By David Galland
Burn the Boats, Kill the Chickens
Although I did
manage to squeeze in a few hours in the Portuguese sun chasing a little white
ball, the purpose of my just-concluded whirlwind trip – a Sunday-to-Sunday
jaunt with stay-overs in four different countries, including two of the PIIGS,
Ireland and Portugal, and pending PIIGS member France twice – was mostly
business.
As you might
expect at this pivotal point in European history, I wasted no opportunity in
questioning the locals – from widely followed economists to taxi drivers and
everyone in between – about their views on the European Union and the common
currency that serves as the glue holding it together, albeit barely.
Now, I am not
going to go on at great length on the policy experiments that have brought
Europe to its knees, and certainly won't weigh in with a tourist's opinion on
how the whole mess will resolve: there are hundreds of media darlings in the
wings, clearing their pipes in the hope of being called upon to opine this way
or another on just those topics.
Rather, what I
would like to do is encapsulate, in as few words as I am capable, the essence
of the problems facing Europe, and leave it to you to draw your own
conclusions. To assist in that regard, I will use my observations on the ground
in Portugal.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the place, physically and
meteorologically, Portugal is about as good as it gets.
The weather is
almost identical to Southern California, and the country has a long coastline
complete with stunning (and largely empty) beaches. As with Southern
California, the land is rich and supports the growing of pretty much any crop.
The people are
friendly and well educated, with most speaking three or even four languages
(Portuguese, English, German, Spanish are fairly standard). The food is
fantastic, especially the fresh seafood, prepared to perfection even when just
cooked over coals in a fisherman's shack.
Supplementing
the local culture is a robust expat community: in the Algarve, where I stayed,
most expats are refugees from the rest of Europe, with what seems to be an
extra measure of Brits. Crime is low and, thanks to the crisis, there are
bargains aplenty for houses and recently constructed (but now largely empty)
apartment buildings, even near the water.
The storied
cities of the Old World, Paris, Dublin, Madrid, Rome, Zurich, London are only a
short hop by plane, and thanks to the hard-charging Michael O'Leary and his
cut-rate Ryan Air, a cheap hop at that.
Which had me
wondering, what's the problem? The same thought had come to mind while wandering
about the bustling streets of Dublin a couple of days earlier.
You see, and I kid you not, every Portuguese, save one, I spoke to during my three-day visit was profoundly pessimistic, resigned to a new reality of the lack of tourists, empty hotels, failed real estate developments, the crash of the construction industry and the dearth of bank financing to fund anything. Every person I met under the age of 30 was looking to get out of the country.
Over a lunch
with friends, including a recent graduate with a Master's in the computer
sciences, I was told that even senior government officials are urging young
people to emigrate, as there is no future in the country. Thanks to the miracle
of the Internet, I did a bit of poking around, and sure enough – I was
correctly informed. This from a February 2012 edition of USA Today…
"Recent graduates should
lead a new type of emigration, different from the 1960s, when Europe was the
destination," Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Miguel Relvas said
recently. "In the past 20 years, Portugal has invested in a generation of
people, and now we can't give them what they need: employment."
As I will expand
on momentarily, the conversation was almost identical in Ireland as, I suspect,
it would be in Greece, Spain and across most of Europe.
So what was the
number of the truck that ran over the aspirations of an entire generation? That
laid low the economies of a dozen or more countries across the continent?
I'll give you a
hint by relating that as a condition for inclusion in the Eurozone,
functionaries in the European Commission based in Brussels required the
Portuguese to retire and destroy a large percentage of their fishing fleet. As
I understand it, the commissioners felt that the size of the Portuguese fleet
coupled with the sea-faring nation's long history in commercial fishing gave it
an unfair advantage over other nations in the Eurozone. They also helped
rationalize the demand to burn the boats by saying that the Portuguese
fishermen were putting the ecosystem of the Atlantic Ocean at risk.
The result of
forcing the Portuguese to burn these tools for capital creation is that since
joining the Eurozone in 1986, Portugal's fish harvest has effectively been cut
in half. I was told that the country is reduced to buying many of the sardines
that find favor in the local cuisine from the Spanish fleet.
The
Euro-meddling doesn't stop with fish. The Portuguese are mandated to trash a
large amount of their annual orange production lest they exceed the quotas set
in Brussels. Apparently the Spanish, ever attuned to capitalize on Portugal's
mandated misfortunes, buy the unsellable excess oranges and use them to make
marmalade… which they then sell back to the Portuguese.
