Is this the beginning of the end for the American “Empire”?  Not an empire in the historically traditional sense i.e., Roman Empire, British Empire, but one where the presence of supremacy over other sovereign nations was the direct result of the global extension of economic and military power, not colonization. This extension of power was accompanied by a projection of the notion that a democratic republic offered societal supremacy.  The notion that a people representative government, a democracy, combined with free market capitalism, could create the most powerful nation on earth.  The notion has become fact. 

The next question is, will the American “Empire” meet a similar end as its predecessors in history?  Or, will the American “Empire” endure and overcome the failings of previous imperial regimes because its global influence is not one characterized by oppression and colonization?  Is it the right time in history, as well as the right combination of political and economic systems, that will allow the United States of America to escape the failings that led to previous imperial declines? Further, has the American democratic, capitalistic system empowered it to build military technology that enables the ability to exert power and control without colonization?  The answer is clearly yes.  Has the American system become an engine of economic power and wealth creation that will allow it to continue to dominate the world stage?  Again, yes.  Have we evolved enough to allow American global dominance to continue, or will our demise be of our own making?  This is the central question.

Reflecting briefly on previous imperial failures, first from Rome…

The Roman Empire lost the strengths that had allowed it to exercise effective control over its Western provinces; modern historians mention factors including the effectiveness and numbers of the army, the health and numbers of the Roman population, the strength of the economy, the competence of the Emperors, the internal struggles for power, the religious changes of the period, and the efficiency of the civil administration. Increasing pressure from invading barbarians outside Roman culture also contributed greatly to the collapse (editor’s note: does all of this sound eerily familiar to you?). The reasons for the collapse are major subjects of the historiography of the ancient world and they inform much modern discourse on state failure.^{[1][2] 1}

…then London….

Where most accounts of British imperial collapse concentrate on the 20th century…. [the] story [begins] on the battlefield of Yorktown, in 1781. It was there that Britain suffered its first major anti-colonial defeat, when Lord Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington, effectively conceding American independence. Rather than portraying Yorktown and subsequent setbacks as anomalies in an arc of imperial ascent, Brendon uses this novel point of entry to reinterpret the British empire as an enterprise whose validity was persistently challenged, from within and without.²

….and finally, in the micro sense, with the NETFLIX TV series continuing these themes, placed in Birmingham England, the “Peaky Blinders” context.

The series revolves around the notion of social classes and empires, and how they rise and fall with a startling sort of predictability. As the show suggests, over time, empires become too big, too corrupt, and too complicated to sustain themselves and eventually, they collapse. …[T]he series expresses its fears of expansion by teaching Tommy a powerful lesson about the other sharks skulking around in criminal waters – especially when those criminals are the ones involved in governmental plots with massive geopolitical implications. Essentially, Peaky Blinders embarked on a fish out of water story by moving outside its own comfort zone and taking the risk of expanding too much and too quickly. There are times when that risk appears to have paid off[.] [10]³

Wars have been won and lost but the global expansion of various forms of market-driven, capitalistic economies continue to emerge and thrive. The former Soviet republics, Viet Nam, and China are prime examples.  In some cases, national governments provide macro market control, but private enterprise is the heart of the system.

Aside from the recent parody of expansionism experienced with Denmark’s “refusal” to sell Greenland to the U.S., this country’s consistent attempts to exert influence politically, by deploying military resources to “hot zones”, has largely been deployed physically from one of the fifty states or a few bases on friendly foreign soil.  Those on friendly foreign soil are typically under mutually beneficial defense agreements with fully sovereign nations and these have become fewer over the years since WWII. 

Given the desired U.S. global persona is one of respect and decency, with no stated or unstated intentions of imperial colonization, U.S. military personnel or assets visit many foreign nations each year for largely benign reasons.  Yet, these all send a message that should hostilities be deemed necessary between the U.S. and a foreign entity (sovereign nation or amorphous political or religious group) the U.S. is the nation with the greatest ability to project its military might to anywhere in the world with significant speed and firepower.

Should early signs of difficulty between the US, or our allies, and a foreign power become known, the U.S. diplomatic corps, with stations in virtually every nation, will lead efforts to find a peaceful solution.  The U.S. Department of State holds a position of tremendous strength and importance, with virtually limitless resources (financial resources, military power, intelligence assets among others), to address any concern or threat.

Unlike in the Roman or British case, where communication and central control became a primary causes of failure, today communication and central control is virtually instantaneous from Washington.  Our resources can be deployed from seconds to hours not weeks and months during which the situation could morph several times.

Yet what about the internal causes for failure?  In the past, opposing political forces eventually found compromise in order to achieve the best outcome for the country and the world.  Today the divides are so deep and visceral.  Compromise doesn’t appear to be on anyone’s mind. The strategy appears to be to wait for absolute domination to strike and achieve one-sided goals.

The demographic trends point to increasing voter strength for liberal causes with clear intent to enact socialist policy.  Some would point to nations like France and Great Britain whose world influence has considerably waned as more and more of their financial resources are diverted to pay for internal social welfare programs limiting the funds for military strength or to support foreign policy initiatives; even straining funds for internal security forces to battle terrorism at home.  France has openly declared it does not have enough resources to track all internal terrorism threats.  Despite more and more socialistic spending, the French people have protested almost daily the inadequacy of the social programs to help them meet basic daily needs for life.

One could easily see that occurring in the United States.  The current president is often derided for his isolationist policy pulling back on military intervention across the planet.  Once socialism is in power here, and decisions must be made for either “guns or butter”, funding for the military and foreign influence will most certainly face major reductions.  Our ability to address foreign threats on foreign soil will be vastly diminished. As the French have discovered, the foreign battlefield has been exchanged for one at home though open borders, massive social spending and inadequate homeland security resources. Since 9/11, no other western nation has experienced more significant and bloody terrorist-led attacks.

The path American Socialists will take us down will be no different. Under the weight of increasingly heavy government social program spending, taxes will rise dramatically.  And not just on the “rich”; President Obama declared that any family making $150,000 per year in income must be considered “wealthy”.  The Green New Deal will triple utility rates and fuel prices for decades waiting for the promise of carbonless renewable energy to meet the demand. “Free” healthcare for all, “free” college for all would bring tax increases of 25%, or likely more, for virtually all taxpayers (including the middle class with the promise of “free” government services as justification).  The strain will bring the economy to a crawl, funding for innovation and entrepreneurism will dry up.  Over regulation and high taxes will drag us into recession.  When recession inescapably occurs, tax revenues will trend much lower, so tax rates must rise again just to remain status quo. This cycle will repeat itself until the weight of taxes and regulation collapse the economy.  Taxes will cause an innovation drought.  Job creators, left with no investment incentive, will withdraw to protect what wealth they have left.  Markets will collapse as joblessness, homelessness and hunger grow on an exponential scale.  Federal program funding runs dry and the U.S.’s ability to borrow reaches an end.  The American dream and American global leadership will become a fond memory.

¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire

²https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/oct/20/featuresreviews.guardianreview2

³https://zoomstreamtv.com/blog/what-to-watch-now-that-game-of-thrones-is-over/

The people who support liberal political organizations, and especially their leadership, are very, very angry.  They are infuriated because President Trump won the election.  With that result the Trump administration has maintained a conservative, constructionist leaning Supreme Court, signed tax relief legislation, dismantled the intricate web of burdensome government regulation instituted over eight years by the Obama Administration (that which combined with reducing the tax burden on small business has boosted the economy to great new heights), disengaged from Obama era signature foreign policy “achievements” like the Iran Nuclear Arms deal, the list could go on.

However, should the truth be known, they are very secretly, deep in their hearts, furious with themselves. The DNC (led by DNC Chair Donna Brazile) with the admittedly rigged nomination of Hilary Clinton, as well as Hilary herself for handing part of the typical democrat constituency over to Trump with her ignoring of rust belt states, lack of empathy for blue collar workers (thanks in part to President Obama’s submission “that those jobs are gone forever”), and Clinton’s “deplorables” blunder, essentially gifted the election to Trump. 

Think about it, when your own blunders, or blunders by your team, cause catastrophic political failure, who typically gets the blame?  The other guy of course!  He cheated, he lied, he broke the law (he outsmarted us….oh wait, no not that one – scratch it!), he engaged in treason with the Russians.  So far none of these have stuck.

And very clearly President Trump is among his own worst enemies.  Do you know anyone….anyone who thinks his overall pattern of behavior is either statesman-like or presidential?  Regardless, he is the President, duly and fairly elected by the system designed by our founding fathers that has endured successfully for centuries producing many peaceful transitions of power.

It takes an enlightened and fully self-aware person to accept blame for failures by you or your team.  It takes strength and character to focus on the real problems.  The democrat leadership, having none of that, are focusing both barrels on Trump in an attempt to erase their mistakes by delegitimizing his presidency.  First unsuccessfully through the Mueller investigation, and now the impeachment process.  We’ll see where that takes us.  Clearly, if impeachment fails as well, the process will be stretched and carried on until just about this time next year.

There is nothing anyone can do about it.  We are going to have endure this spectacle of egos and sound bites for quite a bit longer.  Many just wish the democrats had just owned up to their blunders, vowed to fix them and set about in congress to actually do good things for the country.  That should have been complimented by a concerted effort to build a party platform that will attract the most voters with its originality, balanced fiscal approach, and a promise to pursue the ideals that would serve to unite most commonsense, liberally minded voters.  With the demographic trends what they are, this would almost certainly deliver democrat success in 2020.

Anti-immunization Movement

What makes the anti-immunization forces believe they have the right to re-introduce pestilence into this country? A country that suffered for decades, possibly centuries, and spent billions of dollars to eradicate these medical nightmares.  What self-serving arrogance!  If they are opposed to the advanced use of medical science to reduce suffering let them move to another country where these diseases and endless suffering are still readily available to them.

Do people really want to bring back the good old days of deadly diseases?  Do these people think they know more about medicine and public health than the overwhelming majority of doctors, scientists, immunologists, and every major health organization across the entire planet? They are a particularly toxic sort of narcissist who places their own beliefs over the welfare of their own children and that of the general population.  Obviously these people lack the critical thinking skills necessary to separate real science from pseudoscience.

Bad Packaging Design

For all of our fellow capitalists who completely comprehend the notion of cost savings being vital to corporate longevity; the American public, your customers, are asking you to combine cost savings with consumer-friendly packaging.  So many have complained of having wounds, sometimes severe, inflicted by sharp edges of packaging created while attempting to find some means to crack it open.  When we say consumer friendly we include environmentally neutral, as well as, easy and safe to open.

Distracted Driving

For those of you who believe you are safely driving while speaking on the phone with one hand completely occupied holding the phone to your ear, shame, shame on you!  There are many things vitally wrong with that picture but the primary transgression being you are utterly distracted. Almost as egregious is you’ve given up one hand to manage your vehicle’s behavior when your distractedness inevitably causes you to create a dangerous situation for you and those around you.  Get Bluetooth and stop being an idiot.  Or, wait for it, pull over, complete your call and then drive on.  This mobile phone behavior will eventually become illegal everywhere so you might as well wise up now and join the twenty first century.

The Mueller Report

Some are angry that Mueller’s Report did not recommend charging President Trump with obstruction of justice; or even better, treason.  How could we have 200 plus investigators and spend over $20 million and not find something to impeach him? 

For others, its anger for different reasons.  Why have we wasted $20 million dollars and spent over two years to find nothing on Trump but, more egregious, where is the investigation into the sinister basis for the fruitless witch hunt? 

So….everyone is angry about this one.

Hand Dryers

Have you ever wondered why healthcare facilities do not install electric fan hand dryers?  It is because studies have found they contribute to hospital-acquired infection.  In fact, the scrubbing action of towel use is critically important to the removal of pathogens from your hands.

In 2014, a team of researchers from the University of Leeds dropped a disturbing truth bomb on the public by announcing that the no-touch jet-air dryers in public restrooms are anything but sanitary. They found that these increasingly popular devices blast bacteria from people’s poorly washed hands (most people don’t wash their hands correctly) into the air and onto nearby surfaces in disturbing quantities, increasing the likelihood that you’ll walk out of the bathroom covered in other people’s germs.

In lab-based experiments recreating a public washroom, jet-air dryers introduced 27 times more bacteria into the air than good-old-fashioned paper towels, and these microbes circulated for 15 minutes afterward.

Now, the authors are back with even more evidence against hand dryers, this time from real-world experiments.

As reported in the Journal of Hospital Infection, Professor Mark Wilcox and his colleagues set out to examine how hand drying methods affect bacterial spread in hospital bathrooms – an important issue because many serious and antibiotic-resistant infections are known to circulate in clinical settings.

