What is fair?

This is a speech that I gave at my Toastmaster's group recently. Not sure if it reads the same as I delivered it but thought it was worth sharing and hopefully provoking some thoughts. Bear in mind that I originally began writing this last October or November (though I finished it only within the last couple of weeks) so it is somewhat dated but still worthwhile, I thought. I'd be interested in any feedback.

What is fair?

In the wake of our recent election cycle, there were many calls heard for more fairness in our democratic system. On one side, people argued that those who earned more money should be taxed more in order to give back to society what they have reaped from it so that things would be more fair. On the other side, people suggested that the idea of taxing one small sub-group more was inherently unfair and that fairness was that taxes be fairly applied to everyone. Certainly both arguments merit further discussion but, on its face, the idea of “fairness” is, indeed, a fair one. After all, everyone wants things to be fair in competition and in life. For example, the parity that exists in today’s National Football League and many other sports is something that resonates with most people. Fans are more drawn to the games if they feel that any team can win any given contest. Of course, the one exception to this idea of parity are the fans of those teams that might be more "fair" than the rest of the teams. 

Indeed, the idea of fairness is not a new ideal – it has served as the springboard for countless political initiatives and ideologies along with numerous social experiments to find some sort of resolution to the inequality that seems to plague us. And by us, I mean humanity, not some specific sub-set thereof.

I daresay that we are hard-wired to seek out equality where we can to bring a sense of fairness where we can. We do not like seeing people treated unfairly for whatever reason. We want a harmony to exist whereby everyone is the same – or at least we can feel that we are all the same.

However, the reality is that we are not. We are not equal and never have been equal. The ugly truth is that we are all terribly unequal and that the system, such as it is, is not “fair” no matter how it may be defined. No, the truth is that some people are smarter than others. Some people are better-looking than others. Some people are richer than others. Some people speak better than others. Some people are more artistic than others. Some people are more mechanically inclined than others. Some people are healthier than others. Some people have more hair than others (though I’d really like to see some fairness put in place for this issue!). Yes, I am sure that it is a surprise to everyone here that there are differences between us and make us all very unequal and it is impossible to create a “fair” system for all of us because of these inequities.

Really, is it even possible to create a “fair” system for everyone? And how do we define a “fair” system? One based upon the job title one holds? Their education? How much hair they have on the top of their heads? Their skin color? What type of homes people should own? How much money they make or pay in taxes? At its best, “fair” is a very subjective term, is contextually based, and should never be used as an absolute. Unfortunately, it is within the political realm that it is most often used as an absolute and that is a problem because it creates the false impression that fairness can be achieved. As an absolute, however, it cannot.

This does not, however, mean that we should not try to create a system that can serve to better benefit everyone. Indeed, the key is not that we should be working to make everything “fair” for everyone but should instead strive to create a system whereby everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. And the key words in that last sentence are “equal opportunity”. If you truly want a more “fair” society, then give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. And the only way to ensure that happens is to give everyone the same start at the beginning and let them take advantage of what they can.

It all begins at school. The US offers a free education to all children regardless of any other circumstance and this is a major part of what has allowed America to succeed in the fashion it has throughout its short history. Education has been the origin of the path to a better life for Americans and it should be treasured for the knowledge that a good education imparts is the beginning of bettering oneself and attaining the equality that we all seek. Yet, far too often, we take education for granted. We fail to see that equality and fairness can only begin in our schools and the knowledge that they impart to each new generation. Indeed, children are the ones who can offer the best examples of fairness and equality because they are the ones who are unrelentingly honest and recognize where things should be equal and where it is impossible to impose equality. It is those same children who seek to do better and, given equal chances for learning, can achieve and succeed on what the preceding generations have done. Schools should be the centerpieces of society from which the hoped for “fairness” and equality can have a hope of being nurtured and grown into reality.

Give the children a chance to seek a fair life with some equality where they are judged not by the factors that separate us today but on their own skills, knowledge and accomplishments. Provide them with schools that are set not to lowered standards to ensure everyone is treated “fairly” with no winners or losers but with schools that will challenge them to do their best and give them a “fair” shake at a future in a life that is not always fair and equal.

We are not all equal and life is not fair – that is an unfortunate reality of life. But that does not mean that we should not seek to provide the opportunity for the next generation to achieve and succeed so that they may be better than the labels of “fair” and “equal” given them today which, in the real and future world, may not always be applicable.

The politics of friendship

Ah, yes, the politics of friendship. Or, put another way, the idea that politics defines your friendship. At least for some people. I try not to allow it to affect my friendships; though, to be fair, I have never been above riding someone about their political views. But I would like to think I have never defined my friendships based on political views.

