Communism revived?

I have friends on both sides of the political fence. My tendency is to automatically take an opposing point of view when discussing politics. Not sure if it is because I just like to argue or I just like to annoy people or, as I will often argue, I just like to be able to rationally discuss an issue from different viewpoints. Well, ok, "rationally" may be overstating it but I try.

In recent months, a recurring subject (oddly enough) has been the benefits of communism. Twenty years after the fall of communism, there seems to be a growing legion of people who feel that communism still has its benefits - it simply was not done correctly in the locations where it was practiced (and failed). I find this belief rather mystifying.

I suppose it is possible, from a certain point of view with limiting blinders, to argue that communism has a positive benefit. Its official definition from Dictionary.com:

a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

And that is the most benign version. So, under that premise, private ownership is banned and everything belongs to society as a whole. Of course, society, as communism was previously practiced, was a relative term meaning a certain group of elites. And therein lies the problem with communism. What defines society? And does human nature allow for the communal sharing of all assets and property? In terms of national governance, history has shown that the answers are "the established elites" or "the revolutionary leadership" and "no".

People want to do better for themselves and their families. The incentive to improve their standing in life is predicated upon the ability to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Strip away from them those fruits and the incentive to do well is significantly reduced. Sure, there will always be some who are willing to work for the benefit of society overall (and I suspect those who argue for the benefits of communism are the same altruistic ones) but the tendency to look out for oneself is heavily imbued into human nature. (Of course, it is then worth discussing whether this is a natural human trait or taught through learned behavior, but that is another issue that is external to the more immediate issue of whether communism can actually work.)

A household may be able to practice communism because all assets are held in the family name and the family may share in them equally. Of course, the decision of how those assets are distributed typically will be made by the adults of the household - the elites who are most qualified to make those decisions. In society in general, the same would apply. It is not "society" - as a fully representative entity - that makes those decisions, it is the elites who make those decisions for the rest of society. What inevitably results is an authoritarian form of governance - the more recognized form of communism in practice.

What is perhaps more telling regarding communism is the reaction of those who have lived in communist (read: authoritarian) states when this discussion is raised. While it is obviously not universal - those who were among the elites in communist society will not see the problems with its practice - the feelings among the great majority are against it. Those who were not allowed the opportunity to possess personal property under that economic form (but then allowed to earn it elsewhere) apparently seem to recognize the basic point that the people best able to make the choices for how to earn and spend one's keep is not a formless "society" but the individuals themselves.

The best society is one that is governed by the rights of the individuals to make their own choices, not "society" to make the choices that it deems best. As the saying goes: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

From the top of my head...

Some random musings...

- As previously mentioned on this blog, I want to continue to point out where the web needs an editor. On one of the Foreign Policy blogs (yes, I know it's a blog which technically shouldn't fit my criteria for editing issues but does because it is on the site of a major magazine in the US), one writer wanted to discuss unfair things but instead wrote of the flightless bird commonly associated with dinner table. On her blog, Elizabeth Dickinson wrote And other skeptics cried fowl. Personally, I'm calling foul on this post. Sure, it's easy enough to make a mistake like this but surely one of the editors on the site would have caught it and remedied this phrase before it went to production but apparently not. (I should caveat that my citation here is not intended to impinge upon the subject of her post, only the grammar used within.)

I will not even go into several recent sightings of the word "site" when referencing a citation (cite) of someone else. But no need to worry, when I cite another site with an issue, I will always endeavor to make it plainly clear the site I wish to cite. Come to think of it, that last sentence is really hurting my sight.

- News comes today that Iraq's MP's have agreed upon needed election reforms for the upcoming election in January of 2010. This will hopefully ensure that the continuing project in democracy for the nation will proceed along the lines originally envisioned upon the embarkation of US forces in the country in 2003. This does not mean that invasion of Iraq was justified at the time, merely that hopefully this will allow for the best of a bad situation that should never have been. Now, if only the recently botched elections in Afghanistan would allow for such a hopeful ending. Alas, the greater likelihood is that the Obama administration has hitched its horse to a cart that is unlikely to follow it to where it wants to go. Perhaps it is worth considering whether the US and the UN should have been more concerned about establishing a nation with real security and opportunity than elections that may not stand without that same security and opportunity for its citizens. This is not to denigrate elections, merely that elections in Afghanistan are about as useful as elections in Somalia.

