Interviewed by Michael Ivey
Michael Fuchs, author, traveler and artist
His Web site is here
AUTHORS
Michael Fuchs
Elizabeth Hilts
Paul Riddell
Gary Rivlin
Jim Motavalli
Barbara Shafferman
Jules Siegel
Keith Snyder
ARTISTS/POETS/
PHILOSOPHERS
Jon C. Allen
Will Baker
Mike Leung
Jon Sarkin
COOL SITE KEEPERS
Mike Cash
Scott O'Neal Colf
Godfrey Daniels
Cliff Davis, DDS
Tammy Hocking
Wes Modes
Frank Rogan
DIARISTS
Ralph Becker
J. D. Bruns
Linda DeVault
Mike Reed
Moira Richardson
Jessamyn West
FILMMAKERS
JOURNALISTS
Bernie
Mary Cooley-Jones
Lindsay Crysler
Jamie Dupree
M.O.A.T.M.A.I.
David Moll
Robert Niles
John Orr
Steven Ovadia
Pierce Presley
Mack Reed
Rip Rense
Curtis Ross
Neal Ross
John Scalzi
Catherine Seipp
David Sheets
Dwight Silverman
Matt Welch
MOVIE MAVENS
HUMORISTS
Debbie Farmer
Mike Jasper
Madeleine Begun Kane
Patrick Keller
Bob Sassone
Valerie Sprague
Ken Swarmer
Ian Wolff
SOLDIERS
TEACHERS
TECHIES
Chris Adamson
Mike Gunderloy
Michael Ivey
Greg Knauss
Floyd Maxwell
Ellen McDonough
Mike Pingleton
Wayne Thume
John Worth
TEENS
UNDECLARED
WEBLOGGERS
Where would you like to travel, assuming money and politics weren't a problem?
My number one travel goal is (and has been for a while, and may always be . . .) cycling the overland route through the Himalayas from Lhasa, Tibet, to Kathmandu, Nepal. This is a 600 mile meander, most of it above 15,000 feet, and widely regarded as one of the most stunning little stretches of pavement anywhere on this damp, whirling rock. I'd like to see Lhasa before the McDonalds goes in--Potala Palace, Jokhang Temple, etc. It's probably too late on that count for Kathmandu, but I'm keen on it anyway.
As for the ride, it passes through three mountain monastery towns, includes several soul-crushing climbs and heart-swallowing descents (including a final, harrowing drop of nearly 15,000 feet into Nepal), and presents (reputedly) a large number of the most stunning vistas humans have ever laid eyes on. One can also take a leedle side trip to Everest base camp. If you get a chance, take a look at 3-D topographical world map or globe; this will make it manifest why this area is referred to, quite accurately, as "the Roof of the World."
I'm on the market for companions for this trip, by the way. Normally, the difficulty with travel companions is that those with the money (about $7K in this case) don't remotely have the time (about a month in this case), and those with the time don't have the money. However (in this case) one needs the time, the money--and the ability to ride 600 miles at high altitude. I'm finding the candidate pool . . . reduced.
Do you think the average American takes the Bill of Rights seriously enough?
It's not entirely clear that most Americans could *name* three of the first Ten Amendments. And that's not even the real problem; the real difficulty is conceptual--and is revealed when folks advocate the abrogation, or even repeal, of certain of the Bill of Rights. These are not rights that are granted to the citizenry by the Constitution--they are inalienable, natural rights of humankind, *recognized and enumerated* by the Bill of Rights, but granted to them by their Creator, and of which they may be deprived by no majority. Repealing, for instance, the 2nd Amendment, would no more make disarming the populace legitimate than repealing the 8th Amendment would make torture okay, or the repeal of the 6th make secret witnesses legitimate. All it would do is delegitimize government.
Opposition to the 2nd Amendment, while we're on the topic, is illustrative of the short-sightedness of many Americans. They suggest that it is an anachronism, appropriate only to a time when the Colonies were rebelling against Great Britain, and when most folks hunted for their dinner. Surely, in this day in age, the notion of defending freedom from the government is preposterous? Well, no. If you take an historical gander, you'll find that it's pretty much been masters and slaves--all the way back. These notions of liberty and self-government are aberrations. Further, another historical fact is that the only people who tend never to become subjects are armed ones. Finally, as George Will sagely noted: "The case for democracy is not esthetic." That is to say, this stuff is not important because it works; it's important because it is moral. The right to provide for the defense of one's self and one's family, and to protect against tyranny in government, are fundamental and innate. They are not merely good ideas, but principles worth defending.
