Turning 50 really wasn’t that big of a deal…

Oh for sure, we did the big 5-0 birthday bash, complete with me singing my signature karaoke bit, El Rey, fronting a band of Colombian mariachis. And the hangover the next morning had me feeling the pain of every inch of five decades of struggle against gravity.

However, this time we’re talking a number of more significance. Many would say one that marks the beginning of “old age.”

There won’t be any wild birthday bashes this time around. As Hank Williams, Jr. sang, the hangovers definitely hurt more than they used to!

While I do respect the number 60, as it signifies a stage of life that can mark the beginning of a downhill slide to, well, you know (a metaphor having both positive and negative connotations)…

I’m not afraid of it. At least not deathly so…

After all, I’m arriving at the number with a life blessed in so many ways.

And I refuse to embrace the pessimistic idea that its year of arrival, 2020, is a bad omen…

I don’t even believe in omens, good or bad.

I have a pretty good life. I’m married to a beautiful lady of about 5 years my younger. We are both in good health. I’m nowhere near “financially free”, so I’ll probably spend the next decade selling real estate here in Costa Rica. And that’s okay! I really enjoy doing it and I’m finally starting to see some success with it. We do plan on doing a bit of traveling, especially to her home country of Colombia.

I have four great kids, two married, all healthy and successful in their own right. And I’m sure some grandkids on the way in the not too distant future. Oh, and my wife has three herself and one granddaughter already on the scene in Colombia. We’re a multinational “Brady Bunch.” And that’s really kind of cool!

Other than my car, a meager wardrobe and a few sticks of furniture, I own nothing. Many would be frightened by that at my age, but, honestly, I like the fact that I’m not locationally tied down via “asset ownership.”

And I gave up the idea of being rich and famous long ago!

As I sit here, reflecting on the Big 60, I see my life in thirds…

The first third was one marked in many ways by self-destruction. The second third by trying to reconstruct that damage done. And this last last third, the Costa Rica third, as one of self-discovery.

Sometimes I wonder where I’d be if I’d never taken on that fateful “Universidad Interamericana” deal back in 2001 that brought me here and forever changed my life…

I guess I’d be working in an office, maybe as an attorney, or financial advisor type. I’d probably have “money”, as they say. I’d probably have a nice home and retirement account. In short, I’d probably have a lot of those trappings of success that mark the American dream…

I’d certainly be a more respected human in the eyes of many back “home.”

But, then again, maybe not. Who knows?

Nevertheless, here I am. A Costa Rican citizen, no less!

A Costan Rica realtor.

And as of the end of this week, an “old” one.

They say wisdom comes with age. After witnessing the way many in my new age group embrace the alternative fact universe of Donald J. Trump, I kind of question that…

However, I do think wisdom has come to me via the life experiences I have had, especially that of being a dual citizen, or as I prefer to think of myself, a world citizen.

It has softened me, humbled me, and it has gifted me with a more open mind.

Of course, being married for the last 12 years to my Colombian borne wife, who doesn’t even speak English, has greatly contributed to that open-mindedness!

For me that filter has been, in many ways, this platform that has allowed me to get thoughts out of my head and to share them with you. That process helped me develop this worldview that I hold dearly to, the one I call impact mindfulness.

The one that keeps at the forefront of my consciousness the principled triad of altruistic service to others (impact over interest), inclusivity (the Big US), and open-mindedness (removing impact blinders).

This week I plan to make some decisions about the direction I want the next 10 years to take, especially concerning two things: my health and my impact.

I want the next ten years to be marked by both…a renewed commitment to health (physical and mental) and to making an impact, creatively.

I have struggled the last half of my 5th decade to get my financial legs back under me. I believe I’ve largely succeeded in that effort. However, the struggle has taken a toll on my health and my impact. Not that I find myself in seriously bad health, but it definitely could be better.

And focusing so intently for the last five years on fixing the self-inflicted financial mess that came to a head back around 2015 has taken my focus off of things that I know are more important.

In Costa Rica we like to say, “hay mas tiempo que vida” (that there’s more time than life). In other words, we don’t get too stressed down here over the idea that time is fleeting…pura vida…

But, in reality, it is.

I guess the most significant thing about turning 60 is coming to that realization.

So, I believe it’s time to renew my focus on those most important things.

And of course to have some fun in the process!

Oh, and that might mean that you’ll be hearing a lot more from me here…

Humor this newly minted old-timer with your patience, and perhaps a bit of your attention, as I try to get back to what I believe my life really should be all about.