The investigation was conducted in hospitals in three cities – Leeds, Paris, and Udine, Italy – over a 12-week period. For each location, two restrooms used by patients, staff, and visitors were selected, and each was set up to offer only a jet dryer or paper towels. Samples of the air and swabs of restroom surfaces were taken every day for four weeks, then, after a two-week pause in collections, each restroom switched to offer the alternate drying method. This process was then repeated a third time.

Cultures from these samples revealed that the total amount of bacteria in the air and on surfaces was consistently much higher in all restrooms when jet dryers were being used. The most dramatic differences were seen between the surface of the jet dryer itself and the surface of the paper towel dispenser: In Udine, the dryer was covered in 100 times more bacteria, in Paris it was 33-fold higher, and in Leeds it was 22-fold.

In the UK restrooms, the notorious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacterium was found three times more frequently during jet dryer usage periods than paper towel periods. Bacterial species resistant to both penicillin and cephalosporins (known as ESBL-producing organisms) and species of pathogenic enterococci – a difficult-to-treat group – were found in significantly higher frequency and counts during these periods as well.

In the Parisian and Italian hospitals, few pathogenic or drug-resistant bacteria were encountered during either hand drying set-up.

“Consequently, we believe that electric hand dryers are not suited to clinical settings, and, as such, existing (e.g. NHS) infection control building guidance needs to be amended and strengthened,” Wilcox’s team wrote, adding that there is little justification for their use in any public setting given the risks they present.¹

Environmental effects may tip a tiny bit to the dryer.  There appears to be a case that energy necessary to completely dry your hands is many times that needed to produce a paper towel. Think about the environmental impact to burn the coal or the natural gas necessary to run the dryer for a couple minutes versus the energy needed to produce a single paper towel in a highly efficient factory producing millions a day.

For anyone whose had a hospital stay lately, the war on hospital-acquired infections is evident everywhere. These infections are killers.  If hospitals fear hand dryers that much, why would you want to use one anywhere?

¹https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/hand-dryers-spread-bacteria-so-dramatically-that-scientists-think-theyre-a-public-health-threat/

Mean People

There are so many excuses available for people to be mean.  The excuses include a myriad of types of trauma; depression or mental illness; merely living in the greater D.C. Area (nowhere else in the world are there that many outright mean and nasty individuals) or other environmental causes.   

So why must they spew their hatefulness upon everyone including those of us whose primary style is kindness and generosity?  Apparently their sad existence causes them to wish to extinguish any joy and happiness around them.

Their meanness is a highly contagious and dangerous societal pathogen.  Fortunately some people, not exposed to the pathogen with any frequency, are able to shrug it off and return to their better nature. But if one is exposed to it often enough, their defenses are sufficiently weakened as to succumb to the gravitational pull of the black hole of mean.

Left Lane Cruisers

Does it appear to you as though there are more left lane cruisers now than ever?  Is it the aging population or is it just self-serving arrogance?  Some observe that this menace to safe navigation of our highways come in many varieties; the young and old, male and female, the dingleberries and the dimwits.  

Regardless, they are creating danger for everyone around them, especially those cruisers who travel at a speed less than the prevailing general speed of the surrounding traffic.  These slower cruisers, combined with the witless wonders who will do anything, no matter how crowded the roadways are, to go around them while frightening everyone with their recklessness, make highway driving miserable. This self-serving behavior makes highway travel far more dangerous than it should be.

In Virginia left lane cruising is illegal as it is in several other states.  Yet you see it endlessly on our highways.  Why?  Primarily because there are insufficient police patrols to cite them and deter the behavior.  Secondarily they are either witless in their knowledge of the law (not an acceptable excuse), or they are arrogantly disregarding the law thus creating a severe hazard for others. 

Why don’t they just move to the right lane for their cruising?  Well, in the right lane they may be “inconvenienced” by entering and departing traffic.  Or, by other drivers driving slower than they are.  By cruising in the far-left lane they experience none of these “problems”.

So, just something else to both aggravate you and frighten you with no solution in sight.

Impatient People

Impatience is one of seven basic character flaws or “dark” personality traits. We all have the potential for impatient tendencies, but in people with a strong fear of missing out, impatience can become a dominant pattern.

To be impatient is to feel and show hostility towards (or at least about) things which obstruct, frustrate or delay [achieving] one’s goals. Impatient people resent being held up, whether intentionally by another person or just accidentally in the normal course of events.

Impatience has some similarity to the emotion of anger. Animals and people alike become enraged in response to deliberate outside threats to their well-being, or the well-being of their loved ones. The anger is partly an expression of the fear that comes from being threatened, invaded or mistreated, and partly a sort of warning shot, a firm “No!” to deter the outside threat from going any further.

Impatience is also somewhat different from anger, however, in that the impatient person is predisposed to perceive virtually all situations as threatening—not to their survival per se but to [achieving] their goals. More exactly, it is as if their survival depends upon the accomplishment of as many goals as possible as quickly as possible.¹

When observing impatience, it can sometimes appear almost viral in its occurrence and frequency.  Obstacles (mainly us, the non-impatient people), regardless of the circumstance i.e. difficult traffic situations, or, long lines of people waiting for some service to be performed, become the objects of their outrage. The lengthier the delay or the more frustrating the “obstacle” becomes, the angrier, more frustrated and aggressive the impatient ones become.  Sometimes they attack each other but mostly their rage is focused on the innocent obstacles.

So, it takes a great deal of patience and maturity to attempt to ignore the impatient ones and their foolishness.  Short of a life-threatening situation, how important can the goal be relative to treating everyone around you (the “obstacles”) as sub-human.

¹http://personalityspirituality.net/articles/the-michael-teachings/chief-features/impatience/

So, how many American citizens expect our leaders to be perfect?  There are many with palpable zeal.  A visceral desire for their chosen one to be pure and flawless in every way.  The proverbial blind eye squeezes out the few perceived flaws as unimportant to the mission.

Rule#1:  My chosen leader is perfect.

Rule#2: If imperfections are found, refer to rule#1.

Thus, any material flaws are cast aside as lies and innuendo.

The fact is they are ALL flawed.  Their humanity virtually guarantees it.  Equally obvious, some have had greater flaws then others. Crystal clear flaws like the willingness to engage in illegal conduct.  President Nixon comes to mind but there have been others.

