Baraka Studmuffin

Well, I can't say this very often about political candidates: The more I learn about Obama, the more I respect, admire, and wish to work for him. The last time this happened was in 1992, when I worked for "Governor Moonbeam's" presidential campaign.

(When Jerry Brown announced his intention to run for president against President George H.W. Bush, many in the media and his own party dismissed his campaign as an ego-trip with little chance of gaining significant support. Ignoring them, Brown embarked on an ultra-grassroots campaign to, in his words, "take back America from the confederacy of corruption, careerism, and campaign consulting in Washington." To the surprise of many, Brown was able to tap a populist streak in the Democratic Party, a feat that many would later see as the precursor to the 2004 presidential campaign of Governor Howard Dean. Amazingly, if not for a major gaffe late in the campaign, he just might have pulled off getting the nomoination - despite only accepting $100 donations from individuals!)

But I digress. I'd like for you to read this article from Slate. I am aware that people are busy and Americans don't like to read all that much (although I suspect the devotees to Hopeful Curmudgeon are way above the norm in this category). So, forgive my skepticism, but I'll Cliff's Note it for you.

The article is titled "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism." It addresses the fact that there is a misleading email making the rounds. Containing the above photo, the email text says that Obama refused to hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. It is actually from a video in which the national anthem is playing. (Not a whole lot of difference, probably, to those who cheer a vacuous and cheap version of name-brand patriotism.) Either way, Obama actually was breaking a law when he did not place his hand over his heart. This might make interesting fodder for a future post, but for now, I'm focusing on what this says about Obama.

What this lack of symbolism represents, I think, is a helluva lot - at least, symbolically. Do you know that Obama also has made the decision not to wear the American flag lapel pin? If you aren't a political geek, you may not know that virtually every politician started wearing those things on Sept. 12, 2001. Obama spoke for many of us, I think, when he explained he isn't wearing the pin because he believes it has become a cheap substitute for true patriotism.

The author of the article, Ron Rosenbaum, asks (rhetorically) whether others feel the way he does: grateful to be an American but increasingly uncomfortable about the compulsory rituals of flag-worship other forms of peer-pressure...like putting your hand on your heart and standing to face the flag during the national anthem when all you really wanted to do was watch a good ol' American baseball game with a few friends?

There may or may not be a conscious pattern to Obama's resistance to lip-service patriotism. But given how carefully most politician's "images" are cultivated, (epsecially at the national presidential level) I have to believe he is speaking to those of us who feel the same way. It may be naive of him to think he can get away with this - but it may also be true that he is willing to go only so far in selling his soul. And, it just might be true that his audacity of hope extends to the American electorate - a hope that we will elect someone who doesn't just say what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.

He told a group of American auto workers in Detroit that he would push to increase MPG standards - 4% a year. That huge union ended up not endorsing him. He has told similar truths in front of farmers (about subsidies) as well as senior citizens (about Social Security). Is Obama perhaps giving us, the American electorate, the benefit of the doubt...is he testing us to see if we are in fact ready for someone different? Someone who will not just conduct politics as usual? Someone who will not only lead us in a different direction, but who will actually tell us the truth?

And if we aren't ready for that, well then, perhaps he doesn't want to lead us...yet?

Maybe.

And if so: What a stud.

Into the Mild

I loved the book, "Into the Wild." And, while I had a few issues with the way it was edited, the recently-released movie version was a great flick. True to the book, it captured Alex Supertramp's infectious zeal for life and his contagious enthusiasm to live "authentically."

To oversimplify, this kid took Thoreau seriously when the sage from Walden Pond wrote, "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."

I've made solo jaunts into wilderness (though nothing like camping on my own in the backcountry for weeks, much less months). And I've done it long enough to recognize there truly is something essential within us that seems to become visible only when alone and/or in nature. Despite what the fundies wish were true, I am fairly certain the planet is more than 3,000 years old...and that we humans are glorified monkeys. As such, my theory is that there is a kind of artificiality to modernity that obfiscates elemental truths about ourselves. There is something in nature that allows us to get in touch with a lost (buried?) part of our being.

Don't get me wrong: This thing that Edward Abbey called "syphilization" is great - I am glad to not be foraging daily (like the monkey I am) for food. Add I'm awfully grateful I'm not having to fight off (or run from) animals with better fighting abilities (like house cats, for example). As for sleeping in a good bed with (relatively) clean sheets - well, yeah - I like that, too. But I do think getting to (or remembering) the essence of who and what we are is more likely to occur (is easier to access?) in "the wild."

I felt the call to abandon syphilization more than once. (And I still do from time to time.) But what this kid did was off-the-grid abandonment of mainstream society: what the hippies called dropping out. I never quite pulled that trigger, although I seriously contemplated it at several points in my life.

Chris McCandless did it.

The reason, though, that his story is so richly compelling is because of the moral complexities it raises. The kid felt an insatiable urge to do an American version of the walkabout. After graduating from college (the perfect time to do such a thing) he just took off.

I am not about to give anything away that you don't discover at the beginning of the book, so I do not feel the need to provide a spoiler alert here: the tragedy of his story is that he seemed to learn something esssential about himself just before he died. Namely, that he was not a loner hermit-type. He needed other people to share his experiences with...the authenticity he found - and the enlightenment he probably only discovered because he was alone - wasn't complete without companionship.

Almost without exception, the negative book AND movie reviews (and they were in the minority) mentioned that the kid was a self-absorbed, immature asshole. The "negative" camp seemed unable to separate their personal feelings about his decisions from the literature/art about Chris and his adventure.

Was it bunge-hole selfish of him to not contact his family for two years - leaving them worried as rats in a snake hole? Sure it was, especially given that he didn't appear to be the victim of sexual/physical or serious emotional abuse. But to merely label him as either a self-absorbed prick or a hero to be admired (as so many did) is too simplistic.

We get one crack at this thing. And it's an awfully short crack as far as I'm concerned. Our most important obligation in life is to be true to ourselves...whatever that means to you. I think it's equally important, though, that we learn how to love. That we continually strive to get better at practicing that love, by being kind to other creatures (including, but not limited to, fellow humans).

McCandless found out the latter after pursuing the former. Hence the tragedy. But then, there seem to be people who never discover the importance of learning to love. Or, they just can't figure out how to practice it. That is the mark of a truly wasted and tragic life.

It is when those two guiding principles (being true to Self and loving others) seem to be in conflict that the figurative bear scat really hits the wind turbine.

So far, at least for me (I think) I've been able to maneuver the narrow path laid down by those two parameters - with a LOT of help and guidance and patience from other people. Not to claim that I've never gone out of bounds, mind you...I've just been fortunate to have found my way back - unlike Alex Supertramp.

That's why I think I've gone more "into the mild" than "into the wild."

Phil Anthropy

Well, you might as well check out this goofball...