365 Reasons I Love Costa Rica
Thoughts on Colombia
I haven’t been writing in the blog lately. December just didn’t afford me the time (or the ability to concentrate long enough to bang out 400 – 500 of coherent words). And for the last of December and first of January I was bringing in the new year in Medellin, Colombia. For most of the time I was there I was either too inebriated on Aguardiente Antioqueño (Medellin manufactured ”guaro”), or too much suffering the effects of said inebriation to even think about writing (or even think at all, for that matter). No, really, I am just kidding a little about that (but not completely). For if there is anything that defines life in Medellin, or the entire departamento of Antioquia, it is certainly Aguardiente Antioqueño. Medellin is a huge city and Antioquia, which is only one of Colombia’s 32 departamentos (or states), is larger in population than the entire country of Costa Rica. Of course, Medellin is the former home of the now deceased Pablo Escobar, one of the most infamous criminals in history. He was the head of the Medellin drug cartel that once ruled the world’s cocaine trade and made him one of the richest men on the planet. In those days, Medellin was the most violent city on earth. In 1991, at the height of Pablo Escobar’s war against the Colombian state, the Cali cartel, and the emerging paramilitaries, Medellín’s murder rate was off the charts. At 381 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, it was 40 times higher than the UN marker of an “epidemic” rate of 10 per 100,000. But those days are long gone and currently the city is relatively safe (perhaps even safer than where I call home, San Jose, Costa Rica). So what are my thoughts on the place? While the few gringos who dare to visit Medellin probably would confine their traveling to within a few blocks of their posh Poblado hotel, I was staying with family (my wife’s) and traveled extensively around the city and outside of it as well. I find that Colombia has a charming “rustic” quality that surpasses Costa Rica in character. Everywhere you go people are outside in the parks sipping their aguardiente, listening to vallenatos and in general having a raucous good time. Colombian people just tend to be a bit more outgoing than the ticos. The “culture” of the “paisas” is evident as soon as you venture into any of the pueblos of the region. One in particular that I found charming was El Retiro, which is about an hour outside of the limits of Medellin. All of the little pueblos have a park which is the nucleus of the community and is surrounded by small open-air bars, restaurants and shops where the people gather to talk and drink. The music of the region is ubiquitous. The harmonious sounds of the accordion are always ever present. The food, while not all that healthy, is delicious. “Arepas con todo” (a corn tortilla with everything, which means chicken, beef and pork) was probably my favorite. And of course the aguardiente, which is a sugar cane based alcoholic drink flavored with anis, never ceases to flow. The alcohol content is around 30% and it is always drunk straight up with a glass of water to the side. The stuff tastes really good and it is not hard at all to drink too much of it. And don’t dare try to keep up with the paisas when it comes to drinking this stuff. I made that mistake and the next morning lived to regret it. This was my second trip to Colombia and I have only barely scraped the surface when it comes to knowing what this large and extremely diverse country is all about. There are so many other places I want to visit there. The one big obstacle to doing so is that even though the cities like Medellin and their immediate suburbs are relatively safe, venturing too far into the verdant green Andean mountains is not. There are still guerrilla lurking out there, as well as paramilitary groups. Those groups, coupled with the still vibrant drug industry, make many parts of the country very unsafe, for anyone. That is a big difference Colombia suffers that makes Costa Rica so appealing. Here you have a miniature version of Colombia and it is safe to go anywhere you want. I hope all that changes and that one day I can really get to know the whole country of Colombia.
