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.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
An artist's responsibility
The job of an artist is to create things that can entertain, enlighten and even provoke people. To be an artist is seemingly not difficult. Everything that exists in the world today is a form of art. Not just the books and the movies and music and pictures that we normally imagine at the term "artist", but the very objects that surround us every day. From the highest technology to the most mundane of objects - all are a form of art that creates the fabric within which we all exist. From this point of view, it would be easy to believe that everyone is an artist.
But those are not the artists to which I refer. No, the artists to which I refer are those who deliberately set out to create the objects which others recognize as art. It is they who set out to inspire with their creations. It is they who imagine the future and create it with their hands. It is they who challenge the beliefs and understanding by which we live. Indeed, it is that ability to challenge the recognized order which allows the artists to transcend the mundane and breach immortality.
This does not mean that an artist should deliberately seek to be provocative simply for the sake of being provocative. Instead, an artist should recognize the world for what it is and what it could be - and even what it should be. Sometimes, the artist's view will be uplifting, bright and spiritual - a recognition of the positive in a life that often seems harsh. Others can be so dark as condemn themselves to despair - wallowing in a negativity that is so pervasive as to block out all else. But it is the manner in which these artists convey these emotions that becomes the context upon which they are ultimately judged.
The responsibility of the artist is to convert their ideas into a framework that satisfies them and can still give their audience the opportunity and desire to reflect on the ideas presented to them by the artists. Whereas the majority of people live their lives in a struggle to achieve the goals that may be important to them individually, artists feel compelled to seek answers that can then be offered to a much larger audience beyond themselves. And if answers are not readily available, then an acceptable alternative is the opportunity to provide insight that may differ from the common. Frankly, the common is not acceptable for an artist and is considered a failure if that is the best that they can offer. By the same token, however, to be unusual is not a sign of success. The artists work must have meaning and offer a different perspective. It is often a fine line.
But then again, artistic works are all subjective and that, in the end, is the final truth for an artist.
But those are not the artists to which I refer. No, the artists to which I refer are those who deliberately set out to create the objects which others recognize as art. It is they who set out to inspire with their creations. It is they who imagine the future and create it with their hands. It is they who challenge the beliefs and understanding by which we live. Indeed, it is that ability to challenge the recognized order which allows the artists to transcend the mundane and breach immortality.
This does not mean that an artist should deliberately seek to be provocative simply for the sake of being provocative. Instead, an artist should recognize the world for what it is and what it could be - and even what it should be. Sometimes, the artist's view will be uplifting, bright and spiritual - a recognition of the positive in a life that often seems harsh. Others can be so dark as condemn themselves to despair - wallowing in a negativity that is so pervasive as to block out all else. But it is the manner in which these artists convey these emotions that becomes the context upon which they are ultimately judged.
The responsibility of the artist is to convert their ideas into a framework that satisfies them and can still give their audience the opportunity and desire to reflect on the ideas presented to them by the artists. Whereas the majority of people live their lives in a struggle to achieve the goals that may be important to them individually, artists feel compelled to seek answers that can then be offered to a much larger audience beyond themselves. And if answers are not readily available, then an acceptable alternative is the opportunity to provide insight that may differ from the common. Frankly, the common is not acceptable for an artist and is considered a failure if that is the best that they can offer. By the same token, however, to be unusual is not a sign of success. The artists work must have meaning and offer a different perspective. It is often a fine line.
But then again, artistic works are all subjective and that, in the end, is the final truth for an artist.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Just some random thoughts
Several weeks (heck, maybe a month) since my last ideas. I had meant to write up some more thoughts on the ideas of racism that continue to pervade the US - not to mention its subsequent assignment to the level of abortion and gay rights in the political spectrum. I was taken to task by one reader (who deliberately did not read my recent missives) that my points were all one-sided against Democrats. So I was going to write up a scathing editorial on comments by both Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson but it almost seemed repetitive since they'd been taken to task by pretty much everyone else. So what would be the fun in piling on? Besides, since all Republicans are racist by political definition, to re-state the "obvious" would simply be rhetorical. Right? (Oh, that is also rhetorical.) Of course, it's hard to raise up a sense of indignity about such a serious subject when your leader in the Senate and an ardent supporter on MSNBC are both making "innocuous" comments that, had they been uttered by Republicans, would be railed against as racist. Or at least it should be. But I guess hypocrisy only applies to Republicans on the sensitive subject of race. Democrats believe in diversity - of colors. And only because all colors other than white should "obviously" be Democratic and, if not, then clearly they are racial turncoats. Nope, no hypocrisy there...