- It's interesting how the first thing that everyone wanted to know was if the shooter at Ft. Hood earlier this week was Muslim. There were conflicting stories early on about his religious affiliation and, to date, no confirmation on a reason for the massacre in the first place. But that certainly has not stopped anyone in the mainstream media (or any number of blogs) from constantly mentioning that the shooter just happens to be a Muslim. Sure, there is a current war involving Islamic extremists but constantly harping on the fact that the perpetrator of a massacre on a military base is a Muslim without supporting evidence that the motive behind his crime was his religion only serves to inflame public opinion. It may well be that the shooter was motivated by his religious convictions but to surmise without factual evidence is nothing more than poor journalism.

- I had heard a reference to this earlier and thought it must be the sign of someone who was either completely insane or someone who seriously was in love with authoritarian communism. Turns out that I was wrong on both counts. Though, in view of the argument put forth by the South Korean government, legal troubles in one country are always a popular excuse to defect to another nation. (I'm sure that Roman Polanski can sympathize.) And while the North Koreans are publicly celebrating anyone defecting to their nation, it stands to reason that it won't be long before Mr. Kang is wishing he were in a South Korean jail versus anywhere in the north.

Narrow-minded opinions

There's a rather crude saying about opinions that I'll paraphrase here: Opinions are like butts; everyone's got one.

And, quite frankly, an opinion is simply a point of view. The problem is that some opinions are more important than others. Or, to paraphrase Orwell (I seem to be doing a lot of paraphrasing today), some animals are more equal than others. In a world that celebrates celebrity (no small amount of alliteration there) like never before, it would seem that the opinions of those with celebrity hold an undue amount of sway over those who seem unwilling to form their own opinions independently. Careful thought and consideration are immediately tossed out of the window the moment some actor, singer or talking head begins to bloviate on any given subject. And, let's face it, in an era where there is no dearth of celebrities who are willing to offer their thoughts and no dearth of places where they can do so, the cycle tends to feed upon itself.

If you don't like the president, then you can listen to the pompous blowhards parading on various media outlets screaming about how he is a socialist who is destroying the moral fabric of the nation. If you don't like the opposition, there is no less a number of opinions being propagated by arrogant elitists about the hypocritical moralists who are nothing more than facist racists. And that is just the two main political points of view. There is a variety of others in between and on both sides of these two. There are also a great deal of opinions on other subjects - religion, history (which is, of course, being constantly revised and rewritten), race and ethics among others.

But what happened to learning about the subject material and then applying critical thought to come to a reasonable belief? What happened to compromise and taking moderate positions that could be discussed rationally? We do not have to blindly follow the opinions and beliefs of a select few (celebrities). We do not have to subscribe to extremist points of view (on any subject) because that is the only information being provided to those who scream their opinions the loudest. We do not all have to agree with each other, only to recognize that we all have different opinions and that we can agree to be civil and respectful of each other's opinions.

Besides, in the age of instant gratification and information, we need only take the few minutes necessary to learn what we can on any subject and then form rational, cogent opinions that can be used to formulate relationships and policies that can be for the benefit of all.

Now I'm off to read the DailyKOS and hear what Rush had to say today...

The web needs an editor

Things like this drive me absolutely crazy!

A spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare's Golden Rule said 89 percent of the people who apply for insurance get it. Ellen Laden, the company's public relations director, told 7NEWS that most insurers have their own propriety height and weight guidelines.

Most insurers have their own propriety height and weight guidelines?! Really?! I could believe that most insurers have their own proprietary height and weight guidelines. But propriety? Come on! Sadly enough, this is not a one-off occurrence, either. No, I find issues like this on almost every site that I go to.

And I'm not even talking about blogs or other non-professional sites where anyone can write whatever they want without it having to go through an editorial process. Heck, anyone can make a spelling error or grammatical mistake without it raising a fit. No, what bothers me is that these are news-related or other "professional" (yeah, you'd better believe that term goes in quotations!) sites that print things without it seeming to have gone through even a single proof-reading by someone with even a basic level of experience in the usage of English grammar. I see it on CNN, FoxNews, BBC, ForeignPolicy and others. For those sites in countries where English is not a native language, I can cut some slack because translations are a difficult thing. (Heck, I speak two languages conversationally and a third if I brush up on it. I know how difficult it is trying to find the right translations to get the right idea across, let alone spelling and grammar.)

But I am talking about sites where I would expect someone to be vetting the stories being posted for some degree of basic grammatical capability that does not otherwise slaughter the language. It annoys me to no end to see those errors. Until now, I've tried not to post anything but this one just set me off. It's not even a simple misspelling, it's a wrong word! The word used makes no sense whatsoever in that context! And no one picked up on that before posting it for the world to laugh at them?! But I'm going to make a more conscious effort to point these out in the hopes that someone is paying attention. Heck, maybe I can land a part-time job helping professional organizations with copy-editing. Clearly more than a few are in need of it.