When Ben Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention, a man approached him and asked, "Well, what have we got--a Republic, or a Monarchy." "A Republic," Franklin replied. "If you can keep it." I think his point was prescient: that this great experiment in Republican Democracy is not going to simply run itself. Education, vigilance, and acculturation are essential to keeping this thing going. So--this is an incredibly diverse place, and plenty of people are sufficiently civial libertarian, and interested in the Bill of Rights. But too many are more interested in social welfare, rather than defense of liberties. (I blame the Clinton administration, personally.) I can only quote Goldwater, when he said, "I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom." And, heck, I'll quote him again, when he said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." This is the only nation-state in world history ever founded on a *philosophy*. For God's sake, let's cleave to our principles before all else.
What did you find most surprising about the process of getting a literary agent?
Hmm. Let's see. Could it have been the fact that I spent three years in seemingly hopeless grovelling? Or the fact that I ultimately queried pretty much THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE of literary representation (all of it in NYC, at any rate)--much of it twice? The fact that I finally, actually succeeded is a strong contender. But I think the winner has to be as follows: Amazingly, the *second* agency I ever queried enthusiastically requested a six-week exclusive look at my novel. At the end of that time, they made a number of very positive comments about the work--with the exception of the final comment, to wit, "no." They did say they would be pleased to look at it again if I did some work on it. I did, and they read it again, and made some really glowing comments about all the improvement they saw--and turned me down again. Ultimately, I completely rewrote that book for them three times--based on their feedback, and even going so far as to work with a book doctor they recommended. And--despite leading me on this way, and reading four different versions--they NEVER accepted me for representation.
I shouldn't complain. In its original form, the book was almost certainly unpublishable--and never would have gotten into its current, slightly hopeful form without that first agency. But, still--goddamn.
To date, my most interesting trip is still probably my first one--to Central America. Belize, in particular, has a huge amount going for it: Formerly called British Honduras, it's got the lowest population density in Central America. Most of the land belongs to wildlife?- macaws, jaguars, howler monkeys. It's also cheap, with the Belizean dollar tied to the U.S. dollar at two-to-one. And pretty?-it's got rainforests in the central highlands, savanna in the north, Mayan ruins all over?-and a full-blown barrier reef on the Gulf Coast. Moreover, the people speak English (occasionally Spanish or Mayan)-?and are just as friendly as all get-out.
My sister and I had just escaped Mexico--after driving its *full length*, an exercise I do not recommend--and were cruising through Belize City, heading into the rainforesty region in the west known as the Cayo. We were at the edge of the city, trying to figure out if we were really getting on the Western Highway, which led to San Ignacio, the "major city" of the Cayo. At the intersection, we spotted several guys in uniform, and stopped to ask directions. One strapping fellow assured us that we were on the right track--then asked us if he could get a lift to the Belmopan Crossroads, which was right on our way.
Now, normally, picking up a stranger in Central America--traveling with my sister, no less--would be out of the question. But this guy was a police officer, and had a palpably upright and trustworthy aspect about him. He clambered into the back, and we spent the next 90 minutes (you can drive the length of Belize in two hours) soaking up his personality.
His name was Gary Gentle--and he was one total sweetheart of a man. He grew up in a small village in the Cayo called Esperanza ("Hope"), where his father was a Pentecostal bishop, and he literally had too many siblings to keep track off. Gary had been on the police force for eleven years, and was part of an elite team known as the Dragon Unit, trained by U.S. special forces, and charged with anti-terrorism, drug interdiction--and backing up other police units as necessary. He had spent some time in the U.S., including in New York City. He claimed he had "U.S. fever" and had to go. He said that while it is different, and sometimes difficult, being an alien in someone else's country, still he was shown "a lot of love" by the people he met in the States.
Gary was totally buff, we could see. He didn't drink, it turned out, worked out every day, boxed, and sparred with a tae kwon do master. This was all in part because he took his job seriously, and it was a tough job lately. Used to be, he said, when you showed up on the street just in the uniform, "you got the respect. Now, sometimes when you go up to someone and tell them they're under arrest, they say, 'You want me, go ahead and take me'." He was incredibly well-mannered and well-spoken, and carefully warned us of the few dangers we might face in the Cayo.
We dropped him off at his door, and took a farewell picture. He gave us his home and work numbers, and told us to call if we ran into any trouble. As we started to pull out, Gary sheepishly came back and knocked at the window, and handed us a small Belize Police badge as a souvenir.
