Self-censorship

In China, many people who write online or in any form of media practice a form of self-censorship in order to keep themselves from trouble with the government.  And Westerners (in particular) often feel compelled to decry this sort of behavior, stressing that it is impinging upon the rights of the individual.  And, in countries that espouse the rights of man within society (rather than society itself), they would likely be right.  However, is the right to free speech as free as its supporters within the West claim?


I suppose that depends upon your definition of "free".  Certainly you are free to say and write whatever you want with little interference from government intrusion.  (Well, ok, I'm sure that Julian Assange would disagree with that assessment.  But then again, in the US, he would likely be tried in a court of law that operates mostly outside of the political spectrum.  In most other countries, if he were tried in a court of law it would be one where the guilty decision would be pre-determined by the political authorities and then either whisked away to prison or to a speedy execution.  And some countries would not even bother with a kangaroo court.  But I digress...)  However, the opportunity and the ability to say and write whatever you wish is tempered by the very same court of law which has rendered things like libel and slander as offenses which can be punished - rightly so!  Furthermore, and this is especially true in an increasingly interconnected world where there can be very little separation between an individual's professional and personal life, there can be very serious consequences to what one says or writes.

There are plenty of examples of people being fired for Facebook or blog posts (this is just one example).  People complaining about their employers or even their friends can result in lost jobs or lost friends - there are always consequences.  So, most people will choose to limit what they say to a degree so as not to encounter potentially negative consequences.  Sure, they have the right to say what they want but most people recognize there are (and, frankly, should be) limits.

So, when criticizing people in China for self-censorship in order to avoid negative political consequences, bear in mind that the same applies in the "free" West - even if not necessarily within the same paradigm.  We all do it to one degree or another even if we don't recognize it in the same fashion.

Now I'm off to someplace very private to go complain about my job...

Random Thoughts

Just dawned on me I had a few other things upon which I wanted to write.  Figures that it would happen after I had already written a mostly useless blog entry already today.  *sigh*

I don't normally follow a lot of blogs.  I obviously pay attention to those from LessThanDot (from a variety of authors - all of whom are very good at what they do and from whom I learn a great deal) and then a few others of friends or the occasional political blog (there is one I still "follow" but I won't list it here because it has become nothing more than a hyper-partisan attack blog from the left - I'll be delisting it soon from my follow list).  However, I have recently come across one blog that actually went back to read from the very beginning.  http://seeingredinchina.wordpress.com/  is written by a Westerner (I'm pretty sure he's American) who is living in China and he offers his experiences there to allow his readers a different view of a nation and people that most Americans (Westerners) may never otherwise see.  I have very much enjoyed reading his point of view because he strives to avoid the common stereotypes of China and instead offers a more nuanced view of the country and its people.  From my own experiences in China, I can easily see the author's point of view and appreciate the ability of someone to see beyond the stereotypes.  It is very enlightening and I highly recommend this blog as an opportunity to learn more about China beyond the news stories that offer little more than generalized stories about the nation and its people.

Over the last couple of days, I've finished two books.  The first was a very positive biography of the Marquis de Lafayette - the hero of the American Revolution.  That is a part of history to which I had heretofore not given a lot of attention and his story has now made me curious to do more learning on that subject.  The second book I found to be very inspiring and is a highly recommended read for those who want a little perspective on their lives.  The Story of My Life by Farah Ahmedi is a wonderful autobiography of a young Afghan girl and the struggles she has gone through - and she is only 17 at the time of the book's publication.  Losing her foot at age 7 as the result of a land mine in her native Afghanistan, she weaves a powerful tale of struggle against incredible odds to not only survive but to move forward with her life.  She talks about her escape from Afghanistan to Pakistan and thence to the United States of America.  Her struggle to deal with her tragic circumstances is both poignant and heart-warming and a reminder of the strength and fragility that we all possess.  The fact that she has triumphed as best she can and yet shares her continued concerns for her future life gives an insight that is rarely found in most stories.  A quick Google search after I finished the book shows that she continues to succeed as she goes to college and presumably has been able to lead a "normal" life that would otherwise have been unavailable to her.  Her story will certainly make me pause and reconsider  the next time I have a bad day at the office or at home.

