Billy Joel sang that only the good die young. Perhaps they die young because they have nothing to lose so they are more likely to do things that risk their lives. Those with something to lose are often far less likely to participate in actions that can hurt them, whether it be physically, emotionally, financially, or in any other manner. The reality is that everyone has something to lose - no one is invulnerable. The difference is that older people, or those with families, are typically more cognizant of that fact. And if they recognize what they have to lose, they are far more reticent to change anything that could impact them negatively.
When put in the context of revolution, the contrast is stark. Revolutions are often started by the youth of a nation while their success often depends upon the support of the middle class and some of the elites. Several examples come to mind, including the failed protests in China in 1989, the failed protests in Iran in 1999 and some of the "color revolutions" that occurred in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. A great majority of those who came out to protest their governments were students and other youngsters. In spite of the dangers of crackdowns by the governments they were protesting against which often resulted in beatings, arrests and even death, they came out in the belief that their presence would result in a change that would grant them what they sought. In some cases, their presence resulted in enough pressure that they were soon joined by the middle class who had previously stayed aloof for fear of loss and they would find a leader from one of the elites who sensed an opportunity to ascend higher. In other cases, they suffered disastrous consequences.
But why did they risk themselves in such ventures? The reasons are myriad and sometimes perhaps even conflicting. It would not be a platitude to argue that many of them sought freedom, though that term is subjective and was often interpreted differently by those who risked themselves. One example is China during the spring of 1989, when the students protested against government corruption as well as the ability to be able to do better for themselves. While they enjoyed a great deal of support among the general populace and even among some of the leading elites, their protests were eventually crushed by an apparatus that was unwilling to tolerate any criticism and feared a loss of its unlimited power. It could be argued that the protests did succeed in some small measure as official corruption has become a persistent whipping boy of the government and the great majority of Chinese have seen dramatic increases in their lives in the 20 years - all of which is claimed as a validation of and by the government and its brutal crackdown of those student protesters.
But it is important to note that the protests began among the students, as they have for much of the last century in China. The great majority of citizens, middle-class and elites, held back from participating in the protests until it appeared that there would be no forceful response from the government (which occurred due to disagreements within the government as to how to handle the protesters). That the protests failed was not as important as who led them. The initial risk (which is always the greatest) was assumed almost exclusively by the students. Whether one agreed with the risk - and it can be rather certain that the parents were not happy for their children to risk themselves - the students felt the risk was minimal to themselves. Perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps out of a false sense of bravado, perhaps the naivete of youth that it is invulnerable, the youth were the ones to strike out on the new path. It was for the remainder to determine whether the path upon which they set out had a destination that could be reached.
Each new generation spawns new ideas. The lessons of the past are often left in the past - a past that only the older generations can recall with ease. Much like the story of Pavlov's dogs, if punished for taking a particular action (or for putting their necks on the line), then they are less likely to do it again. But for those with little experience - good or bad - then the lure of taking risks is sometimes too strong to resist. And with great risk can sometimes come great reward. But the opposite corollary holds equally true in that that risk can be realized. One of the definitions of risk is "the hazard or chance of loss" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/risk). To understand risk and loss, each generation must first experience it.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Michael Jackson
I am not sure whether to be appalled or amazed at the hoopla surrounding the death of Michael Jackson. The morbid fascination with a singer - albeit a very famous one - is simply stupefying to me. I have read some of the obituaries written about him and it is clear that he was, among all other things, human and fallible. He had his incredible musical gifts and his personal foibles that made him into the media target that he had become in the last half of his life. Prior to his death, it seemed that as many people admired and loved him for his music and talent as despised and hated him for his personal failings. Yet, in the aftermath of his sudden (we could say premature, but that would suppose a level of knowledge that he should have died at some later point in time that is impossible to prove) death, he has returned to his status as a musical giant whose legacy outshines all else in his life. He is being worshiped and remembered as he was at the height of his fame and not as he was in his later years.
