if....

Many things have happened of late, least of which is graduating from law school. In a retrospective analysis, I think most of my goals have been met from the process.

I came in because I wanted to change the world - to make it a better place. I've definitely left with a deeper understanding of that goal. The most difficult lesson I've learned is that change is slow and difficult. Why? Because most people believe it has to be slow and difficult.

Part of facing the daunting task of change is figuring out where to start and what to end up with. There are many people out there with a clear picture, but the goal starts to look bigger and bigger each time one looks at it. The end result is a behemoth that some tackle with zeal.

However, most people look at the monster in front of them and start to slow down because they think change must be slower because they've always been told change is slow. Then, various side issues in life start to come into play, and tackling that monster seems to be more of a long term goal rather than something that delves into it.

The problem is that so many people think that this is okay, so not much gets done. This goes back a bit towards what one of my friends refers to as micro-change. He views change as being something that takes place on the individual and community level, eventually resulting in a global, aggregate shift towards some positive end.

I don't think the world is that simple. Change can be made on the individual and local level, but not everyone follows in that path. The result is a termination by some physical or social boundary.

Change must be drastic and breaking. It has to jar people from their traditional mindset and challenge their views. They must analyze and reconcile.

Strangely enough, this has melded well with a film I just saw. I've recently delved back into film a bit more seriously now that I force myself to stop studying at a certain point each day since I need to retain information for the California bar.

I just finished watching if...., which has Malcom McDowell. It delves into some issues of rebellion and revolution, but in a much more destructive way that is necessary. However, it highlights a key misconception of revolution needing to be purely destructive and violent.

Especially in figuring out what step to take now that I have another degree as a tool, I've come to understand that change doesn't have to destroy everything or even most things. Instead, change simply needs to come from outside of the system.

That right there - change from outside of the system - is where I think most people fail. In trying to prepare themselves for the next step, people find themselves as part of the system, continually preparing themselves for that revolutionary moment. Others believe in working within the system to make the micro-change that eventually has a macro-effect.

But aren't both of these failings? A system usually has a difficult time reforming itself. History has few, if any, examples of a contained culture that internally regulated. There has always been some external catalyst that pushed everything to a completely new level.

I'm left with a variety of career options that I've got to explore with the understanding that the people I will most likely work for will assign me a role in the system. Do I play along as a prepare myself for the next step? Or do stick to some "pure act" and stay outside the system to maximize my impact?

Leaving law school, I'm definitely more idealistic, but I'm also more pragmatic. I'm definitely not the same person I was when entering school. The changes have magnified those core philosophies in my life. The result is that each of those sides produce a stronger battle in each big decision I make.

Options, experience, and passion don't make choices easier. They make them more difficult because there is a deeper understanding of what those choices mean and bring. These days, an uprising of any sort doesn't seem so grand.

Growin' Up

I'm at the edge of one of the biggest decisions of my life. In a month or so, I will have the opportunity to move out of the city to work and finish up school in Washington, D.C. I would get to work on policy, which has always been something I've wanted to do. It is an amazing opportunity to learn and expand strong interests of mine.

However, I would have to pull up what meager roots I have in the city and move. This is probably not a big deal for some people, but I have a feeling that if I head out of this city, I might never make it back.

For all that I find frustrating about this city, I have friends here. I never thought that was something I would say, but it's true. There are people I could maintain contact with over the distance, but there are others whom I would miss seeing every week.

But, that is at stark contrast with the general apathy so many people here hold. There are many good people in the city that volunteer, but that is the extend of their efforts towards changing the world. They could do so much more, yet it doesn't even appear to be an option to do so for many.

Additionally, I've moved often, and I do feel the urge to move again. But, starting all over doesn't sound appealing to me now that I have a network of friends.

For the first time in a very long time, I'm really lost as to what to do. I've had to make thoughtful choices in the past and asked people for help, but I've never needed it. Now that I need their help, I don't know that anyone has given it to me. Instead, they simple reflect my own opinions. My friends are too polite - something I'll have to watch out for when introducing potentially-serious significant others to them.

