The truth?

In an authoritarian nation, the truth is often relative and typically only available from official sources. However, in the age of the internet, where information can be quickly disseminated to and obtained from multiple sources, the official government line is only one of many. This is often to the chagrin of the powers that be. In China, there is a burgeoning online community who have taken it upon themselves to present the news that is not presented in the official media. In this unofficial media, there have been several instances where justice for the ordinary 老百姓 has been obtained through outing egregiously corrupt officials which has caused the government to arrest or otherwise punish them in order to maintain social order, among them the recent case of Deng Yujiao.

But there is also reason to worry about the power and even the validity of these anonymous online vigilantes. Truth can wear many faces and it is not often easy to know the exact circumstances of any given event. Another event that has been compared to Deng Yujiao is that of Yan Xiaoling. But there appears to be doubts on both sides of her death. Clearly, many in the Chinese blogosphere seem convinced that the local government is hiding those who are believed to have assaulted and murdered her. But, as the link indicates, there also appears to be a case to be made that her death was an unfortunate accident. The point here is not to verify the truth behind this incident as much as it is to point out the power of the internet as a place to both gather and disseminate information. Conspiracy theories are rife on the internet - as evidenced by the fact that googling 9/11 conspiracy returns a mere 12, 200,000 results - but a great majority of the population of the US believes that 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into the Twin Towers.

This is due in large part to an open and free media. However, when there is only one official source of news and it is largely dismissed by a majority of the population, then the ground is fertile for the rumors that create the very social instability that it is allegedly designed to prevent. Whether the rumors are right or wrong, the fact that few will believe the official media leaves the opening for alternative forms of reporting and commentary. And those are far more difficult to control than a more formal media element.

Mourning Chaucer

I learned earlier today that a friend of mine, who I'll refer to here as Chaucer (I am the only one who ever called him that in an inside joke on his actual name), passed away yesterday afternoon. Chaucer was only 28 and a good man. We worked together for several years and remained friends after I left the company. I had actually seen him a few times in the last few weeks. Once to take him out for lunch for his 28th birthday and again just three days ago. He was not feeling well when I saw him on Wednesday but there was no clue that it would be the last time I would see him. I sent him an email on Thursday to ask if he was feeling any better and he responded late that the doctor had discovered a blood clot in his leg. I did not see the email until Friday morning. I sent him another email but never heard back from him. I spoke with a mutual friend on Friday afternoon to see how he was doing but by then (though we did not know it at the time), he had died.

The news started to filter out today when people started posting memorials on his Facebook page. It was a frantic afternoon today as friends were calling to confirm the news. Shock prevailed - and it still does.

Chaucer was a good man (it's hard to believe that I am referring to him in the past tense). He had a good sense of humor and could take a joke - which is a good thing because I am not above making very inappropriate comments at usually inappropriate times. He was often the victim of my pranks and never openly objected to them or my running commentary. He loved his music and was always generous with sharing his CD's when he thought I might enjoy listening to them. I enjoyed asking him for stories about "Band Camp" (a reference to the movie American Pie) and the things he did with his weekly travels to band competitions during the summer time. When he complained about how tired he would be at the office after a weekend at a competition, I pointed out to him that it was voluntary and all he had to do was not sign up for them again. So, of course, after listening to him complain for the first year about it, he signed up again the following summer. It was a running joke for the rest of the time we knew each other.

When he joined the company, it was my job to help and mentor him to develop as a programmer. He had an open mind and wanted to learn. He did not mind criticism and never took it personally on the rare occasions I had to give it. He wanted to learn from his mistakes and was always very personable. Rarely did anyone have a cross word about him personally. He was always open to people, friendly and had a positive attitude.

My favorite memory of him relates to Star Wars. Our entire team did the interview process with each of the candidates (and, on a side note, I like this idea when hiring someone to work on a team). On the day that Chaucer came in for his initial interview, I was not there so he had to come back another day to interview with me individually. We talked both about work-related issues and inconsequential matters - this gave me an idea about both what he knew and how he was as a person as well as how he might be to work with. My final question - which always made my boss cringe - was whether he had seen Star Wars. Sorry, but if you are going to work in a technical position, you absolutely must have seen the movie. He assured me he had. I liked him and felt he would be a good addition and gave my recommendation to my boss, too (the rest of the team had already approved him). Perhaps only a month or two after he had started working, we were talking about something and I made a reference to something in one of the original movies. Chaucer missed it completely. It was then that I found out he had only seen Episodes I, II and III - he had never seen the original trilogy! Not only had he never seen them, he had never even HEARD of them! I was floored! He had lied to me! From then on, whenever I could fit it into a conversation, I made reference to him lying about Star Wars with the joking inference that he was just a liar trying to get ahead in the world - something that was obviously untrue. I should point out that I did bring in my copy of the movies for him to watch the next day and he did watch them, so at least he would get all future references to the movies.