However, it is something that has become a glaring issue in my opinion. I have friends and family members who define their friendships based on their political views and wanting to associate only with politically like-minded individuals. I don't get it and, quite frankly, find it to be a very disturbing concern. Everyone has political views (particularly in the US) and there is a strong vein of politics that permeates American lives because of our history. Further, I am sure that the sense of polarization that is so prevalent today is nothing new and has existed throughout the short history of the US. However, that should still not pose the issue that it does with so many non-political friends and associates of mine.

A short thirty years ago (during the heyday of Reagan), there was a lot of political vitriol between the two political parties in the US, the Republicans and Democrats. Yet, at the end of the day, I remember the stories of the two main leaders of their respective parties (Reagan and Tip O'Neil of the Democrats who was the then-Speaker of the House) getting together to have drinks and engage in friendly conversation. These were the same two men who would put forth great criticisms of each other and their respective views on the issues of the day but they also realized that it was as much political theatre and did not allow it to keep them from being able to interact on other levels for the benefit of each other and the country as a whole. Today, however, the two parties batter each other to a degree that comes close to rivaling the demonization that preceded the genocidal massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. And that occurs just on the political level. However, what has followed today is a similar level of demonization on a non-political level by adherents of the various parties.

I have friends and family who will not speak to each other because they hold different political views. Some of them are on the political right and only watch Fox News because it is "fair and balanced" and read the National Review while anything else represents only the political left (those damn liberals!). Some are on the political left and only watch MSNBC and read Mother Jones while abhorring Fox News for being biased (stupid retarded conservatives!). And they will only associate with people who hold similar viewpoints while lambasting those who hold divergent opinions without ever truly attempting to understand them, let alone trying to find a middle ground. The result, of course, is a stark inability to find common ground on a personal level that could be used to help create a framework to help move them (and the country as a whole) forward. This deliberate limitation is amazing and completely idiotic to me. Why would people choose to limit themselves from learning from or about others? I have never understood this and the politicization of these relationships makes it even more difficult to fathom.

Of course, I see this because I tend to adhere to a more moderate set of views that crosses over into both major party platforms so I am not beholden to one or the others. I also prefer to learn as much as I can and do not limit myself to a single source of information - though I also am aware of the various biases that creep up in what passes for "news reporting" today. But the idea that I would allow my political views to dictate my friendships (none of which are "political") is abhorrent to me. And this is in spite of the fact that my degree is in Political Science and I have a fairly well-grounded knowledge base on a number of subjects.

I simply want to take some of these people (who will openly admit to such selective "friendships") and throttle them while asking them what the heck they are thinking in doing such a thing! Maybe I am just an anachronistic relic of an earlier age or an optimist? I hope not. I'd be curious for the feedback of others on this.

Law of Unintended Consequences

There was a great deal of fuss over President Obama's health care plan when it was passed last year. Much of the debate was on how it would be paid for and who would be covered and whether private insurance would be phased out. What was not discussed were things like cutting the hours of part-time workers to ensure that they do not trigger certain provisions in the health care law. Yet that is what the state of Virginia is currently looking into and, while it does its research, is cutting the hours of its part-time work force to ensure that it does not trigger anything.

So, while the law was intended to help provide health coverage for all citizens, it is now inadvertently creating a situation whereby people are unable to earn their normal paychecks for fear it may end up costing them or the state more money. I am sure that many proponents of the legislation will argue that this was either unforeseen or the fault of the state of Virginia (though I find it hard to believe that Virginia is the only state that is currently working to figure it out) but that does little to help those workers who are now being punished by circumstances beyond their control. And, considering the glacial pace at which government typically works, I cannot imagine they will be having a solution anytime soon.

So, the intent was to help the underprivileged or underserved and yet the unintended consequence is actually harming them. This is one reason why all legislation should be carefully considered rather than rammed through regardless of possible (unforeseen) consequences. Somehow, I doubt that those who pass these laws (and are unaffected by them) will do anything to remedy the situation - at least not anytime soon.

Good social media usage

In my last post, I referenced what I consider some of the downsides to social media in general and Twitter in particular - namely, being flamed and trolled as well as the inability to fully articulate complex or controversial subjects. However, that is not to say that social media is useless or not worth using.

