I should preface this entry by pointing out that I actually had to go look up "philosophic" just to be sure it was a legit word and not just me making it up. I must be smarter than I think since it is. :-)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophic?s=t
I know I haven't written anything on this site in more than a month which is longer than I want to go here. But I can say that I have been doing other writing in the meantime. I wrote up a nice post on my professional blog that actually generated quite a few hits and comments and am quite proud of it. And I've also recently acquired a new notebook and have been trying to do some more writing by hand. I know, that means I'm likely the only one who'll actually see it in most cases but that's ok. That was how I started writing and sometimes it is nice to return to the basics.
It's funny, but I recently came across a collection of my written works, stories and poetry, done ever since I was in middle school from what I can tell. It's not like I've always dated my work. But it's always interesting to go back and see what you've done in the past and be able to compare it to the present. You can see where you have grown in some ways and where things have changed in your perspective and outlook on life. So it was with what I found in my collection. I only had time to go through a small portion of the work but it will give me a fair amount of things to consider and perhaps some inspiration to make some changes to how I live today and perhaps take on a simpler attitude. At the very least, it will make for some very interesting reading.
Thinking of writing has also caused me to start to look for good writing material. Over the last few years, I have not done nearly as much as I would like and I realize that it is, in part, due to the fact that I no longer carry a notebook with me wherever I go. This was my habit for many years and I kept a variety of information in my notebooks. In a way, those notebooks and random slips of paper were the closest thing I ever kept to a diary. But I do not want to just grab any old notebook and start writing in there. I want to find a nice, leather-bound notebook that will serve as a more lasting memorial to my random musings, poetry and prose. And, since I'm writing about them right now, I just found something that may work (and is comparatively cheap since some of the others I saw are several hundred dollars). I think that will be my Father's Day gift to myself.
Of course, that does not mean I'll abandon this. But since this site covers a random variety of subjects and none of my poetry, then I think there'll be enough random thoughts to spread around everywhere.
Enough melancholy for one day. Tomorrow is a new day.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Random Thoughts
It's been a busy month with many things I've seen/heard but haven't had a chance to write on. Just a few quick hits to get me back in a rhythm, hopefully...
Though relatively tame, it's interesting to note how when Democrats offer racist commentary on non-white Republicans (why, yes, there are some!), there is little or no blowback. I certainly heard almost nothing on this incident involving Elaine Chao (the wife of Republican Mitch McConnell) from any major media outlet. In spite of the fact that they've confused Taiwanese with Chinese and their assertions that, as a "Chinese", she is working in some dark fashion to move US jobs overseas to China as if though she were some sort of modern day Fu Manchu character, I have not seen where the super PAC was punished or suffered any significant blowback as a result. On the flip side, though, when a Republican Alaska representative used the derogatory term "wetback" to refer to Mexican workers, it was plastered all over the mainstream media as another example of how Republicans are racist and even his own party, in their recent attempts to step away from being the party of racist rednecks, demanded (and received) an immediate apology. Both of the incidents were racist yet only one seems to have piqued any significant interest in the media because it fits a preconceived narrative. Yet, to listen to that narrative, racists only exist on one side of the political spectrum.
A friend of mine, some time back, tweaked me to Glenn Greenwald, a journalist with the British paper The Guardian. He is a bit on the left side of the political spectrum and I have found much of what he writes to be cogent and rational (compared to some). But I was super-impressed by his arguments when it came to Rand Paul and his filibuster when it concerned the rationale seemingly put forth by the Obama administration that it could order drone strikes against US citizens under certain circumstances. While the issue was highlighted by many in the media in terms of the radical right-wing legislator frothing against the popular Democratic president serving to valiantly defend his nation against the violent terrorists, Greenwald properly called out the supposedly liberal establishment for failing to stand up for one of its ideals and instead marching in lockstep with the administration simply to adhere to political convention. Whereas protesting against illegal drone strikes against US citizens would seem like something that would have been undertaken by a liberal lion such as Ted Kennedy, it was instead a libertarian (or so I took his approach) who picked up the standard and ran with it. It amazes me how little the Obama administration has continued policies that were originally put in place by his predecessor - who took amazing heat for it - and yet his party is now happily accepting of his actions and quietly acquiesce to those decisions. Of course, both Republicans and Democrats did the same things 12 years ago after September 11, 2001 and then Republicans openly supported while Democrats began to complain as his reign continued. Now, of course, the tables are turned and we see that the issue is not the issues themselves but instead who is in power when deciding those issues.