There is much more to say but it is still difficult to come to grips with his premature death. I only hope that his family and friends will know how good a man he was. I will treasure his memory and mourn his loss.

Goodbye, Chaucer.

Big Brother is watching you

Actually, I am left to wonder how many people even know who Big Brother is or the reference in pop culture. As I talk with people, I have come to realize that many of them understand the Big Brother refers to an overly intrusive government but many fewer know where the term first originated. I guess that 1984 is not necessarily required reading these days. It almost makes me feel old since it was required reading when I was in school. But on the flip side, it gives a very gripping picture of life under a very controlling and authoritarian government. It is not something to which many Americans are accustomed, especially those who were born or grew up after the end of the Cold War. But it is something that seems to is generating a new level of attention within the parameters of the Obama administration and the recent health care debate. A major part of the debate concerning health care relates to the concerns of a large, intrusive government running the medical system.

This concern may seem to be overblown to supporters of the proposed reform, but is it? I received a link to an interesting site that was sent under the aegis of opposing President Obama's proposed reforms. What struck me as interesting, aside from the humor within the site itself, was that it was under the ACLU banner - a group that is not known as a supporter of conservative causes. Is it possible that data will be stored in the manner indicated in that site? Certainly. Is it possible that it can be used in such a manner as indicated in that site? Maybe. It does seem a bit far-fetched at the moment but it is never beyond human nature to misuse information to gain or maintain power.

Frankly, the best way to prevent the abuse of power by a government is to prevent the government from amassing too much power in the first place. Granting government additional power, even in the guise of helping its citizens in the form of guaranteed medical care, may simply be an inevitable progression in the existence of the US. But for a nation that was built upon the basis of individual liberties and rights, abrogating those rights for any reason, regardless of how reasonable it seems on the surface, may not serve the longer-term interest. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Health Care Reform

I have to admit that I am curious as to the definition of health care reform. Is it changing how health care is performed? The method by which the financial aspects are handled? Using new technology to improve health care standards? Providing a minimum level of subsidized care to everyone in the country? Some other definition that I have not noted here?

And I should provide a disclaimer here - I have not read any of the pending legislation because, quite honestly, I have a life where I work and have a family with whom I want to spend time (which is also why this blog gets updated only once or twice a week) and do not have the time necessary to read through the legislation.

But I think the crux of the issue for many people is that there does not appear to be a universal definition of health care reform. People call for it without specifically stating what they mean. Some people call for creating new efficiencies in the practice of health care. Others call for providing free medical care for everyone. Some call for a single payer system whereby all health care bills are paid for by the government (which will inevitably require higher taxes on a portion - if not all - of the taxpayers). Some are calling for the increased use of technology both in the provision of health care (better technology to prevent and cure illnesses) as well as in the business side (to reduce the costs of having to manually track patient records instead of having them digitized or speeding up the process between insurance, provider and patient in terms of medical billing among other ideas). Other definitions are also bandied about by various interest groups but there does not appear to yet be a coherent picture of what "reform" is actually about. At least not something that is readily accessible to the average US citizen via their news networks.

This is usually the point at which I would launch into a tirade against the news media and its fascination for all things related to "Jon & Kate", "Michael Jackson's death" or "Octo-Mom", but I believe I've covered that before. If not, I will most certainly cover it later. But I digress...

So, we have a portion of the population hollering for wholesale changes to the the medical care system. We have a portion of the population adamantly against any changes whatsoever to the best medical care system in the world. And a larger portion who would like to have the issue explained in simple terms that would allow for sensible debate to occur and sensible decisions to be made.

Does the US have the best medical care system in the world? If not the best, certainly one of the best (depending upon the metrics being used). Is it expensive and even inefficient? Probably, especially when measured in monetary terms within a cost-benefit analysis (I think I need to find some data on this). Could it be improved? Sure, along with almost every other aspect of life within the US. But two sides yelling at each other with no room for compromise is going to lead to wholesale changes that will likely prove to be more detrimental than helpful or no change at all which certainly will not prove to be very helpful in the future.

