Where my mind tends to go when I think about politics

“The shift of values from self-interest and competition to cooperation and social justice, from material acquisition to inner growth would be prime importance in creating a new world order”. This is a false altruism, at least to the absolute degree. Humans will always be driven by individualistic needs, be they material, psychological, or spiritual. Social movements should play off of this human nature by de-stigmatizing pride and self-sacrifice as a measuring stick of competition. It’s okay to pursue social projects to position oneself as “morally superior” to others, as long as the beneficiaries of the projects exist, they will not care about your motivations (this is what Che was trying to institutionalize, a social reward and recognition system based on merit, equity, and work towards social, not individual progress; in reality, in communism only the central planners achieve merit based glory; if a capitalistic currency were “work towards social progress” instead of “get mine”, and people were subsequently materially rewarded for their “altruism”, wealth creation could exist alongside voluntary redistribution and continual, sustainable development (could exist in the form of social business).

In other words, a currency might be devised that allows individuals to be materially rewarded to the degree they advance utilitarian goals. In this way, wealth is simultaneously created and distributed throughout the population, without the need for post-creation taxation. Social capital would replace money as the measure of success, thus fulfilling the human need for achievement. Communism tried this in one way, but failed by limiting the creative possibilities to the central planners. The talent, the ideas, the possibilities lie in the populace; if its motivations are redirected, the people’s creative power can move closer to a social harmony, one much removed from today’s. One might ask, what happens to the motivation if the model is successful, and wealth distribution leads to prosperity? That is, what happens when there is no one left to help, would social capital lack “investment opportunities?” The answer is, in a capitalistic model, which this model is, poverty will always exist. Though it gives every individual an opportunity to thrive, some choose not to, either by way of laziness or intellectual or physical inability, regardless of the motivations (material, spiritual, or material-via-spiritual, as is the case in this model).

This is the case in traditional capitalism, and would remain so in this so-called “social capitalism.” In this model, there would always be segments of the population who lag behind the achievers. But, as opposed to traditional capitalism, this model, if successful, would ultimately be churning out material wealth to those who aid not the poor (as poverty looks today), but those simply at the bottom of the social ladder. That is, of course, the aim of such a model is to raise the poverty level. In order for “social capitalism” to work, social capital (the relationship of social achievement to material reward) would have to be measured and institutionalized. That is another chapter. Someone once said, “It’s amazing what can be achieved when no one cares who gets the credit.” Although admirable, in reality such a sentiment could never serve as the basis for a pragmatic societal organization schema. People will always care who gets the credit. Let us stop fighting human nature, and play off of its evolutionary survival employs.

Some might ask, what happens to compassion? Wouldn’t forcing people to help others lessen the beauty of charity? First, this model would not force anyone to help anybody. It’s capitalism, just in another form. Instead of making money by simply creating innovation that advances individualistic goals, people create wealth by innovating in socially advancing ways. There is compassion and altruism in the world. It exists, to some degree, in every human heart and mind. Altruism is usually defined as “doing something without hope of receiving something in return.” That is false; how can one receive more in life than the feeling one gets from helping someone in need or is suffering? For some, however, only staking their material livelihood in social innovation is motivation enough. Perhaps the “social capitalist” model is the way to the “new man.”

The wealthiest would not need be taxed; their dues to society were paid on the road to wealth itself. Instead of being lauded for the superficialities of today’s world, one would be not only praised, but materially rewarded for their work as a humanitarian. In the end, who cares if sincerity led to one’s prosperity in such a model? A real selfishness would be questioning another’s sincerity. Let pride live. Hell, play off the material ambition of men. A hungry child cares not where the meal comes from, or his benefactor’s intentions. Despite the pragmatic perspective of this model, perhaps in the end idealism will emerge through social evolution, people will realize, as some already do, that it’s not what you have in life, but what you do, and the people you do it for, that matters most.

The difficult, and most challenging step, of course, would be defining, agreeing upon, and institutionalizing value; that is, how does society create a currency based on social equity, that still adds to wealth creation? That is another question, and one to think about. Time to read up on economic theory.

Poll for you!

The Darjeeling Limited

Written and directed by Wes Anderson and released October 26, 2007, The Darjeeling Limited is a film set in India that chronicles three American brothers’ journey to see their convent dwelling mother after the death of their father. The title of the film refers to a fictional (albeit realistic depiction of) train in India. The film stars Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody, and Jason Schwartzman as the three brothers. Wilson and Schwartzman are longtime friends of Anderson and have worked on several other Anderson-directed films such as The Life Aquatic, The Royal Tenenbaums, and Fantastic Mr. Fox. Bill Murray, also an Anderson favorite, appears in a cameo role as a traveling businessman, and Anjelica Huston serves the role of the brothers’ mother. Natalie Portman and Jason Schwartzman also appear in a short film, Hotel Chevalier, which acts as a prologue to Darjeeling.