embedded by Embedded Video
God and Gulnare
We live in a highly segregated society, with neighborhoods, schools, churches, friendship cliques, and families themselves divided upon clear lines of ethnic demarcation. With that as a starting point it is no wonder that when it is time to choose a life’s mate, one generally ends up choosing someone who shares a common ethnicity. However, while that may be the general rule, there are certainly many exceptions. And when those occur, in my opinion, they should be celebrated as great leaps forward in societal evolution. However, it is obvious that some, many, don’t see it that way. Take the recent action by the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church to ban interracial couples from becoming members or participating in services. The one place where I would think segregation wouldn’t exist, or shouldn’t exist, would be the church. But instead it is the very location where segregation is most rampant. Most aren’t as out front about it as Gulnare, but the underlying racism is evident on any southern Sunday morning, between 11:00 and 12:00. Why is that? Jesus himself probably wouldn’t have fit in too well with this idea of pure racial homogeneity. After all, he was far from what one would consider traditionally white. There are theories around that possibly he was a man of a color distinctly darker than what would be welcome in the pews of Gulnare. Is there any place in the bible that supports condemnation of racial mixing? I don’t know of any. So where did the church leaders of Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church get their racist idea? It takes a great leap of faith to subscribe to fundamental Christian doctrine. And it takes an even greater leap of faith to believe that God is a racist. Because if God is not, then members of the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church who voted for or condone this church action have got some serious splaining to do at the pearly gates. To be honest, one of the reasons I left the Christian church some time ago was the fact that I just could never get comfortable with the racial segregation that so obviously exists there, especially in the south. If someone out there can help me understand that, rather than just denying that it is a problem (if that is what you would do, then you are the problem), I am all ears (or eyes). As for Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church, your true colors have been shown and they aren’t so righteously white after all.
Wall Street Speak
I don’t completely know why I have been so heavy with the political and philosophical stuff lately. It seems that I go through these phases of depth versus shallow-ness. Who knows? A friend told me to “get my mind out of the gutter.” Easier said than done. I like the gutter….if it means the “guttural” attempt to articulate an evolving philosophy. Cause, you see, I really don’t know what it is that I believe. But lately I get this uneasy sense that I have been sold a bill of goods. That what mainstream American thought would have one believe is less than the truth. But we go about living our lives as if those things we are told to believe are in fact truth. So I search on and my search takes me to some dark and dangerous places…..places where my mother would certainly prefer that I not tread. But one has to peer intently into the face of the beast to know its true nature and to determine decidedly whether it is friend or foe, appearances alone aside. I am just sick and tired of feeling compelled to believe a certain line of sh*t, simply because I was schooled in it. I have a pretty intense legal and financial educational background. I never had the smarts to study at Harvard or Yale, but I still managed to piece together a pretty good post-secondary level of education, which has served no other inherently useful purpose than to greatly confuse the meaning of my existence. I was wandering around on the Internet yesterday and stumbled across Al Gore’s investment fund, Generation Investment Management. He and his partner, a former Goldman Sachs (speaking of beasts) guy by the name of David Blood, purport an interest in a thing called “sustainable capitalism.” When I first read that I thought, sounds good. According to them, sustainable capitalism seeks to maximize long-term economic value creation by integrating environmental, social and governance (or ethical) factors into strategy and into measuring outputs and assessing risk and opportunities. That to me sounds like a whole lot of what I will call “Wall Street speak.” I for one have completely lost faith in anything coming out of Wall Street that will be truly “sustainable.” It may be sustainable in the sense of lining the pockets of the already exorbitantly rich, such as Mr. Gore and Mr. Blood. But sustainable where it counts, for you and for me?….nah. The companies that Gore and Blood have invested in are normal Fortune 500 companies that any Wall Street investment fund could be found investing in…..perhaps with a little “green window dressing.” I just didn’t get that inspired by their talk of sustainable capitalism, at least beyond the name itself, which does sound pretty good. Can or should “sustainable” and “capitalism” be used together….are they compatible? That is the question that has me pondering so pathologically these days. I really don’t know the answer. However, I do honestly hope that they are.
Now here’s something worth getting a little more excited about….