Or maybe I'm the only one who has picked up on it? In which case, the Twitterification of the language is making me obsolete. After all, hoo needs 2 lrn how 2 spel 2day whn u cn only use 140 chars?

Thinking...

In a world where everyone demands immediate satisfaction and sustained thought on a single subject seems to be an anachronism, it is enough to wonder if we are losing our ability to further increase our knowledge without the use of technological tools. In an era where information is no further away than the nearest wi-fi connection and opinions are increasingly being substituted for facts, it is enough to wonder if we are actually increasing the boundaries of our knowledge or if we are content with what we already know and possess and simply going through the paces of expanding our learning.

The internet has been a wonderful invention in many regards. It has increased the speed with which information can be shared and created a much larger audience for that information. It has shrunk the world to a dimension heretofore unknown in human history and reduced the importance of national boundaries in almost every way imaginable. It has granted us a sense of independence from leaders who would alter the truth to a limited point of view. But it also has negative aspects. The speed with which information can be shared has reduced the opportunity for confirming that the information is correct or valid, thereby increasing the possibility of incorrect information being spread which could potentially have very negative consequences. Events that previously may have been limited to a single location and whose impact might have only been local or even regional are now spread around the world, increasing the damage that can be done to those involved. It has also imposed upon us a sense of dependence for information that would otherwise be impossible to obtain. Finally, it has reduced the power of logical, rational and coherent thought to something that must be compressed into 140 characters or a three minute YouTube video.

It is the loss of actual thinking that is most worrisome. It is easy to put up a blog entry on the internet on most any subject in 10 minutes. There are no limits and no boundaries on the subject material. Likewise, there are no constraints on accuracy, truth or facts. While there are a great many blogs that cover subjects such as the state of affairs in many authoritarian nations, climate change, political and economic corruption, new scientific theories, technology or cultural exchanges of ideas, there are an equal number - if not greater - of subjects that cover reality tv shows, conspiracy theories, favorite pets, bogus or disproven scientific theories or the underlying meaning behind the movie "The Matrix". The overwhelming amount of information that must be waded through, particularly when trying to perform actual research related to educational or reporting endeavors, makes it increasingly difficult to provide a valid analysis of the subject. There is very little that a few keywords entered into Google or Bing cannot return a multitude of potential results which must then be sifted through. Indeed, the sheer mountain of potential information available means that the amount of time devoted to actual thinking is reduced in order to sift through relevant material. And the reduced thinking will lead to either incorrect assumptions or the inability to see new possibilities - neither of which bodes well for the intended purpose in particular nor society as a general whole.

Frankly, it is worrying that American society, which was created from the independent thinking and creativity of men who sought a different way of life from that which existed prior and up to their time, now seems to spend its time under the dangerous belief that it has reached - and even is - the pinnacle of its existence. While America has achieved a great deal in a remarkable span of several hundred years, there is still a great deal that can and should be achieved. But to attain those new levels, we must start to think again and focus on that which is important.

Of course, you should take what I say with a grain of salt. After all, I am just a guy writing a blog entry...

Some random thoughts

Just a couple of quick hit thoughts for the day.

It appears that one loser wants to buy another loser. Gosh, what else is there to say? I guess everyone has the right to their opinions but since when did one man's opinions seem to serve as the platform of a political party instead of serving to support the platform of the party? And come to think of it, if the bid is successful, does that mean that the team will be kept in St. Louis instead of moving to Los Angeles (as seems to be the rampant belief these days)? But, in the habit of trying to keep a moderate opinion that is balanced on both sides of the fence, I have a similar amount of respect for plagiarists and mean-spirited comedians/radio hosts/politicians (though, thinking about it, is there really that much of a difference between the two - other than the official titles, I mean).

So the president goes to make a pitch for the Olympics and ends up with egg on his face when not only is Chicago denied, but it is the first to be knocked out of the voting. For a man who got elected through his ability to convince people to believe as he wants, it does not make him look very good. Frankly, the move was a lose-lose situation. By going, he takes attention away from other, more pressing issues (say, like health-care reform or the war in Afghanistan) and, by losing the bid, he opens up a new avenue of potential criticism at home. And it did not take long for the criticism to start by many of his Republican opponents who have been desperately looking for any reason to find fault with his actions. While his actions may not have been the best use of his efforts - not to mention his political capital and star power - some of the critics who were openly boasting that the president was a failure or happy with the loss have opened themselves to questions of their own actions. After all, the loss is a loss for the country as a whole, not just Chicago and certainly not just President Obama. (Seriously, who would not want to see the Olympics hosted in the US?) Somehow, I'd be willing to bet that had it been former President Bush (43), some of those current critics would be singing a far different tune. Or, more precisely, the position of the Democrats and Republicans would be reversed. It seems that public service is increasingly being determined as service only in the name of a political ideology instead of the good of the citizenry and the nation. Compromise is not a dirty word.