But there have been so many other things happening in the world that have merited attention from the media. Yes, in the last several weeks, I have received "Breaking News" emails from CNN on important subjects such as the charges against Michael Jackson's doctor for killing him (inadvertently) and the tragic death of Brittany Murphy (who?). But continued attacks against the establishment in Pakistan, relief efforts in Haiti (well, ok, there has been some news on that, mostly about those evil white religious fanatics who tried to kidnap a bunch of kids before being stopped at the border of the Dominican Republic), the continuing tragicomedy of healthcare reform (whose definition apparently still remains amorphous at best to the general public) and deteriorating relations between the US and China (among a great many other equally important subjects) remain missing - or at best grossly underreported - from the news. I guess it is far more important to sell commercial time for the "news shows" (and yes, I lose that term very loosely - I would be hard-pressed to consider Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck as news shows instead of editorials loosely related to truth and facts) which means that people will only pay attention when a blond-haired teenager has gone missing (preferably in some third-world vacation destination) rather than facts that are far more likely to impact one's life such as the state of the economy or legislation that has a more direct effect on how one may live.
I think I should just carry a soapbox with me sometimes...
And, to live to my motto of being completely random, can anyone explain to me why socialism is bad (in the US)? And then explain why capitalism is bad? Rationally? Without rhetorical flourish? Thanks.
But there have been so many other things happening in the world that have merited attention from the media. Yes, in the last several weeks, I have received "Breaking News" emails from CNN on important subjects such as the charges against Michael Jackson's doctor for killing him (inadvertently) and the tragic death of Brittany Murphy (who?). But continued attacks against the establishment in Pakistan, relief efforts in Haiti (well, ok, there has been some news on that, mostly about those evil white religious fanatics who tried to kidnap a bunch of kids before being stopped at the border of the Dominican Republic), the continuing tragicomedy of healthcare reform (whose definition apparently still remains amorphous at best to the general public) and deteriorating relations between the US and China (among a great many other equally important subjects) remain missing - or at best grossly underreported - from the news. I guess it is far more important to sell commercial time for the "news shows" (and yes, I lose that term very loosely - I would be hard-pressed to consider Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck as news shows instead of editorials loosely related to truth and facts) which means that people will only pay attention when a blond-haired teenager has gone missing (preferably in some third-world vacation destination) rather than facts that are far more likely to impact one's life such as the state of the economy or legislation that has a more direct effect on how one may live.
I think I should just carry a soapbox with me sometimes...
And, to live to my motto of being completely random, can anyone explain to me why socialism is bad (in the US)? And then explain why capitalism is bad? Rationally? Without rhetorical flourish? Thanks.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Literary inspirations
Mind is roaming a wee bit today and started thinking about influences on me - particularly literary influences. There were three that came immediately to mind. In order, they are:
James Clavell
Douglas Adams
Ayn Rand
Clavell is an awesome storyteller who managed to tell whole stories from various points of view all in the same book. Read any of his Asian saga books and you can see how he weaves different characters into the same plots while presenting each of their disparate viewpoints. If there were ever an author I would want to be able to follow, it would be Clavell. I have read each of his books multiple times to the point where each is worn with care and, in some cases, taped back together. For those who do not like to read 1000+ pages at a time, then read A Children's Story. It is a short book that weaves heavy (and dark) political undertones to an innocuous school room of children and their teacher. It is different from his Asian saga but certainly a telling piece, much like Orwell's Animal Farm.
Douglas Adams did satire within a science fiction format that is one of the few to have me in stitches each time I read it. The satire of human nature and how foolish people tend to behave is both hilarious and telling. Whenever I want to start cracking on people, I tend to think of how Adams may have phrased it and then hope to rise to his standard. Indeed, one of my favorite things to point out is that his Hitchhiker's trilogy actually consists of 5 books. Makes sense to me.
Ayn Rand, I have discovered, is an author (and person) who is either loved or hated. There is no middle ground, much as her characters in her major novels. Indeed, I recently saw a bumper sticker asking "Where is John Galt?" and it made me smile. It is a reference that only a Rand devotee would understand. Her writing is passionate about her point of view (more commonly known as Objectivism) and she brooks no dissent nor disagreement from it. While it has been called extreme by critics (among other things), there is certainly more than a grain of truth to her commentary - which is why she still has such a huge following almost 30 years after her death. Whether one agrees or not that the rights of the individual supersede the rights of society, her argument is extraordinarily powerful. Regardless, my favorite of her books is Atlas Shrugged and, while it is long and the commentary occasionally repetitive, certainly worth the read.
What are some others that I may be missing? There are others whom I enjoy reading but I am always open to other suggestions that I may have missed. While I don't read as much fiction as I used to, I think it is because much of what is published today is tripe (don't get me started on John Grisham).