Darjeeling is, like most films Anderson writes and directs, a stylistic representation of quirky characters on a spiritual quest. The three brothers have not seen each other in a year, since their father’s funeral. The oldest brother Francis (played by Wilson), arrives on the scene with a wrapped head and busted nose, attire that he adorns throughout film, the result of an apparent motorcycle accident (we learn later that it is a result of a suicide attempt). Francis has planned the trip but does not tell his brothers the real reason for it until late in the film – to see their mother. He disguises the trip as a spiritual quest for the three of them to reconnect. Francis is an eccentric character who employs an assistant, Brendan, to help him keep a rigorous itinerary he has planned.

Brody’s character, Peter, claims to have been the late father’s favorite son. He shows this by adorning several of his father’s possessions, a habit Francis is disgusted by. Peter’s wife, back in the States, is expecting a baby soon, a fact that Peter hides from Francis initially – secrecy is a theme running throughout the film. He seems to be the most serious of the three, constantly worried about his wife divorcing him. He, like the others, however, also reveals his strange side, when he purchases a live cobra at a local market, which he keeps in a box. Jack, the youngest (played by Schwartzman), obsessively checks his girlfriend’s answering machine at every stop the train makes – meanwhile, he is having an affair with one of the female train workers. He has also written a “fictional” short story, although his brothers point out that it seems to be based on his own life, an observation he denies.

I have identified three elements of this film which I think make it entertaining to me. All of these elements are present in all of Anderson’s films, a fact I’m sure contributes to my fondness of his work. The first is Darjeeling’s structure, what I would call melodramatic adventure. I am not into action films; I appreciate the logistics of car chases and 3D animation, but I am much more interested in human nature and interaction. In film, these elements are represented by character development and dialogue. The subtle dry humor employed by Anderson (embodied by Wilson’s acting style) is what amuses me.

Second, I appreciate and enjoy Anderson’s attention to human uniqueness and imperfection. Many films employ the archetypal characters, which, in many cases, work fine for what the film or show is doing. The Office, for example, uses archetypal characters to perfectly suit its purpose. It wants its viewers to relate to everyday working American life, which most people can. Darjeeling’s characters are very unique, almost seemingly randomly construed – very eclectic and defined by their flaws. I am very eccentric, eclectic, and flawed as well, and can relate to three brothers on a train in India more than I can with Jim’s character in The Office.

And lastly, I love films that depict different cultures – I think that is why Darjeeling is my favorite Anderson film. The characters’ interactions with their geographic location, a sense of movement and most importantly intercultural experiences make Darjeeling an “adventure” to me.

In the end, the brothers do arrive and visit their mother at a remote hilltop abbey, only for them to wake up one morning to discover she has “run away” again. On their way home, they leave their luggage on the platform, symbolizing a release of proverbial baggage each has been carrying. Peter and Jack also allow Francis to hold their passports for them, a Francis-self-appointed job that they did not appreciate throughout the film. The conclusion to Darjeeling is a representation of, like Anderson’s characters, the imperfections of life, change, and sometimes redemption.

Film – The Elephant King

Just yesterday I purchased the 2006 release The Elephant King, directed by Seth Grossman. I’m always interested in seeing films shot in foreign places that I have been. That kind of experience opens your eyes to the how much a place or an event or even a people group can be skewed on screen. The Elephant King was shot in Chiang Mai, Thailand, the same city in which I lived, taught English, and met my wife.

This film is one of many that found success in the festival circuit and I quite enjoy but has not gained much popularity in the mainstream. I saw the film in Chiang Mai (it did come out in theaters in Thailand but not until 2008) and immediately discovered why many Thais, including my wife, despise it. The plotline follows a young, bored, socially awkward American (played by Tate Ellington) who is invited by his brother to visit him in Chiang Mai. The older brother has escaped his life and legal troubles in America and enjoys a wild existence in Chiang Mai. The reason Thais don’t care too much for the film is mainly due to its depiction of Thailand – a vice ridden, anything-goes-playground for foreigners looking to escape reality. The women are easily taken advantage of and the booze is cheap.

To be honest, this is one the reasons I liked the film. Although the Thais might not like it, there are many foreigners who experience the lifestyle of the protagonist’s brother without any resistance from the locals. In fact, Thai society in set up to accommodate such behavior, if only for economic reasons. What is unfair about the film is its lack of exposure of “Thai” society, which in reality is culturally rich, diverse, and void of the debauchery that goes on in the film. Viewers must realize that yes, there is a place in Thailand for the behavior displayed in The Elephant King, but the nation’s real beauty lies outside the grasp of the farang (Thai for “foreigner”).

To truly understand a place you have to open your eyes. Many travelers fail at this by selectively choosing what to experience and what to ignore. To see something for what it really is you must suck it all in, saturate yourself with the place, and leave nothing unseen. The Elephant King does an excellent job of giving its viewers a taste of a part of Thai society. It is true, all of it. It is raw, untamed, yes, but it is part of the beautiful myriad of shades of gray that form the beautiful Kingdom of Thailand, for better or worse. Ultimately, you must look at the demons of a place before you can truly understand its angels.