Then there are the gray matters.  Conduct unbecoming an elected official that doesn’t quite cross the line, or, when it does cross the line, the cover up is successful.  Nothing fires-up social media and the mainstream media more.  All of this wide-open protestation of love, of hate and of angst plastered everywhere you look, its all a fairly recent phenomenon.  This is basically all since the John F. Kennedy administration. For JFK, and those earlier presidencies as well as those in positions of power almost anywhere, the press had taken the high road especially when the offense was more personal in nature, like infidelity.

Going back a hundred plus years before Nixon to the times of Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman and Stephen Douglas, they all had their flaws or weaknesses.  Lincoln was probably the closest to freedom from major flaws.  His wit, intellect, deft political skill and grasp on the meaning of humanity crafted him into a leader any nation would rise up to exult.  Certainly among the greatest if not the greatest political leader in modern history.  Sherman, one the fiercest and most brutal warrior leaders of his time, was actually a bit of a pacifist. Yet he spent his entire career in the military.  Grant, the brilliant military architect of Civil War victory for the Unionists, should have taken the Sherman route on politics exemplified by Sherman’s famous quote “if nominated I will not run and if elected I will not serve”.  Grant’s time as president was not a happy one for him nor the nation.  Douglas chose to become a politician in the northern free state of Illinois, even though he owned a plantation with many slaves in Mississippi.   Regardless, he chose to run for the Illinois United States Senate seat against Lincoln in 1858 and won.  Well, Illinois Senators are chosen by the General Assembly and Mr. Douglas’ party won the majority in the General Assembly in 1858.  In 1860 Lincoln won the presidential election against a four-man field that included Stephen Douglas.  1n 1864 Lincoln defeated former General George B. McClellan, by a wide margin of 221-21 electoral votes.  Although there was worry at the White House that Lincoln’s actions, of continuing to fully prosecute the war and refusing to accept compromise, would lead to his defeat, he won a landslide victory.  Many historians would agree that William Tecumseh Sherman’s victory in the siege of Atlanta in the Fall of 1864 sealed successful re-election for Lincoln.     

With the possible exception of Douglas, none of these leaders seemed to have much difficulty delineating between right and wrong.  They chose a righteous path; even if some of those around them did not.  Not so different from our current lot of politicians.  During those intervening one hundred years only two presidents deserve greatness ascribed to them, FDR and Ronald Reagan.  Both war time presidents not surprisingly (FDR for our greatest war time victory in WWII and Reagan for the Cold War victory he won without a shot fired).

So, is our expectation that our leaders will strive with every cell in their being to be perfect expecting too much?  Are these expectations unrealistic for our church leaders, the school principal or the chief of police?  Sadly, we are more likely to experience painful disappointment when church, school or police officials fail our expectations then when we learn of presidential failings (or those of presidential candidates).  Are there degrees of failure or disappointment?  Is the line they must cross, to go from support to abandonment, the same for all?  By design these are all decisions we alone must make in declaring our support for specific leaders.  Our founding fathers knew quite well these decisions would be difficult and burdened with abundant complexity.  The absolute brilliance of the design is that each American citizen has the opportunity, the right, to make that choice regardless of perceived flaws.

There is of course then, “my flawed leaders is less flawed then yours”.  Or, your leader’s flaws are ghastlier and more repugnant then those you accuse my leader of possessing.  The old “throw out all the bums…except my bum”.

So, what if we suddenly became as tolerant of the failings of our leaders as we are of our brother or brother-in-law?  Or even our spouse or our children? What if we focused our entire attention to strictly policy differences?  Would that even work?  There are many who believe we should try.  The question then becomes can we collectively look beyond characteristics like religious affiliation, marital fidelity, or even ethic origin?  Others believe that society is so fragmented that this sort of altruism is virtually impossible save but by a few.  The altruistic among us represent so few in number as to be statistically meaningless. 

How sad are we?  That we first look for the worst in others.  How sad are we that our friends, family and colleagues, who, in every day circumstances lead with kindness, become ferocious beasts when anything negative is said about a politician they support.  Their ears close and their fangs lengthen hungry for blood.

Unfortunately, this disease-like state has spread to those with whom we held final hope for a bit of altruism and compromise. That four years is not too long to do nothing waiting for that next opportunity when all the political stars align once again and the need for compromise has passed.  That the political hopes and desires of half the populous can be crushed with domination.  How sad are we.

Finally, finally, a sliver of a ray of light from above for the Catholic Church.  The Church is considering, considering, allowing married men to receive “priestly ordination” in the remotest regions of the Amazon river.  Some would call this astonishingly progressive.  Some would call it a crack in the proverbial wall of “the gift of celibacy”.  So which is it?  Is it the Church taking priestly ordination of married men “for a test drive”?  Or is it the course of last resort for the Church having exhausted all other possible sources of priests who could function at a minimally acceptable level in this one of the remotest regions in the world?  It appears quite likely that it could be both. 

Aside from the challenges the Church faced in the early centuries of its existence, the current crisis centers around unthinkable acts by priests.  This, combined with a severe shortage of priests, is shaking this religious juggernaut from its parishioner core to its leadership in the Vatican.  The crisis reverberations, mostly surrounding the priest as a sexual predator, are causing geological fault lines between the Church and many of the Catholic faithful.  Evidence suggests that even some of the most fervent supporters, given the apparently lack of effective and widespread action by Church leadership, are allowing these seismic schisms to fully separate them from any church related activity.  With their faith completely shaken, they are also closing their pocketbooks effectively creating a third crisis. The army of God is having its supply lines so effectively reduced as to create new struggles for the Church in its fight against evil.

Not to suggest that Catholics, or even Christianity, represent the entirety of the legions of God.  It is striking to anyone who takes a moment to ponder it, that virtually all “religions” worship a supreme being.  It’s truly remarkable that these God-centered religious factions have occurred spontaneously around the world in some cases independent of one another. 

Some have stated that these religions are artifacts of a time when science could not explain certain phenomena.  These phenomena were then attributed to the work of a God.  A notion the people could comprehend.  A notion that gave rise to God worship in the hope that these actions would bring God’s favor to them.  The fearing and worshiping of a God removed the fear of a chaotic world where actions beyond one’s control were perceived as completely arbitrary.

For many Catholics, who choose to think more logically about why the Church is good for the people and what the Church must do to remain relevant in a modern world, tough choices must be made quickly.  Especially in a world where everything finds its way to the web instantly. 