James Clavell
Douglas Adams
Ayn Rand
Clavell is an awesome storyteller who managed to tell whole stories from various points of view all in the same book. Read any of his Asian saga books and you can see how he weaves different characters into the same plots while presenting each of their disparate viewpoints. If there were ever an author I would want to be able to follow, it would be Clavell. I have read each of his books multiple times to the point where each is worn with care and, in some cases, taped back together. For those who do not like to read 1000+ pages at a time, then read A Children's Story. It is a short book that weaves heavy (and dark) political undertones to an innocuous school room of children and their teacher. It is different from his Asian saga but certainly a telling piece, much like Orwell's Animal Farm.
Douglas Adams did satire within a science fiction format that is one of the few to have me in stitches each time I read it. The satire of human nature and how foolish people tend to behave is both hilarious and telling. Whenever I want to start cracking on people, I tend to think of how Adams may have phrased it and then hope to rise to his standard. Indeed, one of my favorite things to point out is that his Hitchhiker's trilogy actually consists of 5 books. Makes sense to me.
Ayn Rand, I have discovered, is an author (and person) who is either loved or hated. There is no middle ground, much as her characters in her major novels. Indeed, I recently saw a bumper sticker asking "Where is John Galt?" and it made me smile. It is a reference that only a Rand devotee would understand. Her writing is passionate about her point of view (more commonly known as Objectivism) and she brooks no dissent nor disagreement from it. While it has been called extreme by critics (among other things), there is certainly more than a grain of truth to her commentary - which is why she still has such a huge following almost 30 years after her death. Whether one agrees or not that the rights of the individual supersede the rights of society, her argument is extraordinarily powerful. Regardless, my favorite of her books is Atlas Shrugged and, while it is long and the commentary occasionally repetitive, certainly worth the read.
What are some others that I may be missing? There are others whom I enjoy reading but I am always open to other suggestions that I may have missed. While I don't read as much fiction as I used to, I think it is because much of what is published today is tripe (don't get me started on John Grisham).
Monday, January 11, 2010
The letter, not the spirit, of the law
Tagging onto my commentary from yesterday (about which I still have some thoughts that I need to coherently put together before posting), there is another issue dealing with race in this country - one that will probably receive more attention from the Democratic members of Congress than Harry Reid's comments have. That is the NFL's Rooney Rule. Yes, that is the rule that was put forth by the owner of the NFL's Pittsburgh Steelers that required owners of teams to interview at least one minority candidate for open coaching (and subsequently general manager) positions. The underlying hope for this was to open the door to more minority coaches in the NFL. And, putting his money where his mouth was, Rooney himself hired Mike Tomlin several years ago when his former coach resigned. Tomlin, who is black, was not even one of the leading candidates prior to his interview with the Steelers but surprisingly won the job.
However, in the same way that quotas tend to work in the "real" world, compliance is often met with the letter of the law, if not the spirit. This season has been clearly indicative of following the letter of the law in regard to the hiring of new head coaches. The Washington Redskins and the Seattle Seahawks both fired their previous coaches with clear designs on who their intended replacements would be - Mike Shanahan and Pete Carroll, respectively. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to hire a specific individual if you think that person will able to provide the services you need. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with either team hiring the individuals that they hired.
No, the problem is that the teams paid lip service to following the Rooney Rule. The Redskins interviewed one of the assistant coaches already in the organization (several weeks before they ever fired the head coach!) in order to comply with the rule. And the NFL green-lighted the interview as being within the framework of the Rooney Rule. Frankly, the interview was clearly perfunctory as no one believed that he would be hired - the rumors regarding the Redskins pursuit of Shanahan was big news even before the interview and they were simply waiting until the end of the season when they could fire the previous coach and openly pursue him. Indeed, it took only two days for Shanahan to become the new coach after the season ended.
The Seahawks fired their coach a week later and there were rumors immediately following that there was an agreement in place to hire Pete Carroll - then the coach at the University of Southern California. However, before they could hire Carroll, they first had to interview a minority candidate. They asked Leslie Frazier (an assistant with the Minnesota Vikings who has interviewed for several positions previously) to interview and he promptly rejected the interview request on the basis that he would not have a serious chance at the position based on the rumors of Carroll's impending hire. However, additional negotiations took place and Frazier (and the NFL, apparently) was convinced that it would not be a pro forma interview and he would have a serious shot at the job. He was interviewed over the weekend and no further consideration was given to his chances for the job. Two days later, on Monday, Pete Carroll was officially announced as the new head coach - the person originally sought by the Seahawks. Again, Carroll may be the best person to help the team and they have every right to hire him.
The larger issue is that there is a regulation in place to help promote minority coaches in the NFL by mandating a quota to be interviewed and, while the regulation was technically followed, the spirit has seemingly been completely ignored. So should the rule be discarded (as it apparently does nothing more than create hypocrites of the NFL and the owners of the various teams)? Should additional efforts be made at enforcement with both the spirit and the letter of the regulation? If so, how do you ensure such enforcement? Would it not require "knowing his [the owners'] heart[s]" in order to determine whether the spirit is still being followed? And clearly, based on the racism issue that Harry Reid stepped into, seeing into one's heart is clearly subjective at best.