I hate to complain about my personal decisions on this blog, but I do view it as attaching to the theme of it. Since I entered law school, I've struggled with reconciling my idealistic side and my pragmatic side. Moving to Washington, D.C. would be in favor of my idealistic side. I could engage the issues I am passionate about fully, addressing them directly in the most relevant forum.

The pragmatist within says not to go. Getting a job on the Hill after graduation will be tough, and I don't know if I could live in the environment of Washington, D.C. for a long time. Where I am right now holds job possibilities and avenues for really affecting change. Here, I could start a career and prepare myself for a later, larger struggle.

I might just fear what I don't know. Washington, D.C represents something new and untested - it's a new challenge for that stubborn, driven side to overcome.

Henry David Thoreau addressed this very issue in Walden; or, Life in the Woods, stating that "[t]he man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready."

Do I take advantage of my youth and push for something new, alone? Or, is it time to mature to the next stage socially and create a foothold, preparing to tackle future challenges with others that will be there to support me?

The Cost of Morality

It never ceases to amaze me that supposedly mature individuals of substantial accomplishment and mental ability act like morons, casting aside logic in favor of tactics arising from schoolyard interactions.

In recent situations, I feel that I have been forced to make a decision that compromises my loyalties to individuals and my self-integrity, whether it be a calm approach to life or treating others with respect. For the first time, I have started to understand the cost of loyalty to friends.

I remember getting into an argument over Bill Richardson's support of Obama. Richardson had previously been a member of the Clinton administration, which appointed him to several positions and boosted his political career, eventually resulting in his winning the gubernatorial race for New Mexico. After coming out in support of Obama, many individuals criticized Richardson as a traitor for not supporting Hillary Clinton.

I never understood this. Why should an individual be castigated for doing what is right? Loyalty does not transcend doing the right thing, may it be political or moral. The "betrayal" of a friend should not be considered a sin that outweighs integrity. To accept loyalty as the winner, we justify the oft heard defense of those committing the worst crimes known to humanity: "I was just following orders."

This post was started several weeks ago, and I am only completing it now because I didn't feel as if I was viewing the situation subjectively. Since then, I have lost what I thought I would lose, gaining nothing from my actions. All I can see is that I have maintained the morals I have defined.

One side of me wishes that I hadn't acted. I would have lost nothing but a sliver of my beliefs. However, that small cut would be something with which I would have to live. If I could bear losing that sliver, maybe I could give a bit more.

Walking any path in life starts with the smallest of steps, the tiniest of choices. The person I could become would be the person I am. The person I am would not see a need to go back, or if he did, might not be able to go back.

I do not like the consequences of what I did. I am not happy with what I did. I most likely cannot obtain what I lost.

Now, I understand the issue of loyalty and doing what I feel to be right. I have to live with my choice. That, I can and will do.

Caught Between A Rock and A Hard Place

This week, I moved to the city to attend law school. This will be my first time living within a metropolitan area, so I am experiencing a culture shock (albeit a soft one).

My apartment is a two-bedroom is located near one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city. When reading about the school, many visitors complains about proximity of this environment to the school, implying that it was a horrific learning environment. Yet, having been to several large cities before, I can honestly say that this area is not a violent area that you have to fear entering at any time of the day.

I've been exploring the area on foot since my parents confiscated my car upon my request. The city is no place for a Subaru. However, it is here with me in spirit as I explore the hills and alleys of the areas around my school, particularly, the wilder sides.

The neighborhood I live in and the government buildings have provided me with a first impression of the city - high culture melded with ethnic variety, dancing side by side in an odd, but functional, pair to provide an extremely rich and diverse place to live. From the multitude of markets and restaurants to the symphony, theater, and museum, the combination revealed to me that I have in fact made the correct decision in attending my current school.

In my explorations, I determined that I needed to get deli meat. Having lived in suburbs, this usually consisted of a quick trip to the local supermarket, meaning the local incarnation of Piggly Wiggly or Safeway. There is a Safeway in city, but it is too far for me to transport meat from efficiently. So, my search for a deli began.

My first hit was to a halal market. I was ecstatic to find a cool Muslim deli not too far from my apartment that served clean meat! A closer inspection of the meat market revealed that they focus on beef, goat, and lamb. Unfortunately, I am not a die-hard lamb sandwich fan. My search for turkey continued...

