Oligarchy, Anarchy and Democracy, Oh My!

Maybe I have a sick sense of humor, but when I read this article from my beloved hometown, it reminded me thusly:

This is a clip from the Family Guy episode "E. Peterbus Unum," in which Peter creates the micronation Petoria when the mayor shows Peter that his house is not part of the United States. Insanity, hilarity and the U.S. Army ensue.

In all seriousness, however - regardless of the fact that Peter establishes an oligarchy, and so-called "sovereigns" look to a more anarchy-type government (or lack thereof) - you have to wonder how sovereigns get up in the morning and operate within a democratic country. The lack of a driver's license, insurance, and bristling at paying mortgages they applied for reminds me vaguely of a kindergartner stomping his feet when his mother asks him to play nice with the other kids in the schoolyard.

The Constitution of the United States has long been a source of pride for this country, yet sovereigns view it as an oppression of their rights, a piece of paper that stifles their complete and utter freedom. Last time I checked, the government did not owe it to us to establish our own fractured, individual, feudal-like system in which we lay claim to bits and pieces of land and respond to no authority except the one between our ears. Furthermore, you better believe that the few powerful - those with the land, the weapons, the means to barter or trade things of value - would probably start taking over the many tiny pieces in a complicated Risk game-like quest to claim the land for their own. There would be war waged every day. Can you imagine what would happen to our nuclear stockpile if this country went "sovereign?" What individuals in this nation would afford themselves the power? Those with money? Those with the most land?

Furthermore, you'd better believe that the lack of a government means lack of protection. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: if you don't like the government and believe law enforcement is oppressing your "rights," then don't come running to the White House the next time someone attacks the home land. Don't call 911 when you have an emergency. Don't try to drive on roads not owned by you. If you want to mail a parcel to someone, you'll have to figure out how to do it without paying for postage. And just forget about getting married and anyone recognizing the legality of it. Oh, and don't expect people to barter with you for every service you need - most folks around the world still recognize the value (although decreasing) of a U.S. Dollar.

What irks me the most is that some of these people bristle at being convicted for, say, drunk driving because it infringes on their rights. Rights for what? Driving impaired and putting me and my children in danger? How about the delusion that a mortgage doesn't require repayment? You can bitch and moan all you want about interest rates - that's a bit of a different story - but you borrowed the money, you lunkheaded twit. Do you really think a private bank has the power to loan you money for property that is "rightfully yours" and then not have the authority to tattle on you to the government when the property goes into foreclosure?

Our government, through the Bill of Rights, guarantees us as citizens to certain freedoms not restricted by our government. Last time I read the Bill of Rights, it was okay to own a gun; it was NOT okay to put others in danger by driving drunk. It was okay to have a free press and free speech; it was NOT okay to use your freedoms to the disadvantage or danger of your fellow citizens.

This is what gets me most of all: That folks think of themselves most instead of cooperating with the other millions of people who call this land their home. Do these sovereigns have no sense of pride of being part of a larger community and only care about themselves, THEIR rights, what is ENTITLED to them? What a selfish, self-serving movement. Don't they see the other people around them? We all have to get along somehow.

No doubt that the government they see is self-serving, corrupt and dependent on the obedience of its citizens, but that same government provides protection from other governments around the world. This country would be gobbled up and disappear if it was every person for themselves; if not by the few powerful sovereigns in the country, then surely piecemeal by other countries looking to expand their borders, in which we'd just become citizens of another country with another government (if they were feeling generous). Let's not think of the worse situations - second-class citizenry, slavery, or worse.

So, for the few sovereigns of this country who want their piece of the feudal pie: Good luck. Being born on this soil does not entitle you to a grain of ownership, although it does entitle you to its social services, military protection and a chance to navigate through its confusing, enraging, but loop-holed tax system. And if you do get the chance to travel the world and see what "freedom" is really about, let me know what you think about the "freedoms" that some countries afford their citizens when you get back - that is, if Border Patrol will let your sovereign butt back in the country.

Best of the Best of the Best?

Even if it's just for 15 minutes, we all like to have some sort of claim to fame. We like to talk about what famous people we've met and if we've ever been on TV. We like to talk about how far we've traveled and show off the beautiful/handsome person we married when we attend our 10-year high school reunions. Receiving that acceptance letter to college or a new job is even a demonstrate in fame, knowing that someone actually wants you for your accomplishments and thinks you're important enough to recruit to the organization.