But don't worry, I have little doubt that the US Congress will step into the debate in the NFL and leaders from both sides (but especially on the Democratic side since this is one of their best political footballs) will demand new actions be taken to remedy this grievous error! I will hopefully be able to record Harry Reid as he speaks (from a script) with no hint of hypocrisy on the need for more black coaches in the NFL - just like our light-skinned president with no Negro dialect! (If not, someone will hopefully point me to the YouTube clip...)
However, in the same way that quotas tend to work in the "real" world, compliance is often met with the letter of the law, if not the spirit. This season has been clearly indicative of following the letter of the law in regard to the hiring of new head coaches. The Washington Redskins and the Seattle Seahawks both fired their previous coaches with clear designs on who their intended replacements would be - Mike Shanahan and Pete Carroll, respectively. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to hire a specific individual if you think that person will able to provide the services you need. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with either team hiring the individuals that they hired.
No, the problem is that the teams paid lip service to following the Rooney Rule. The Redskins interviewed one of the assistant coaches already in the organization (several weeks before they ever fired the head coach!) in order to comply with the rule. And the NFL green-lighted the interview as being within the framework of the Rooney Rule. Frankly, the interview was clearly perfunctory as no one believed that he would be hired - the rumors regarding the Redskins pursuit of Shanahan was big news even before the interview and they were simply waiting until the end of the season when they could fire the previous coach and openly pursue him. Indeed, it took only two days for Shanahan to become the new coach after the season ended.
The Seahawks fired their coach a week later and there were rumors immediately following that there was an agreement in place to hire Pete Carroll - then the coach at the University of Southern California. However, before they could hire Carroll, they first had to interview a minority candidate. They asked Leslie Frazier (an assistant with the Minnesota Vikings who has interviewed for several positions previously) to interview and he promptly rejected the interview request on the basis that he would not have a serious chance at the position based on the rumors of Carroll's impending hire. However, additional negotiations took place and Frazier (and the NFL, apparently) was convinced that it would not be a pro forma interview and he would have a serious shot at the job. He was interviewed over the weekend and no further consideration was given to his chances for the job. Two days later, on Monday, Pete Carroll was officially announced as the new head coach - the person originally sought by the Seahawks. Again, Carroll may be the best person to help the team and they have every right to hire him.
The larger issue is that there is a regulation in place to help promote minority coaches in the NFL by mandating a quota to be interviewed and, while the regulation was technically followed, the spirit has seemingly been completely ignored. So should the rule be discarded (as it apparently does nothing more than create hypocrites of the NFL and the owners of the various teams)? Should additional efforts be made at enforcement with both the spirit and the letter of the regulation? If so, how do you ensure such enforcement? Would it not require "knowing his [the owners'] heart[s]" in order to determine whether the spirit is still being followed? And clearly, based on the racism issue that Harry Reid stepped into, seeing into one's heart is clearly subjective at best.
But don't worry, I have little doubt that the US Congress will step into the debate in the NFL and leaders from both sides (but especially on the Democratic side since this is one of their best political footballs) will demand new actions be taken to remedy this grievous error! I will hopefully be able to record Harry Reid as he speaks (from a script) with no hint of hypocrisy on the need for more black coaches in the NFL - just like our light-skinned president with no Negro dialect! (If not, someone will hopefully point me to the YouTube clip...)
Sunday, January 10, 2010
No double standards here...
Nope, the Democratic Party and its supporters - particularly African-Americans - are all lining up in support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after comments he made about then-candidate Obama were printed in a new book about the 2008 campaign. Specifically, his comments were that Obama was:
[sarcasm]Yep, nothing racist or even stereotypical in those comments. I can see why no African-Americans would be offended by something so trivial. Heck, I can't see why I, or anyone else for that matter, should be offended by such commentary. [/sarcasm]
I think the problem here is that this exposes the political hypocrisy to which race and racism has devolved. Without defending the idiocy that has been perpetrated by Republicans in equal measure, the refusal of Democrats and leading African-Americans to condemn either the comments or the speaker lend a great deal of credence to the belief that racism has become nothing more than a political tool for Democrats to abuse Republicans. George Allen in Virginia during the 2006 Senate campaign with his "macaca" comment and Trent Lott's commentary on Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday celebration in 2002 are two of the more egregious examples by the Republicans in recent memory and both were pilloried by their Democratic opponents and subsequently lost their positions of authority. Indeed, there was no shortage of commentators, leaders and supporters from the left of the political spectrum who rose up indignantly and shouted for some form of punishment to be inflicted upon the two of them.