Government imposed equality is NOT freedom…

But neither is market imposed inequality…

This Yearning to Breathe Free – Part 2 is a follow up to an older post I wrote a few years back.

So then, what is freedom?

I mean, really, what is it?

I recently posted about freedom as being the unifying concept, or that it, at least, should be…

However, our disagreements about what freedom truly is are at the heart of the division we’re currently experiencing.

The scientists and doctors involved with managing this pandemic are telling us all to wear masks and “social distance.”

Many regard that as an assault on freedom.

Others would argue that sometimes we must curtail personal freedoms for the good of the collective whole.

And daily we see videos posted to social networks of normally decent citizens tearing each other’s eyes out over the issue of mask wearing in order to protect the health of their fellow humans!

Why can’t we agree on this basic issue – what is freedom?

What we mean by free, with respect to the market, is that it is free from interference…

that it is allowed to charter its own course.

Which is what I guess most of us would likewise enjoy individually.

But without diverging into economics, a completely “free” market isn’t altogether possible and for that matter, neither is a completely “free” individual.

The market does not and cannot exist on its own…it is not a product of nature. It is a product of collective agreement. We agree on how the market should operate and give government the authority to make sure it does indeed operate in that manner!

And our own personal freedoms connote some responsibility to others. This idea is enshrined in the oft-quoted expression that my liberty to swing my fist ends where your nose begins!

So, can anything be truly free?

Perhaps not in the sense that freedom must have its limits, or boundaries.

The political fault lines seem to align with our varying perceptions about where those boundaries lie.

For instance, conservatives are adamant about a free market, with minimal government intervention…

However, they are equally adamant about “law and order”, with clear boundaries and enforcement concerning certain actions they deem societally harmful…

like drug use, for instance.

Liberals on the other hand clamor for more government intervention into the market and less into our personal choices.

I posed the question in the unifying concept post about whether or not there could be a happy medium?

Since we all agree that freedom, at least in theory, is good and we all want to enjoy it…

Couldn’t we also possibly come to some tacit agreement about the limits to said freedom?

Let’s consider an example where disagreement often arises…

Take health care, for instance…

Can a person be truly free if he or she lives under the constant threat of an economic disaster stemming from an unanticipated sickness or injury?

I have many conservative friends who, if I could venture a guess, would answer no to that question.

So, why is it that as soon as we suggest taking the health care issue off the market, so to speak, and making it a “public good” to be collectively (meaning government) administered, are we right back at each other’s throats?

My conservative friends would quickly tell me, well, because government is bad at managing anything, whereas the market is good at it…

But they won’t make that same argument with respect to other public goods, like law enforcement, the military, or the fire department.

Let’s consider another example…

Most of my conservative friends would probably agree that it is not good for 90% of a country’s wealth to be owned and controlled by only 1% of its population…

They would agree things should be more equal than that…certainly not completely equal, mind you, but at least more equal than that…

But they will also fight me tooth and nail on the idea that government has any role whatsoever in equalizing that playing field…

That is the job of the market, they’d tell me…

But the robust unfettering of the market over the last several decades has gotten us into this gross inequality mess in the first place, hasn’t it?

Again, the market is organized and managed via collective, or government, action. It is NOT some freely operating natural phenomenon…

The problem is that the government, which is supposed to reflect the collective will, has been unduly influenced by those who have enjoyed the vast majority of the market’s largess. The so-called “free” market has been rigged in their favor…so, I guess in that sense it is free, but only for them.

I’d opine that the majority on both the right and the left share the sentiment that government is inept at managing anything and what managing it does do is usually for the benefit of only a small percentage of the collective.

The truth is that our cherished freedoms are both promoted and curtailed by “collective” action and lately, that action has been far less than reflective of the popular (or collective) will.

The concept of “self-government” does not only mean taking personal responsibility for ones individual actions, it also means taking collective responsibility for our collective actions, i.e., our government!

That is a fundamental tenet of democracy! Self-government does not work without that level of personal and civic responsibility.

And we seem to be doing a piss-poor job of it lately.

The point of this post is that if we all want to enjoy the freedoms we so seemingly cherish, well then, we need to do a better job of collectively managing ourselves, don’t you think?

We need to pay closer attention to how we actually employ self-government in practice…

How do we do that?

That’s a very good question that I’m afraid I don’t have a cogent answer for…

But I do know how we’ll never be successful at it…

And that is by staying the current course of being at each other’s throats about that very issue of…

how the fuck to govern ourselves in order to maximize the freedoms we collectively cherish?

Isn’t it high time we stopped retreating to our respective tribal corners and irresponsibly shirking that solemn responsibility?