But to get started on the right road, we must first determine what the definition of the reforms needed are and then map out possible solutions from there. If we cannot accurately define the problems, then any solutions will prove useless at best, detrimental at worst.

Cult of Personality

I have to admit that Cult of Personality is one of my favorite songs. It has been ever since it first came out by the band Living Colour. I enjoyed it not only for the style of music but also for its political commentary - which makes sense when I tend to associate almost everything to politics somehow.

I was reminded of this recently as I was thinking about the Obama effect. More precisely, the effect that he has apparently had on a new generation of young voters and supporters. While Bill Clinton enjoyed a certain amount of popularity, particularly among women voters, his overall effect was comparatively small when compared to the first black president of the United States. In an era where people seem to be increasingly judged upon their appeal and popularity, President Obama enjoys a tremendous amount of support. His appearances both on the campaign trail during the election last year attained the status of rock concerts with women swooning as soon as he appeared onstage. Since his election, his popularity has seemingly not waned. While there are many people who do not agree with his policies, none can deny the effect his appearance has had on not just Americans but people all over the world. Whereas his predecessor had engendered a great deal of derision for his policies and sometimes questionable decisions, Obama has just the opposite effect.

His appeal is not hard to understand. He is well-spoken, intelligent, cultured (though that is a subjective term) and good-looking (well, at least that is what I've heard women say). And to become the first black president in a country that is deservedly lambasted for its past with blacks has given him a special position in history that cannot be denied. However, at times, it seems that his appeal has also granted him a sort of invulnerability to criticism that is somewhat disturbing. While Janeane Garofalo is a somewhat extreme example of his supporters, it is rather representative of the beliefs of those who will defend him from any criticism, whether deserved or not. Essentially, the assertion by his backers is that those who would criticize him is that they are all racist regardless of whatever the criticism may be. They assign motive to his critics - something that is simply not possible for it would require the ability to read minds.

And, to be fair, it should be pointed out that such tactics are not only on one side of the political spectrum, as commentary from the other side was equally brutal during the previous administration. But a crucial difference is how Obama is held in regard by his supporters versus the supporters of President Bush, or any others for that matter. There is an almost reverent belief among his followers that he will make everything better. Like the pied piper leading his charges through his musical pipe, President Obama's supporters want to believe and thus they do, without reservation or question. Any critical analysis or advice given is automatically discarded because it does not conform to the hope being offered by the pied piper.

History has shown that blind belief without rational analysis, especially when applied to a charismatic leader, can often have disastrous consequences. Indeed, it is replete with many examples, both elected and not. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini are a few among many. And these examples are only within the last century!

I should caveat that this is not necessarily to infer that President Obama is the same as any of the aforementioned notorious rulers. It is meant merely to demonstrate how the power of wanting to believe in something can lead people to follow leaders whose leadership abilities is questionable at best, disastrous and deadly at worst.

It is not wrong to hope that a man can make a situation better. It is wrong to unquestioningly believe everything that a man may say. And for a great many people who were willing to not only question the abilities of his predecessor but to openly associate him with many of the aforementioned rulers, it seems particularly amazing that they are so blindly willing to follow the current leader without question or reservation.

Town Hall Protests

With the failure by Congress to pass legislation regarding changes to health care in the US, the congressional summer break has allowed for time for members of Congress to return to their respective districts and talk with their constituents about the proposed legislation. However, there has been an outbreak of dissension at various town halls conducted by some of the Democratic members of Congress. Perhaps dissension is putting it euphemistically. There has been vociferous opposition at those meetings to the proposed health care proposals being put forth by the Congress.

But it is not the health care debate that has generated headlines at these meetings but the turmoil resulting from them - and the possible causes of the turmoil. Namely, the charge by Democrats that the opposition is being organized and possibly even bused in by conservative lobbyists and other supporters. The charge itself is almost amusing in how it seems reminiscent of similar charges made against authoritarian regimes who claim popular support through similar measures of busing in supporters to demonstrations in their favor - except now it is the regime in power that is complaining about it from the opposition. The Republicans, in defense of the tactics being used by their supporters, claim that the opposition is to the administration's support and almost-unilateral push for changes to the health-care system and is entirely home-grown.

The end result is yet to be determined. In all likelihood, the Democrats will push through a package of changes (one man's "reform" is another man's unwanted or unnecessary change) for the health-care system. But the Republicans may have won the battle here by shifting the conversation away from a rational discussion of the issues to coverage of the meetings and the turmoil resulting from them. Whatever changes go through will please neither side (though it could be argued that the whole point of a good compromise is that both sides are equally unhappy) and likely will not resolve the issues relating to the problems in the health care system. But, so long as it is used as a political football that can be used to benefit a given party, expect nothing more.

