Some interesting things have been happening lately both in my world personally as well as the world at large. Since I don't often comment on my own life here, we'll work on the world at large.
I found this story to be interesting along with some of the views of people who both supported and opposed Byron Thomas's view on hanging the Confederate flag from his dorm room at the University of South Carolina Beaufort. What truly piqued my interest was one quote from a story on CNN relating to this (can't find it right now or I'd post it here) that quoted an activist (who is black) saying that while he didn't support Mr. Thomas's views he did support his right to hang the flag if he felt so inclined (which Mr. Thomas now says he won't do). I wonder if that same activist would support whites who wanted to hang the flag from their dorm rooms at the university - or anywhere else, for that matter. If not, I then wonder if he (or anyone else, for that matter) would interpret that as being racist? Somehow, I doubt it. After all, hanging the flag (if you're white) is racist but opposing it is virtuous. And for the record, I'm not stating my views on his hanging the flag or not, merely pointing out both an irony and what I perceive as a hypocritical point of view by some on this issue.
Next, while listening to NPR (National Public Radio) the other morning and they were discussing the Arab Spring that has spread across several nations in the Middle East, I started to wonder about the impact of GW Bush's presidency and the impact of his actions in Iraq, in particular, and whether there was some relation to the Arab Spring. Seeing as how US combat troops (you'll note that many news media will omit the term "combat" and simply imply all US troops) will be removed from Iraq by the end of the year and people have seen how Iraq went through a very rough time but is progressing along the front of independence, sovereignty and nascent forms of democracy - not to mention the fact that it has all been broadcast in bright, vivid colors by Al-Jazeera - did those activists who stood up and overthrew several regimes feel that the time for change had come now that the US had precipitated it in Iraq with their 2003 invasion? Was there any inspiration by US actions that spurred young people (who make up a large majority of those countries where the Arab Spring occurred) to take to the streets and overthrow dictators who, in some cases, dominated their countries for much of my own lifetime? Did they take heart in the fact once the first one fell, the others could be similarly dislodged as a sort of domino effect (ah, the old domino effect from the halcyon days of the Cold War)? For that matter, if the US had not gone into Iraq to "establish" democracy, would the uprisings still have occurred? Yes, I know that this is pure conjecture and mostly useless in the real world, but it is still interesting to ponder for those who have the time to do so.
And speaking of uprisings, what about the situation in Wukan (in Guangdong, China)? It has been ongoing for a little while, though the West only recently caught wind of it and started reporting upon the situation. Unlike some who feel this may be a turning point in China that could lead to a greater uprising with those unhappy with the government, rampant corruption and growing economic and social inequality, I do not feel this is the likely outcome. Instead, I think that pressure will slowly be pushed until the people are left with no food or medicine and will likely surrender. Then, the government will quickly round up the leaders, punish them severely and put their followers into a situation that will appease their most immediate concerns for the time being until they can be dealt with later (after the Western media has gone onto the next story elsewhere). Local government officials will suffer no more than a wrist slap - if that - and any news relating to it will continue to be kept away from the rest of China. The one curious thing that I wonder is whether the people will follow that same script. Thus far, they have held together and stood firm in the face of the local government (not to mention they have barred the local government from the area - something that I do not immediately recall occurring in similar situations) pressure, mainly because they hope for a reprieve from the national authorities. While this is a misplaced hope (see the stories of those who have suffered in black jails after attempting to petition the federal government), could it spur the people to realize that they cannot afford to be split apart because they know that, once divided, they will all fail? And if so, will it result in a situation similar to the spring of 1989 in Tiananmen Square and a massacre that could truly explode nationwide? Again, I do not think so but the thing about the future is that people and situations evolve and only time will truly tell. Heroes and villians are never apparent at the outset and a bad ending today can result in a good ending tomorrow. I only hope that the situation is resolved in the most positive manner possible. An impossible hope, I know, but still...
Showing posts with label NPR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NPR. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Grateful Citizen
I was thinking yesterday about how grateful I am to be a citizen of the United States of America. But, being me, I wanted to determine for exactly what I was so grateful. As it turns out, I am grateful for things that may not seem to go together. But it is a crazy patchwork of things that has made this country not just survive, but thrive, in the manner that it has for more than 200 years. Granted, that is a short time in the relative history of many other nations but a sign of the dynamism and wonder that is this nation.
