousin from England is finally coming out for a visit this summer after about ten years of coaxing. She was terrified, she said, of being gunned down and wanted to avoid the cities. We were planning to drive up the California coast into Oregon and to Portland to visit my brother. I remember saying to my mom that Portland wasn't really even a city, things like that didn't happen there. I guess I was wrong.

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."

An unsung hero

I just finished watching the HBO miniseries John Adams, via Netflix. I found this brief portrayal of the first 50 years of U.S. independence, from the perspective of John Adams, to be fascinating. Adams is an unsung hero in our country's founding. Even in the story, he grumbles that he'll be eclipsed in history by Washington, Jefferson and Franklin. While the show illuminates his singular devotion to the cause, his tenacity in bringing the aforementioned men into their place in history, and his personal sacrifices, it also reveals why he is perhaps overlooked in the hearts and minds of Americans.

Adams was highly intelligent and principled but also abrasive, self-righteous and devoid of grace and charm. The guy just bugged people. Washington, tall and strapping, bravely led the army that secured our freedom from the British and even Adams saw him as a natural leader. Jefferson, charming and thoughtful, was an idealist who created some of the most beautiful thoughts and words that shaped our young country. Franklin, an entertaining eccentric, was a brilliant inventor and diplomat extraordinaire. The French were in love with him and they hated Adams.

Yet for all that made Adams unloved by history, without his pushing and tenacity we may never have declared our independence, may never have won the war and may never have had a lasting document declaring our rights. In the same way that Jared Diamond said (quoting Tolstoy) that all of the ingredients must be present to create a civilization and that only one missing is enough to prevent it from forming, Adams was part of a pot of ingredients that all had to be present in order for freedom to be formed. I think it's so interesting how messy our independence was; how many times it almost didn't happen and how much every man (and woman) sacrificed for the cause. Adams did not even live in the states during most of the revolution as he was in Europe trying to secure support for the war. Once America was free, he was serving as ambassador to England, and did not enjoy the freedom he helped build, nor spend time with his children for whom he secured that freedom, for many years.


Aside from the historical importance, the miniseries is incredibly well done. I hardly ever say this, but the directing is amazing. Everything from the script, production design, acting and cinematography supports the highly intimate portrait of a man and his relationships that is rarely seen in a historical drama. Astonishing is the humanness of the men who were our early presidents: Washington, Adams and Jefferson. Washington was exhausted by the position and couldn't wait to pass the torch. The job was a constant struggle for Adams as he was disliked and plotted against in party politics and only after 36 votes of the electorate was the tie with Aaron Burr broken to elect Jefferson.

Also fascinating, is the lifelong tie between Adams and Jefferson who died on the same day, 50 years after the declaration of independence on July 4. That they ended up on opposite sides of issues that have shaped American politics since, almost seems to be an intrinsic part of the success of our government. Whether we should have a strong central government or be a collection of republics, whether we should rely on a written constitution or allow each generation to dictate its own laws and whether a man should serve office strictly on his own sense of right and wrong or if party politics and the bigger picture should shape that term have been debated for over 200 years.


At times I was emotional, overcome with patriotism and in awe of the brilliance and faith of these men. Other times I was amazed that it all came together and disgusted to discover that despite the best intentions of most, even then greed, power and egos came into play to distort and corrupt our newly formed government. All throughout, the founding fathers have their own doubts as to whether this nation can actually live up to the ideas they set forth for it; can any collection of people really honor such high ideals? As Adams says "Posterity! You will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."

All eyes on China

I got a request to blog more frequently. It very sweet and it made me smile but in order to do it, I’ll have to post more of my silly thoughts while I chew on those that surround my days and weeks and sometimes months, like what I’m thinking right now about China.

This month’s issue of National Geographic is all about China, every page. It's excellent. I love the timing of this magazine and I think they’re right on; in the very near future, the whole world is going to be looking at China. Not just the Chinese government that suppresses rights and imprisons those that speak out against it and not just the China that’s buying the world’s debt, investing in resources in Africa and South America and not just the China that’s hosting the Olympics.

I have yet to find someone who agrees with me but I’ll even go one further. Not only will the world be all about China and the Chinese people, soon, it will no longer be all about the United States. It’s already happening in conversations with friends, relatives and my parents. I can’t get into any conversation without someone bringing up what China is doing. All of a sudden, they’re in everyone’s country and everyone’s business.

There's a great article on WorldChanging about a collaboration between photographer Paolo Woods and journalist Serge Michel at FotoGrafia, the 7th edition of international festival of photography which runs until May 25th in Rome. Their presentation follows China's industrial neo-colonialism in Africa. The photos of Chinese running factories and building local economies and Chinese being taught by Africans in their classrooms are amazing. You can see all the photos from China's Wild West under stories, on Paolo Wood's website:


China is home to one of the oldest continuous civilizations on earth. They are by far the most populous country, making up 20% of the world’s population. There are more people on the Internet in China than in any other country, including the U.S. They are expected to overtake us as the world’s largest economy in less than 10 years. Over 30% of the population call themselves religious and that number is growing. 45% of women say they don't want to give up their careers to have children.

They are the world leaders in manufacturing, and in a few short decades, they have grown a rich class and an enormous middle class with healthy appetites for domestic and foreign goods and resources. They have quickly embraced the West’s competition for success and all the stress and malaise that goes with it. They still cannot freely surf the Internet or speak their mind but those days are numbered. As they continue to embrace technology, art and imported culture, they’ll find themselves in a much more visible role in the world struggle for human rights.

Most Chinese in school are now studying English and their English speakers outnumber those in the United States. There’s a mass migration going on of people from the country to the city and with increased wealth and population density comes a frenzy of information sharing and a demand for more freedom. I predict that in the next few years China will have a cultural explosion, exporting and importing people and culture with the same voracity that they have adopted everything else.

China is dealing with the issues we’re all dealing with, except in all cases their situation is already more dire. They need to provide healthcare for the biggest baby boomer population in the world, a generation that has less children to provide for them due to the one-child policy. They have the highest statistic for air pollution related deaths, have built more mega dams than anywhere in the world, and have deforested and leveled mountains to the point of serious environmental erosion. They’re only now beginning to embrace archeological digs and animal conservation. They’re dealing with a rapidly growing disparity between rich and poor, massive urbanization, and a serious shortage of natural resources.

Natural disasters are a constant but this time the Chinese are starting to ask questions like why so many schools collapsed in the recent earthquake. We’re already seeing a comparison between how China handled their rescue efforts compared to the disasters in the rest of the world. The incredible level of humanitarian aid offered by regular citizens has put the government in an uncomfortable position. No longer a closed society, there are at least three Flickr groups with photos from the earthquake: china 512 earthquake, Sichuan Earthquake 2008 and Just The News (were you there? - if not, don't add!)

They’ve turned the spotlight on themselves by bidding to host the Olympics and I’m afraid it isn’t going off for a while. I predict that the era of all eyes on America is coming to an end. The question is, will American eyes remain closed to the outside world or will we begin to learn by observing others?