Forbes 30 Top Social Entrepreneurs
The Premise of Laissez-Faire
I ran across an old video of Phil Donahue interviewing the renowned economist, Milton Friedman. The topic of the discussion was greed, with the left leaning Donahue intimating that “capitalists are greedy.” Friedman doesn’t disagree and further points out that greed is in fact the engine of economic growth. He makes a statement that I would say pretty much sums up the premise of laissez-faire economic theory. That is, that “the world runs on individuals pursuing their separate (and selfish) interests.” It is hard to argue against that point. It seems to be, on the whole, completely factual. My question this morning is, however, does that make it right? Just because something is factual, doesn’t necessarily make it right, or that the best economic model is one of “greed unleashed.” Friedman’s brand of “fundamental capitalism” has been successful in helping certain people pursue their own separate and selfish interests throughout the globe since the 1960′s. It has also served to greatly widen the gap between the rich and the poor in the countries where his ideas have been implemented. Those at the top of the economic food chain got a whole lot fatter, while those at the bottom starved. The premise that “greed is good” usually translates into a reality where those who are empowered to make a difference generally don’t (at least for anyone other than themselves). The results have been highly destructive to most people and to the planet we inhabit. Pursuing my own separate and selfish interests may lead me to drive a hummer through neighborhoods where people are starving, for work and for food. After all, that’s “their problem.” It may lead me to scornfully dismiss the filthy street beggar as societal refuse. It may lead me to vote for politicians who are in the pockets of oil companies whose own selfish interests tell us to “drill baby drill” and ignore clean energy solutions as unnecessary and costly ideas of radical left-wingers suffering under the illusion of the global warming “hoax.” According to Friedman’s idea of what makes the world turn, all that matters is ME. Any notion of the “collective good” should be dismissed as silly and naive ideas of bleeding heart liberals (or, socialists). Personally, I would prefer to think that what makes the world turn, or should make it turn, is the idea expressed by the philosopher Betrand Russell, that “love is wise and hatred is foolish….and that we must learn the kind of charity and kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.” That’s an idea of “collective good” that sounds diametrically opposed to what Friedman expressed in the Donahue interview.
embedded by Embedded Video
Should There be a 1%?
The graph paints an alarming picture. The share of total income by the top 1% peaked in 1928 and 2007 at just shy of 25%. Wow, does the graph really mean that 25% of all income earned in the U.S. went to that select slither of the population? Yep, that’s what it means and, moreover, it shows that both high points were immediately succeeded by the dramatic low points of the “Great Depression” and the current “Great Recession.” Some would say therefore, let’s do away with that 1% all together. Take away their great wealth and spread it around to the poor 99%’ers. Even out the playing field, as you might say. I disagree. After all, the fact of the 1%’s very existence should give the rest of us something to shoot for, to strive towards. It is that 1% who have achieved what Tony Robbins (who happens to be up there) would call “Absolute Financial Freedom.” That is, the ability not to have to work another day in one’s life and still have the wherewithal to do whatever you want, whenever you want and wherever you want. That’s a pretty cool state of being. I could really dig some of that. Yea, the complete removal of money as a constraint upon the enjoyment of one’s life sounds pretty, well, enjoyable. So, I believe that OWS should not be about denying the 1% their financial freedom. Most have earned it. Rather a better objective would be to enhance the mobility of the rest of us to reach that level. And certainly to remove any government role in helping someone reach the 1%, or maintain that status, at the exclusion of all the rest of us. And finally, it would help us to be less resentful of the 1% if they were a little more compassionate. But wait a minute, doesn’t the 1% already shoulder their “fair share” of the burden….doesn’t that prove their compassion? No, it doesn’t. And the current Grover Norquist mandated pledge of no additional taxes to help our nation out of trouble, not even on those most able to afford them, proves the point. I am not at the point in my political and philosophical evolution (and, boy, have I evolved) to say that capitalism is the culprit…..that it is at the root of all the trouble in the world. I do believe that the brand of capitalism inspired by Grover Norquist is, in large part, however. Capitalism, or a view thereof, that places property ahead of people and planet is not a good thing. Property, or the rights to ownership thereof, should never be allowed such an honorable position. I believe that is where my brand of capitalism departs dramatically from the mainstream. There are only two ways to put a brake on capitalism run amok. That is by government mandate and by appealing to conscience. I think that Occupy Wall Street should be about pursuing both of those means to limit capitalism’s darker attributes.