Married men are not free of sin, nor are celibate priests, so the time has come to set aside “the gift of celibacy”. The Church should ordain married men, shed the Church of the predators, and you solve two enormous obstacles to the long-term success. Then, and only then, can the process of healing the deep, hideous wounds begin in earnest. 

Obviously much easier said than done.  Yet time is of the essence.  The Catholic Church is on course to lose almost an entire generation, possibly two or more, of parishioners.  Often change within the Church doctrine or dogma has taken decades.  The Church must move much more quickly.  Otherwise the number of engaged parishioners will shrink, the treasury will shrink, and the Church’s relevance will diminish. 

This would not be a good thing for the world.  If you believe evil exists, and we see evidence of it every day in a world of global instant communication, then religions that promote Judeo-Christian like principals of peace, love, charity, family must be preserved to combat theses forces.  The Catholic Church has done so much good in this world over two millennia.  Its charitable acts around the world, with ministries like free or low cost healthcare, are remarkable.  The Catholic Church has erred egregiously for centuries perpetuating this notion of “the gift of celibacy”.  It may yet be the source of its downfall.

Survivors of Peral Harbor

Survivors of the Battle of the Bulge

Many who know more about the generation that gave birth to the “Baby Boomers” will call them “The Greatest Generation”.  The generation that survived the Great Depression, that won World War II and enabled this country to emerge on the global stage as the greatest nation on earth.  These are, in fact, undeniable accomplishments of that “Greatest Generation”. 

No amount of words can fairly represent the many unspeakable sacrifices willingly endured by this generation of Americans during World War II. The debt owed to them by all Americans, and the world, for our freedom from oppression is incalculable.  And because it deserves to be said one more time, the accomplishments of this generation of heroes evokes only one description, The Greatest!

We, in the Baby Boomers, are so incredibly proud of our fathers and mothers and uncles and their friends and relatives, many who are the descendants of immigrants who came here to be a part of this miracle of American democracy and capitalism.  They built and manufactured and governed with the single-minded goal of being a part of the American dream.  And they were incredibly successful.

The enormity of the pressure that success put on the Boomers was expressed in more than the usual ways.  The sixties and its counterculture revolution were a huge expression of pressure avoidance. Although many, many Boomers chose the traditional path, and quite successfully took the proverbial baton, the war in Viet Nam and how it was portrayed in the media, led many to an alternate path.

For many of us this war, the war in Viet Nam, was a very different and multi-faceted experience compared to WWII.  No one should diminish the sacrifices made in the name of freedom during the war in Viet Nam.  And although many, God bless them, chose to volunteer for military duty, many more, because of how the war was portrayed, took our chances with the selective service draft.  And there were a significant number, because of the attitudes about the war, that attempted to evade the draft and military service by moving to Canada or elsewhere.  Those of us that “lucked out” with the draft system, we were able to carry on with our own chosen path be it college, a trade, full time work of some kind, or, to just “drop out” and drift with the winds of the counterculture movement.

When we look back at the sixties and seventies, we Boomers are old enough to have enjoyed those times and look back with a big smile.  Those were absolutely the coolest times ever.  Saying societal norms experienced a significant loosening would be an understatement. 

The music of the sixties was by far the greatest musical decade. The list of world-class, genre-creating artists is enormous!  Here are just some of them.

Aretha Franklin	The Beatles	The Dave Clark Five
The Buckinghams	The Chi-lites	The Rolling Stones
Dusty Springfield	The Four Seasons	The Four Tops
Gary Puckett & the Union Gap	The Guess Who	The Ojays
Jay & the Americans	Little Anthony & the Imperials	Martha Reeves & the Vandellas
Marvin Gaye	Tommy James & the Shondells	The Zombies
The Young Rascals	The Beach Boys	The Ronettes
Barbara Lewis	The Supremes	The Righteous Brothers
The Del-Vikings	The Grass Roots	Smokey Robinson & the Miracles
The Vogues	Jimi Hendricks	Dionne Warwick
The Temptations	Fats Domino	Strawberry Alarm Clock
The Doors	Creedance Clearwater Revival	The Hollies
The Drifters	Joan Baez	Blood Seat & Tears
The Isley Brothers	The Mamas & the Papas	Ike & Tina Turner
Buffalo Springfield	The Animals	Stevie Wonder
Neil Diamond	The Yardbirds	Grateful Dead
Jefferson Airplane	Pink Floyd	The Moody Blues
Van Morrison	The Band	Crosby, Stills & Nash
B.B. King	Janis Joplin	The Miracles
Roy Orbison	Simon & Garfunkel	The Kinks
The Byrds	Cream	Led Zeppelin
Sam Cooke	Elvis Presley	James Brown
The Who	Ray Charles	Bob Dylan
Sly & the Family Stone	The Velvet Underground	Jefferson Airplane
Chuck Berry	Wilson Pickett	The Monkees
Herman’s Hermits	The Lovin’ Spoonful	Jackie Wilson
Traffic	Dion	Donovan
Joni Mitchell	David Bowie	Otis Redding
Johnny Rivers	Petula Clark	Peter & Gordon
Jan & Dean	Gladys Knight & the Pips	The Drifters

There are many more wonderful artists of the sixties, and, frankly, the early seventies, not mentioned here.  This list is an assemblage of the greatest icons in modern musical history.  Although this was not intended to be an all-inclusive list, it is a demonstration of the marvelous strength of the creativity and virtuosity of so many artists in a single decade.  Unquestionably unsurpassed!

The impact these artists had on a generation, a culture, a nation was the most profound in the history of any nation.  Never have musical artists had such an impact on the style, language, the fashion, and lifestyle of an entire generation as the artists of the sixties have had on the Boomers.  From the early 60s rock and R&B through to the culmination of its affect in the 1969 event heard around the world, Woodstock. 

And not just in the United States.  So Many artists from the United Kingdom, that honed their craft across Europe, often used the music created by American Blues artists as a creative platform for their inspiration.  With great triumph in Europe, they brought their brand of Rock’n Roll to the U.S. to smashing success with this new generation ready for this new messaging and new freedoms of expression.  As much of this new music emanated from nightclubs across Europe, much of the influence on style and fashion in the sixties and early seventies also emanated from Europe in places like London’s Carnaby Street.

Here in the U.S., one geographic location represented the cultural and generational attitudes more than any other; the Haight-Ashbury district in the City of San Francisco.    This bohemian community, populated early in the sixties by the so-called Beat Movement, became the cultural high ground of the counterculture movement dubbed “Hippies” for their clear turn away from tradition in attitude, lifestyle, fashion and even language. 