And that is all reasonable when the same standards are applied to the idiots on the left who make similarly embarrassing gaffes. The problem that arises here are the double standards that are clearly evident. The racist card is to be applied to your political opponents to ensure that they are labeled as such and to establish the moral high ground for your own side of any debate. But when your side makes comments that are clearly racist, then it is best to find some other way of deflecting attention away or defending them in the hope of "the greater good". The problem is that, by doing so, you then minimize the injustice of the racism that clearly does exist (except within the Democratic Party, obviously). So what is the greater good?
There has been commentary from Democratic apologists that Sen. Reid's comments do not compare with the comments of some of his Republican predecessors. That is a subjective (and specious) argument. According to those apologists, Republicans are all racist by nature so the intent of racial commentary is obviously racist by design whereas similar comments by Democrats are not intended to be racist because they are more enlightened on the subject of race. Therefore, the arguments do not compare. The problem with such an argument is that they are arguing intent and motive which can never actually be known by anyone other than the offender. Furthermore, if Democrats are so "enlightened", how can they possibly countenance such comments in the first place, let alone utter them aloud?
In a further galling move, Senator Reid apologized on the Sunday morning talk shows and then has followed up by calling every African-American leader that he can find to beg their forgiveness. And while this is obviously a necessity to help deflect attention away from his mistake, it seems that no one is questioning the fact that his mea culpa comes more than a year after the comments were made and only after it was published in an upcoming book. So, would he have apologized for his comments if someone had not outed them in the first place? Not likely. Additionally, the president, in a move clearly intended (and hoped) to defuse the situation, dismissed it with clear political motivations. If the Senate Majority Leader becomes embroiled in a distraction such as racist comments, it can only serve to detract from his goal of passing healthcare legislation - and those distractions must be avoided at all costs. There can be no clearer sign of the political machinations that have now superseded the issue of racism.
And in a country with as many open wounds relating to racism, this clearly is a problem.
a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one
I think the problem here is that this exposes the political hypocrisy to which race and racism has devolved. Without defending the idiocy that has been perpetrated by Republicans in equal measure, the refusal of Democrats and leading African-Americans to condemn either the comments or the speaker lend a great deal of credence to the belief that racism has become nothing more than a political tool for Democrats to abuse Republicans. George Allen in Virginia during the 2006 Senate campaign with his "macaca" comment and Trent Lott's commentary on Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday celebration in 2002 are two of the more egregious examples by the Republicans in recent memory and both were pilloried by their Democratic opponents and subsequently lost their positions of authority. Indeed, there was no shortage of commentators, leaders and supporters from the left of the political spectrum who rose up indignantly and shouted for some form of punishment to be inflicted upon the two of them.
And that is all reasonable when the same standards are applied to the idiots on the left who make similarly embarrassing gaffes. The problem that arises here are the double standards that are clearly evident. The racist card is to be applied to your political opponents to ensure that they are labeled as such and to establish the moral high ground for your own side of any debate. But when your side makes comments that are clearly racist, then it is best to find some other way of deflecting attention away or defending them in the hope of "the greater good". The problem is that, by doing so, you then minimize the injustice of the racism that clearly does exist (except within the Democratic Party, obviously). So what is the greater good?
There has been commentary from Democratic apologists that Sen. Reid's comments do not compare with the comments of some of his Republican predecessors. That is a subjective (and specious) argument. According to those apologists, Republicans are all racist by nature so the intent of racial commentary is obviously racist by design whereas similar comments by Democrats are not intended to be racist because they are more enlightened on the subject of race. Therefore, the arguments do not compare. The problem with such an argument is that they are arguing intent and motive which can never actually be known by anyone other than the offender. Furthermore, if Democrats are so "enlightened", how can they possibly countenance such comments in the first place, let alone utter them aloud?
In a further galling move, Senator Reid apologized on the Sunday morning talk shows and then has followed up by calling every African-American leader that he can find to beg their forgiveness. And while this is obviously a necessity to help deflect attention away from his mistake, it seems that no one is questioning the fact that his mea culpa comes more than a year after the comments were made and only after it was published in an upcoming book. So, would he have apologized for his comments if someone had not outed them in the first place? Not likely. Additionally, the president, in a move clearly intended (and hoped) to defuse the situation, dismissed it with clear political motivations. If the Senate Majority Leader becomes embroiled in a distraction such as racist comments, it can only serve to detract from his goal of passing healthcare legislation - and those distractions must be avoided at all costs. There can be no clearer sign of the political machinations that have now superseded the issue of racism.
And in a country with as many open wounds relating to racism, this clearly is a problem.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Consumer News
Fox News has published a list of news stories that they claim did not make it to the mainstream media during the course of 2009. I tend to follow a number of news sites (when I have time which, quite honestly, has not been so much recently) and I have to admit that some of the stories in the Fox story were hardly prevalent in some of the more mainstream news sites - or at least not above the fold.