Of course,
actions have consequences. One of them has been that Portugal has run a trade
deficit for about twenty years now – in other words, starting soon after
joining the EU in 1986.
And even though
the country (and the continent) is tight in the grips of the most dire crisis
in living memory, the EU commissars are still at it. In fact, as I write,
Portugal is being forced by the European Commission to kill a large percentage
of its chicken population, with the slaughter to be completed over the next
month. This by virtue of the ironically named EU Welfare of Laying
Hens Directive, forbidding the continued use of conventional egg-laying
cages.
Once the
chickens are destroyed, and provided the Portuguese egg farmers can ever find
the capital needed to rebuild, they will have to build to the specifications of
the EC Directive that requires that all laying hens must be kept in
"enriched cages" providing each hen with at least 0.8 square feet of
cage area, a nest-box, litter, perches and claw-shortening devices, allowing
the hens to satisfy their biological and behavioral needs.
Now, I like
chickens as much as the next guy, especially lightly grilled with a pinch of
paprika and a dash of sea salt, and am firmly against the human tendency to
mistreat animals (except when it comes to eating them, of course), but for the
EC to foist this sort of perfect-world mandate on the Portuguese at this
delicate point in time seems sheer madness.
One Portuguese
taxi driver said sourly that the economically stifling EU policies would not
stop until they finished killing off the Portuguese people through starvation.
He could be
right. If the latest iteration of the EU Common Agricultural Policy is
pushed forward, it will tie payments to farmers to environmental targets. Those
targets include requiring the farmers to reserve at least 7 percent of their
land for ecological purposes. In other words, if the farmers don't decrease
their output of food by 7%, they won't be able to sell the food they produce on
the other 93% of their land.
Given that they
are already having trouble selling what they grow, due to the quotas and the
fact that the euro makes their output uncompetitive, there is real concern
about the viability of the Portuguese farm sector. Remember, we're talking
about a growing environment as temperate and fertile as Southern California.
It was around
this point in my wanderings that the proverbial scales dropped from my eyes and
I came to something of a revelation.
Europe has been
quietly taken over by communists.
And I'm not
saying that for dramatic effect, but because the facts are evident. Succinctly
put, operating from headquarters in Belgium, upwards of 30,000 bureaucratic
functionaries working for the European Commission, and sub-commissions such as
the Education Commissionand the Competition Commission,
are concocting an endless stream of perfect-world regulations whose net intent
is to manage the economies of all EU members.
And, for good
measure, all functions of civil society.
No matter how
they spin their actions as the spawn of lofty goals and high principles, even a
cursory glance reveals that the EU is now operating as a command economy – one
where the productive capacity of commercial enterprises, fishing and farming
being just one small corner, is being directed by central planners.
Communists.
And we think the
United States has problems? Here we have only one bloated tick draining the
lifeblood from the economy – albeit a really big bloated tick – but in Europe,
they have two: the governments of the individual nations, and on top of that,
the Bolsheviks in Brussels.
In Ireland, the
situation is much the same. With prices driven sky high by the euro, Ireland's
tourist trade has been reduced to a trickle. Just as was the case in Portugal,
the Germans, who have been about the only nation to have benefited from the
Eurozone, make up a large percentage of the reduced tourist traffic.
This meme, that
the Eurozone was an inside job by the Germans aided by the unwitting French, is
growing among Europe's population and is being discussed openly by a number of
analysts. This from George Friedman of the well-respected Stratfor.
There are two narratives to
the story. One is the German version, which has become the common explanation.
It holds that Greece wound up in a sovereign debt crisis because of the
irresponsibility of the Greek government in maintaining social welfare programs
in excess of what it could fund, and now the Greeks were expecting others,
particularly the Germans, to bail them out.
The Greek narrative, which is
less noted, was that the Germans rigged the European Union in their favor.
Germany is the world's third-largest exporter, after China and the United
States (and closing rapidly on the No. 2 spot). By forming a free trade zone,
the Germans created captive markets for their goods. During the prosperity of
the first 20 years or so, this was hidden beneath general growth.
But once a crisis hit, the
inability of Greece to devalue its money — which, as the euro, was controlled
by the European Central Bank — and the ability of Germany to continue exporting
without any ability of Greece to control those exports exacerbated Greece's
recession, leading to a sovereign debt crisis. Moreover, the regulations
generated by Brussels so enhanced the German position that Greece was helpless.
Of course, the
Germans weren't the only ones that benefited from the Eurozone. Widely followed
Irish economist David McWilliams explained over a pint in Dublin that the older
folks did very well, thanks to the giveaways spread around by the central
planners in Belgium in the early days of the EU.