My next hit was a deli at the edge of one of the more expensive parts of the city. It was a bit further than the Muslim market, but I was willing to make the walk to find something decent in the area. Since my transportation pass was burning a hole into my table, I decided it was time to venture out again for some public transportation.

If my neighborhood was a culture shock, getting off the shuttle at the heart of the tourist area of the city was an even bigger one.

After experiencing what I thought was the vitality of the city in all its multi-cultural glory - I walk into what felt like yuppie central at the moment. It was full of tourists walking down streets with massive commercial stores. Everything was clean and shiny and new - belying an undertone of a much more vibrant city that released its full energy in a couple blocks in another direction.

Starbucks was again present in full force. I'm starting to think that you can't escape it because they have formed an evil alliance with McDonalds, with McDonalds taking over low income environments and Starbucks raising an iron fist over the realms of the middle class.

Apparently the fist extends with British steel and all into the city, gleaming over the shops and tourists. I have heard of the the hotels in the area before; however, I didn't think that a supposed landmark of the city would need to be branded with a green circle, demanding to be service by patrons who tolerated gossiping baristas and slightly overpriced, generic, mass-produced flavors.

This duality of the city that I have been growing accustomed to over the past several days was harsh to my budding understanding of my zone of living for the next, at the very least, three years. Understandably, people desire to live somewhere safe, clean, new, and beautiful; in today's crime-laden world, it is completely justified in most cases. But what is the cost of obtaining that environment? The area was not only gentrified, but was commercialized and sanitized of the multitude of cultures that resided in the vicinity, relegating the cultural experience to global tourism. The creation of a monetary, racial, or ethnic haven functionally lobotomizes the very essence of what a city - diversity with coagulation, not one without the other.

Before coming to the city, I would have loved to live in the richer or tourist areas. But after my experiences in those area, I don't know that I could enjoy it to the extent that I am enjoying living wedged between a diverse neighborhood and the city's center. The clean stone of the State watches over the vomit-stained sidewalks, drawing bare a crucial vein shared with many urban environments around the country and world. With this iconic dichotomy of a gold-encrusted, domed city hall and the addict-addled street corners, I think I have once more fallen into a living situation by accident that fits my nature.

This is a place to think, learn, and change.

Long Lost Life

I am attending law school this coming academic year. Most of my time has been spent considering my future, both in school and the profession. This really has brought up something I have been dodging for many years - what do I want to do with my life?

As with most things I contemplate, it seems my options are bifurcated. If I were to following my undergraduate education into a profession as an engineer, I would have multiple options. I could work for a variety of companies doing a variety of things. However, a career in engineering can't fulfill my needs. This is continually proven in my discussions with many friends who have graduated and are currently working for some of the most prestigious companies in their respective fields. Their apathy for most things in the world, while not all-encompassing of their kind, frightens me. The best engineers I know live for the project.

While it is a necessary profession, the days of the lone engineering creating an invention
that changes the world has passed. Such results are only achieved after years of struggle by the brightest of us, as the recent NASA Phoenix project has shown us.

Where does power lie within our country? The government holds most of it, through a legal system. Some might argue that power is held by individuals or corporations. Still, these smaller units exercise their power under the umbrella of the law. If you believe people hold the power, it should be understood that people are able to exercise it because our government acknowledges it. I don't advocate for this system, I just understand that it is in place simply by looking at nations with authoritarian governments within which individual rights are second to society's stability or just ignored.

Any path in life requires power, of some level. At the highest levels, power can be bartered and brokered like the Jell-o Pudding at a middle school lunch table. Simply rejecting the system gets nothing accomplished. If you want to affect change, you can either reform the system or destroy it. Since my revolutionary lunchtime actions culminated in a fiberglass-cast battle where I successfully parried lunch bag attacks, I eventually became a reformer. My power expanded greatly during the coming years, discovering the high value of turkey sandwiches and packages fruit drinks.