I guess an argument could be made that the stories would more favorably fit the ideology of Fox News and therefore would likely be more high-profile there as a result - with the correlated belief that they would then be less high-profile on sites with a different editorial bent. But that does not excuse the fact that they were not reported (or at least not extensively) elsewhere. It is even more egregious when there was certainly no shortage of news footage given to the death of Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and his infidelities, the balloon boy and his family and any number of sundry celebrities. Quite frankly, there are tabloids for that sort of "news" but the self-professed news channels have been sorely lacking and there is little wonder that more people use Comedy Central's The Daily Show and less-than-biased blogs to get their news than they do the traditional news outlets.
It is time to return to an era where the media again returns to take responsibility for providing the public with the facts and news surrounding them rather than pandering to a consumerist ideology more beholden to the bottom line rather than the celebrity lifestyles that pass for news today.
I guess an argument could be made that the stories would more favorably fit the ideology of Fox News and therefore would likely be more high-profile there as a result - with the correlated belief that they would then be less high-profile on sites with a different editorial bent. But that does not excuse the fact that they were not reported (or at least not extensively) elsewhere. It is even more egregious when there was certainly no shortage of news footage given to the death of Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and his infidelities, the balloon boy and his family and any number of sundry celebrities. Quite frankly, there are tabloids for that sort of "news" but the self-professed news channels have been sorely lacking and there is little wonder that more people use Comedy Central's The Daily Show and less-than-biased blogs to get their news than they do the traditional news outlets.
It is time to return to an era where the media again returns to take responsibility for providing the public with the facts and news surrounding them rather than pandering to a consumerist ideology more beholden to the bottom line rather than the celebrity lifestyles that pass for news today.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Climate Change (aka Global Warming)
I have to admit that I am actually torn on this subject. On one side, you have fanatics screaming about how the planet is warming and being destroyed by mankind and its inventions which now pollute the earth. They discuss all of the science that supports their arguments while simultaneously denying or ignoring any evidence that contradicts them. Of course, the idea of using science or evidence to support an argument while dismissing any evidence to the contrary goes completely against the main scientific tenet - trying to prove a hypothesis wrong. And, contrary to the vehement arguments of those who support the idea that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, there is valid evidence that lends credence to the belief that it may not. Furthermore, what are the results of any actions taken to reduce the alleged man-made causes of the warming of the planet? The law of unintended consequences - which has been known to frequently raise its head as the result of new government legislation - seems a likely result. And when I mention unintended consequences, I mean examples like the use of DDT to destroy the insects that were eating crops in the 1950's and 60's in the United States - until it was noticed that it had a very deleterious effect on the people who consumed those crops. And there are many more examples that can be found in history. Additionally, if taking these actions does not alleviate or stop the warming, will other actions be undertaken? Will additionally studies be done to determine what else may be causing it? Does this mean that something should not be done? Not necessarily. There is a great deal of waste and pollution that certainly does not help the environment and that can and should be dealt with. Of course, there are already laws that exist to prevent and reduce pollution but that then requires enforcement. So, perhaps the key is not in creating new laws to reduce the global warming pollutants but to enforce the ones already on the books.
Oh, and as alluded to in my title for this post, has anyone noticed how "global warming" has now changed to "climate change"? Frankly, when I think of climate change, I think of the four seasons. But, then again, I tend to think pretty simply about this sort of thing. Of course, the argument for changing the title was some evidence that indicated the earth's temperature has actually not increased over the course of the last decade. The interesting part is that different measuring stations have provided different sets of data so there is no real standard - that fact in and of itself should serve as a warning sign as to whether the earth's temperature is in fact undergoing the changes that the alarmists claim. Or, perhaps that is nothing more than an inconvenient fact. (I wish I had considered how "punny" that is before I actually wrote it.)
On the other side, of course, are those who deny that the earth is warming or claim that, if it is warming, it is due to a normal cyclical pattern of the earth (among other potential causes). Furthermore, they argue, the global warming argument is nothing more than a naked power grab by a certain political faction whose intent is simply to impose their standards upon everyone else. Frankly, just because global warming is a theory does not mean that it may not be true. Indeed, that it is a theory at all is indicative that certain facts lend credence to it. To dismiss it out of hand is the same as ignoring anything that does not conform to a certain point of view. Additionally, to argue that it is cyclical or that it is nothing more than politics dictating how science operates ignores the facts that there is a problem with the pollutants being spewed into the atmosphere as well as the land and waters. Perhaps it is cyclical, but that does not excuse the actions of humanity that have certainly not helped the situation in any fashion.
Further, the recent "scandal" involving emails at a well-known think tank that deals extensively with the global warming issue may show poor judgment and lack of class among some of the leading proponents that man-made causes are hastening global warming, but it is not yet clear that there is a conspiracy on the global warming front.
