Reading Lolita in Tehran on Independence Day

There's nothing like a small town 4th of July parade to bring up lots of fierce -- and fiercely cliched -- feelings of national pride, patriotism, and appreciation of all that ye old Republic was (is) built upon and for which it stands. Though 'under God' and 'indivisible' must seem questionable to anyone who's lived, or even glanced at a headline, in the last 40 years or so. Really.

And there is TRULY NOTHING like the Aptos 4th of July parade. Billed as the "world's shortest parade," it's only 2 blocks long.

But oooohhh what a 2 blocks it is.

Take the "Desperate Divas" for example. Paragons of parading pride from the local chapter of the internationally renowned Red Hat Society. Taking pride in their fabulous, whacky, 50-and-over selves -- draped head to toe in violet velvet with scarlet hats and boas. Independence personified. Love, love, love it.



Oh. Have I neglected to mention that Aptos is a suburb of Santa Cruz, CA? Right. Nowhere else in the US, with the possible exception of northern neighbor Berkeley (aka Berzerkely) do they take the right to the 'pursuit of happiness' to quite such an individualized extreme. Oh sure, there were the requisite returned Marines and boy and girl scout troops and high school marching bands. But more in the 'fight for your right to parrrrtay' category were marchers, or really acts, like the aforementioned Divas; the whale driving a car (something to do with the local Honda dealer...I think); the RenFaire people walking with the Klingons (??!!); and Princess Purple -- who can really only properly be appreciated visually (must-see pics below). And no, I don't exactly know what the fascination is with purple. But hey, it works.





In any case, clearly there is still room in this Diva's usually cynical heart to pause at least once a year and to appreciate the obvious freedom we take for granted EveryDay: the freedom to march, walk, talk, sing, dance and wear whatever we please. Even purple. The freedom to read and discuss any ideas that strike our fancy. Such freedom is not so straightforward in much of the world -- but how often do we stop to consider the deeper implications behind that sound bite?

So I spent much of this holiday weekend re-reading Azar Nafisi's outstanding Reading Lolita in Tehran , in which the author chronicles her experiences with 8 of her students who gathered secretly every week to read forbidden Western literature (The Great Gatsby and Lolita were the faves), defying the ruling Islamic Republic -- and all for which it stands -- in post-revolutionary Iran. As a woman, and a self-styled Diva at that, I was particularly horrified not only by the denial to these women of the most basic of human rights to think and speak freely, but also by the denial of the smallest personal feminine freedoms: the right to wear makeup, to use fingernail polish, to dress in colors other than black. (OK that last one doesn't seem so bad -- but it should be a choice, not a mandate.)

And it got me pondering like I used to with groups of friends and grad student TAs on long, rambling, shall we say 'foreign substance-filled' evenings after Realpolitik 101 lectures. Or like yesterday after reading about any number of BushCo's latest attempts to monitor the phone calls and emails of the average US citizen.

So. Freedom isn't free. Saw that on plenty of T-shirts with flags at the parade. And no, in the sense that "free" means "allowed to exist" then freedom is most definitely NOT free nor happening in much of the world.

However, my basic premise is this. Freedom IS, in fact, free. Freedom is the natural state of humankind. Freedom is the state that exists before man, or certain men, impose limitations. Ask John Locke. (He said that natural rights were life, liberty and property, and that all people automatically earned these simply by being born. Look it up.) Even the major religions and George Lucas agree that Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, God and The Force extoll the virtues of free will (which they each then complicitly override in the name of a moral imperative -- but I digress). In the political or socio-geographic sense of living, working, playing and speaking whatever and however an individual decides to (aside from injuring any other individuals), freedom is pretty much universally lauded.

The problem, simply put, is that in any given era/generation, in any given country/region, a handful of men (Genghis Khan, Caesar, George Bush) and/or women (Dido, Cleopatra, Margaret Thatcher) are constantly trying to define and then impose boundaries on the natural freedom of the many, sometimes millions, of individuals under their spheres of influence. And all too frequently the object of the game seems to be the continual constriction of those boundaries to make them ever narrower, ever more restrictive, ever more in line with the imposer's beliefs, desires, and understanding of good/bad.

Be it marking the boundary between Israel and the Gaza Strip with a big wall and patrolled checkpoints; or dividing the capital of Germany and putting up a big wall and patrolled checkpoints; or deciding there are enough brown-skinned day laborers in Southern California and proposing putting up a big wall and patrolled checkpoints (you know there already is one, right?) -- the whole absurd idea seems to be to box in, or shut out, and generally control the behavior of whichever unfortunate population isn't making the rules or doesn't hold the contracts let by the current military-industrial complex.

Don't get me wrong. I know some rules and boundaries are necessary simply for the world to function in any efficient and remotely organized way. Hey, I'm a big fan of Stephen Hawking and chaos theory, but I'm a total freak when the airlines don't run on time. I recognize, even appreciate, the need for civic order and governance. To a degree.

Ah, there's the rub: degree. And WHO exactly sets the bar. So much of what is imposed does not seem necessary to promote the smooth operation of society or -- despite the saintly protestations of those answering to Congressional investigative committees -- to protect the citizenry from immediate danger. As my favorite KPIG commentator Travis T. Hip said recently, we have to stop thinking every time someone lobs a hand grenade in Mosul, it's threatening a grocery store in Minneapolis. So why are millions of your -- and my -- phone calls being monitored? Why are my banking transactions being looked at? (Um, other than those questionable shoe purchases. Ehem.) Why are my Internet chats, website visits, and this blog being monitored? Don't think they are? Think again. Not hundreds. Not terrorist suspects' calls. Millions. 200 million to be exact. Which constitutes our own freedom-speak spouting politicos spying on over 80% of the population. Wow. That's a lotta terrorists. More by percentage than, say, in supposedly terrorist-filled Iraq even. Wow again.

True freedom requires TRUST. And governments, especially fundamentalist governments and our own recently, are not big on trusting their citizens. Again, I don't LIKE that, but I do understand -- to a point. I'm quite sure that gun control is a good idea, for example, despite the framers' 'right to bear arms' intent. And no Charlton Heston, I actually will not pry that rifle outta your cold dead hands -- because the intruder who shot you with it, who bought the bullets down the street at WalMart, will already have stolen it from you.

But seriously, doesn't "Homeland Security" sound even remotely Nazi-like to anyone else? Will there be ceremonies we have to attend soon? Will we be required to salute? And speaking of ceremonies, remind me again how denying a perfectly happy and healthy gay couple the right to marry legally helps fight terrorists. For that matter, why is the $200 fee I pay every year simply to register my car necessary? The road in front of my house is still a mess, so my $$ aren't going there. Since when must the ruling party's private persuasions equate to public policy -- all in the name of protection?? Hey, it's not an original thought, but I have to jump on the bandwagon of those who are commenting that, in protecting our freedom, we are blithely and unprotestingly and dangerously sacrificing being free.

So, let freedom ring. Freely even. In fact, I may go out and buy a big, chunky ring (very in this season) just because I can flaunt any old thing I want to ... so far. But first I think I might re-read Lolita and The Great Gatsby.

And write down everything I'm thinking about in an open public forum for anyone who cares to to digest ... and comment.