As I prepare to graduate college, I realize that bartering favors, food, and drinks no longer provides the power that I need to change anything. Law provides that next step to power, an education that allows me to open the gates of government. Even if I choose not pursue a life of change, understanding the system is necessary still if I want to act inside of it, to live a life of comfort with the power to do so. If change is my goal, then the avenue to powerful change is accessible.

It is those two paths, power for change or power for maintenance, that lie before me. The former offers a long, difficult path without great comforts and continuous failure by commonly accepted definitions of success. The latter requires flexible morals or the subsuming of them to achieve similar power much faster, yet constrained by the dictates of those that grant that power to a much greater degree.

At an idealistic age, I don't have much to lose materially. However, there is much I can gain. The idealistic choice comes at a great economic cost. In the same logic, the more pragmatic choice bears its own cost as well - that of my morals. What is of greater value - a six-figure salary or maintaining my morality?

I have the next three years to see if I can rationalize either view to the point of embracing one in a career upon yet another graduation. The generation that inspired and were in return inspired by the speech of a harmonious dream upon the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the first steps of humanity on ground besides that of Earth, the first steps of women into social equality, and the first day celebrating the Earth's nature now let slip the very same ideals at the core of those events. Of all the amazing things that have been accomplished within their lives, can we hope to accomplish the same? Should we expect to lose the same gains? Have those who have come before us failed or succeed?

John F. Kennedy's 1960 Democratic National Convention acceptance speech (available both in text and audio) still applies almost 50 years later, with governmental regimes collapsed and discarded, technology advanced beyond comprehension, and social constraints cut more deeply into than ever before. The following is the last half of his speech:

But I think the American people expect more from us than cries of indignation and attack. The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent, and the stakes too high--to permit the customary passions of political debate. We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light the candle that can guide us through that darkness to a safe and sane future. As Winston Churchill said on taking office some twenty years ago: if we open a quarrel between the present and the past, we shall be in danger of losing the future.

Today our concern must be with that future. For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do.

Abroad, the balance of power is shifting. There are new and more terrible weapons--new and uncertain nations--new pressures of population and deprivation. One-third of the world, it has been said, may be free- -but one-third is the victim of cruel repression--and the other one- third is rocked by the pangs of poverty, hunger and envy. More energy is released by the awakening of these new nations than by the fission of the atom itself.

Meanwhile, Communist influence has penetrated further into Asia, stood astride the Middle East and now festers some ninety miles off the coast of Florida. Friends have slipped into neutrality--and neutrals into hostility. As our keynoter reminded us, the President who began his career by going to Korea ends it by staying away from Japan.

The world has been close to war before--but now man, who has survived all previous threats to his existence, has taken into his mortal hands the power to exterminate the entire species some seven times over.

Here at home, the changing face of the future is equally revolutionary. The New Deal and the Fair Deal were bold measures for their generations--but this is a new generation.

A technological revolution on the farm has led to an output explosion--but we have not yet learned to harness that explosion usefully, while protecting our farmers' right to full parity income.

An urban population explosion has overcrowded our schools, cluttered up our suburbs, and increased the squalor of our slums.

A peaceful revolution for human rights--demanding an end to racial discrimination in all parts of our community life--has strained at the leashes imposed by timid executive leadership.

A medical revolution has extended the life of our elder citizens without providing the dignity and security those later years deserve. And a revolution of automation finds machines replacing men in the mines and mills of America, without replacing their incomes or their training or their needs to pay the family doctor, grocer and landlord.

There has also been a change--a slippage--in our intellectual and moral strength. Seven lean years of drouth and famine have withered a field of ideas. Blight has descended on our regulatory agencies--and a dry rot, beginning in Washington, is seeping into every corner of America--in the payola mentality, the expense account way of life, the confusion between what is legal and what is right. Too many Americans have lost their way, their will and their sense of historic purpose.

It is a time, in short, for a new generation of leadership--new men to cope with new problems and new opportunities.

All over the world, particularly in the newer nations, young men are coming to power--men who are not bound by the traditions of the past--men who are not blinded by the old fears and hates and rivalries-- young men who can cast off the old slogans and delusions and suspicions.