This is not to say that we should speak ill of the dead, but the level of celebrity worship is worrying at best, dangerous at worst. Celebrity status is highly sought after with the (mistaken) belief that its very attainment is a justification of sorts for the methods employed to gain it. Additionally, it almost seems as celebrity status confers a knowledge of almost any subject and the ability to speak to said subjects with an authority normally reserved for those with years of study and education. It is a sad state of affairs when well-known actors or actresses are asked to serve as "ambassadors" for UN agencies in order to generate attention for the cause du jour instead of allowing people whose livelihoods are helping others serve in similar capacities. After all, who wants to hire John or Jane Smith to serve as an "ambassador" for [insert generic] relief agency when they can hire Johnny or Jenny Millionaire actor?
This does not mean that celebrities are not allowed an opinion or to help on causes that are important to them but that celebrity status should not make them more important than others. Nor should celebrity (and its attendant - and sometimes unwanted - attention) detract from other more important (another subjective term, to be sure) issues. The protests and crackdown in Iran, which was a major event in the world news, was quickly replaced by Michael Jackson's death. Subsequent events in Iran have been relegated to "below the fold", under the continuing mass coverage of Jackson's death and any related issues. And that is just one issue. The US economy and its continued free fall, a major military offensive by US troops in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of US troops from Iraqi cities have all been relegated to the back pages to satiate the public's thirst for knowledge of everything related to Michael Jackson.
But he is one man. Certainly a man who had a great impact on the world through his music (I remember where I was when his "Thriller" video was first released), but one man nonetheless. Yet the public is more concerned over the minutiae of his death than with events throughout the world that hold more sway over their daily lives. The devoted attention of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people at the expense of many other issues could be written off as curiosity run amok, a one-time event. Yet recent history and its fascination with all celebrities would indicate that this is a trend that continues to roll on - very possibly to the peril of all and not just to the obsessed fans.
I wonder if the thousands arrested and likely being persecuted in Iran feel as concerned about the death of Michael Jackson as those who have followed his death for the last week or so. Somehow, I doubt it...
This is not to say that we should speak ill of the dead, but the level of celebrity worship is worrying at best, dangerous at worst. Celebrity status is highly sought after with the (mistaken) belief that its very attainment is a justification of sorts for the methods employed to gain it. Additionally, it almost seems as celebrity status confers a knowledge of almost any subject and the ability to speak to said subjects with an authority normally reserved for those with years of study and education. It is a sad state of affairs when well-known actors or actresses are asked to serve as "ambassadors" for UN agencies in order to generate attention for the cause du jour instead of allowing people whose livelihoods are helping others serve in similar capacities. After all, who wants to hire John or Jane Smith to serve as an "ambassador" for [insert generic] relief agency when they can hire Johnny or Jenny Millionaire actor?
This does not mean that celebrities are not allowed an opinion or to help on causes that are important to them but that celebrity status should not make them more important than others. Nor should celebrity (and its attendant - and sometimes unwanted - attention) detract from other more important (another subjective term, to be sure) issues. The protests and crackdown in Iran, which was a major event in the world news, was quickly replaced by Michael Jackson's death. Subsequent events in Iran have been relegated to "below the fold", under the continuing mass coverage of Jackson's death and any related issues. And that is just one issue. The US economy and its continued free fall, a major military offensive by US troops in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of US troops from Iraqi cities have all been relegated to the back pages to satiate the public's thirst for knowledge of everything related to Michael Jackson.
But he is one man. Certainly a man who had a great impact on the world through his music (I remember where I was when his "Thriller" video was first released), but one man nonetheless. Yet the public is more concerned over the minutiae of his death than with events throughout the world that hold more sway over their daily lives. The devoted attention of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people at the expense of many other issues could be written off as curiosity run amok, a one-time event. Yet recent history and its fascination with all celebrities would indicate that this is a trend that continues to roll on - very possibly to the peril of all and not just to the obsessed fans.
I wonder if the thousands arrested and likely being persecuted in Iran feel as concerned about the death of Michael Jackson as those who have followed his death for the last week or so. Somehow, I doubt it...