Earlier this week, I noticed that a national corporation whose offices are on my way to work was flying a very tattered and torn American flag. Frankly, it was disgraceful display as it was hanging almost upside down and torn to pieces. I'm sure it was there for a while (something that was subsequently pointed out by others) but it seems like no one had said or done anything about it. I intended to go over to the office myself later in the day to tell them to fix it but then thought, why not see if they have a Twitter account? So, I looked them up and discovered they did. I tweeted to them asking them to please take the flag down as it was a disgrace. Within 30 minutes, I received a response (via Twitter) asking for clarification of the offending location and the flag was taken down shortly thereafter.

I am deliberately not stating the company here but I did later send them an email to express my appreciation for their prompt response to the issue. Prior to Twitter, it may have stayed there even longer which would have tarnished its image locally as I know I was not the only person to observe it but, with just a few minutes and an online connection, the issue was resolved. And, instead of publicly embarrassing the company by sending pictures viral (which is another scenario made possible by the advent of social media), it was handled promptly, professionally and with minimal embarrassment.

I guess we can chalk one up in the win column.

More gun-related thoughts

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote up a post on the raging debate on guns and gun control. Part of my diatribe at the time concerned how both sides of the debate stake out extreme positions and neither side is willing to listen to the other. Over the intervening few weeks, this has not changed. If anything, both sides have grown more vocal on the issue. And, as I have pointed out previously multiple times on this blog on another controversial issue - racism - neither side is immune to being guilty of arrogance, ignorance or outright stupidity in their handling of the issue.

Last week, I responded via Twitter to a comment made by a New York Times journalist who commented that "responsible" gun owners support new gun control legislation. My response was something along the lines of "it seems that 'responsible' is a subjective term when it comes to your views on gun control". The journalist did not respond back but a few of his other followers did. While I tried to rationally clarify my point on "responsible" gun owners, they spent their time stating that I was an idiot, a gun-lover, a redneck, a hillbilly and worse. (I will simply state here that I am none of those things.) In other words, I got "trolled".

Granted, trying to engage in a serious debate on Twitter probably isn't the smartest move because of the inherent limitations of that medium but I found it curious that people who are arguing for gun control should be so full of vitriol and, in hindsight, I hope that they are not gun owners themselves because they were terribly angry at me for what I felt were very reasonable comments. To me, it seems similar to my issues with Democrats when it comes to their claims about diversity and minorities - they believe in it so long as those diverse minorities support them, otherwise they are race traitors (for lack of a better general term). But there is a perception that those who support gun control are the more peaceful people but this seems to be a farce based on those comments.

This is not to say that the opposite does not occur with those who support the right to own guns trolling and antagonizing those who oppose them but they are rightly called out for it when it occurs. However, it seems that the criticism for such actions is one-sided. Just because gun control advocates are perpetrated as being more peaceful and reasonable does not hold it to be true. Now it is time to hold gun control advocates to the same level of criticism as proponents when they act like idiots.

I am ever the eternal optimist...

Restless Empire - a short review

Odd Westad's newest book, Restless Empire: China and the World since 1750, was one that just recently showed up in my library's online selection and the first one I had an opportunity to read on my new e-reader.  First, I have not been a huge fan of e-readers in general but I can see its usefulness at times. This book on the iPad was not a bad read at all. It's a little distracting sometimes with the spacing and fonts but those are editable and I may yet come around to something that works for me. But not nearly as bad as I had feared it might have been.

Regarding the book itself, I was actually very pleased. Most books on China come out with very definitive viewpoints on China, either pro or negative. For some reason, there are few who can hold nuanced views when it comes to the subject of China. But Mr. Westad has managed to straddle a fine line that examines the last several hundred years of Chinese history from different perspectives while neatly tying them back together in the end with his own thoughts on the future for China.

While it is not an in-depth review (though at 528 pages in the cover version), I found it to be refreshingly comprehensive in its scope, albeit covering only from the Qing dynasty onward (which most English books on China seem to focus on). Neatly organized by chapter into various topics, including its metamorphosis from the early to late-Qing dynamics, its relationship with foreigners (along with their influence both positive and negative) and particularly to Japan (which is far more complex than is typically acknowledged today), the years of the republic government that eventually fell to the Communists and the post-war years to the current day are very enlightening with rare historical insight. For example, instead of painting with the wide brush used to often dismiss Chiang Kai-shek as the corrupt and incompetent leader he is commonly portrayed as today, he is far more forgiving in recognition of the times in which he existed and the obstacles he had to overcome.

His discussion around the influence of foreigners in and as they relate to China is also deftly handled. While he does not minimize the imperialistic attitudes of those foreigners, nor does he parody them and offers up some examples of the benefits of that influence in China then and today. His treatment of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) is also more even-handed than most others - critical where it should be but also recognizing it is more than a mere caricature. Indeed, it is his ability to provide rationalizations without judgement that I found to be the most refreshing thing about this book.