Middle Classlessness
I looked up GDP per capita among North American countries this morning. Here are some of the results: U.S. $41,557, Costa Rica $10,316, Mexico $10,090, Nicaragua $2,779. The “poverty line” for a family of four in the U.S. is currently $22,350 in annual income. That’s twice the per capital GDP of Costa Rica and Mexico and 8x that of Nicaragua. And interesting phenomena that occurs in Latin America is what I will call “middle classlessness.” That does not mean there is no wealth in Latin America. There are plenty of extremely wealthy people….i.e., there is a 1%. But the remaining 99% are poor, certainly according to U.S. standards. You often hear about the “middle class” of Costa Rica that sets it apart from poorer countries in the region. But the statistics above speak for themselves. Costa Rica’s average income is less than 1/2 of the U.S. poverty line. And I am here to tell you, the cost of living in Costa Rica is not that dramatically different. I wrote yesterday attributing a grand portion of the illegal immigration problem in the U.S. to land concentration in Latin America. It is that very land concentration that suppresses the rise of a middle class. And it is that middle classlessness that leads to class struggle and an openness to embrace political philosophies that mandate social and class justice. Philosophies such as Marxism, Communism, Socialism. In the U.S. this level of class struggle does not exist because a person in the middle class feels that they have the economic mobility to move at least towards that 1%. At least that has historically been the case. It may now be changing. A poor Mexican or Nicaraguan will enter into the U.S. illegally with hopes of enjoying a middle class level of economic existence that is denied to him in his own country. The point I made yesterday is that the U.S., through exploitative imperialistic policies, has contributed significantly to the absence of a middle class in Latin America. We have in large part helped to create the very problem that we now so eagerly seek to isolate to the south by erecting a fence (or as Herman Cain would prefer, an electric fence….like my grandfather had around his hog pen). But fences won’t correct the central issue, which is middle classlessness. And in my opinion as long as the U.S. contributes to that problem by exploiting weaker countries and thereby perpetuating “middle classlessness,” it has no clean hands in railing against the plague of illegal immigration.
Just in Time for Christmas: The Gingrich Grows a Heart!
When your heart’s desire is to be the President of the U.S. there are those correct things to say to the “base” and then there are the correct things to say to the wider electorate (and the two are often vastly different). Last night at the Republican “National Security” Debate, I believe Newt may have gotten a little confused on that very issue. You could cleary hear seven dropping jaws smack the floor when he actually voiced his approval of some form of amnesty for the nation’s 11 million plus illegal immigrants (at least for those who have been in the country for a quarter century already). That was a shocker. It seems a bit of a paradox to me that a “nation of immigrants” would want to kick out the immigrants?? Perhaps we should research everyone’s background (since we all have an immigrant looming somewhere back there, unless we are, say, a full-blooded Cherokee) and if there is one illegal in a person’s family tree, out they go. That would definitely go a long way to reduce the crowds at those raucous tea party rallies (as well as clean up the park currently occupied by those filthy Wall Street Occupationalists…..Newt would probably agree with that one at least). Why is it that people tend to want to come to the U.S. in the first place? Newt’s shocking display of warmth and compassion last night has me pondering that very question. I am not sure about the rest of the world, but I do have an inkling of an idea at least about why Latin Americans tend to do so…..many without taking the time to wade through the oceanic volume of red tape required for legal entry. I also know that many who do try to enter legally are often arbitrarily denied the privilege….sometimes based on the quality of the day that the U.S. consulate agent was having when they came in for the interview. It may have something to do with the fact that the ability to own property and thereby somewhat control one’s destiny in Latin America can be quite difficult. The reason for that has a lot to do with the fact of “land concentration”, which in most Latin American countries is still extremely high. That is, most of the land is owned by corporations (usually not of the home country), or wealthy estate holders. The common folk are thereby reduced to working for them who own these sources of production (the land and its fruit, above and below ground) and often for a monthly wage less than what a burger flipper at MacDonald’s in the U.S. could make in a week. So they opt for the fantasy of being that burger flipper. And they risk life and limb to do so. One of the big problems I have with many of the attitudes on the right towards immigrants is that the U.S. has historically had a lot to do with the land concentration issue in Latin America. For far too long we propped up dictators who were in the pockets of U.S. corporations (the United Fruit Company immediately comes to mind) and who supported, often violently, land concentration. The U.S. policy was to label any ”left-wing radical” bent toward “agrarian reform” as a communist and thereby justify taking the “red threat” out by whatever means available. So before you are too quick to judge the Gingrich “goof” of last night, look down at your own two hands….they may not be as clean as you think.