Finally, what is the reasoning behind President Obama's decision to not meet with the Dalai Lama when he visits the US this week? Instead, any official meeting will be put off until after he goes to China in November. Come to think of it, this probably should not be so surprising since it is not the first time he's been unable to meet with the Tibetan spiritual leader. I guess this means, quite obviously, that the reasoning is entirely political and is serving only to try to ingratiate himself with the Chinese government - the same government that has blasted the Dalai Lama as a "splittist" who is trying to break Tibet away from China. Or, to look at it another way, after angering Chinese officials with his recent tariffs on Chinese-made tires, he's now hoping to make amends by not meeting with the Dalai Lama. The problem with this action is that it reduces the credibility he (and the government and nation he represents) possesses as the leader of a free and open nation with respect for human rights. Certainly, it can be argued that the US has always acted in its own self-interest and human rights is secondary, but the reality is that many people throughout the world look to the US as the land of freedom and opportunity. Tarnished that belief may now be after the last 10 years or so, but it is an enduring image that will only suffer further indignities by this slight against a man that many view as a symbol of peace and hope. Additionally, even if he meets the Dalai Lama at a later date, the Chinese government will still be furious as it does not view any official meetings between the Dalai Lama and other international leaders with favor. So, any possible gains are short-term and tenuous at best.

A lazy post

Writing is enjoyable. The ability to string together a cacophony of words and phrases into beautiful sentences and paragraphs that others may have the opportunity to enjoy is a wondrous thing. It requires only the coherent grammar and spelling (let's face it, "I want two sea if their will bee an error" has no actual mis-spellings so relying on spell-check would be useless) along with interesting subjects upon which to write. And in spite of a preponderance of material today about which much has already been written or filmed, there continues to be new things being written by authors both old and new.

This does not deny that there is a great deal that holds no mystery, no interest for a great number of potential readers. Certainly any bookstore or library contains tripe that has remained unread since its inception. And there is a great deal that has received negative reviews that have prevented it being read by more than a few willing to share their collective opinions. And while the old adage regarding opinions and the gluteus maximus (which won't be reprinted here as this author knows only the vulgar version) remains true, the reality is that the opinions of the first few often form the basis for success or failure for any author - or indeed any endeavor. Ask any restaurant and the owner will point out that success or failure will often depend upon the reviews of its first few customers. Books and stories may have a little more leeway than restaurants, but the quality of the writing and the subject will ultimately determine the success of the book and the author.

Of course, the point of this post is to create an opportunity for a new subject upon which to write. And, the truth be told, this post does very little to indicate that this author has much new material about which to write. Perhaps a few days with some time to think and ponder on the world and the news will offer new insight and creativity.

Random Musings on Truth

What is truth and what is not? Truth is relative. It is relative to the person who tells it. It is relative to the person who lives it. It is relative to the person who hears it. It is relative to the person who observes it. Yet we spend our lives in search of the truth. The truth about life or any other subject.

Two people can watch the same event and their recollection of the event two minutes later can be completely different. It is true in almost any facet of life one chooses to consider. Politics, sports, a simple walk down the street - all can result in a different interpretation of events. The interpretation is not provided by the event itself but by the history and personality of the persons involved. Experience itself provides context which, in turn, provides new context for the next event. So it seems reasonable to wonder if the very shape of our lives is determined from the very first experience we have. Thus, from the very first experience, the next experience and the remaining ones that follow all contribute to a certain world-view that is the summation of our experience. And the sum of each person's existence then creates the world as a whole. A world that is then broken back down to determine each event from the perspective of each individual contributing to it.

To get an idea on how context is provided to determine where the truth lies, consider the events of September 11, 2001 - a world-changing event to which most people can relate. To the great majority of Americans, regardless of political, racial or cultural affiliation, it was considered a terrible tragedy easily comparable to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Their context was one of shock and surprise combined with the sadness, loss and anger that followed at the attacks. Indeed, it could be argued that a great many people throughout the world shared those same feelings and interpreted that day in much the same way. Yet, there were obviously a number of others who viewed the attacks as justified for actions undertaken by the American government. Their reactions were more similar to a sense of justice and humbling of a great nation and its citizens. There may have been a sense of revenge for those who felt wronged by America and the sense of retribution. Either way, the same event was observed and interpreted in different ways by different people with different experiences that offered a different context through which to view it.