As proof, he
told us to look around the fairly pricey restaurant we were eating in. Sure
enough, there was no one under the age of 60 in evidence. As for the young,
they missed the parade.
In the view of
McWilliams, one of the consequences of the cascading failures of the European
economy will be a wave of bank runs on the continent, beginning in the
not-too-distant future.
"Are you
worried about a bank run?" I asked the young taxi driver on the way back
to the hotel following dinner.
"Oy,
that's a good one, that is," he answered with a laugh. "I guess you'd
have to have some money in the bank to worry about that, now wouldn't
you?"
He went on to
explain that he and all of his mates were clinging on to their existence by
their fingernails... that is, those mates of his who hadn't already pulled up
stakes and headed for distant shores.
Not everyone
wants to (or can) expatriate, of course, but in these uncertain times
diversification of your assets – not only across industries but also across
investment vehicles and borders – is crucial.
Yellow Card!
Over the course
of the aforementioned lunch, a Portuguese friend, brimming with the optimism of
a self-made man (encouraged by a glass or two of an excellent rosé)
enthusiastically exclaimed that the solution to his country's seemingly
insurmountable problems could be achieved by improving the local education
system.
To which I
responded, "You may be correct, but that takes a generation, and at this
point you only have months." He conceded the point.
Nowhere are the
shortcomings of the educational system, worldwide, more apparent than in the
matter of economics.
"The
foreign investors are ruining our countries by forcing interest rates
higher," said a Portuguese car service driver with remarkable fervor
considering his words were spoken at 3:30 am – the ungodly hour I had to head
to the airport in order to catch my flight from Faro to Lisbon. "The
government should limit how much interest rate the investors can get!"
Having to choose
between trying to nap on the one-hour ride, looking out the window at the
street lamps whisking by at breakneck speed, or engaging in a conversation with
the rather passionate driver (evidenced by a waving about of his right hand,
and sometimes his left as well), I chose the latter.
"Well,
actually, that is largely out of the control of the government. Of course, they
could try to limit the interest rate to whatever they want, but if investors
don't feel the yield is worth the risk – and these days, there's a lot of risk,
they'll just sit on their wallets," I said, hoping against hope his hands
would stay on the wheel around the fast-approaching bend.
"And,
besides, haven't you had enough of the government meddling in your life?
Shouldn't a market for, say, oranges be only between the buyer and the seller?
Shouldn't a fisherman be free to fish and a farmer free to sell their produce
for the best price they can get?"
Rising one hand
in preparation to respond, he let it drift back to the steering wheel and shook
his head. "Yes, that's the way it should be."
Which made me
wonder, maybe the entire educational system doesn't have to be retooled, just
the module about how economies work best.
After all, if
the populations of all these many countries were as well versed on the immutable
laws of economics as they are on the rules of soccer, then when a Hollande or
Duarte or Obama took to the podium to propose the latest harebrained scheme to
meddle in the free functioning of markets, they would be chased off the stage
by the incredulous and rightfully indignant listeners.
Alfredo, did you hear
what that fool said?
That the government should
create currency units out of thin air and pretend it's good money? Where is
that referee! Yellow card! Yellow card!"
Unfortunately,
through intellectual sloth and government design, not one in a hundred people
these days – no matter what geography confines their backsides – has the
slightest idea of what makes an economy function properly. And so they are no
better able to understand the nature of their current situation or the actual
solutions than was a cave man witnessing his first volcano and turning to the
sun for an answer.
It is thus that,
as was the case with the primitive and their shamans, people look to their
governments to shake the bones in the correct manner to solve what ails, versus
take the only action that will be effective: let the markets alone do what they
do best – punish the misallocation of capital so that new capital can flow in.
Unfortunately,
the historical moment you and I share will be greatly impacted by the time lost
in the futile petitioning of imaginary gods, the people prostrating themselves
at the feet of Brussels and Washington or the other centers of political power
in the vain hope the bureaucrats will wave their magical policy wand and make
all that ails well again.
With each
passing day, and each new order issuing forth from the central planners, the
situation only grows worse. And while I would like to believe that the public
at large will come to recognize that it is the central planners that are the
problem, not the solution, the hard reality is that people have been so
brainwashed at this point that they are going to demand far more government
meddling, not less, in the months and years just ahead.
So, here's the thing
– at least as I see it. And that thing is that the situation is actually
hopeless, but in that hopelessness is where hope can be found.