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.

Random Thoughts (during the holidays?)

Just a couple of things that have come to mind over the last several days. Naturally, none of them actually have to do with the holidays.

This little item about one of our vaunted public servants, convicted of unethical activities, is now asking for donations for his legal defense just made me stop to wonder at the unlimited gall those with power seem to have and the absolute barest regard they seem to have for the voters' intelligence. (Of course, in light of some of the people that have been elected in the US, maybe that regard is not so far-fetched, after all.) Just to make sure I have everything in perspective, a man who is paid a salary by the people that he is voted to represent then squanders the public trust by engaging in unethical activities (whether he meant to or not only causes one to wonder at his actual competence) and now is soliciting further donations from the citizens he purportedly represents to pay for his legal defense. In essence, he's ripping them off twice - at least. I'd be curious to see who actually pays into that fund. I'd bet that they're the same type of people who invest in pyramid schemes and hedge those bets with lottery tickets for retirement.

It's always funny to me how people conveniently forget, or outright ignore, history and its impact on our views of the present. A good example of this is the view of Afghanistan from a recent historical perspective. This was brought home to me when reading an article in Foreign Policy entitled Once Upon a Time in Afghanistan and viewing pictures from there dating to the 50's and 60's. Yet the pictures that we see today are the result of a nation that has essentially suffered through continuous war for more than 30 years - and still no reasonable end is in sight (in spite of President Obama's promises to the contrary). It made me wonder if someone will look at pictures of the United States (or some other highly developed nation from today) 50 years from now and wonder "What the hell happened? This isn't the United States that I know today!" It may not seem immediately conceivable but it is very possible to envision such a scenario. No nation will last forever (history has shown that to be true) and, as will all forms of life on the planet, every nation will evolve through various peaks and valleys as it develops. It's certainly worth thinking about and seeing what can be done today to avoid the mishaps that Afghanistan currently deals with.

Actually, since New Year is coming up very soon, I wonder if I should make a set of resolutions?

Nah, probably not. It's not like I've ever adhered for more than a short time to any other resolution I've made in my many years here. I will just continue with trying to do the best I can at what I do and prepare for anything that comes the way of me and mine. It's worked out ok so far, I suppose...

Writing

I was reading an article for blog writers that suggested that you pick a subject and focus your blog on that in order to encourage people to return to your blog. Obviously, based on that criteria, I am never going to have a "successful" blog. As any regular reader of this blog will already know, this blog goes all over the place. So the only way for me to follow that particular piece of advice is to either find a single topic that interests me more than any other and upon which I am willing write frequently or to create a new blog whenever I want to write upon a new topic. I am a little too ADD to only write upon a single subject ad nauseum within a blog and I am not willing to setup a new blog whenever I want to write upon a new subject as that is way more effort than should be needed IMHO. (Is it ok to use geek-speak in a blog?)

So the question becomes, for me, what is the purpose of writing a blog? And, as I noted in my very first entry, it was (and remains) an opportunity for me to expound on my varied interests. Of equal importance (though not noted in my first entry) is the chance for me to work on the craft of writing in general. I love to write and to think of myself as a writer. But having gone many years without truly working on my writing has caused me to become rusty. So, I write on random things on this blog and on some technical subjects (though, honestly, I think it is more on peripherally subjective topics) on LessThanDot. Either way, my end goal is to offer my own limited perspective on a variety of issues which interest me - both personally and professionally - and enhance my literary skills. And to that end, I must admit that it has helped me to rejuvenate my creative juices and get back to doing writing when I have the time. I've recently returned to writing poetry again (after a layoff of several years due to professional and personal concerns) and even worked on a few short stories. Perhaps other opportunities will be available as a result - at the very least, feedback and open communication will open new avenues for knowledge and friendships and for that I am always grateful.

What is fair?