Frankly, the issue on both sides boils down to the same thing - politics dictating how the scientific findings are received and interpreted. It should be the other way around but that is not how it is working at the moment. The best solution should be for both sides of the debate to step away from the divisive politics that they have enshrouded themselves within and to work together to come to a consensus that will benefit everyone. Unfortunately, as seen at the recent Copenhagen conference, that seems highly unlikely. Will the fate of both the planet and we humans who exist on it suffer as a result?
Oh, and as alluded to in my title for this post, has anyone noticed how "global warming" has now changed to "climate change"? Frankly, when I think of climate change, I think of the four seasons. But, then again, I tend to think pretty simply about this sort of thing. Of course, the argument for changing the title was some evidence that indicated the earth's temperature has actually not increased over the course of the last decade. The interesting part is that different measuring stations have provided different sets of data so there is no real standard - that fact in and of itself should serve as a warning sign as to whether the earth's temperature is in fact undergoing the changes that the alarmists claim. Or, perhaps that is nothing more than an inconvenient fact. (I wish I had considered how "punny" that is before I actually wrote it.)
On the other side, of course, are those who deny that the earth is warming or claim that, if it is warming, it is due to a normal cyclical pattern of the earth (among other potential causes). Furthermore, they argue, the global warming argument is nothing more than a naked power grab by a certain political faction whose intent is simply to impose their standards upon everyone else. Frankly, just because global warming is a theory does not mean that it may not be true. Indeed, that it is a theory at all is indicative that certain facts lend credence to it. To dismiss it out of hand is the same as ignoring anything that does not conform to a certain point of view. Additionally, to argue that it is cyclical or that it is nothing more than politics dictating how science operates ignores the facts that there is a problem with the pollutants being spewed into the atmosphere as well as the land and waters. Perhaps it is cyclical, but that does not excuse the actions of humanity that have certainly not helped the situation in any fashion.
Further, the recent "scandal" involving emails at a well-known think tank that deals extensively with the global warming issue may show poor judgment and lack of class among some of the leading proponents that man-made causes are hastening global warming, but it is not yet clear that there is a conspiracy on the global warming front.
Frankly, the issue on both sides boils down to the same thing - politics dictating how the scientific findings are received and interpreted. It should be the other way around but that is not how it is working at the moment. The best solution should be for both sides of the debate to step away from the divisive politics that they have enshrouded themselves within and to work together to come to a consensus that will benefit everyone. Unfortunately, as seen at the recent Copenhagen conference, that seems highly unlikely. Will the fate of both the planet and we humans who exist on it suffer as a result?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Maybe I need a Life Coach
Yes, you heard me right. I think I need a life coach. Someone who will essentially be my friend, my mentor, my coach. Someone who will help and encourage me to reach my full potential. Someone that I will have to pay in order to talk with me.
Um, or maybe not...
I heard the term recently on the radio and was thinking to myself, what the heck is a life coach? It sounds like someone whose job it is to essentially be a parent to another who is unable to think, do and act for themselves. Or, put another way, the perfect combination of sycophant to pampered elites who are insecure about themselves and yes-man (or woman) whose job is to confirm that they are doing a good job while still occasionally gently scolding the "student/athlete/child" to remind them that they are not always right and will need the help of a life coach in order to have the fulfilling life they otherwise seem unable to obtain. I guess it is no surprise to find life coaches in places where there are lots of pampered elites like, say, Los Angeles (Hollywood, to be more specific) or New York.
Needless to say, I do not have a life coach. And maybe I should not be so denigrating to those obviously in need of one nor those who have made a career out of being one. But it is hard for a simple person like me to determine the necessity for something like this. It strikes me more as a con than as a legitimate activity, much like the personal fortune-tellers (I'm sure everyone remembers Nancy Reagan and I know there are others) of years past. However, people are in constant need of such reassurance and that is not a fault. But seriously, I thought that is what friends are for. And you don't have to pay your friends.
Um, or maybe not...
I heard the term recently on the radio and was thinking to myself, what the heck is a life coach? It sounds like someone whose job it is to essentially be a parent to another who is unable to think, do and act for themselves. Or, put another way, the perfect combination of sycophant to pampered elites who are insecure about themselves and yes-man (or woman) whose job is to confirm that they are doing a good job while still occasionally gently scolding the "student/athlete/child" to remind them that they are not always right and will need the help of a life coach in order to have the fulfilling life they otherwise seem unable to obtain. I guess it is no surprise to find life coaches in places where there are lots of pampered elites like, say, Los Angeles (Hollywood, to be more specific) or New York.