So, what are the things for which I am grateful (as a citizen)? There are three and all are enshrined in the US Bill of Rights (and upheld through the law):
The key part of all three of these things is that they all be practiced in moderation. And herein lies the point of contention with many who inexplicably (at least in my mind) oppose them in given situations. Just because you have the right to own a gun does not mean you have the right to use it on your fellow citizens. Just because you have the right to speak your mind means you should do so without thinking first. And the power of the media should be moderated to ensure that it is not a power unto itself but a moderating force upon those it should report.
It is a delicate balance and there have been, and continue to be, the occasional errors. But, for the most part, it has worked and I am glad and grateful that it does.
(As a side note, I should also mention that writing early in the morning makes it more difficult to recall certain words that I wanted to use but couldn't immediately recall. I reserve the right to edit this post later when I remember the proper words. EDIT - "arbitrary" was the word I was looking for.)
So, what are the things for which I am grateful (as a citizen)? There are three and all are enshrined in the US Bill of Rights (and upheld through the law):
- The right to bear arms (the right, not the obligation)
- The right to freedom of speech (and the right to suffer the consequences accordingly)
- The freedom of the press to monitor the actions of both the government and the people (admittedly, I am an NPR - National Public Radio - fan)
The key part of all three of these things is that they all be practiced in moderation. And herein lies the point of contention with many who inexplicably (at least in my mind) oppose them in given situations. Just because you have the right to own a gun does not mean you have the right to use it on your fellow citizens. Just because you have the right to speak your mind means you should do so without thinking first. And the power of the media should be moderated to ensure that it is not a power unto itself but a moderating force upon those it should report.
It is a delicate balance and there have been, and continue to be, the occasional errors. But, for the most part, it has worked and I am glad and grateful that it does.
(As a side note, I should also mention that writing early in the morning makes it more difficult to recall certain words that I wanted to use but couldn't immediately recall. I reserve the right to edit this post later when I remember the proper words. EDIT - "arbitrary" was the word I was looking for.)
Sunday, January 9, 2011
When to write
I would say that it is strange that, whenever I have the time to sit down and write, I often cannot think of what to write about. This is a direct contrast to the many other times that I have plenty of ideas upon which to ruminate on this virtual medium - except no access to the virtual medium itself. Most specifically, I find this tends to occur when I drive. And, it seems plainly obvious to me, I am not being distracted by other things (well, other than the act of driving itself) when I drive and can devote time to considering any number of issues. Of course, I also find that I am often driving and thinking because I am listening to NPR which often has stories that cause me to think on a variety of issues. I also find it to be rather engaging for me even if I do not always agree with its editorial slant. But, I tend to only listen to NPR when I am anywhere but in front of my computer where I could put my thoughts to paper (so to speak). From one perspective, that seems like it may actually be a blessing in disguise.
Perhaps I should spend more time in front of my computer when listening to the news. Then I would have subjects galore upon which to write. The only problem, of course, would that this would be a far more political blog. And there are certainly more than enough political blogs in the world - the great majority of them so slanted in their perspective that they serve as only white noise to those who seek more nuanced points of view. No, I guess with this perspective, it is probably just as well that I do not have the ability to actually write the ideas that come to me while listening to NPR. There are enough dumb (political) ideas out there already without me unnecessarily adding to the clutter.
So maybe I should come up with some other things to write on. It is at times like this that I wonder if I should have majored in philosophy instead of political science. At least then, I might be able to ruminate and look smart at the same time.
Perhaps I should spend more time in front of my computer when listening to the news. Then I would have subjects galore upon which to write. The only problem, of course, would that this would be a far more political blog. And there are certainly more than enough political blogs in the world - the great majority of them so slanted in their perspective that they serve as only white noise to those who seek more nuanced points of view. No, I guess with this perspective, it is probably just as well that I do not have the ability to actually write the ideas that come to me while listening to NPR. There are enough dumb (political) ideas out there already without me unnecessarily adding to the clutter.