In politics, there is a great hue and cry about making things fair and equal for everyone. The typical rallying cry is that the rich should be taxed more and we should provide for the poor. This way, everyone is equal it will be more fair. What this fails to take into account, though, is that it is not fair for anyone. It is not fair for the rich, obviously, as they are being treated negatively for no reason other than being rich. (Substitute "black" for "rich" and then see if you can follow the logical path.) And, in reality, it is not fair to the poor who are being disincentivized from succeeding as they feed from the breast of the government and thus will never have the opportunity to succeed (or fail) according to their abilities. Frankly, it does the same thing to the rich who will see little point to working hard when they will fail to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

This is not to argue that everything in life is fair and that everyone has the same opportunities - it is not and they do not. But if the desire is to make everything fair and equal, then it should be more important to create a fair and equal opportunity for everyone to succeed - not to punish people for being professionally and economically successful. Give children the tools they need to learn and to succeed. Give the perpetually disadvantaged the tools they need to achieve success. Those are the ways to grant some degree of an equal playing field upon which there is a degree of fairness. Do not establish policies that take from some and give to others in the name of fairness in the name of trying to establish an equality that cannot exist as propagated.

The reality is that nothing in life is fair. If life were fair, I would be better looking and have a lot more power (beyond that of the pen/keyboard). If life were fair, my family members would not suffer from illness. If life were fair, people would be smart enough to do the things they want in life. If life were fair, everyone would be happy with who they are and what they do. But life is not fair. The difference is with how we want to establish fairness - through the collective work and effort of a community or via governmental diktat? Government has its purpose and can do good (certainly the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's stands as one of the best examples of this), but reliance on government to establish "fair and equal" is not the best option as government (and those who run it) will execute its policies on the basis of its survival. And history has shown that every government will set "fair" policies that help it to stay in power.

Online Relationships

I've been far more involved with technology than I ever thought I would be when I was growing up. Indeed, my career is in IT and I spend my days in front of a computer hacking out code instead of hacking out stories and poetry. But I also have gained a great deal more than just learning how to write code - I have learned from many people I would otherwise have never had the opportunity to meet. Heck, some of them I have still never met and others I will never have the opportunity to do so (RIP DakotaRse).

While I have very good, close friends who I met in real life (the non-virtual world), I have to admit that I also have very good friends whom I met in the virtual world first and then had the pleasure to meet in person subsequently. There is one group with whom I have been particularly close; a group of technical folks with whom I actually help to run a technical web forum (LessThanDot). From these people I have learned not only a great deal about how to do my job better but have also established friendships that I cherish highly. While I would not have considered "online" friends to be real friends, the relationships I have made with these people are as real as any I have made with people I know and see everyday.

Now, whether these relationships would be as good as I consider them to be if I had not actually met many of them in real life (after we first met online) is another issue. The reality is that a relationship can best exist where there is physical proximity and a familiarity built up through such proximity. I know more than a few people only online and consider them to be friendly enough, but those with whom I am closest (either online or offline) are those with whom I have had time to create a truly personal relationship in person. People that I grew up with but live in different parts of the world today are still good friends of mine - even if we only talk rarely. People who I have known online for years may not be at the same level because we haven't had time to develop that personal rapport - something that I think is best done face-to-face.

But this should not viewed as a denigration of online relationships. If anything, many of my online relationships have opened the world to me in a way that would not have been possible in my father's generation. I count among my many online friends people from countries that I will likely never have the opportunity to visit; but their willingness to share their lives gives me an insight otherwise unavailable via conventional media. But should the day come where I have the ability to meet some of them, I will have a good opening from which to continue building those relationships. For that, I am grateful to be of this generation where the miniaturization of the world through our growing interconnectedness makes such relationships possible.

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).

Just random thoughts...