There’s a bit of wisdom in that old saying that…

two wrongs don’t make a right…

However, these days, in the current political climate, it’s become nothing more than a cliche that no one really pays much attention to.

I’m going to try not to take sides in this post, because both sides are guilty as sin, when it comes to whataboutism.

It has become the method of choice used to explain away even the most corrupt and contemptible behavior by politicians, especially the one who looms large over our lives…

Yes, I’m talking about Donald J. Trump.

My feeds are full of examples.

Let’s apply this way of rationalizing away evil to our personal lives. Let’s apply it to the realm of parenthood…

What would you do if your kid was caught in the act of some dastardly deed, like lying through his teeth about something important…and he says…

But (brother) Billy did it too (or did x, which certainly is just as bad, or worse)…shouldn’t that let me off the hook?

I don’t know about you, but that excuse wouldn’t fly very far with me.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the leader of the free world, it flies…boy oh boy does it ever fly…

His beloved base seems capable of forgiving anything on the grounds that the Clintons, or the Bidens, or the Obamas surely did much worse…

What if we let our kids get by based on the whataboutism defense? What might be the ramifications going forward?

Would that dissuade the next lie?

Would that be a good way to teach our kids right from wrong?

When it comes to Trump…do you think letting him off the hook, because some democrat at some point in the past did x, do you really think that will dissuade the next lie, or the next attempt to rig the election in his favor, or the next meddling into our supposedly impartial criminal justice system, to make it work in his favor and against his enemies?

Do you really think so?

I don’t.

It makes me cringe a little each time I see these examples of whataboutism. And lately there’s no shortage of them.

I also worry about what this form of thinking is doing to the country at large. We seem ready, willing and able these days to look the other way at just about anything our side does, as long as we can point to something we feel is equally as bad on the other side…

And this just perpetuates a cycle of corruption that is spiraling out of control…

And even threatening our democratic freedoms.

I realize that in this age of polarization, politics is viewed as something of a team sport. But the truth is that it’s more, much more…

It’s what protects our freedoms and to a large extent governs our daily lives. In short, whether you’re engaged in politics, or not, it is certainly engaged in you!

Whataboutism often defies logic. It calls for trials without witnesses or documentary evidence. It sees everything “we” do as right and everything “they” do as wrong, regardless of clear logical inconsistencies.

It is sewing deeper divisions in an already deeply divided society.

I am sure back in the days before the civil war, chattel slavery was often rationalized with whataboutism…

What about those corrupt Yankee aristocrats, looking down their noses at our way of life, while they exploit the northern working class? Are they really any better?

However, it’s simply not a question of “are they any better?” No, they aren’t and neither are we…

Wrong is wrong.

Regardless of whether you can find what in your opinion are immoral equivalents.

So, how’s about we go about getting rid of whataboutism, once and for all?

What about that?

I am observing this presidential election, the 14th that has taken place in the span of my lifetime, with rapt amazement.

I’ve never seen anything like it. On the right you’ve got a guy who says he wants to “make America great again.” Of course, the implication of that slogan is that America is no longer great. I would tend to disagree with that premise. Perhaps you would as well?

On the left you’ve got a guy in Bernie Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist”, who wants to make America great for everyone, not just a handful of billionaires and large corporations, as he likes to often repeat.

Truth is that America’s still a great place for many people, not just the billionaires and large corporations. Although, it’s perhaps a degree or two greater for those guys.

Yes, the American system in many ways paves the way for greatness…that has been it’s hallmark for a couple centuries…you know, the land of opportunity.

The problem is that for a growing number of people, perhaps folks that you don’t come into contact in any meaningful way during your day-to-day existence, America has become something different. For them, it no longer seems to be that land of opportunity.

That’s simply a fact. The question is, why?

What happened?

On the one side, the argument goes that we need to create an environment that allows folks to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. And the best way to do that is to make things easier for so-called “job creators.” Thing is, that idea has become code talk for “tax cuts for the rich” and massive deregulation for large businesses. If we do that, the argument goes, things will just automatically get better for everyone…a rising tide lifts all ships.

That’s an interesting view of capitalism that almost suggests a rigging of the system. And that’s exactly what we’ve gotten from it. I like to call it “capitalism run amok.”

I find that to be a very profound thought.

You see, Sanders doesn’t want to do away with capitalism. Quite the contrary, he wants to make it work for everyone, because right now it’s just not.

Here’s the thing, facts show that the economy does best when there’s a thriving middle class, since they are the ones doing the large majority of the buying that bolsters the balance sheets of businesses of all shapes and sizes.