North Korean hostages

What to make of the two female reporters who were released by the North Korean government as a goodwill gesture after Bill Clinton's sudden appearance in Pyongyang? It is certainly good that the women were allowed to leave, but the political farce is likely just beginning. The North Korean media have reported that, as a sign of their magnanimity after Clinton apologized on behalf of the US, they granted a pardon to the women. The Obama administration has stated that this was a private visit by former President Clinton and that there were no messages - and therefore no apology - delivered from the administration.

First, it is impossible that Clinton went to North Korea without the full knowledge and approval of the Obama administration. Clearly a deal was worked out beforehand that his simply showing up for essentially a photo op was sufficient to have the reporters released. So what do the two sides gain from it? Obviously, North Korea gets pictures of Bill Clinton sitting (rather stone-faced) next to Dear Leader and to trumpet that the women were pardoned after Clinton apologized (for what?!). Nobody except the North Koreans (and likely not even a majority of them) believe the propaganda put out by the Dear Leader and his cronies but it makes for a lot of publicity. Essentially, they have proven Hillary's point that they were nothing more than a whiny child wanting attention. And the best way to get back at her for such comments was to have her husband go and kowtow down to them (regardless of whatever spin anyone puts on it on the US side). It seems it worked rather well for North Korea.

For the US, the only true benefit seems to have been the release of the two women. The Obama administration can protest all it wants that it was not involved but no one outside of the deliberately obtuse will rationally believe it. The logistics alone preclude that as a possibility (the South Koreans have their fishing ships taken prisoner for straying into North Korean waters, so how would a US airplane get to Pyongyang without prior agreement?). It is highly unlikely that any apology was delivered and almost as likely that any message was delivered by Clinton himself. If any message was delivered, it was during the negotiations leading up to Clinton's visit. But, the US does stand somewhat humiliated by this action. Now, any country that wants to get US attention simply has to get its hands on some US nationals and then make whatever demands they want. In the eyes of most Americans - and I am not offering judgment one way or another - a single American life is worth more than a hundred from almost any other nation. (If you don't believe it, ask anyone how many US service members have been killed in Iraq, then ask them how many Iraqis.) So, want to distract attention from the nuclear proliferation issue, just capture a few American civilians and then you can distract them with loud calls about how they're going to be punished and everyone will demand that the government cave in to whatever demands to get them released.

Say, come to think of it, this sounds like Iran now (except they have three instead of two).

And in both cases, how exactly did they end up in North Korea or Iran, anyway?

Race Today

In the last year, America has experienced almost a revolution in terms of race, ethnicity and how the two interact within society. The election of the first black president, Barack Obama, showed just how far America has come in terms of the overcoming the stigma of race. Or perhaps it showed how much race is still a factor within American society. It depends upon one's point of view. This was followed by the much ballyhooed case that went before the Supreme Court on the issue of white firefighters being denied promotion due to an insufficient number of minorities passing a promotion exam in New Haven, Connecticut - and the role played by the all-but-confirmed Sonia Sotomayor who will likely be the first Hispanic on the US Supreme Court. And the most recent example of race relations in the US is the case involving a white police officer arresting Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, a black Harvard professor which, on its own was newsworthy but escalated with the additional (and some might feel inflammatory) comments by President Obama on the case.

Certainly the election of the first black president is a sign of tremendous progress on the issue of race in America. It could be argued that it is a tremendous sign of progress in almost any Western nation - most of which have not equaled the feat. At the time of his election, it was being hailed as the "post-racial" era. Presumably, this meant that the era of racism was quickly reaching its denouement. However, and this is something that I pointed out at the time privately, racism is still a relevant issue in the United States and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the election of a black man (or woman, for that matter) did not signal an end to the path started generations earlier. Frankly, the beginning of the end for that issue will occur when a white man (or woman) can freely criticize that elected official for whatever reason and not be immediately labeled a racist. And it is clear from the reactions that have been shown toward those with the temerity to criticize the current president that the nation is still not approaching that point.