Anyway, it's not entirely clear they make them like that in the so-called First World. We'll always remember this strong, gentle spirit, and his kindness to us--and I've got his badge on my mantle, three feet from me, right now.
Many people associate vegetarians with liberals and gun rights advocates with conservatives. How do you respond to those who are surprised to find you are both?
You do do your homework. 8^) I've often speculated that I'm the Net's only subscriber to both rec.food.veg and rec.guns (where I share an uneasy detente with all the hunters). If I ever do find any others, it's my intention to start a club, and discussion list, for Gun-Toting Vegetarians. The motto, as printed on our t-shirt, will be: "We Only Kill In Self-Defense."
That's one key to the apparent contradiction right there. But I could parry in a number of other ways. The first would be to take some gas out of the liberal/conservative dichotomy balloon in the first place. While that's the popular conception of the political spectrum in this country, any libertarian (or fascist, for that matter) will tell you it doesn't cover the space of issues. I happen to be libertarian, an ideology that tends to be "conservative" on fiscal and foreign policy issues, and "liberal" on social/cultural issues. Naturally, I think only libertarianism (and, again, to be fair, fascism) is consistent: the conservatives want to take away your cultural choices, and the liberals want to spend your money for you.
As long as I've got a soapbox here, I will additionally opine that most people in this country are really in fact libertarian--they're just unaware of that fact. Check out http://www.lp.org/issues/ and decide for yourself.
The other counterpoint I would make is that the associations of vegetarianism with liberals and gun rights with conservatives are slightly broad brushes. Gun owners in particular are subject to massive media stereotypes: wife-beating, beer-chugging, America first, good ole boys. In fact, America's 65 million gun-owning households really cover the socio-economic spectrum--doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs. (I've been amazed how many gun owners I've met in the computer industry.) There's even an organization called Democrats for the Second Amendment (http://www.d2a.org/).
Do you think there's any substantial connection between the computer industry and gun ownership?
Nah, probably not. I think computer industry people do, for reasons unknown to me, tend toward civil libertarianism--a political stance that has some overlap with gun ownership. One could further stretch and argue that firearms are very elegant little mechanical devices (which they are), and thus appeal to tinkerer types (such as geeks). As noted earlier, my experience of gun owners is that they are a much classier breed than the media typically depict. Then again, I've spent a lot of time on rec.guns, which--as another subscriber suggested--is probably more the cream of the crop, than the rest. And then yet again, statistically, gun owners actually do have higher incomes and more prestigious jobs than non-gun owners. And with that witch's brew of uncompelling musings, I will retire (and await Question #7).
The Libertarian Party claims that many people are Libertarians and don't know it. What do you think the Libertarians need to do to win those folks over, and win the White House?
It genuinely beats the heck out of me. The one thing I feel confident of is that it's going to require a fundamental reshaping of the memesphere in which we operate. And it's unclear how the memesphere gets reshaped-- or to what extent it's possible for people to volitionally reshape it.
One of the dominant assumptions in economics (as well as political science) is something called "rational choice theory." The basic notion is that human beings are generally rational in decision-making, considering all the relevent facts, weighing the likely outcomes, then adding in costs and benefits, risks and returns; they then choose the option that maxmimizes "utility." But--as is pointed out be E.O. Wilson in his book _Consilience_ (which, you should drop whatever tripe you're reading now and pick this up)--it's unclear that people really do think this way. Just a couple of competing theories include "satisficing"-- taking the first satisfactory choice that pops up, and pretty much works in the short term; and "heuristics"--rather than calculating the costs and benefits of every transaction, people use simple cues, and rules of thumb, that seem to work most of the time.
People aren't doing the rational calculations that would lead them to libertarianism. And the meme just isn't on folks' radar. In addition to being invisible, it is currently "radical"--a term that I maintain says at least as much about the society surrounding the "radical" thing, as it says about the thing itself. (Consider some acts or ideas that would be "radical" under the Third Reich.) How do we get libertarianism in front of people? How do we "de-radicalize" it? These may be the same as the marketing questions of how you achieve "mind-share," and then "market-share." Generally, you buy it. It's conceivable that in a post- campaign finance reform world (keep your fingers crossed for the vote on Wednesday), the price tag will be within reach of the Libertarian Party.
And after that, we've just got to figure out how to win people over to libertinism! 8^)
THE
BIG INDEX...
Who they are, what they do, how they think. Go
there now.
A TO Z ARCHIVE...
Everybody here, with quickie bios. Go there now.
Return to the main Seven Questions page
See the original Newsies 7Q project
Contact info@sevenquestions.com
Copyright 1999-2002, Thomas L. Mangan