The Republican nominee-to-be, of course, is also a young man. But his approach is as old as McKinley. His party is the party of the past. His speeches are generalities from Poor Richard's Almanac. Their platform, made up of left-over Democratic planks, has the courage of our old convictions. Their pledge is a pledge to the status quo--and today there can be no status quo.

For I stand tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that stretch three thousand miles behind me, the pioneers of old gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their lives to build a new world here in the West. They were not the captives of their own doubts, the prisoners of their own price tags. Their motto was not "every man for himself"--but "all for the common cause." They were determined to make that new world strong and free, to overcome its hazards and its hardships, to conquer the enemies that threatened from without and within.

Today some would say that those struggles are all over--that all the horizons have been explored--that all the battles have been won-- that there is no longer an American frontier.

But I trust that no one in this vast assemblage will agree with those sentiments.

For the problems are not all solved and the battles are not all won--and we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier--the frontier of the 1960's--a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils-- a frontier of unfulfilled hopes and threats.

Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom promised our nation a new political and economic framework. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal promised security and succor to those in need. But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises--it is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride, not to their pocketbook--it holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security.

But I tell you the New Frontier is here, whether we seek it or not. Beyond that frontier are the uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus. It would be easier to shrink back from that frontier, to look to the safe mediocrity of the past, to be lulled by good intentions and high rhetoric--and those who prefer that course should not cast their votes for me, regardless of party.

But I believe the times demand new invention, innovation, imagination, decision. I am asking each of you to be pioneers on that New Frontier. My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age--to all who respond to the Scriptural call: "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed."

For courage--not complacency--is our need today--leadership--not salesmanship. And the only valid test of leadership is the ability to lead, and lead vigorously. A tired nation, said David Lloyd George, is a Tory nation--and the United States today cannot afford to be either tired or Tory.

There may be those who wish to hear more--more promises to this group or that--more harsh rhetoric about the men in the Kremlin--more assurances of a golden future, where taxes are always low and subsidies ever high. But my promises are in the platform you have adopted--our ends will not be won by rhetoric and we can have faith in the future only if we have faith in ourselves.

For the harsh facts of the matter are that we stand on this frontier at a turning-point in history. We must prove all over again whether this nation--or any nation so conceived--can long endure--whether our society--with its freedom of choice, its breadth of opportunity, its range of alternatives--can compete with the single-minded advance of the Communist system.

Can a nation organized and governed such as ours endure? That is the real question. Have we the nerve and the will? Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction--but also a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space and the inside of men's minds?

Are we up to the task--are we equal to the challenge? Are we willing to match the Russian sacrifice of the present for the future--or must we sacrifice our future in order to enjoy the present?

That is the question of the New Frontier. That is the choice our nation must make--a choice that lies not merely between two men or two parties, but between the public interest and private comfort--between national greatness and national decline--between the fresh air of progress and the stale, dank atmosphere of "normalcy"--between determined dedication and creeping mediocrity.

All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we will do. We cannot fail their trust, we cannot fail to try.

It has been a long road from that first snowy day in New Hampshire to this crowded convention city. Now begins another long journey, taking me into your cities and homes all over America. Give me your help, your hand, your voice, your vote. Recall with me the words of Isaiah: "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary."

As we face the coming challenge, we too, shall wait upon the Lord, and ask that he renew our strength. Then shall we be equal to the test. Then we shall not be weary. And then we shall prevail.

Thank you.

This Little Flame of Mine

Yesterday was one of those days in which several seemingly unrelated events occurred. Slowly, as the day progressed, a pattern started to emerge as new occurrences continued the thoughts of previous ones. Finally, by 11:30 PM everything clicked together in a shiny, colorfully wrapped package suitable for all audiences.

I decided to break with my nocturnal ways and woke up at the forsaken hour of 10 AM. My sociology professor required a chapter of reading before class, and I had been fairly distracted the night before, exploring the various solitary late-night joys of my town. The subject matter of the reading was post-Cold War sociological modeling - indicating how each of the former models failed and that a civilization-based model provided an excellent basis for analysis. None of this material was new, since this first chapter of reading was simply summarizing the material I had learned in an introductory class from the same professor.