While I cannot say that I necessarily agree with all of his predictions on the future - but that's the joy of making predictions, no one will necessarily agree with everything you think - I found his thoughts to be well-reasoned based on his earlier observations in the book. All in all, I would highly recommend this book for those who want to learn more about China, how it got to where it is today and why it behaves the way it does.

Guns

Since the massacre of 20 children and 6 adults in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a few weeks ago, there has been a great deal of howling on both sides of the debate as it pertains to guns and gun control. Those who advocate for gun control are, in many cases, calling for an outright ban on weapons and most particularly assault weapons. Those who oppose gun control argue that it is a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible tragedy to impose such a ban and that it will be more harmful to the citizens in the long-term.

Unfortunately, both sides talk at each other and neither side is particularly inclined to listen to the other as they are both deeply entrenched in their views. The result is a failure to find any progress toward resolving the problem. Making things worse, of course, is when people go to extremes to make their views known. The Journal News, a newspaper in New York, is one such example of going to extremes. The paper set off a firestorm of criticism when it published an interactive map of all registered gun owners in several counties in New York. The paper then defended itself from criticism by stating that it felt it was important to share information about gun permits with its readers, indicating that it wanted to provide even more information. As if printing the names and addresses of people without their permission simply because they have gun permits (it did NOT address whether they even had guns!) was not enough?

No, what the paper did was cross a line. While the information was available via a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, it did not need to be - and should not have been - published by the paper. In spite of their professed desire to make information about gun permits known to the general public, they instead set off a furor about the rights of individuals to keep their personal information, well, personal. Instead, they attempted to frame citizens with legal gun permits as criminals. How is it relevant to "out" people with gun permits because the very act of doing so then renders them as perceived future lunatics and criminals who will all want to go out and shoot up their local malls and schools - in spite of the overwhelming odds against such? What happened in Newtown was a tragedy and some serious introspection is due by the nation as a whole but when one side attempts to paint with a wide brush all they do is tarnish their own arguments and render it impossible to look at the issue rationally.

And, just to be fair, Wayne LaPierre is equally guilty of such when he makes arguments that we should arm the schools? Currently, there are many schools that do have armed security on site and, while the school in Newtown did not, that does not necessarily mean that the tragedy would have been averted if armed security had been there. But the idea of having armed guards at elementary schools is not one that is really reasonable, either. After all, it's one thing to see the number of television shows and movies with wanton violence (guns and otherwise) for children, it's another to see them at school which is intended to be more of a nurturing and protective (not protected) environment.

There is a great deal more that I can say here about the idea of gun control but I do not want to get into arguments with people who are unwilling to listen. Instead, the main point here is that demonizing those who have philosophical differences with you will not solve the problem. Subtly criminalizing them when they have done nothing wrong nor illegal (such as The Journal News did) is more reminiscent of making Jews wear the Star of David in Nazi Germany than the freedom purported to exist in the United States.

On vacation and sick

It seems like one can go an entire year and be relatively well. Then, the minute you go on vacation - WHAM! - you come down with some illness. In my case, it's Christmas and I seem to have acquired a nasty little upper respiratory infection according to my doctor (though I'd just call it a cold). Either way, it's a nasty little thing and, while I'm grateful I caught it the day after Christmas, I'd just as soon have done without it entirely. So now, instead of getting out and doing some fun things (because I am apparently not part of the country being inundated with snow), I'm basically stuck at home and trying to breathe which is not easy when you're congested. Oh, well, that and sleep since I couldn't get much of that last night, either.

On the good side, though, this means that I get to sit down and watch several Star Wars movies uninterrupted! And, while I can't say as though I am feeling 100%, this certainly helps me to feel better. Now, if only this medicine will kick in quickly and get me back up to normal by tomorrow...

*cough*

Christmas Music

A few weeks ago, I had the very distinct pleasure of attending a concert by Trans-Siberian Orchestra. Suffice it to say that I had a great time and enjoyed it tremendously - and that was in spite of the poor seats that we had which placed up in the rafters directly the right side of the front of the stage which meant that we couldn't see some of the lighting conducted from the very front. But, in the end, that did not really matter a great deal.