The white firefighters filed suit to claim their promotions shortly after the city of New Haven declared the results to be invalid and that there would be no promotions at that time due to the lack of minority candidates passing the exam. Their case was pursued all the way to the Supreme Court - along the way being denied by current Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor - where it was awarded its final merit and declared that the city did not have the right to deny them a promotion based on the lack of a higher number of qualified minority candidates. Some felt this signaled the end of race-based quotas while others felt this was clearly a strike against Ms. Sotomayor being elevated to the Supreme Court as her earlier decision in the case was overruled. But the decision did not resolve the underlying issues concerning race-based quotas and that will continue to be an issue for the immediate future. But this can be seen as part of a backlash against the race-based quota system under the larger aegis of affirmative action. Is affirmative action something that is no longer needed? Certainly it is debatable and there is merit on both sides of the argument. Certainly everyone should be given the same opportunities to succeed - after all, that is the founding promise of America. But are quotas the best way to even the playing field? Would not equal opportunities to education be an equal solution, if not better? And while it can be argued that educational opportunities for minorities are certainly better than they were 40 years ago, that does not mean that they are equal. Perhaps if affirmative action were aimed more toward education, then it would not be so polarizing for adults.

The case of racial profiling looms large when discussing Professor Gates. Was his a case of racial profiling? There is not enough public information to say for certain. But Colin Powell put it well. There was probably an over-reaction on both the part of Prof. Gates as well as Sgt. Crowley. Prof. Gates was likely tired and did not like being challenged in his own home and felt that race was the leading factor in him being questioned. Sgt. Crowley probably did not like being challenged for questioning Prof. Gates and, after a short time of listening to the professor, subsequently arrested and charged him with disorderly conduct - a charge that was soon dismissed. But it does beg the question of whether the perception by blacks is that, even when innocent, are they being challenged because of their race or because of other issues? And do the police profile potential suspects? Absolutely! Just as everyone does profiling of one sort or another. An older black man wearing a suit may not attract the attention of the police as quickly as a black youth wearing a bandanna. A young white man in shorts and sandals may not get a job as easily as a black youth wearing a shirt and tie. Everyone judges others by what they see immediately and color is one of those things that is immediately visible to everyone. But to argue that the profiling takes place only because of color is to suggest that we can know the motivations of others - something that simply is not possible. We know only what we see, hear and touch. We cannot prove what someone else is thinking. Indeed, everything else is subjective. But perhaps some good will come of this as it may be an opportunity for others to talk and be heard and to communicate and learn from others.

Institutionalized racism is no longer acceptable but that does not mean that racism is gone, only that it is not so overt as it was in earlier generations. It is unlikely that it will ever truly go away unless we all go blind and color no longer holds any meaning. But it does not mean that we should hold judgment based only on one's color nor necessarily withhold judgment solely for the same reason. Perhaps, with time and patience, we can learn that the definition of people is, and should be, based on the person themselves and not what is seen at first glance.

Anger management

Anger is one of those emotions that demonstrates a loss of control. More precisely, it is a glaring symptom of a loss of control. A loss of control over any situation, large or small, can trigger an angry reaction. And anger can fuel itself to rages that grow increasingly uncontrollable until the underlying anger is spent.

So what to do about it? It is nigh impossible to prevent getting angry because on one can control everything in their life - presuming of course, that anger is the natural reaction to a loss of control. For many people, myself included, this is true. So if it is not possible to prevent becoming angry at a loss of control, the next best solution is learning to manage the anger instead of letting it control you. Using the anger as a tool to or a focal point can help to manage the anger to a point where control can be regained not only over the anger itself but even to the underlying cause. It is not easy and does not always work but even working to get to that point can help restore the sense of balance that is lost in the maelstrom of the anger and the (often) accompanying rage. Focusing on a single point of restoration can be, in itself, the first step in recovering that which has been lost - control.

And while most of us would deny we are control freaks, few of us like to be out of control of the people, events and emotions surrounding us.

Popularity contest

"People's support doesn't bring legitimacy, but popularity". So goes a quote by a senior Iranian cleric regarding the continued discontent by a large part of the Iranian populace about the June 12 presidential election in that nation. And I am sure that the cleric and others within the ruling leadership feel that they do not need popular support so long as they possess the guns with which they can continue to quell support for alternatives to their leadership. The problem is that they were on the other side of the equation 30 years ago in opposition to the Shah and they certainly had no problem declaring that popular support granted them the legitimacy to take the actions - and the leadership - that they did.

However, power begets the desire for more power and a lower tolerance for dissent. That, in turn, reduces the standards of legitimacy from popularity by and from the populace to legitimacy through whatever means are necessary. Lies, coercion, force or anything else in between are fair tools to use within their eyes and, unfortunately, it continues a downward spiral from which it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to recover. History is littered with many examples of those who failed to learn the lessons of their predecessors. And thus does the cycle continue.