The War in Viet Nam was a potent ingredient in this sixty’s cultural cauldron as the anti-war activists were a glove fit to the themes adopted by the counterculture movement.  Peace, free love, the brotherhood of man populated the banners and placards carried by anti-war protestors.  The country was in crisis.

Despite this turmoil and political strife, the peace and free love generation had a hell of a lot of fun in the sixties and seventies before, for the most part, settling down and pursuing a more traditional American lifestyle.   For the coolest generation, the sixties and the seventies represented extended “recess” in a giant American playground.  Some had jobs, some began careers, some just chose to turn on, tune out, and stayed out for decades.  A luxury afforded to them by the changes in American society and success of the American economy. 

But for most of the Boomers, a more traditional way of life eventually called.  Those of us who decided they wanted a family of our own, to own a home, raise children well and send them to college, knew this required a regular, substantial income.  Time to put away childish things and don the harness.  There were many Boomers who never strayed from the traditional path, but, for us late bloomer Boomers, the opportunity was there to have that life.  Hard work; LOTS of hard work lay ahead, and it was all worth it. 

But man, the sixties and seventies were fun!

The Richmond Virginia community has so much to celebrate.  The Richmond Times Dispatch (RTD) exclaimed, in a January 16, 2019 editorial titled “We’re No. 100”, the many virtues of our city.  “In 2017 Richmond was ranked as one of the nation’s top five hipster paradises.  Ultra-artsy VCU, the Fan district, plentiful (widely celebrated) restaurants, and great breweries all helped to make Richmond one of America’s hippest cities, according to rankings by MovieHub.  The plentiful thrifts shops, tattoo parlors and vegan options throughout the area also helped win us that ranking on the ‘US Hipster Index’. “

“In 2018, Forbes magazine named RVA one of the country’s top 10 coolest cities.  Once again, some of the reasons for that ranking included the vibrant craft beer scene and the multitude of great places to eat.” 

“Also in 2018, a travel-guide book publisher, rated River City as one of the top 10 ‘underrated, rejuvenated and out-of-this-world’ places to visit.  The company said it traveled around the globe to find the world’s best cities.  Again, Richmond made this list in part because of its ‘microbreweries, cideries, and buzzworthy restaurant’.”

In another exclamation of the City’s virtues, RTD’s May 14, 2019 story about a start-up credit card company (Petal) choosing RVA (in this case selecting a location in Chesterfield county) over Austin Texas and Salt Lake City Utah.  Petal, choosing RVA to locate its first offices outside NYC and committing to hire 80 people over the next three years, said this. “We chose Richmond after looking at a number of other locations around the country.”  “We looked at the depth and richness of the labor pool, affordability of living and the proximity of colleges.”  Also stating “Richmond was an easy choice….and it is a very livable city”. 

These accolades only scratch the surface of what makes our community great with wonderful architecture, history, museums and natural resources galore. This list of the area’s riches can go on and on.  So what is holding this obviously very attractive community back from greatness? 

City government is at the core of the remaining detractors facing this community.  The city’s inability to effectively and efficiently govern are the hands pulling back the reins on a galloping city appearing destined for greatness. 

The city’s schools are a continuing embarrassment with a majority of schools failing to be accredited and a majority of third graders unable to read at grade level.  Crumbling roads and bridges cast a pall on the city’s appearance and resident safety.  City leaders appear unable to restrain cost while consistently seeking additional sources of revenue.  Yet, reaching many important goals remain elusive year after year.

Its elected governing body, the City Council, is under constant pressure to address rising cost while attempting to protect its citizens from the burden of new requests for additional tax revenue.  All while the city’s schools and infrastructure crumble beneath them.

To achieve the greatness this city has strived for, city leadership must find the strength and wisdom necessary to dig deeply into the core issues of effectiveness and efficiency.  They must face the final obstacles to greatness and transform agencies of city government into the paragons of cost management and service delivery so often found in surrounding local government, as well as the private sector, right here in our community.   

In fact, if our Commonwealth’s own Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee’s (JLARC) charter could be altered to include exercising its powers on behalf of City Council, for say a single biennium, then possibly much good could be accomplished.  JLARC is credited with assisting the Commonwealth in its recognition for being among the most well-run states in the union.  Having personally observed JLARC in action, the city would be well served to have this level of independent review by such a prestigious body.

For many years Richmond has been regarded as a poorly managed city.  All of Richmond’s citizens, and those of the affected surrounding communities, deserve better.

Who wouldn’t want a cushy life?  This is not a description of the life of the rich and famous, cushy as it may appear. That life is one you are born into, or, having the ability (as well as the grit and good fortune) to turn a bit of brilliance into the American dream.  No, this is not about that.

This is more about that other American dream.  The one where you work hard.  Not just at your job but the harder work of making a better life.  It starts early in life with good parental guidance.  Working hard at school to have a shot.  Working hard on becoming a better person.  Working hard, really hard, on life skills to give yourself the tiniest of openings.  

And let’s say you, with great tenacity and decent intellect, manage to squeeze through that crack.  Well that’s not the end, its just the beginning!  Even with a decent start, and an amazing spouse/life partner by your side, the slaps in the face and the gut punches just keep coming.  The tests of your character, intestinal fortitude, integrity, physical stamina and intelligence are one tsunami after another the rest of the way……..until your eyes close for the last time.

In this following excerpt of the script from the television series “Deadwood” Season 2 episode 19, one of these tsunami-like challenges has come the way of the owner of the camp’s newspaper The Pioneer. In raw, Americana Shakespearean prose the last paragraph crystalizes this notion most succinctly.

(Early morning at the camp, we see Al open a door…)

Al:       Did you know this fucking walkway connected us? 

Merrick:         (Sitting below, at his desk at the Pioneer) Several of your patrons, in different stages of undress, have illuminated me.

Al:       (Closes door) What happened there? (Walks downstairs)

Merrick:         Not only was my press disabled, but my office was ransacked and feces mounded in the corner.  A message of objection to my handling of Yankton’s notice on the claims.

Al:       Posting rather than publishing, huh?

Merrick:         The camp’s new school teacher, a lovely woman, was so traumatized by what happened that she left!

Al:       Cy Tolliver.

Merrick:         Who didn’t even trouble, when confronted, to deny it.

Al:       (Sits, lets out a sigh) Why ain’t you up and running again?