Oh to be a 1%’er
The Occupy Wall Street protesters claim to represent the 99%. But, if asked and answered truthfully, wouldn’t any of them prefer to be in that 1%. The answer may well be yes, but if I was, I would think and act differently. Hmmm….there might be some semblance of an “aim” in that very reply. And it is for “that” reason that Occupy Wall Street is exactly where it should be….not at the steps of the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., but in that park situated in the middle of the financial pulse of America. Maybe what they are saying, or should be saying, is that the answer indeed does not lie with government. After all, repressive regimes have not had a particularly good track record (well, there is China, but we’ll just have to wait and see on that one…..). Forced income equality is not what we want, is it? The best of human ingenuity generally doesn’t surface under such conditions. And government shouldn’t be in the business of telling Bill Gates where he should be spending his billions, should it? If a person wants to get rich and does, it should be at least almost totally up to him what he does next. He obviously has much more than he “needs” according to average world metrics. The average per capita income here in my beloved Costa Rica is around $10,000 and most do just fine. In fact, many say it is one of the happiest places on earth. So couldn’t someone in the U.S. possibly be “happy” with say $100,000 (that’s 10x a tico!). So, if that person is making $250,000, or even $1,000,000, what do they do with that excess? Shouldn’t that be totally up to them to decide? Of course it should, but in a society where materialism has often taken the place of good common sense, people are often lured into deciding disastrously. And for what? Because in a society of capitalism run amok my self-worth is determined by how much stuff I have. The marketing maestros of Madison Avenue know that all too well. So maybe the change that Occupy Wall Street wants to take place really must be a change not as much with government as in the heart. They are garnering attention. They are occupying the conversation. But what they should really be going for is to occupy the conscience. And what better place to start than the conscience of the Wall Street banker who is constantly tripping over the refuse of OCW on his way to making that million dollar bonus manipulating the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model. Maybe if nothing else, the message that emanates from OCW is for those guys, and the rest of us, to think hard about what to do with all that money.
W-W-Che-D?