Friday, July 3, 2009
A day at the beach
A day at the beach crabbing is an exercise in futility. Crabbing is the process of fishing for crabs or, more simply, just like fishing. It is an exercise in patience and persistence with an undetermined end that can be either exhilarating or exasperating. Ultimately, its reward is not so much the end result but the process itself - or so I am told. While I cannot profess to be a fisherman nor to enjoy its alleged benefits, I am not blind to some of the things that are a result.
Fishing is an opportunity to talk with others who share the same passion. Stories are passed along, tips are freely offered and accepted on the best ways to accomplish the task at hand and drinks (typically alcoholic) are consumed with great gusto. This is an opportunity to share and partake of large event that would not be available in most other settings. There is a personality to those who enjoy fishing that is refreshing in a world otherwise locked within itself or its immediate surroundings. People with whom there is otherwise nothing in common giving and taking is very reassuring. There is a diversity that does not seem to percolate very far beyond those piers but, on those piers, everyone is equal and that is refreshing in a world where equality seems to be a quaint dream otherwise yet to be realized.
Fishing is an opportunity to talk with others who share the same passion. Stories are passed along, tips are freely offered and accepted on the best ways to accomplish the task at hand and drinks (typically alcoholic) are consumed with great gusto. This is an opportunity to share and partake of large event that would not be available in most other settings. There is a personality to those who enjoy fishing that is refreshing in a world otherwise locked within itself or its immediate surroundings. People with whom there is otherwise nothing in common giving and taking is very reassuring. There is a diversity that does not seem to percolate very far beyond those piers but, on those piers, everyone is equal and that is refreshing in a world where equality seems to be a quaint dream otherwise yet to be realized.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A turning point in Iran?
To this point, I have not posted links to other sites here on this blog nor am I certain if I will in the future. But I am sorely tempted to post what has become perhaps the signature moment of the recent turmoil in Iran - a video of a young woman who was allegedly shot by the Iranian security forces dying. I have seen the video and it is very disturbing, to put it mildly. Even in the generation of the gratuitous violence freely available through our many media outlets, this video is chilling. In the video, you can see the woman falling down and others rushing to her side (including, allegedly, her father). There is blood on the ground surrounding her and it continues to pool around her chest area - she was apparently shot in the heart. Then, blood starts pouring out of her facial orifices, until her young face is changed into a grotesquely bloody visage reminiscent of a horrifying Halloween mask. Men surround her in a futile attempt to save her.
Her death is clearly haunting the Iranian leadership. Her family was allowed to bury her quietly and have been told that there are to be no public remembrances. The implication is clear - her death can all too easily become a rallying cry. Despite government attempts to prevent it, the video is available in Iran and protesters who have spent the last week demonstrating for what they feel was a rigged election will soon demand justice from their government for the unnecessary murder of one of their countrymen/women. What has been a series of protests focused on the election results that were worrying for the leadership but perhaps not truly threatening could become the death knell for the Islamic Revolution. The government may well survive, but it is unlikely that it will enjoy the same legitimacy that it has since its inception under Ayatollah Khomeini 30 years ago. If it does not, then the cause will be one of its own making.
Her death is clearly haunting the Iranian leadership. Her family was allowed to bury her quietly and have been told that there are to be no public remembrances. The implication is clear - her death can all too easily become a rallying cry. Despite government attempts to prevent it, the video is available in Iran and protesters who have spent the last week demonstrating for what they feel was a rigged election will soon demand justice from their government for the unnecessary murder of one of their countrymen/women. What has been a series of protests focused on the election results that were worrying for the leadership but perhaps not truly threatening could become the death knell for the Islamic Revolution. The government may well survive, but it is unlikely that it will enjoy the same legitimacy that it has since its inception under Ayatollah Khomeini 30 years ago. If it does not, then the cause will be one of its own making.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Father's Day
In the US, tomorrow is Father's Day. A day to celebrate the men who are fathers. And a father is not necessarily the man who can physically create a child but the one who can take on the role of a father and be the role model and the guide for his children. To be a father, much like being a mother, is not a mantle that can be taken off at times where it may be inconvenient or to take on only when it suits him. It is a role that, once assumed, will last for the rest of his life. It does not demand perfection, it requires perseverance. It does not require money or a certain physique, it needs time, patience and understanding. It is the most demanding effort that will ever be required of a man and the most rewarding - often at the same time. The more that is put into being a father, the more that will be reaped - though not always in the most obvious ways.