But is there such a thing as us feeling too proud of ourselves? Can we take it too far? Let me show you an example: Forbes.com has named the 10 most lustful cities in America. Here, you can also see the other cities that top the list of the rest of the deadly sins: gluttony, avarice, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

Interestingly enough, I've lived in or near several cities who top out some of these. Rochester and Buffalo NY tied for 10th place in the lust category, based on condom sales in those areas. San Francisco and San Jose topped out avarice and pride, ranking in the top three in both categories. I certainly don't call myself native to these areas, but when I think about Rochester NY beating out such "sexy" places as L.A. and NYC, I have to laugh. Does that mean we just protect ourselves better from STDs? It begs the question of how they gathered this information and came up with the results, and how they correlated those results with its Deadly Sin label. I mean, it's probably easy enough to come up with the average per capita income per person to correlate to "greedy" cities, and average BMI in a city to correlate to the "fattest," but envy based on how many cars are stolen?

Moreover, I find it also interesting that this was one of the most read articles on Forbes.com. It's like a weird way of people figuring out how they fit into the deadly sin superlatives. Who can forget those yearbook photos of smiling seniors rounding out who's most talented or most likely to succeed? Can you imagine your city being named the most envious or slothful, complete with a picture of the city's skyline?

You see it everywhere, though - your hometown probably has some sort of claim to fame or is home to the "World's Largest [fill in the blank]." Rochester is famed for its lilac collection and lilac festival every spring. San Jose was the pride and joy of the dot-com boom, and still boasts as headquarters to nearly everything that's in vogue with technology. San Francisco, well, aren't the bridges iconic enough around the world? My hometown, Erie, boasts itself as once the home of former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge and close to the hometown of Sharon Stone, and depends on its tourism of its state park, Presque Isle, as a beach getaway and part of the fascinating Great Lakes ecosystem.

Even though we are all different in DNA, we are all still human. Even though our cities brought up different celebrities, they still have a mayor and a City Council and favorite hangout downtown. Even though snowflakes are all different in their crystal shape, they're still all made out of frozen water. A lot of American media is based on the fact that there's lots of things going on that makes people or cities different from one another. When it comes to associations of the famous, the impressive, or just plain different, can we settle with being both different and the same? Does it defeat the purpose of how we look at what is newsworthy now? Can I arm myself with this new information about these sinful cities I've lived in, and boast the facts to strangers and acquaintances for their interest and approval?

We spend our lives trying to be different and yet fit in at the same time. We set ourselves apart from others in a job interview by outlining selected accomplishments, yet yearn to be part of a work force that works for the same board of directors. I attended college with many other students who yearned to be part of the Penn State family, but made sure I involved myself in different clubs and activities to set my accomplishments far apart from those students who would eventually become my professional rivals after graduation. So when it comes to figuring out if we've lived in a city that boasts itself as the most lustful, does that mean we're trying to associate with a group of citizens who can boast the same thing, or set us apart from the rest of the country vying for the same boasting rights? Perhaps it's a dichotomy that the U.S. media will always use to its advantage.

Anonymous Friend

An Anonymous Friend has made the front headlines of CNN with the title: "Rust Belt City gets $100 million anonymous gift." Fox News has this story, and even the AP picked up on it.

What's the Rust Belt? Ever hear of the Pittsburgh Steelers? It's a clue. About two hours north of where the Three Rivers meet, there's a smaller town located on the southern shore of Lake Erie bearing the same name. Erie, according to CNN, used to be a bustling industrial town but has seen an increase in the poverty level, that over the national average, and resorted to promoting themselves as a tourist town, complete with brand-new casino. (Of course, they wouldn't mention that it has one of the most popular parks in state, that there is an unbelievably low costs of living, and that the housing market has nary been affected, unlike the poor folks in California who were living on doomed subprime mortgages. A city were the Colts' Bob Sanders made his beginnings, where Tom Ridge comes from, where Sharon Stone grew up near.)

Erie papers carried this news nearly a month ago. It's that long ago that Erie (and probably surrounding areas) knew about this act of kindness and incredible generosity. The original article ran on October 6, and Sharla Bordin of the Erie Times-News reports:

An anonymous donor has made history in Erie County.

The Erie Community Foundation has received $100 million from the donor, the largest charitable gift ever received by an Erie County organization, foundation President Mike Batchelor said Friday.

The gift also is believed to be one of the largest anonymous contributions to a community foundation in the nation.

"It will literally change our community forever," Batchelor said.

Most people in Erie probably want to know who made the donation, but feel it's nearly sinful to ask who. The person specifically asked to remain anonymous, as well as their association to Erie, and if they are even alive. Some have theories as to who it is.

No matter who it was, it was a spectacular amount of money, an act of generosity that made history across the nation. Someone who so dearly loved Erie, this little Rust Belt City That Was.