Needless to say, I do not have a life coach. And maybe I should not be so denigrating to those obviously in need of one nor those who have made a career out of being one. But it is hard for a simple person like me to determine the necessity for something like this. It strikes me more as a con than as a legitimate activity, much like the personal fortune-tellers (I'm sure everyone remembers Nancy Reagan and I know there are others) of years past. However, people are in constant need of such reassurance and that is not a fault. But seriously, I thought that is what friends are for. And you don't have to pay your friends.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Some quick hits
Just a few quick hit thoughts after a long Thanksgiving weekend in the US.
Hugo Chavez is threatening to nationalize banks in Venezuela. Ho hum... What else is new? Nationalize the oil industry! Get rid of the opposition media! Rig the election laws! But don't worry because this will not necessarily impact anyone outside of Venezuela, right? After all, the current US administration is currently in agreement with the Chavez administration regarding the current imbroglio in Honduras (a disputed and unwilling transfer of power that was supported by the elites that legally endorsed the removal of the former president but is alleged to have been an illegal coup by Chavez and his supporters). Come to think of it, when it comes to nationalizing certain industries, perhaps Chavez can learn a few things from his neighbors to the north.
Deferred success is apparently an old idea that continues to make its rounds on the internet. I found the subject being posted again last week and have to admit that I was more than a little disturbed about the subject. Of course, when I tried to follow up and get the whole story (maybe I should be a reporter since I seem more inclined to get the whole story before I just write up some opinion and post it as "fact and news" than a great many "news" organizations - and yes, I use that term loosely), I found that some of the original news sources seemed to be lacking. So I tried again a day or two later and discovered that this story is about 4 years old. Ah, yes, the power of the internet to recycle "news" every so often so that we can all get upset on a regular basis over stories that were resolved long before. Oh, and before I forget, my initial thoughts on "deferred success" - um, no, thank you. Do we need to have equality? Is equality even possible? Heck no! If it were, then I would want to be as beautiful as the people in the movies. That would be fair! But, since that seems highly unlikely, then why can we not recognize that equality is not obtainable in the form that people such as the originator of this harebrained idea might wish and instead offer opportunities that do not discriminate?! To suggest that failure is not an option is ridiculous! In the real world (which is obviously not inhabited by the aforementioned people), failure is not only a possibility but a distinct reality in many cases. But success is rarely instantaneous and often the result of previous failures which have offered the knowledge and experience for said future potential success.
Cancer is a vicious killer that I would not wish on my worst enemy. But recent months have continued to provide hope for those who have been afflicted with this terrible disease. Breast cancer may have some hope with a natural solution. And now the possibility that magnetic discs can attack and break up cancer cells offer more hope. There continues to be a great deal of research and funding poured into potential cures and we can only hope that the cures can be found before more people suffer through this terror.
Hugo Chavez is threatening to nationalize banks in Venezuela. Ho hum... What else is new? Nationalize the oil industry! Get rid of the opposition media! Rig the election laws! But don't worry because this will not necessarily impact anyone outside of Venezuela, right? After all, the current US administration is currently in agreement with the Chavez administration regarding the current imbroglio in Honduras (a disputed and unwilling transfer of power that was supported by the elites that legally endorsed the removal of the former president but is alleged to have been an illegal coup by Chavez and his supporters). Come to think of it, when it comes to nationalizing certain industries, perhaps Chavez can learn a few things from his neighbors to the north.
Deferred success is apparently an old idea that continues to make its rounds on the internet. I found the subject being posted again last week and have to admit that I was more than a little disturbed about the subject. Of course, when I tried to follow up and get the whole story (maybe I should be a reporter since I seem more inclined to get the whole story before I just write up some opinion and post it as "fact and news" than a great many "news" organizations - and yes, I use that term loosely), I found that some of the original news sources seemed to be lacking. So I tried again a day or two later and discovered that this story is about 4 years old. Ah, yes, the power of the internet to recycle "news" every so often so that we can all get upset on a regular basis over stories that were resolved long before. Oh, and before I forget, my initial thoughts on "deferred success" - um, no, thank you. Do we need to have equality? Is equality even possible? Heck no! If it were, then I would want to be as beautiful as the people in the movies. That would be fair! But, since that seems highly unlikely, then why can we not recognize that equality is not obtainable in the form that people such as the originator of this harebrained idea might wish and instead offer opportunities that do not discriminate?! To suggest that failure is not an option is ridiculous! In the real world (which is obviously not inhabited by the aforementioned people), failure is not only a possibility but a distinct reality in many cases. But success is rarely instantaneous and often the result of previous failures which have offered the knowledge and experience for said future potential success.
Cancer is a vicious killer that I would not wish on my worst enemy. But recent months have continued to provide hope for those who have been afflicted with this terrible disease. Breast cancer may have some hope with a natural solution. And now the possibility that magnetic discs can attack and break up cancer cells offer more hope. There continues to be a great deal of research and funding poured into potential cures and we can only hope that the cures can be found before more people suffer through this terror.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)