You see, because
everything is broken beyond repair, everything must change. And so it will.
Everything
Changes
Possibly the
most interesting thing about major periods of transition such as we will live
through is that no one can predict what's coming next. Of course, there will be
a handful of people who correctly anticipate the big shifts, simply due to
basic odds – but for a number of obvious reasons, there can be no methodical
process by which the future can be accurately divined.
Instead, the
forecaster must work with written histories, personal experience – including
exposure to the thoughts of others they respect – and the intuition that mixes
all the inputs together and delivers a vision of the future that makes more
sense to us than any of the alternatives.
Again, not
science, so invariably it boils down to what will hopefully be informed
opinion.
So how, in my opinion,
do we transition from this point in history to whatever comes next? Will
society act like Europe in 1914 and break free of the bonds of peaceful
coexistence in order to tear at each other's throats in actual war, versus the
proxy of war found in every European soccer match?
Or will the
transition happen through localized explosions of discontent?
"We will
have a civil war," said my Portuguese driver when I asked him why the
populace wasn't more energetic in its protestations about the EU's ruining of
their economy. "Or maybe it's another dictator, or a civil war and then a
dictator."
Driving across
the landscape of Portugal, which like pretty much everywhere else in the world
is dominated by wide open spaces and sparse populations gathered together in
villages, towns and cities that barely make a dent on the environment we are
all urged by the central planners to worry about, the thought struck me how
difficult it is to conquer a country. Specifically, to cross every hedgerow
with sufficient firepower to vanquish the bold on the other side, then bully
the timid into remaining that way.
Yet, we humans
have shown a remarkable ability to achieve what tasks we set our minds to, and
so Europe in particular has been swept from one end to the other by invading
armies over the centuries.
That said, in
the current chapter, I don't anticipate an actual shooting war between nations
(but the thought nags that maybe no generation ever does). Even so, other than
a few outposts of despotism, based on my observations people show little
passion for what might be termed the military life.
While the US
stands almost alone in its aggressive foreign policy, I don't think the average
Joe or Jill views the military in the same positive light as previously. That
is a fairly new phenomenon: Even as recently as the Vietnam War, there was
still a societal memory of WWII and WWI before it. We still named our parks
after generals, and as children we remembered the Alamo.
Today, those
memories are ancient history and people are otherwise intellectually engaged,
primarily awaiting news of the next iPad application to entertain and inform
them.
Sure, the Greeks
and Portuguese may be upset at the Germans (and most are), because they think
the Germans pulled a fast one with the Eurozone, but marshaling an army to show
the Bosch bastards a thing or two? Hardly.
Internal dissent?
Absolutely.
I think as with
the Arab Spring, we are highly likely to see riots and popular uprisings
increase in both frequency and intensity. Even so, because of the economic
ignorance of the populace and the scale of the problems, even if the old guard
are replaced, the new guard will likely be even more ill-informed and more
socialist than they are now.
Alas, when it
comes to economics, there really aren't any fresh ideas. Sorry, but no new and
more effective way of central planning remains to be discovered. Yet the
population will again demand that the experiment in redistribution is conducted
again and again, even though the result is inevitably the same – the result
that Europe and most of the modern world are now suffering from.
At its heart,
this unbreakable love of the idea of socialism revolves around the entirely
human fiction that the government can take from those who have and give to
those who don't, thereby leveling the playing field and allowing those who are
so inclined to earn more while doing less.
Of course, when
pressed on how this bit of legerdemain can be accomplished, the only honest
answer is, if the government allows some of the population to directly benefit
from the labor of others.
To see where
this sort of thing can lead when taken to the extreme, look no further than
Cambodia circa 1970, a country that went all in for communism as the path to a
perfect world. Unfortunately, in no time at all anyone considered
"rich" and not fleet-footed enough to get across the political border
was either financially ruined or killed... actually, most were financially
ruined and then killed.
Margaret
Thatcher put it succinctly, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or
later you run out of other's people money."
As I drift – oh
how I drift – I will put an oar into the current to try and steer back into the
main stream of today's missive by quickly recapping to this point before
throwing out my top "never-saw-it-coming" idea for how the transition
to what's next will come about.
Summing up, the
educational system, media and politicians have conspired to instill in the
public mind an intransigent set of unworkable ideas about how economies work
(e.g., that government meddling alone can foster economic growth).
These ideas are
so deeply rooted at this point that the path forward is going to keep worsening
until the world goes through a profoundly cathartic transition… as profound and
cathartic as the atomic bombs going off in Japan at the end of World War II.