It is important to note here that the sense of right and wrong or good and bad are very loose terms when it comes to truth. Truth is a series of facts presented subjectively to an audience whose interpretation of that same presentation will often be different than what is intended.

To say that truth wears many faces is a cliche. But cliches, often like stereotypes, obtain that status because there is a basis in truth. Funny, isn't it?

Who's the racist?

Like more than a few other politicians and Hollywood celebrities before him, former President Jimmy Carter has alleged that those who oppose President Obama (or, in this case, his desired policies on health care) oppose him on the basis of race. And, as is to be expected, the breakdown of how his comments were interpreted depends upon to whom you listen. Liberal interpretations suggested that there was truth behind his statement while conservative readings implied that it was an outrage to suggest that any opposition to the president was based solely on racism. Rational discussion with nuance, context and perspective seems to be out the window - as it so often does when the conversation turns to race in America.

President Carter, who has never been hesitant to speak his mind on any subject since losing his re-election bid in 1980, has done a disservice to the increasingly heated political debate in the US. His criticism was relating to the actions of US Representative Joe Wilson during President Obama's speech to Congress the previous week but the implication was that a lot of the criticism of President Obama is based on his ethnicity. Frankly, while people will choose to believe or disregard based upon their own world-view, his assertion is impossible to prove one way or another. Essentially, he is assigning motive to action - it is a logical fallacy. To put it another way, it would be the same as arguing that because we see the sun go over us each day, from the eastern to the western horizon, it is therefore true that the sun must revolve around the earth. Needless to say, that was a belief several hundred years ago that has been subsequently disproven. But how to disprove Carter's assertion? Or, for that matter, is it possible that his assertion may actually be true? The answer, as usual, lies somewhere in between.

Is there racism in America? Certainly! And that racism is not limited to white racism against blacks but extends from each racial group to other ethnicities. It is both subtle and overt. And it is typically based on stereotypes that are difficult to break when there is limited exposure to others different from oneself. But the racism that exists today in America is not the overt racism of 50 years earlier when specific laws were in place that prevented any sort of true integration and there was nowhere near the cultural and ethnic diversity - let alone the opportunities to travel and learn - that are available today. The generations that have grown up since the 1960's are not always familiar with the struggles of the earlier generations that fought for the rights that they often take for granted. Indeed, there is a generational struggle that is taking place between those who fought for equality in their youths and those who are able to take advantage of that growing equality today. But it is the younger generation who helped to elect the first black president in US history and can see it as the next progression in a much larger struggle for self-determination that is not based upon the color of one's skin.

But therein lies part of the issue with Carter's comments. As people rightly condemn whites (or others, for that matter) who perpetrate negative stereotypes about blacks, there is little outcry regarding Carter's harsh stereotyping of those who oppose President Obama - mainly whites according to Carter. If you oppose the president, it is because he is black. Yet there are a large number of people who oppose the president and his policies for a great many reasons other than the fact that he is black. It is not unreasonable to argue that many of his opponents are such not because of the color of his skin but because of the political party that he represents or the policies he hopes to put in place. But, by using a wide brush to paint the president's opponents as racist, Carter has only exacerbated the issue. The discussion can no longer be a rational conversation on the issues at hand but about how white Americans are racist against a black president. And it is a rational conversation that is needed between people, both individually and in large groups, that is needed in order to begin to address the specter of racism in America. Adding to that the fact that few Democrats are disputing Carter's comments only lends credence to a belief that the comments are simply a political ploy to be used against the opposition. And, to be fair, the Republican silence and support of Representative Wilson following his egregious breach of protocol during President Obama's speech to the Congress is another example of political play. (Of course, when Republicans are correctly lambasted for pandering to Southern whites during the Civil Rights era, they are racist. But when Democrats ridicule and demonize conservative blacks for being conservative - code word for Republican - no one speaks of the hypocrisy or double standard.)

Racism is still an issue in the US and will likely continue to be so for a while. It is not an easy subject to resolve, particularly given its rough history in the country. But when it is used as a political tool to further one's agenda or to damage one's opponent, then it will only further exacerbate the problem because both sides will feel demonized and neither will feel particularly inclined to rationally discuss the issues. Instead, it will be left to ferment just under the surface of daily life until another event sparks the raw emotions that remain unhealed.

The truth?

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

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

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