So maybe I should come up with some other things to write on. It is at times like this that I wonder if I should have majored in philosophy instead of political science. At least then, I might be able to ruminate and look smart at the same time.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
More random musings
The other day, I read an article in Foreign Policy discussing land mines being a war crime. I have to admit that the article was both blunt and poignant. It also got my blood boiling to think about it. In the West, people are rather fortunate that they have not had to worry about where they can walk for fear of whether they will be either maimed or killed by these land mines. The same cannot be said for a majority of people who have lived in war zones over the last 30+ years. Throughout Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, these explosives have deformed several generations and continue to do so. Sure, they may be easy to make and cost less in terms of material and manpower in order to defeat an enemy, but they also never go away and continue to destroy for many years after a conflict has ended. Where is the justice? Where is the right to live freely and without fear of loss of life and limb? What justification can nations offer to strip those rights away for generations? Even the current US president, he of the "Hope and Change" mantra of the 2008 election, has refused to sign the declaration to ban land mines! So what hope is there to stop the proliferation of land mines if President Hope and Change is unwilling to buck political and military expediency in order to enforce a change? Does the US really wish to continue its habit of acting in contradiction to its stated ideals? (Yes, that is a rhetorical question.)
The US off-year elections (does anyone wonder why all non-presidential elections are declared off-year, as if only the presidential elections hold any importance? Doesn't that, by corollary, then mean that Congress is irrelevant and that we are one step closer toward rule by executive fiat?) are coming up next Tuesday and I suspect that more than a few people are less-than-thrilled by the choices being offered. There is a great deal of discussion over the distinct possibility that the Republicans will be swept back into power as a result of dissatisfaction over Democrats holding the major power centers in both the executive and legislative branches. Yet, there is also no great enthusiasm over the Republicans after the previous decade under President Bush and a Republican Congress. Rather, it is a choice of the lesser of two evils. Which will lead to a situation of governmental gridlock - a situation that seems to be the intention of many voters. So we will once again entertain the question of the role of government - is it for the good of the people or better to be limited so as not to impinge on the rights of the people? Somehow, I don't think the question will be answered with this election, either.
Sticking with politics, how about the situation with NPR and its former "news analyst" Juan Williams? Certainly there is a belief that NPR is a liberal news outlet among many people (particularly conservatives) and their firing of Williams for comments he made while on a Fox show with (the less than unbiased) Bill O'Reilly only reinforces that belief. Especially when compared to other "analysts" or "reporters" who have made similar gaffes yet did not suffer the loss of their jobs with NPR, it seems to have been a politically partisan firing and makes it difficult to maintain their declared unbiased reporting. And the head of NPR's incendiary comments regarding her handling of Williams' firing only inflame the situation. Their best hope is that the situation will die down and people will forget it - but that seems unlikely so long as Williams is given an open forum on Fox News where he was immediately given a 3 year contract. Certainly in an era where the line between editorializing and factual news grows increasingly blurry, comments such as Williams' make it difficult to hold reporters and news organizations to unbiased standards, NPR's actions notwithstanding. The fact that he was immediately "rewarded" with a new contract by a competitor (that is often accused of being of a particular political bent) will make it that much more difficult to hold the line. In the end, while I am a listener of NPR, I listen while trying to filter out the obvious partisan editorial bent - the same as I do for Fox News and other news outlets. Too bad so few other people can or are willing to do the same.
Children today are constantly subjected to the standards of their parents when it comes to sports. Indeed, the level of competition, even at what is considered recreational leagues, continues to grow. I coach a youth soccer team at a recreational level. This is my first season in U-12 and the majority of my team is also playing their first season at this age group. In every match this season, we have been the smaller team and have lost most of our matches with two ties. I have been very proud of my kids and the effort they have put into each match and, while I know they want to win (as do I!), they have not gotten down on themselves but continue to work hard each week. After a heartbreaking loss today that we should have tied if not won, the father of one of my players caustically remarked that "We're not going to win any games this season, are we, coach?" Those were the same words I heard from his son before our match last weekend (that we actually tied). I told him that they were trying but it is hard when we can't get consistent practices - we have been rained out the last two weeks. Clearly upset, he took his son and, when I asked if they would be back for the second match, indicated they would not. I understand wanting to win but the only thing he taught his son was that it was ok to quit if you're not winning. Fortunately, cooler heads obviously prevailed at his home as the player did return for the second match - his mother brought him back. And while this particular player has improved dramatically (due in large part to his father who has worked as a coach before) this season, I worry that his drive in the future will be to win and to be the star at the expense of his team. He's a good player but no one player wins a soccer match - a lesson I have tried to impart with only some success to him. I hope that my weekly lessons on doing your best, working as a team and not worrying about the end score will sink in with all of my players. At the end of this season, these players will not remember how many games they won or lost. They may not even remember all of or how many goals they scored. But they will remember if they had fun and, if they didn't, they won't want to keep playing. In the end, if it is not fun, people won't want to do it (unless they have to).