The Occupy Wall Street movement appears to be gaining steam, despite the fact that the mayors of the towns where these demonstrations are taking place have had just about enough of it. The truth is, the more action they (the mayors) take against it (the movement), the stronger it will become. Opposition will only give the movement more reason to foment…..like gasoline to a ground fire. It seems that “el fantasma de fuser” pervades the hearts and minds (or at least the t-shirts and posters) of many of these modern day rebels. Some say they are without a cause. There is always a sense of adventure that will draw the most adventurous spirits to rebellion. Che (or, fuser, as he was childishly called) was certainly one of those….an adventurous spirit. I believe what attracted him to revolution was first his idealistic compassion towards the proletariat, which fueled his deep anger towards the bourgeoisie (especially those of the “capitalist” variety). Secondly, however, it was his sense of adventure. What can be more adventurous than becoming a revolutionary? But revolutions need an aim beyond the sheer adventure they invite and this movement in particular needs to get crystal clear as to what they really are aiming at. Only then can they decide on the most appropriate weapons. In Che’s case it was capitalistic greed and its tendency to goad those who harbored it towards imperialistic exploits. I believe capitalistic greed is what the Occupy Wall Streeters should also be angry at. Does that mean that socialism, or communism, or Marxism is the answer? In Che’s later world-view (he certainly didn’t start out that way) it was. But it isn’t. History has proven that pretty well. I have heard all the vehemence directed at Che and those who would dare to don a t-shirt (or pair of underpants) with his image emblazoned thereon. That he was a blood-thirsty communist who shot first and asked questions later. To compare Che with a Ghandi or a King, for those folks at least, would be heretic-ally stupid. But Che was not rebelling against the same things that those guys were. They could afford to rebel peacefully. Che could not. Batista would have none of that. Peaceful protests were generally not tolerated so well back in the late 50′s and 60′s by Latin America’s dictators. Dictators who were often propped up by, guess what, capitalism. So Che chose his aim and his weapon. He was a warrior at war and war is not pretty. But what if Che himself, and not just the ”ghost of Guevara,” were occupying Wall Street? If he were around these days he probably would be there. What would Che do? Whatever the answer to that question is….I can say this with certainty, he would have done it using a disciplined and completely fearless approach. If there is anything about Che that is inspiring, at times even frightening, especially to those who bore its brunt, it was his discipline and his fearlessness. If you were in Che’s column in the Sierra Maestra, you ate your vegetables and did your homework, sin preguntitas. I believe the movement needs to adopt the same approach…..of discipline (as in determining exactly what the aim of the movement is and what “weapons” will be utilized in achieving it) and fearlessness, especially towards those who will try to imbue the movement with corrupt motivations. Keep the movement pointed at that aim and keep it pure and incorruptible…..at all costs. And, keep it peaceful (remember you are trying to “improve upon” not ”overthrow”). I believe in this case, that’s what Che would do.
Weighing In
I have to feel a bit empathetic for Herman Caine and Rick Perry. In Caine’s case, who hasn’t been falsely accused of something. Despite the fact that the political left is now marching lockstep in condemning Caine for acts that he claims never to have done, I for one don’t believe the accusations for a moment. “He grabbed my head and pulled it toward his crotch” while rhetorically asking, “you do want a job now don’t you?” That is a level of crudeness and barbarity that just strains credulity….in my humble opinion. Of course, in the “court of public opinion” (at least main stream media imposed public opinion) Caine has been found “guilty as charged.” So, I do empathize with Caine, even though I couldn’t disagree more with 99% of his political views. Same goes with Rick Perry. Who hasn’t “froze up” in an highly inappropriate moment. Like when you are about to introduce your wife to someone and you forget her name for a moment. So you just kind of allow that awkward pause to develop long enough that she steps in and does it herself. Sure it happens to all of us (doesn’t it?). The problem with Perry is the attitude in which he does it. The attitude that came shining through when in the midst of debating the issue of Caine’s 9-9-9 tax plan, Perry jibes in with, “Herman, I love ya brother, but it just ain’t gonna fly.” Then the day after Perry introduces his own similar plan. Perry has that Texas cocky “I know better than you attitude.” We’ve seen it before haven’t we? There was this other guy from Texas who also had the same six-gun swagger that turned off most of the world outside of Dallas and the Dixie-belt…..you know, a guy by the name of “Bush.” I am kind of in agreement with Jon Stewart who described Rick Perry as follows: “Rick Perry is not George W. Bush on steroids; Rick Perry is what happens if Lex Luthor distilled down George W. Bush’s essence in a laboratory and crossed it with gunpowder and semen from the finest thoroughbred in Lubbock — and then strapped that concoction onto a nuclear missile and shot it into the f**king sun.” Yea, that about sums it up for me too. But one thing is for sure, this Republican field for 45th U.S. President sure ain’t a boring bunch. They’re more fun that any field of candidates in rememberence. I am just wondering what’s next for this crew of payasos. Barack Obama look out! No, really, if the tea party can’t field a better candidate than what it looks like will be going toe to toe with Obama, they better start praying hard for a double dip recession.