While devastating in every sense of the word, if there was a positive, it would
be that the explosion burned away Japan's militaristic death-cult government
down to the last root, leaving the gentler and more entrepreneurial aspects of
the Japanese culture to blossom. (Of course, there is a lot more to the
post-war experience in Japan, but time dictates brevity.)
So, what agent
or cluster of agents carry such world-changing potential?
In my view,
technology.
The New War
While technology
will continue to provide serious improvements in the quality of human life, a
topic I have touched on in previous editions, in my view the odds are growing
that the seminal event that brings a close to the era of dominating sovereigns
will be brought about by a war that does not involve troop carriers rumbling across
the countryside but rather the deliberate or even accidental unleashing of a
powerful computer virus in the virtual world.
Unfortunately,
the creation of a virus that targets critical computer infrastructure is well
within the range of current capabilities. And while the Internet is remarkably
resilient, what humans truly set their minds to is almost always achieved. The
French manning the Maginot line and the heads of Iran's nuclear program both
thought their defenses were impenetrable, before they found out they were not.
In the case of
the Iranians, despite having sealed off all the computers in their primary
nuclear-development lab from the outside world – no cables or wireless
connections extended outside of the inner sanctum – with careful planning,
killer programming and a little patience, the US and Israel were still able to
inject the Stuxnet virus that destroyed them.
Today,
unfortunately, a derivation of the Stuxnet virus – the Flame – is beginning to
show up in the world wide web. While there has been some news and a bit of
Twitter traffic about it, so far the reaction among the masses has been tepid
at best. Yet, according to computer security experts Symantec, the virus is
built to allow the operators to wipe out computers.
Symantec researcher Vikram
Thakur said on Thursday that the company has now identified a component of
Flame that allows operators to delete files from computers.
"These guys have the
capability to delete everything on the computer," Thakur said. "This
is not something that is theoretical. It is absolutely there."
To be clear, I
am not saying the Flame will herald in what's coming next. What I am saying is
that it, or whatever soon follows, certainly could.
In fact, I am
completely sure that something even more powerful, even more insidious will
follow, because the people who live in the dark world of cyberwar will now view
the success of Stuxnet in Iran in much the same light that Oppenheimer et al.
viewed the explosion of the first atomic bomb in 1945, setting the stage for a
redoubling of efforts that brought us nuclear bombs strapped to
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Unlike nuclear
bombs, in the case of a computer virus, the world's richest nations are not the
only ones that can play. In fact, I would bet everything I have that there are
a thousand highly intelligent but morally ambivalent hackers sitting at their
desks at this very moment trying to come up with their own, but better, version
of Stuxnet.
So, how's this
for a transformative event.
You get up one
cold winter morning and there's no electricity. If you could log on to the
Internet, watch television or listen to the radio, which you can't – you'd
learn that the primary operating systems of a major power transition hub have
been infiltrated and destroyed, along with the back-up systems.
As the grid
begins to overload, a second hub goes down, then another.
Note that I am
not talking about "the Internet" here – but a proprietary system that
connects to the Internet in too many ways to count. And, as the Stuxnet attack
proved, even if the system is an entirely closed loop, it can still be
attacked.
While your first
thoughts on discovering you had no electricity and that nothing requiring
electricity worked would likely be frustration at not being able to instantly
access the information as to why the electricity was off… within a pretty short
period of time, your thoughts would turn to other matters. Such as heat, or
being able to get access to fuel for your car, or the lack of food or water.
If I remember
correctly, the modern "just-in-time" delivery model means that New
York City has only about enough food on the shelves to last the population a
day… and once people realized what was going on, it wouldn't even last that
long. Even worse, a human being can't go for much more than three days without
water – versus several weeks without food – and without power, there's no
readily available water supply.
Now, I don't
want to get all dystopian on you, and I have gone on far too long anyway, so I
will head toward a conclusion.
The scenario
just above seems extreme, and may be. But the entire point of this exercise is
to urge you to give at least a little thought to what might lead to the sort of
societal transformation I believe we'll have to go through in order to expunge
the crippling dependence of people on governments that has arisen over the last
100 years. Only when people once again learn in no uncertain terms that
ultimately they have to rely on themselves to better their life – working with
their neighbors and others they want to associate with freely – can the world
transcend the current morass.
Give a little
thought to your Plan B.
For those of you
who live in Europe, may I suggest you start calling the EU and the EC by the
correct term, Commissars.