The US off-year elections (does anyone wonder why all non-presidential elections are declared off-year, as if only the presidential elections hold any importance? Doesn't that, by corollary, then mean that Congress is irrelevant and that we are one step closer toward rule by executive fiat?) are coming up next Tuesday and I suspect that more than a few people are less-than-thrilled by the choices being offered. There is a great deal of discussion over the distinct possibility that the Republicans will be swept back into power as a result of dissatisfaction over Democrats holding the major power centers in both the executive and legislative branches. Yet, there is also no great enthusiasm over the Republicans after the previous decade under President Bush and a Republican Congress. Rather, it is a choice of the lesser of two evils. Which will lead to a situation of governmental gridlock - a situation that seems to be the intention of many voters. So we will once again entertain the question of the role of government - is it for the good of the people or better to be limited so as not to impinge on the rights of the people? Somehow, I don't think the question will be answered with this election, either.
Sticking with politics, how about the situation with NPR and its former "news analyst" Juan Williams? Certainly there is a belief that NPR is a liberal news outlet among many people (particularly conservatives) and their firing of Williams for comments he made while on a Fox show with (the less than unbiased) Bill O'Reilly only reinforces that belief. Especially when compared to other "analysts" or "reporters" who have made similar gaffes yet did not suffer the loss of their jobs with NPR, it seems to have been a politically partisan firing and makes it difficult to maintain their declared unbiased reporting. And the head of NPR's incendiary comments regarding her handling of Williams' firing only inflame the situation. Their best hope is that the situation will die down and people will forget it - but that seems unlikely so long as Williams is given an open forum on Fox News where he was immediately given a 3 year contract. Certainly in an era where the line between editorializing and factual news grows increasingly blurry, comments such as Williams' make it difficult to hold reporters and news organizations to unbiased standards, NPR's actions notwithstanding. The fact that he was immediately "rewarded" with a new contract by a competitor (that is often accused of being of a particular political bent) will make it that much more difficult to hold the line. In the end, while I am a listener of NPR, I listen while trying to filter out the obvious partisan editorial bent - the same as I do for Fox News and other news outlets. Too bad so few other people can or are willing to do the same.
Children today are constantly subjected to the standards of their parents when it comes to sports. Indeed, the level of competition, even at what is considered recreational leagues, continues to grow. I coach a youth soccer team at a recreational level. This is my first season in U-12 and the majority of my team is also playing their first season at this age group. In every match this season, we have been the smaller team and have lost most of our matches with two ties. I have been very proud of my kids and the effort they have put into each match and, while I know they want to win (as do I!), they have not gotten down on themselves but continue to work hard each week. After a heartbreaking loss today that we should have tied if not won, the father of one of my players caustically remarked that "We're not going to win any games this season, are we, coach?" Those were the same words I heard from his son before our match last weekend (that we actually tied). I told him that they were trying but it is hard when we can't get consistent practices - we have been rained out the last two weeks. Clearly upset, he took his son and, when I asked if they would be back for the second match, indicated they would not. I understand wanting to win but the only thing he taught his son was that it was ok to quit if you're not winning. Fortunately, cooler heads obviously prevailed at his home as the player did return for the second match - his mother brought him back. And while this particular player has improved dramatically (due in large part to his father who has worked as a coach before) this season, I worry that his drive in the future will be to win and to be the star at the expense of his team. He's a good player but no one player wins a soccer match - a lesson I have tried to impart with only some success to him. I hope that my weekly lessons on doing your best, working as a team and not worrying about the end score will sink in with all of my players. At the end of this season, these players will not remember how many games they won or lost. They may not even remember all of or how many goals they scored. But they will remember if they had fun and, if they didn't, they won't want to keep playing. In the end, if it is not fun, people won't want to do it (unless they have to).