A good father is not just the one who carries pictures of his children everywhere to show to others. A good father is not just the one who plays games with his children when he gets off of work. A good father is not just the one who is rubbing his children's foreheads when they're ill. A good father is the one who knows that he is the one who is setting an example for what he wants his children to do and to be when they grow up. A good father knows that there is never a timeout in setting an example, only when he must apply one for bad behavior by his children. A good father can be a friend to his children but it does not prevent him from having to impose discipline when needed. A good father knows that he must be all things good at all times and any mistakes and failures must be addressed as quickly as possible.
Given these criteria, a good father is hard to find. But aspiring to be a good father is perhaps the most important thing of all. And fathers everywhere reap the rewards today of their efforts to be good fathers.
A good father is not just the one who carries pictures of his children everywhere to show to others. A good father is not just the one who plays games with his children when he gets off of work. A good father is not just the one who is rubbing his children's foreheads when they're ill. A good father is the one who knows that he is the one who is setting an example for what he wants his children to do and to be when they grow up. A good father knows that there is never a timeout in setting an example, only when he must apply one for bad behavior by his children. A good father can be a friend to his children but it does not prevent him from having to impose discipline when needed. A good father knows that he must be all things good at all times and any mistakes and failures must be addressed as quickly as possible.
Given these criteria, a good father is hard to find. But aspiring to be a good father is perhaps the most important thing of all. And fathers everywhere reap the rewards today of their efforts to be good fathers.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Writer's block?
Barely a week into the effort to work on a blog and I hit a writer's block. Or perhaps that is a misnomer. I can think of plenty of things about which to write, but the issue is more related to whether I can write well about them. This is particularly troublesome because I have to be able to not only write on whatever subjects are at hand but I also want to be sure that they're written well with no grammar or factual errors. On more than one occasion, I have posted something only to have to go back and then edit out the grammatical errors. And I only have four posts prior to this one! Perhaps if I had an editor, this would not be an issue - or at least not as much of one. But, then again, if I had an editor, I probably would be compensated for the things I write. That, however, is something to which I will have to aspire for the future. Perhaps when I retire from my current career - not a career based on writing, unfortunately.
Tomorrow I may feel more inclined to editorialize on the other issues randomly floating through my mind at the moment. Or not...
Tomorrow I may feel more inclined to editorialize on the other issues randomly floating through my mind at the moment. Or not...
Monday, June 15, 2009
Another revolution?
Like many others, I am sure, I have been thinking about the recent presidential election in Iran. More precisely, and unlike many others, I have been comparing it to elections in the US. Most precisely, to the 2000 election as well as to the 1876 election.
In the 2000 election, there were disputes as to the votes that were tallied and the battle went to the (relatively) impartial US Supreme Court - where the end result was the elevation of George W. Bush to the presidency. There is no independent judiciary in Iran that can be used to resolve this issue - the closest is the Guardian Council which will have to confirm the election results (normally a pro forma process). The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, after initially accepting that Ahmadinejad, has now ordered an investigation by the Guardian Council into possible (and that term is used somewhat loosely at this point) election fraud. While many think it is simply a delaying ploy to temper down the protests by Mousavi supporters, it is possible that they will invalidate the results and... do what? Have a new election? Declare Mousavi the winner? Declare that Ahmadinejad won but by a closer margin? Or simply validate the results? In the end, it seems like very little will be gained by whatever the Guardian Council decides. In truth, it seems that the protests will likely continue (until what?) or they will be brutally put down by supporters of the current administration (the military and para-military forces).