Dining out with
a small group of British expats on the Algarve reminded me how much I enjoy the
British sense of humor. The following from John Cleese, of Monty Python fame,
is a classic example of the genre. In addition to being funny, it is also
telling, because as much as people like to pretend the countries in Europe are
capable of coming together in a collaborative union, the attitudinal artifacts
from being at each other's throats for lo these many millennia are still very
much present, both in things like international sporting contests and in the
humor…
The English are feeling the
pinch in relation to recent events in the Middle East and have therefore raised
their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved."
Soon, though, security levels
may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit
Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz
in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized
from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time
the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588,
when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their
threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards."
They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the
front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government
announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from
"Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are
"Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by
a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively
paralyzing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert
level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military
Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat
Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans
have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to
"Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher
levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand,
are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO
pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to
see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have
glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old
Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has
raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be
alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think
we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled."
So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.
A final thought – "Greece
is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray.
Welcome back to 480 BC"...
I began my
European trip by driving to Montreal, then flying out of there. The difference
in airport security when you travel anywhere not including the US is
unmistakable. Yes, you have to show passports and put things into plastic trays
to go through X-ray machines, then stop through metal detectors – but there's
none of the gruff attitudes or taking off shoes. In other words, the process is
entirely rational.
And on arriving
at our first stop, Paris, I was amazed how relaxed things were. The immigration
agent asked no intrusive questions, in fact said nothing but hello as he
glanced at my passport, found a blank spot and stamped it. There was no one in
customs, so it was grab the bags and straight out the door.
The experience
was much the same throughout Europe. Nothing but smiles and the same sort of reasonable
security check.
Which is maybe
why the experience I had almost immediately upon returning to the States was so
remarkable. It started when I was exiting Paris on my return trip, and the
border agent pointed out that all of the pages of my passport were now entirely
covered in stamps, and so I would need to have pages added.
Thus, after
landing back in the States and driving across the US border (where the traffic
was backed up for half an hour), I headed to the passport office in St. Albans,
Vermont.
The office is
located there because St. Albans is the nearest town to the border with Canada.
It is a not a big town and doesn't have very many amenities – which is what you
would expect in rural Vermont.
I had managed to
secure an appointment by phone on return to North America, and even though I
was tired from my just-completed trip, I headed to the appointment prior to
finishing the drive home.
Locating the
office in a small brick building on Main Street, I walked in and to my deep
surprise was met by three fully uniformed, fully armed TSA officers manning a
standard-issue security screening station complete with X-ray machine and a
metal detector.
Half-hidden
behind a desk at the front of the screening station, all of which had had to be
squeezed into a narrow hallway in the small building, was a fairly young
ex-soldier type, his arms decorated with the oh-so-cliché tattoos of oriental
symbols.
"Welcome to
the passport office," he said in a growl without looking up at me.
"Your identification, please. Do you have any guns, knives or explosives
on you?"
I assured him I
did not, but apparently he didn't believe me because I was told to empty my
pockets and take off my belt and drop them into the plastic bin on the X-ray
machine conveyor belt manned by one of his colleagues, before proceeding
through the metal detector manned by the third.
Retrieving my
belongings while stifling a laugh at the absurd comedy of the whole thing, I
proceeded into the inner sanctum of the passport office, a small and unremarkable
place on a scale with the waiting room of a one-room dental practice.
There I
discovered that the waiting room was partitioned off from the workers by a
floor-to-ceiling security barrier, complete with bullet-proof glass and a
speaker you had to use to communicate with the clerk on the other side.
So, essentially
you have a full-blown security detail and equipment installed and operated at
the cost of what surely must run over $200,000 a year to protect a couple of
clerks who are hidden behind a hardened security barrier.
What the hell
could these people be so afraid of? And as this is just an extension of the
sort of over-the-top nonsense that is repeated at every airport, every border,
every government installation and, increasingly, train stations and public
gatherings, I have to also ask: What are we as a people so afraid of? What has
happened to our country, the purported land of the brave?
I could go on
about this whole scenario at some length, but the day is growing late, and
there is still much to be done before wheels up on my next trip, so I won't.
Instead, I will
sign off for the day by leaving you with a nice sentiment that I think might
help keep things in the proper perspective during the challenging times still
ahead. They are words attributed to the Dalai Lama, sent to me by a friend in
Nepal.
When asked what
surprised him most about humanity, the Dalai Lama answered…
"Man. Because he
sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to
recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does
not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or
the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then he dies having
never really lived."
No comments:
Post a Comment