Merrick:         I’m in despair.  The physical damage is repairable, but the psychic wound may be permanent.

Al:       (Leans forward, concern on his face.) You ever been beaten, Merrick?

Merrick:         (Rolls his eyes) Once, when I thought I had the smallpox, Doc Cochran slapped me in the face. (Al slaps him quickly) Ah! (He stares at Al, touching his cheek – he leans forward) Stop it, Al.

Al:       Are you dead?

Merrick:         Well, (touches cheek) I’m in pain, but no, I’m obviously not dead.

Al:       And obviously you didn’t fucking die when the Doc slapped you.

Merrick:         No.

Al:       So including last night, that’s three fucking damage incidents that didn’t kill you.  Pain or damage don’t end the world, or despair or fuckin’ beatin’s.  The world ends when you’re dead.  Until then, you got more punishment in store.  Stand it like a man—and give some back.¹

Besides the brilliance of the writing, acting and production design of Deadwood, it brings a wide-eyed, lucid parable to the screen about truth.  Deadwood is both a wistful window and a harsh portrait that Shakespeare would find admirable. Its most prophetic message is about the truth.  The truth that “free” is more than a myth, it’s a dangerous lie of evil origin.  Only hard work, risk-taking (amid many imminent potentially “deadly” dangers), some good fortune, an ability to ride the many ups-and-downs, and an impenetrable resolve to succeed brings the mere possibility of survival and a good life.

Anyone……anyone…..politician, parent, professor, priest, rabbi, Imam, et al, who promises anything but a life mostly filled with struggle, especially in America (despite the delusional impression widely held outside this country, “easy street” it aint), is betraying whatever trust may exist with the person at hand.  Preparation for that struggle, physically, psychologically, educationally only affords you a shot at squeezing through that crack. Then its all uphill from there……

¹Episode 19: “E.B. Was Left Out”

“There’s no question about it: the corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects and its beneficiaries, in creating the greatest economic inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our children’s children are ready for retirement and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war.”

Bill Moyers

I am certain Mr. Moyers is a fine human being, but these gross exaggerations are not only inaccurate but serve to inflame and diminish the possibility of honest dialogue between the parties who must work together to solve the systemic problems of this nation.  Please, regardless of your political affiliation, hear me out to the end of this short piece.

Some simple facts.

• Cities, counties and states are statutorily prohibited from operating budgets containing deficits.  Every budget, every year must be balanced.
• Nearly 70%³ of the annual federal spending goes to the administration and delivery of wealth transfer programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so-called welfare programs including cash assistance, healthcare and medical provisions, food assistance, housing subsidies, energy and utilities subsidies, education and childcare assistance, and subsidies and assistance for other basic services administered either at the federal or state and local level.
• That means 70% of deficit spending goes toward these expenditures.  Actually, these expenditures represent much more of the deficit if you remove defense spending, the Supreme Court and law enforcement, as well as the cost of the legislative & executive branch, all constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government.
• More federal debt, approximately 9 trillion, was accumulated during the Obama administration than the deficits accumulated by any previous administrations by trillions.¹
• The current total federal debt is approximately 20 trillion which exceeds the entire U.S. annual GDP (hopefully that scares the pants off you).  The current federal spending is approximately 4.5 trillion on revenues of 3.4 trillion.²
• In round figures the top 1% most wealthy have an average net worth of approximately 10 million dollars.   If the top 1% of the population is approximately 3.3 million people then their total approximate wealth is 33 trillion. 
• If you taxed the top 1% with a 10% wealth tax (well, first of all, you would unequivocally collapse the economy in an apocalyptic fashion, but for argument sake let’s say a socialistic president and legislature took power and enacted such a wealth tax) that’s 3.3 trillion per year in additional tax revenue.  If not a single additional dollar in federal spending were enacted, not “free” healthcare, “free” college”, the green new deal, none of it, it would be nearly a decade for the total federal debt to be paid back with federal spending frozen at the current level.

So lets face facts, none of that is going to happen.  Collapsing the economy in that way serves no one.  Given this reality, what can be done to address social justice issues like income disparity, the cost of education, the cost of healthcare and other topics like climate change?  Two primary realities must be addressed.  How do we raise taxes enough on the ultra-wealthy to reduce deficit spending to a manageable level and squeeze out enough after that to begin to reasonably fund programs to address the social injustice issues without driving the economy into recession? Of course, the trend line in deficit spending and the cost of social programs like Social Security and Medicare must be bent by affecting benefits for future generations. Because even a reasonable tax on the ultra-wealthy will not prevent insolvency for those programs.

That’s it.  Anything more radical than that, like re-raising taxes on businesses, would only serve to reduce GDP that will reduce tax revenues and reduce the federal government’s ability to spend more to make things better for those seen as being treated unjustly.  It has to be a reasonable plan that will probably take five to ten years to have a significant, measurable impact and not drive us into a low growth, high tax, perpetual state of misery, Euro-style economy where nothing material is accomplished.  Just ask the French how it’s going.

And there are those, economist and politician alike, whose incredulity would rupture the Richter scale, that this nation is basically at full employment with GDP in excess of 3% and still producing annual trillion-dollar deficits in federal spending.  Some aghast that federal tax revenues approximating 3.5 trillion is not enough to serve the needs of this nation.  Others will zero in on this as further evidence that supply-side economics are fantasy.  Regardless where you sit on that full spectrum, we are spending a TRILLION DOLLARS MORE EACH YEAR than we collect.  If we call it a 30% spending deficit then across the board 30% tax increases will only stop the current bleeding of red ink and offer nothing new in help.  The enormity of the problem cannot be overstated. 

So Mr. Moyers, can we please set aside the inuendo, the vague fact-free attacks and help us ease into a dialogue that can really start to help people who need it with a reasonable plan that has a real chance to succeed in the long term?  If we are going to have any sliver of hope for success, we must demand all the attack dogs (left and right) be silenced, or, minimally ignored, and allow reasonable men and women from both sides to begin material discussions about what is fiscally feasible in addressing the social justice issues before us.  Nothing meaningful can be accomplished in one year or maybe even one term but certainly in the next decade we can do what Americans have always done……find a way.