However, right after my required reading, I decided to read the news. I happened across several prominent stories. From my last posting, you understand my lamentations over the failures of the press to correctly emphasize that which is important. Today they did a bit better, with The New York Times and The Washington Post both providing good coverage of the travels of the Olympic torch across France.

Apparently, the torch has already gone out several times, due to unprecedented protests along the elected path. Several people commented on the incredible organization and violence of these protests, unlike those of previous Games wherein a very small group of protesters deemed it necessary to act. The focus of these protests are to signify the dissatisfaction over China's human rights, especially those in the cases of Tibet and Darfur. I assume Darfur seeing as it has been a long term issue, while the articles I linked above specify only Tibet.

Protesters have been arrested after fairly aggressive actions. On the sinistro hand, I do laud the sentiment of protesting something which one finds to be morally repugnant. On the other hand, the violence of such actions is also repugnant. Either way, such actions are occurring and are a clear statement of ill will towards the Beijing Games.

At this point, I got ready for class and ate breakfast. I skipped eating my Patriot Flakes, substituting them for a hippie Cliff Bar. This may have been my problem, the results of my day rooted in a severe jingoistic deficiency.

The lecture hit a major point in discussing the classification of China in present day society. It could be considered as a semi-peripheral country, having a large workforce and developed industrial market, with a large natural resource market. This is partially at odds with China's political power, as it has a seat on the U.N. Security Council and greatly influences foreign policy domestically and abroad. China can maintain this structure since it is an economic dependency for many countries - exerting political control through the sheer breadth of its economy. The money appears! Of course, all we need to do is follow Detective Lester Freamon's suggestion and "follow the money".

The lecture eventually came to a halt, without any questions over two hours because I go to school with the willfully ignorant. Our tax dollars at waste. The insightful person that first observed that "the children are our future" must have also believed in conscious societal suicide. Case and point - SPQR. By this time, I'm guessing that most people have stopped reading or are just skimming for the keywords.

I rushed to catch the bus home and started up an episode of Boston Legal while I ate my lunch, an episode that happened to involve a major plot line about a man attempting to sue the U.S. government for its policy of positive inaction towards Sudan.

The Sudanese government, based in Khartoum, provides weapons and supplies to the Janjaweed, who are slaughtering the ethnic Africans of Darfur without any international hindrance. Khartoum, a Muslim government, simply restricted A.U. action to that of observation and rejected any and all U.N. action.

Where does Khartoum get the weapons and supplies given to the Janjaweed? From China, which provides Khartoum with money, weapons, and supplies in exchange for access to their natural resources, specifically oil. Follow the money.

The worst part about the genocide in Darfur is that everyone knows about it and doesn't act. The legal case in the Boston Legal episode was created to generate media exposure. Sadly, the writers of the show were blunt about the situation, explicitly stating that there had been much media coverage of the events in Darfur and the result was simple - the American public decided it didn't care about genocide in Africa.

China is using the 2008 Olympics to develop its positive image of globalization and good will. As a result, many people, seeing the disparity between the Olympic ideals and China's support of genocide in Darfur and continued human rights abuses in Tibet, refuse to idly and ignorantly support the Beijing Games. Even mainstream politicians are removing their support, such as Hillary Clinton who has called for Bush to boycott the Opening Ceremonies in line with her strong track record of acknowledging the genocide in Darfur.

With all of this in my head, I decided to go see Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who! While I don't want to give away the plot line, it resounds with any idealistic movement or unheard group battling against the pragmatism of, in the case of the film, the jungle. In short, although this post has been anything but, I saw the people of Whoville as the slaughtered of Darfur. Being partly geared towards children, the movie ends in song and dance. I hope to whatever deity that any of you believe in that the real situation does not meet a similar fate.

However, the pragmatist within me expects the U.S. to utter the ubiquitous "Denny Crane" and simply wash away the issue of Darfur as belonging to a remote other. We have to deal with our own urban genocides before we can solve problems abroad, because urban violence and decay are not deeply rooted, systemic problems. We can solve all of these problems by simply increasing the number of police on the streets. It is so easy - I can't imagine why no one thought of this before!

Yes, I agree, this is not an American problem at the moment. It is problem for the entire human race.