Thursday, February 25, 2010
A positive generation?
NPR discusses how the millenial generation is more positive.
Um, ok. I guess that is not hard to believe. After all, youth is typically not yet as jaded about life and experiences as their elders. Not quite sure why this should be such a headline but it seems that some people are rather surprised by it. "OMG! Young people seem to be more positive?! Who knew?!"
But there were a couple of things that got me about the piece. First was the pervasive belief that many of them were overwhelmingly liberal (OH NO, the "L" word!) and have a positive feeling about government. I guess that seems reasonable when it is many in their generation who helped to elect the nation's first black president - an action that few who grew up during the turbulent 60's felt would happen in their lifetime. It also seems reasonable when one considers that it is the young who often change the world. The older one becomes, the more likely they are to be entrenched in their ways as well as to maintain the status quo. The young, on the other hand, tend to not only see many of the wrong and the iniquities of the world (along with their elders) but are far more inclined to want to work hard to make changes to help improve it. If we recognize that liberal, in a political context, is the antonym of conservative (more resistant to change), it seems rather obvious that they would be more liberal. Indeed, it would be much more surprising if they were not liberal.
The idea that they are more trusting of government is interesting. Earlier generations have been less trusting of government. For those who grew up during the Nixon era or the Cold War, a lack of faith in government seems completely reasonable. It is surprising that those who grew up during the Clinton and Bush 43 presidencies would have more positive feelings regarding government. But the generation that voted for hope and change may still be hopeful that things can change for the better, thus the positive feelings regarding government.
There is also a sense among this generation that things will work out for the best in the end. Despite the turmoil that exists in their lives today - high unemployment or underemployment, two wars, rancorous partisanship, less religious beliefs (though they do not apparently lack for spiritual beliefs) - they have faith that things will improve. Perhaps they have faith that the government will be there to support them and make sure that they are taken care of in the future - in spite of the overwhelming evidence of history that may serve as a warning otherwise. People and civilizations have survived, governments have not. But for those who are too young to remember and unwilling to learn the lessons of history, perhaps this is not an unusual attitude.
After all, history does have a tendency to repeat itself.
Um, ok. I guess that is not hard to believe. After all, youth is typically not yet as jaded about life and experiences as their elders. Not quite sure why this should be such a headline but it seems that some people are rather surprised by it. "OMG! Young people seem to be more positive?! Who knew?!"
But there were a couple of things that got me about the piece. First was the pervasive belief that many of them were overwhelmingly liberal (OH NO, the "L" word!) and have a positive feeling about government. I guess that seems reasonable when it is many in their generation who helped to elect the nation's first black president - an action that few who grew up during the turbulent 60's felt would happen in their lifetime. It also seems reasonable when one considers that it is the young who often change the world. The older one becomes, the more likely they are to be entrenched in their ways as well as to maintain the status quo. The young, on the other hand, tend to not only see many of the wrong and the iniquities of the world (along with their elders) but are far more inclined to want to work hard to make changes to help improve it. If we recognize that liberal, in a political context, is the antonym of conservative (more resistant to change), it seems rather obvious that they would be more liberal. Indeed, it would be much more surprising if they were not liberal.
The idea that they are more trusting of government is interesting. Earlier generations have been less trusting of government. For those who grew up during the Nixon era or the Cold War, a lack of faith in government seems completely reasonable. It is surprising that those who grew up during the Clinton and Bush 43 presidencies would have more positive feelings regarding government. But the generation that voted for hope and change may still be hopeful that things can change for the better, thus the positive feelings regarding government.
There is also a sense among this generation that things will work out for the best in the end. Despite the turmoil that exists in their lives today - high unemployment or underemployment, two wars, rancorous partisanship, less religious beliefs (though they do not apparently lack for spiritual beliefs) - they have faith that things will improve. Perhaps they have faith that the government will be there to support them and make sure that they are taken care of in the future - in spite of the overwhelming evidence of history that may serve as a warning otherwise. People and civilizations have survived, governments have not. But for those who are too young to remember and unwilling to learn the lessons of history, perhaps this is not an unusual attitude.
After all, history does have a tendency to repeat itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)