¹https://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1

²https://www.pgpf.org/the-current-federal-budget-deficit

³Chart below – Obama Administration proposed total 2015 spending – Source OMB – https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=44AF99C5E38441EFE27FD6AE5F7D9BD05CB326AD&thid=OIP.wUuh6e0eYXD0apQoLdNkAgHaFf&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbluedasher.co%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F09%2Fgovernment-spending-pie-chart-2018-federal.jpg&exph=480&expw=648&q=Federal+Spending+Chart+2018&selectedindex=15&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

It appears the most progressive members of society are in a frenzied rush to homogenize all the world’s people.  They want to eliminate any sort of ethnic identity.  Their assertion is that ethnicity is at the root of all the troubles with the world.  The assumption is this will create a world where someone’s appearance or religion or ethnic origin is indiscernible from the next person.  A world where ethnicity, race and even physical appearance will be blended into a human race devoid of differences.  Skin color, eye color, physical stature, facial features will all disappear as differences into a homogenized, androgynous, atheist global persona.

This may indeed be a cure for all that ills the human species on this planet, or it may not.   They speculate the need for constructs like religion or sovereign states would fade away.  Without those constructs war among “tribes” would be devoid of purpose as tribes would only be an artifact of ancient history.  That “tribalism” is the root of evil as it may be described.

This notion of tribalism as a source of evil is one conceived of, or fashioned by, Former President Barrack Obama in his public addresses on tribalism.  Here’s an example from the Chicago Tribune.

—————————

Obama warns against ‘a crude sort of nationalism’ or ‘tribalism’ taking root in the U.S.

President Barack Obama warned Tuesday that Americans and people around the world “are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism, or ethnic identity, or tribalism” taking root amid the populist movements that are gaining currency around the world.

“We are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism, or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an us and a them, and I will never apologize for saying that the future of humanity and the future of the world is going to be defined by what we have in common, as opposed to those things that separate us and ultimately lead us into conflict,” Obama said.

“Take Europe,” he continued. “We know what happens when Europeans start dividing themselves up and emphasizing their differences and seeing a competition between various countries in a zero-sum way. The 20th century was a bloodbath.”

“In the United States we know what happens when we start dividing ourselves along the lines of race or religion or ethnicity. It is dangerous. It is dangerous, not just for the minority groups that are subjected to that kind of discrimination, or in some cases in the past, violence, but because we then don’t realize our potential as a country when we are preventing blacks or Latinos or Asians or gays or women from fully participating in the project of building American life,” he said.

“So my vision is right on that issue, and it may not always win the day in the short term in any particularly political circumstance, but I am confident it will win the day in the long term,” Obama added. “Because societies which are able to unify ourselves around values and ideals and character, and how we treat each other, and cooperation and innovation, ultimately are going to be more successful than societies that don’t.”¹

—————————-

Given a broader perspective, tribalism can be defined in more than one way and devoid of evil intent.  Former President Obama’s notion revolves around specific aspects of tribalism (race, religion and ethnicity) that certainly have been an incendiary force or cause of conflict, war and bloodshed between “tribes”.  Yet there are also some real positives in tribal affinity. 

On a very personal level, members of a tribe e.g., Scandinavians, Jews, Slovaks, Native Americans, Chinese, Mexican, among many, many others, find natural attraction in couples’ relationships, and a sense of personal security, among tribe members.  The notion of security is proven and profound. The attraction is deep-seated and multi-faceted.  It is physiological and psychological. 

In this excerpt from a piece on Psychology Today.com “Are We Attracted to People Who Look Like Us?”², the reality of who we are attracted to and why, finds some scientific basis. 

————————

As it turns out, then, we are much more likely to fall for someone who looks like us or our opposite-sex parent. This may indicate that our incest taboos are social constructs instituted to prevent people from following their instincts. However, there are other explanations of why we are attracted to people who look like us.

Researchers at the deCODE Genetics company in Reykjavik, reporting in a 2008 issue of Science, found that marriages between third or fourth cousins in Iceland tended to produce more children and grandchildren than those between completely unrelated individuals. The researchers suggest that marrying third and fourth cousins may be optimal for reproduction because this degree of genetic similarity may produce the best gene pool. Sibling and first-cousin couples, were they to mate, could have inbreeding problems, whereas couples genetically far-removed from each other could have genetic incompatibilities. Third- and fourth-cousin couples, though, tend to be genetically compatible while having no serious inbreeding problems.

At first glance, such findings seem to go against the so-called “Westermarck effect,” which posits that people who grow up together are disposed not to fall in love with each other after they reach sexual maturity. But the Westermarck effect—based on a series of studies done by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermark—actually is consistent with the recent findings—living in close proximity is no doubt the decisive factor for desensitization in terms of sexual attraction, not the degree of the individuals’ resemblance.  in fact, the Westermarck effect has been confirmed, in the Israeli kibbutz system of communal living, in which people who grow up together are typically not directly related to each other and do not look alike. And consider how traditional sim pua marriages, mostly dating from pre-modern Taiwan, also confirm Westermarck’s theory: Sim pua means “little daughter in-law.” In the system, a female infant is given to a family to be reared as their own daughter. When she grows up, she is to marry a son in that family. But sim pua marriages have produced a low fertility rate, a high divorce rate, frequent adultery, and lack of sexual attraction. In some cases, the son or “daughter-in-law” has refused to marry their destined-for spouse. So, the degree to which a couple resembles each other could be a defining factor in relationship satisfaction after all.²

————————-

Not to say this is an absolute, and more frequently than ever successful trans-tribe relationships are occurring.  Without a doubt, when the possibility presents itself, do what makes you happy.  One of the most important and unique American constitutional rights is the pursuit of happiness.  But, none of us should be made to feel as though we are Neanderthals because we have strong positive feelings about our connection to our tribal origins.  We are attracted to who we are attracted to, simply as that.  We are attracted to potential partners for any number of possible combination of reasons.  For centuries attempts to force couple relationships, for political alliance or cultural reasons, nearly always end in disaster and unhappiness. There appears to be strong evidence that this tribal affinity thing is a significant force in who we love, who we are comfortable around, who makes us feel safe and with whom we procreated.   

This homogenized, borderless, raceless, religion-free society some desire may be coming our way as humans.  Those in the media and the like, that produce the images we all see every day, wish to portray us as well down that path.  It just isn’t so.  It will have to overcome many millennia of tribalism, deeply seated in our very being, to become the dominant human condition globally.

¹https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-president-obama-greece-20161115-story.html

¹http://saharareporters.com/2016/09/21/obama-condemns-racism-tribalism-final-un-speech#.XKRP8Dsylcw.email

²https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mysteries-love/201505/are-we-attracted-people-who-look-us