However, an option that seems more likely in Iran can be pulled from the 1876 election. In that election, Rutherford B. Hayes is commonly thought to have worked out an agreement with some Democrats that would allow him to be elected in return for removing Republican troops (and thus control) over several southern states - a move that, in reality, stopped the progress of blacks that had been instituted after the Civil War. This would probably be the most face-saving move that would work in Iran, as well. Mousavi, for all of the moderate tendencies he has attributed to him (rightly or wrongly), is still a member of the conservative elite in the country and may well concede the election if granted certain wishes. He could then move to calm down his supporters which would allow for the leadership to continue as is. The only question is, if such a deal is struck, would the supporters who have protested in his name for the past several days return to their previous lives or consider it another betrayal and continue with the mass demonstrations that have rocked the nation? Just because the system worked in the US (ignoring the long-term effects, the nation stayed together and there was no systemic failure) does not ensure that it would work in Iran. But it could potentially be the lesser of several evils in the eyes of the Iranian leadership.
In the 2000 election, there were disputes as to the votes that were tallied and the battle went to the (relatively) impartial US Supreme Court - where the end result was the elevation of George W. Bush to the presidency. There is no independent judiciary in Iran that can be used to resolve this issue - the closest is the Guardian Council which will have to confirm the election results (normally a pro forma process). The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, after initially accepting that Ahmadinejad, has now ordered an investigation by the Guardian Council into possible (and that term is used somewhat loosely at this point) election fraud. While many think it is simply a delaying ploy to temper down the protests by Mousavi supporters, it is possible that they will invalidate the results and... do what? Have a new election? Declare Mousavi the winner? Declare that Ahmadinejad won but by a closer margin? Or simply validate the results? In the end, it seems like very little will be gained by whatever the Guardian Council decides. In truth, it seems that the protests will likely continue (until what?) or they will be brutally put down by supporters of the current administration (the military and para-military forces).
However, an option that seems more likely in Iran can be pulled from the 1876 election. In that election, Rutherford B. Hayes is commonly thought to have worked out an agreement with some Democrats that would allow him to be elected in return for removing Republican troops (and thus control) over several southern states - a move that, in reality, stopped the progress of blacks that had been instituted after the Civil War. This would probably be the most face-saving move that would work in Iran, as well. Mousavi, for all of the moderate tendencies he has attributed to him (rightly or wrongly), is still a member of the conservative elite in the country and may well concede the election if granted certain wishes. He could then move to calm down his supporters which would allow for the leadership to continue as is. The only question is, if such a deal is struck, would the supporters who have protested in his name for the past several days return to their previous lives or consider it another betrayal and continue with the mass demonstrations that have rocked the nation? Just because the system worked in the US (ignoring the long-term effects, the nation stayed together and there was no systemic failure) does not ensure that it would work in Iran. But it could potentially be the lesser of several evils in the eyes of the Iranian leadership.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Purpose of government?
What is the purpose of government? Is it to to provide for security and national defence? Is it to provide a social safety net for those who are unable to do for themselves? Is it to ensure equality for all? I am sure there are many other interpretations for the purpose of government that are not listed here but probably are felt by many others.
There are those who feel that government is a necessary evil which should be limited to only a very few specific purposes and should otherwise allow people to live as best they can. After all, government is such an over-arching figure with no other peer (aside from other governments) that it is very powerful by its very definition. Limiting its power ensures that the rights and liberties and its citizens shall never be infringed upon. This belief assumes that government, granted more power, will eventually fall into the habit of exercising its power - often at the expense of its citizens.
Others feel that the role of government is to help provide for its citizens. After all, the world is Darwinian in nature and someone should be able to help those less fortunate fend off the predators. If wealth is a guarantee of the right to do as one wants, it also can lend itself to the feeling of being able to coerce the less wealthy into doing as the wealthy wants. It can also engender a perpetuation of the haves versus the have-nots. The only way to ensure some sense of parity is to have a government that will ensure fairness for all regardless of circumstance. This belief assumes that government will always be benevolent and operate with the best (which is a rather subjective description) interest of its citizens at the forefront of its decisions.