One of the wonderful things about the internet is the ability to learn only what you want to learn - everything else is completely useless trivia if it doesn't conform to your chosen point of view. And when I say "wonderful", I should put tags around it to convey my intended meaning. (Note to self - figure out how to convey sarcasm in a written medium)

I only follow a few blogs; most of them anonymously because I don't want someone going through my profile and attempting to peg me as something based on what I read. (That reminds me to check to see if my local library is cataloging all of my selected materials and then forwarding to the Dept of Homeland Security.) Some of those blogs are political - and all of them are very one-sided in their point of view. That is fine since no one should be taking what is written in blogs as an unbiased account of journalistic excellence. However, on more than one occasion, I have attempted to make comments on those same blogs to point out specific disagreements with stated arguments and the comments never make it past the review process. It seems that, if the comments do not agree with the author's stated points, then the authors will simply not allow them to be posted. Which simply perpetuates the narrow-minded views that increasingly crowd out the more nuanced (and often better informed) views that might help contribute to improve society overall. For the record, any comments made to this blog will not go through a review process but will be posted as they are submitted. The only time I might choose to make a revision/deletion is in the case of obvious trolling or flaming - and even then it would have to be pretty egregious. But simple disagreement with one of my posts does not merit removing someone else's opinion(s). However, this obviously is not the case with others (typically in the political realm) who do not wish to hear dissenting opinions. Too bad as the result is often just continued ignorance.

Switching gears, I have just finished reading Adam Robinson's Bin Laden: Behind the Mask of the Terrorist. As you can see, a wonderfully large picture of America's Public Enemy #1 (behind Saddam Hussein - oh, wait, never mind, he's already been dealt with) is displayed prominently on the front cover of the book. What I have found interesting is that some people, upon seeing the book, have been genuinely interested in both the book and my reasons for reading it (and that is because I happen to like history and the social sciences, not to mention I'd like to better understand how things have happened to this point). Others have given me looks that range from "Are you studying how to be a terrorist" to "I don't want to talk with someone who likes that guy on the cover of your book" to "WTF?!". Usually, I have to deliberately provoke discussions with people to learn and sometimes to help them see alternative points of view. Maybe I should just carry around that book all the time...

Come to think of it, the Department of Homeland Security sounds an awful lot like Orwellian double-speak. Since when did the US become the "homeland". Not to make light of the terrorist threat but I think they feel more threatened by our ideas and the freedom to live as we wish (for the most part - that is certainly not an absolute). To keep the "homeland" secure would require converting people to our way of thinking, not creating new barriers to keep them out and thereby reinforcing their misperceptions. I think I need to go back and do some research into exactly how "homeland security" works and what parameters they work within (or without, as the case may be). I'm betting that my beloved freedoms are not nearly what I think they were before 9/11/01. Of course, as I've noted here before, "freedom" is a relative term. But I won't go there again tonight...

This I Believe

A while back, NPR (National Public Radio for those not familiar with it) ran a series entitled This I Believe. It was a series of essays by people (many of them famous) on what they believed. I've wanted to follow up and write my own essay based on that pattern. Here is my attempt.

This I believe. I believe that I am not a one-dimensional person. I believe that there are no easy answers and no free lunches. I believe that things are no better and no worse than they were in our parents generation - or five generations earlier. The only difference is in what we remember and human nature tends to remembers things from the past in a more positive fashion than the present.

I believe that it is better to give than to receive, whether it be gifts, love or a hard time. I believe that I have to live for today because I do not want to regret yesterday. And when today has not a good day, then I believe that tomorrow will be better. I believe that my friends will be there to help me when I need help but I know that it is my family who will be there to support me no matter what else may be happening. I believe that education will be my greatest ally as I live this life and strive to learn as much as I can. I believe that the more I know, the more I will be able to pass onto my child so that he will be able to do better than I.

I believe that there is a right and a wrong - and that both are relative to who I am and what I believe. I believe that life is a story to which we all contribute and that no one will ever be able to tell it fully - though I want to try. Along that same line, I believe that there is no beginning and no end to the story, merely another point of view.

I believe that we will achieve that which we work hard toward, though perhaps not in the form that we originally envisioned. I believe that we are all the same in the end. I believe that we are more than what others may see us as and not as much as we might see ourselves as. I believe that we are free to make choices as to how we choose to live and what we choose to do. Equally important, I also believe that we are free to suffer the consequences of those choices. But, most importantly, I believe in me and what I can and hope to do in this life.