But the middle class is not thriving. In fact, it is shrinking. If that continues unabated America could end up looking like one of the many countries throughout the globe in which there are two classes…the haves and the have-nots. That poses grave problems for both of those disparate groups. The have-nots suffer because they simply have not and barely can scrape up enough to just survive. The haves suffer because they no longer have anyone who can afford to buy the stuff they’re selling.

So, along comes Bernie with his populist ideals about how to make the middle class thrive again. That can only happen by stemming the massive tide of wealth that’s flowing to the top. All that wealth is not trickling down…not even by a slow drip. It’s being hoarded and passed on to future generations of haves.

And that, my friends, is an unsustainable situation.

Bernie’s policy ideas are often criticized, even, surprisingly, by middle class folk, as being about giving away “free stuff.” The idea being that no one deserves a free lunch. But that misses the point. Bernie doesn’t want to give away free stuff. After all, his programs are very much paid for…primarily by the ones who are sucking up the entire income and wealth of our nation…and then demanding less taxes and more deregulation in return!

No, Bernie simply wants to give the middle class, and those who are striving to move up to it, a better chance at the American dream. A better chance by not having to worry about whether they can afford to go to a doctor when sick. A better chance by not having to get an economic start in life at a young age burdened by tremendous student loan debt. A better chance by allowing a woman to have a baby and stay home with her child and not having to worry about going back to work asap to pay the bills. A better chance by taking action that will hopefully curtail at least some of the devastating effects that virtually all scientists agree are going to by wrought upon us by climate change.

The problem with America these days is not about immigration. Immigration is what made America great to begin with. It’s not about making our military larger. Heck, we already spend more on the military than the next seven nations of the world combined!

Nevertheless, the hope for a better future is still alive. That’s what is right about America. Americans never stop hoping. And Americans are not afraid to fight hard to make that hope a reality.

The campaign of Bernie Sanders is inspiring hope and that is what’s drawing multitudes, especially young people, to his side. This man could become our next president. He could actually have a chance to make Americans great again by saving capitalism from itself.

The fact that he’s gotten this far shows me in many ways what is truly right about America.

A while back I was watched the documentary about Jimmy Carter entitled Man from Plains. Carter spent much of the time in this film defending his book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, from harsh criticism, mainly from the religious-right.

Carter, who mediated the peace accord between Israel and Egypt at Camp David back in 79 when he was serving as our 39th President, has long been an advocate of the idea that the path to peace in the Middle East begins with the establishment and recognition of a Palestinian State and removal of Israeli settlements from Palestinian territory.

Hitting closer to home, I later read in La Nación that Costa Rica’s President, Oscar Arias, holds similar views.

Carter himself is a deeply religious man and a devout Christian. Has been for all his life. But years ago he was abandoned by the religious-right for a whole host of reasons for which they deemed him religiously wrong. Of course, chief among those reasons is his view on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

This all got me to probing around in the recesses of my own mind about this issue. I used to be a hard-line right-winger myself. But the truth is that no one has a corner on the truth.

The religious-right’s hard-line stance on this issue stems from their view of biblical prophecy. That the establishment of a strong and secure Israeli state will usher in the second-coming of Christ and the end times. Any movement that is even deemed slightly anti-Israel is met with claims of anti-semitism.

I really don’t believe that Jimmy Carter, nor Oscar Arias, are anti-semites. In fact, that very notion is absurd. I have never heard Jimmy Carter call for a dismantling of the Israeli nation in favor of Palestine. What I have heard from him is that it is not right for the Palestinian people to be held prisoner in the ever shrinking strip of land in which Israel saw fit to sequester them.

Palestinian retaliation against this oppression, while certainly wrong (no one can condone suicide bombing), is understandable. That is the opinion of many serious thinking people, none of whom are anti-semitic.

But the real point of this post is not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is about the conflict between those who think they have it all “right” and the rest who they believe are all “wrong.”

Carter once said (I am paraphrasing) that this posture of preeminence gives rise to an attitude of superiority and even the non-recognition of the right for others who disagree to exist.

Is this not the same view of a suicide bomber?

Interpretations of faith that respect the basic rights of all humanity, regardless of religious viewpoint, are much more appealing to me these days than those which propound the preeminence of any one religious view over another.

Unless we can reach the point where human rights and respect for our planet are more important than being “religiously right”, then I guess violence will continue to reign in many parts of our world.

Perhaps the best hope for humanity is folks like Jimmy Carter and the religious wrong.