Now, I should caveat that I am a big fan of TSO and it is about the only Christmas music that I can bear to listen to for more than an hour or so. Their eclectic sound is a mixture of heavy metal with a Christmas theme and clearly has a devoted following as the theatre was jammed with fans. It is clearly a genre all its own, too, as those fans ranged from families with kids (such as mine) to older couples to young headbangers (including a young couple who sat in front of us and whose head-banging motions during the concert were almost as entertaining as the concert itself). Their most famous song, Christmas in Sarajevo, was the denouement of the evening and a fitting climax to a terrific show.

The show began with lights and fire and did not let up from there. The guitarists and violinist kicked things off with some hard-rocking licks which then led up to the beginning of the story of the Lost Christmas Eve (the name of one of their albums). The story was compelling and the intersection of the story with the music was unlike any concert I had ever heard - though it should be noted this was only my 4th concert ever attended. Regardless, it was a wonderful experience and one that should be experienced at least once. In my case, I think we'll be attending again in another year or two so that would make it at least twice.

I may not post another low-level review after the next one, though. Unless I remember to write it within a few hours of actually seeing the concert...

Random Thanksgiving Thoughts

Thanksgiving, that most American of holidays. And I had a very nice Thanksgiving for which I was thankful to see a cousin and uncle I had not seen in some time with the rest of my family (blood and otherwise). Hopefully will be able to continue to renew old family acquaintances in the near future. Ah, the joys of the internet making the world that much smaller...

Several things have been on my mind lately so I'll just skip over a few. First, in the interest of making sure everyone is treated fairly, what the heck was John Sununu and much of the Republican Party doing when they said that the only reason General Colin Powell, a staunch Republican who also happens to be black, chose to support President Obama's re-election (as well as the first time around in 2008) was because he is also black?! I've happily taken Democrats to task for such idiotic statements and will do the same here. Regardless of whether the Republican establishment liked the fact that Gen. Powell voted for Obama or agreed with his reasoning for doing so (and he clearly stated why he supported the president and it wasn't because he was black), to suggest he did so because they share a skin color is racist. The fact that no one prominent within the party rose up to disavow those comments is a major reason why there is a very real perception that the Republican Party is the party for racists (well, ok, white racists). Unless and until the party recognizes it cannot continue with the strategy it has employed for the last 40 years, it faces the very real possibility it will go the way of the Whigs.

Ok, it's been a while and I actually started another blog post on this but got sidetracked and not in the mood to finish that thought so I'll address it in short here. Thank goodness Lucas is no longer controlling the Star Wars empire! Don't get me wrong, I am most grateful for the empire (I know, an ironic word choice) he created back in 1977 and to suggest that I am an ardent devotee is a significant understatement. But over the course of the last 20 years, he has angered me far more than made me happy with the bastardization he has done to the franchise with continual technical upgrades to the original movies and the lousy prequels he did (well, ok, Episode III was watchable but still far lagged behind IV and V). Now, with someone else in charge, even if it is as part of Disney, I have a lot more hope for the future and am looking forward to seeing where the franchise goes from here. Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, I'm sure better things await.

Recently, have come across several people who have become much more politicized. That is in contrast to myself as I have grown less so in my old age. What struck me, though, was how they view everything in their life through the very narrow lens of politics. One person made it clear that they were removing all of their social network friends who had differing political viewpoints. Another tried to argue with me that I was wrong for not being as strident in my political views and that I should be focusing my efforts on getting one of the candidates elected for the betterment of our country as the other candidate would destroy the nation. Trying to point out to this individual that I would vote (without disclosing to whom, they simply made an assumption) and that I had problems with all of candidates and their views a variety of issues was useless as they took the opportunity to point out how the opposing candidate (only the major party candidates mattered to this person) was wrong on EVERYTHING and ignored anything I tried to say. I guess it goes along with the tendency of these same people to only hear things that support their particular worldview and ignore anything else as irrelevant. So, if I don't listen to Fox News then I am getting a slanted viewpoint that only supports liberal weenies who want to burn the flag, get rid of English and turn the country into Northern Mexico (or choose your own country) or if I am listening to Fox News then they only offer "conservative" news and I am some back-woods redneck hillbilly who spends every Sunday in church listening to ignorant preachers who hate gays. Nope, thanks but I prefer to get my news from many sources and ignore the many talking-heads who somehow manage to get paid for saying stupid things for both extremes of the political spectrum while ignoring the needs of the nation as a whole. I now hope that the day comes where we can come back to some sort of middle ground that will allow collaboration on big issues for the nation instead of small-minded wedge issues designed to only garner votes from a small subset of the electorate - because we are now in election mode every day of the year. Politicians now view their job not as one of governance but of getting re-elected. Unless and until this changes, things will likely not improve significantly.

Ok, ok, I've digressed so I'll stop ranting now.