Socialism? Please, that is SO yesterday!

I generally leave discussions of politics to the side since they often serve more to divide than to unite, but what happened this week at the G20 summit is monumental. I'm not sure how many of you are aware of what is going on in the world, but if you aren't keeping tabs on things, you should be. Our world is changing right before our eyes, and many of us are wearing blinders such that our field of view is extremely narrow.

Part of what helps me to broaden my field of view is listening to the online broadcast of the BBC while I am at work. Honestly, with my busy schedule and no TV in my residence, this is the best way I can stay informed. Because GE owns NBC, I could easily tap into a feed from MSNBC, but most of the media in this country does not provide a truly international view of the news. The BBC does (or rather I should say they do a better job since their focus is on nations which were formally part of the British Empire, which having been said is still better than what you get here in the US), and I like that approach.

What first particularly struck me about the G20 summit is that it ended so quickly. When I learned that the summit had reached resolution, I thought, What? Didn't they start that yesterday? How can they be done already, especially with the stink that France and Germany were making? Then I learned what had been decided, and I just had to take a step back and look at everything that had occurred in context.

President Obama in the press conference he held after the summit called the event "historic." Honestly, what is it with everything surrounding this man being "historic"? That word is getting bandied about so much I am starting to tire of it, just like Senator McCain during the presidential campaign calling everyone "my friend". President Obama said that "we must act quickly" and that the crisis of the Great Depression was prolonged because people did not work together to solve the common problem. Well, that may or may not be true. It is good that people are working together to solve the current problem. But a novice on the international political stage comes in and gets everyone on board in just two days? There's an old saying: If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

People are talking more and more about socialism these days, and not just in connection with the summit. The problem I have always had with socialism is the restrictions it places upon individual choice. That is what makes America the bastion of freedom in the world, why immigrants from all over the globe continue to flock here even with the moves our government has made over the years towards more national control of everything everyone does and even with some of the horrific things our nation has done on the international scene. But this G20 summit has set the stage for something far more extensive -- preparations for a new world currency as a stepping stone to a new world government.

This is not some kook conspiracy theory. President Obama said that we must "end the bubble and bust economy through regulation." Translation = we need to get rid of capitalism and replace it with a system that gives government more control. He talked about identifying jurisdictions for tax havens. What does that mean if not more regulation over what people can and cannot do with their wealth -- limits on individual choice? Do you think that the rich are just going to allow politicians to take their money? I don't think so. The President talked about reforming the IMF and the World Bank. What does that mean? Without more details, it's hard to say, but I can guess that we are looking at setting the stage for getting ready to introduce a new world currency because this cannot be done unless changes to the current system are introduced.

President Obama is not the only one talking this way. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown after the summit said that "the Washington consensus is over." That was in fact his most used phrase. That's monumental. He is referring to the order established after WWII, the one where the United States basically holds on to everyone's gold and issues the dollar as a promissory note. That is why the US dollar has been a standard world currency ever since. Recent events threaten to change all that, but I digress (or do I?). Mr. Brown talked about a "new world order," a new "consensus" among industrialized nations, and a "new era of responsibility" that extends worldwide. Seriously, all the talk from leaders everywhere about "sacrifice" and "responsibility" sound like justification for some pretty sweeping changes on our doorstep.

I can see why they would want to regulate banks by requiring them to have the cash on hand to cover all of the loans they make. On the surface, that makes sense. But if banks have to hold onto cash, then the costs of making loans will increase, and that hurts Joe Blows like me who don't have the money to pay for big ticket items upfront with cash. But I forget. That's really okay because the government knows better than I do what car I should drive and what house I should live in and even what job I should have. More restrictions on individual choice!

I understand that not everyone can do anything that they want. Terrorists, for example, want to kill lots of people. I think we should curtail their choice in order to preserve the choices of others. Choice, freedom, and liberty in this world are meaningless if you are dead. Generally, governments (and our government in particular) do a great job at things like national security. But when they reach out beyond that scope -- you know, what the Founding Fathers outlined in the Constitution -- they never do a good job. I'm no expert, but I do know how to think about things. There seems to be a pattern here. Maybe government should stick to what is outlined in the Constitution? But hey, what am I thinking? That's crazy, right? I probably had something bad to eat last night that is affecting me. For those of you who read my post from 14 March, maybe peaches on pepperoni pizza ISN'T such a good idea.

The collapse of Bear Stearns was the first event that marked our entry into a new world. This G20 summit is the second, and not just with the sweeping outcomes that resolved seeming differences among major players. I can remember when this summit used to be the G7, and then the G8, and now today we have the G20. The group is expanding. Why is this? More of the developed world is becoming industrialized, true. But it also could be what all the leaders are talking about, the establishment of a new world order, in essence a new world government. Is that good or bad? I'm not really sure, but I shudder to think about a world in which the people of an individual nation are not allowed to choose their own destiny.

China, Paris, meet Dixie

Last weekend was incredible. I went to Atlanta to see the Terracota Army exhibit on display at the High Museum of Art. It was way impressive.

For those of you not in the know, the first Chinese emperor was obsessed with ruling forever. He had thousands of lifesize stone warrior statues buried underground at his tomb site to protect him in the afterlife. Each one of these statues is unique, and considering the materials and methods of the time, the massive undertaking is very impressive.

I was not alone in that assessment. It appears that a lot of other people thought the same way I did. The museum was packed with people. It took me 30 minutes waiting in line just to get a ticket. And those who purchased tickets ahead of time online fared no better. Their lines moved just as slowly, because the attendants who were distributing/selling tickets were also trying to sell everyone on a membership to the museum. Then it was another 45 minutes in line for the actual exhibit before I actually got in. But it was well worth everything I exerted to get there.

And I got a special bonus: The admission I paid admitted to the entire museum, so I also got to see a special exhibit on loan from the Louvre in Paris! It was a series of paintings, sculpture, and drawings that exemplified the evolution of the concept of masterpiece down from medieval times and especially its "transformation" of sorts into what is called a reception piece. Apparently around the 16th century there was this fancy shmansy art circle in France, and to join you had to produce a reception piece. This concept turned the convention idea of a masterpiece -- a work which resembled the ultimate lifetime achievement of an artist -- on its head.

And then of course there was all of the modern art, which still to this day escapes me. I saw a giant green trapezoid attached to a wall, and I thought to myself that I once cut out a similar shape from construction paper in the first grade. The difference is that my work is largely forgotten in some decomposing landfill while this one is much larger and actually making someone lots of money. I wonder if it's the size that matters.

The best was this display of wooden logs arranged in a square spiral formation on the floor. Each log had an area of about six inches square with a height of about two and a half feet. I could not help but think that someone had stolen some Lincoln Logs from the Green Giant and then set them up on end like dominos. Seriously, I'd like to get this modern art deal, but for some reason it continues to escape me. A friend of mine once said that modern art is like that story about the emperor's new clothes; a bunch of slickters are able to convince the snobs of society that they are better than everyone else because they are inside the circle that no one else can understand when in fact they are being left naked in their ignorance for all the world to see. I don't want to believe that. I want to believe that there really is something to this modern art thing, because I can see great value in art from previous centuries. I just have a hard time seeing what I want to see.

Anywho, I enjoyed my trip very much. I certainly felt ennobled by my brush with culture and look forward to more delving in the future.