The link for The Elephant King trailer on YouTube ->      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE54fRqWPPk

Relief Donations a Welcome Surprise

 

The devastation in Haiti is so massive that it can be seen on Google Earth. Every second, and dollar donated, is critical as aid pours into the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Much has been reported on the recordbreaking donations on this third day following the quake. Outpacing the funds donated for 2004 tsunami, the philanthropic efforts directed at Haiti have strengthened my belief in humanity. I am a cynicist, at heart, and two days ago expressed some grief concerning the 1st World’s lack of aid to economically stagnant 3rd World countries.

This wound has been worked on, however, by the unbelievable work America and the rest of the world is doing for the Haitian people. According to CNN.com (which, by the way, has done a superb job reporting on this disaster and should be credited as massively contributing to the available aid), as of Friday afternoon, corporate America has pledged more than $40 million in donations to support earthquake relief efforts in Haiti.

Celebrities, as well, including George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (surprise, surprise… this is a compliment), are contributing to Haiti relief efforts, according to ABC News. Clooney and MTV are working on a telethon for Haiti later this month, ABC said. The Clintons, also, have become involved and I have to say, after hearing Bill speak passionately on CNN today, my respect for his philanthropic efforts have increased, if that is possible. His efforts post-tsunami were amazing, as well.

Most impressive has been the text-donations. The masses have utilized this easy-to-give method to contribute in small chunks to this massive relief effort.

Even though I am sometimes quick to point out the apathy of the American people concerning many issues, this kind of turnout makes me shameful. Compared to the relief that has been given to Haiti thus far, my apathy runs deep.

Quake in Haiti

The earthquake that amassed devastation in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, yesterday, has prompted aid from the United Nations and several other international organizations. According to CNN, these groups and aid workers will decend upon the Haitian capitol today. While I applaud the quick international  response to such a tragedy, I find myself wondering where relief has been in the past – not for natural disasters, but for impoverished third world countries such as Haiti that are plagued with poverty, hunger, and economic stagnation.

Where are we when humans chronically suffer from these issues? On the sidelines, claiming inadequacy. When something this visual, accessible, and tragic occurs, however, the U.S. and other world powers are always there to help. This is of course a great characterisitc of our nation, to be sure. I only ask this question: Where are we when people are starving and destitute? If we can help in the aftermath of a massive earthquake, why can’t we “send aid” to combat the chronic issues that characterize the third world?

There are those, of course, Americans, who were on the ground providing exactly this kind of relief when the quake hit, and I applaud their work.

Travel

“Adventure is a path. Real adventure – self-determined, self-motivated, often risky – forces you to have firsthand encounters with the world. The world the way it is, not the way you imagine it. Your body will collide with the earth and you will bear witness. In this way you will be compelled to grapple with the limitless kindness and bottomless cruelty of humankind – and perhaps realize that you yourself are capable of both. This will change you. Nothing will ever again be black-and-white.”

                                                                                      -Mark Jenkins

I am among the fortunate few who have had opportunities to see the world at a young age; I have done my best to take advantage of this. Some might find Travel an unworthy or even strange section for a professionally aimed website, but I would argue that travel, when experienced the right way, alters one’s perceptions so dramatically that it should be a requirement of the education system. Mark Twain commented on the nature of travel when he described it as “fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.”

I have yet to meet a person who is immune to this effect. I doubt I ever will, because being in a place forces its reality upon you. I remember the moment I felt the farthest away from home in my life. I was traveling alone, from Chiang Mai, Thailand, to Vientiane, Laos, to apply for a visa extension that would allow me to stay in Thailand longer. I had just crossed the Mekong via the Friendship Bridge and hopped a tuk tuk (think golf cart-lawnmower-carriage-taxi hybrid).

The open air setup of a tuk tuk provides a sense-awakening rush of your surroundings. The overbearing clang of the tuk tuk engine made my ears ring. The distinct smell of cow shit, a smell, being from rural Tennessee, I am familiar with, filled my nose. The warm late afternoon sun beat down on the back of my neck, its light putting on display a countryside characterized by beauty, history, bhuddism, French influence, poverty, and decades old still-active landmines notorious for stealing Laotian limbs.

As we made the 30 minute journey from the border to Vientiane and moved from 2nd to 3rd world, I sensed a kind of satisfaction only a cliche can describe – freedom. I was geographically the farthest I had ever been away from home, with no one to help me or tell me where to go, what to do. I was at the mercy of a land so different from my own, yet I thrived. I pulsed with excitement, with content, with love, with sadness, with fear,  simultaneoulsy.

It is only travel that brings these things to me in such ways. If my senses are pores then experiencing foreign worlds is wet heat. My senses are split open and colors, smells, and sounds of my location seap through the pours of perception. Like a hot tub, however, and, like an American, after so long away from home I must get out, lest I fatigue and miss the cool dryness of Bristol, TN.

Travel holds its place, still, in my heart for the knowledge it has brought me and an understanding of the unknown. Click on the “Travel” tab above to see a list of the international destinations I have experienced. Many of my blogs will contain elements from these.

Launching Site

After much procrastination, about a year’s worth, I have begun to build achasemitchell.com. Blogs to follow – feel free to look around on the site.