Frankly, both of the preceding views are right but the world does not operate in such a black and white manner. Therefore, the best (there's that subjective term again!) solution is one that operates somewhere in between. No one will be happy all of the time with everything done by government but compromise between opposing points of view is necessary.
There are those who feel that government is a necessary evil which should be limited to only a very few specific purposes and should otherwise allow people to live as best they can. After all, government is such an over-arching figure with no other peer (aside from other governments) that it is very powerful by its very definition. Limiting its power ensures that the rights and liberties and its citizens shall never be infringed upon. This belief assumes that government, granted more power, will eventually fall into the habit of exercising its power - often at the expense of its citizens.
Others feel that the role of government is to help provide for its citizens. After all, the world is Darwinian in nature and someone should be able to help those less fortunate fend off the predators. If wealth is a guarantee of the right to do as one wants, it also can lend itself to the feeling of being able to coerce the less wealthy into doing as the wealthy wants. It can also engender a perpetuation of the haves versus the have-nots. The only way to ensure some sense of parity is to have a government that will ensure fairness for all regardless of circumstance. This belief assumes that government will always be benevolent and operate with the best (which is a rather subjective description) interest of its citizens at the forefront of its decisions.
Frankly, both of the preceding views are right but the world does not operate in such a black and white manner. Therefore, the best (there's that subjective term again!) solution is one that operates somewhere in between. No one will be happy all of the time with everything done by government but compromise between opposing points of view is necessary.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Political supporters
One of the nice things about random thoughts is that they're, well, random. They can come from anything that happens into my mind from any given (usually news) source. Or even just the occasional musings that many of us (and myself especially, it seems) are prone to on occasion.
Tomorrow are the presidential elections in Iran - formerly known as Persia. A contest that was originally felt to be a given to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected has now seemingly turned into a very tight contest between him and Mir Hossein Mousavi, the "reformist" candidate. Many people have already commented on a comparison of supporters of Mousavi and the campaign of President Obama in the US. But an equally interesting comparison would be between the supporters of Ahmadinejad and former President George W. Bush. Those supporters tend to be older, conservative, less inclined to social change and more overtly religious. In an era of international upheaval, much of it centered on religion, it does seem interesting that two very polarizing figures supporters - who would otherwise be polar opposites - seem to have a great deal in common.
Tomorrow are the presidential elections in Iran - formerly known as Persia. A contest that was originally felt to be a given to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected has now seemingly turned into a very tight contest between him and Mir Hossein Mousavi, the "reformist" candidate. Many people have already commented on a comparison of supporters of Mousavi and the campaign of President Obama in the US. But an equally interesting comparison would be between the supporters of Ahmadinejad and former President George W. Bush. Those supporters tend to be older, conservative, less inclined to social change and more overtly religious. In an era of international upheaval, much of it centered on religion, it does seem interesting that two very polarizing figures supporters - who would otherwise be polar opposites - seem to have a great deal in common.
Day 1
What is the purpose of a blog?
To write down whatever may pop into my head at any given moment. And since far too many things pop into my head at far too many (usually inconvenient) moments, this may be a bit of a challenge. Or not. I suspect it will require attention as best I can devote so we'll see how things go. In the meantime, let the good times roll.
Things to expect for those (few) who choose to read, thoughts on some of my favorite topics which include, but are not limited to (and listed in no specific order), some of the following:
politics
international relations
society and culture
religion
technology
philosophy
books and music
Star Wars
To write down whatever may pop into my head at any given moment. And since far too many things pop into my head at far too many (usually inconvenient) moments, this may be a bit of a challenge. Or not. I suspect it will require attention as best I can devote so we'll see how things go. In the meantime, let the good times roll.
Things to expect for those (few) who choose to read, thoughts on some of my favorite topics which include, but are not limited to (and listed in no specific order), some of the following:
politics
international relations
society and culture
religion
technology
philosophy
books and music
Star Wars
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)