Finally, I can't say as though I am a big fan of Noam Chomsky but I found this to be an interesting interview. He actually addresses the concern of double-standards both in his views as well as how they are reported in the media. Of course, that does not stop him from continuing to offer very pointed, one-sided points in his critical commentary on US actions while remaining silent in the face of abuses or wrongs committed by those whom he sees as being on the right side of history (Hugo Chavez being one example). Further, the idea that 9/11 could have precipitated a military takeover of the US establishment makes him sound more like a conspiracy theorist than the noted and recognized academician that he is. He sees evil in everything the US does yet has no problem with staying in the US as it will offer him the opportunity to speak as he does - perhaps he realizes that the relative free speech that he enjoys in the US is something that will not be so easily granted in other parts of the world. This is not to suggest that the US does not have problems but he appears to only see problems in the US most of the time while ignoring the same (or worse) in other parts of the world. He admits in the interview that he will call out the power establishment on their wrongs while all but ignoring those committed by those who are in ideological agreement with him. Granted, this is not something that is limited to Mr. Chomsky but nor does it absolve him, either. Frankly, it smacks of the same double standards that seem to apply to almost anyone involved with politics and which renders it as unpalatable on many levels to so many. Even when Mr. Chomsky sees and recognizes it he still continues to act and speak with it in mind, absolving himself from responsibility with the idea that it serves the greater good. Does the end justify the means?
Though relatively tame, it's interesting to note how when Democrats offer racist commentary on non-white Republicans (why, yes, there are some!), there is little or no blowback. I certainly heard almost nothing on this incident involving Elaine Chao (the wife of Republican Mitch McConnell) from any major media outlet. In spite of the fact that they've confused Taiwanese with Chinese and their assertions that, as a "Chinese", she is working in some dark fashion to move US jobs overseas to China as if though she were some sort of modern day Fu Manchu character, I have not seen where the super PAC was punished or suffered any significant blowback as a result. On the flip side, though, when a Republican Alaska representative used the derogatory term "wetback" to refer to Mexican workers, it was plastered all over the mainstream media as another example of how Republicans are racist and even his own party, in their recent attempts to step away from being the party of racist rednecks, demanded (and received) an immediate apology. Both of the incidents were racist yet only one seems to have piqued any significant interest in the media because it fits a preconceived narrative. Yet, to listen to that narrative, racists only exist on one side of the political spectrum.
A friend of mine, some time back, tweaked me to Glenn Greenwald, a journalist with the British paper The Guardian. He is a bit on the left side of the political spectrum and I have found much of what he writes to be cogent and rational (compared to some). But I was super-impressed by his arguments when it came to Rand Paul and his filibuster when it concerned the rationale seemingly put forth by the Obama administration that it could order drone strikes against US citizens under certain circumstances. While the issue was highlighted by many in the media in terms of the radical right-wing legislator frothing against the popular Democratic president serving to valiantly defend his nation against the violent terrorists, Greenwald properly called out the supposedly liberal establishment for failing to stand up for one of its ideals and instead marching in lockstep with the administration simply to adhere to political convention. Whereas protesting against illegal drone strikes against US citizens would seem like something that would have been undertaken by a liberal lion such as Ted Kennedy, it was instead a libertarian (or so I took his approach) who picked up the standard and ran with it. It amazes me how little the Obama administration has continued policies that were originally put in place by his predecessor - who took amazing heat for it - and yet his party is now happily accepting of his actions and quietly acquiesce to those decisions. Of course, both Republicans and Democrats did the same things 12 years ago after September 11, 2001 and then Republicans openly supported while Democrats began to complain as his reign continued. Now, of course, the tables are turned and we see that the issue is not the issues themselves but instead who is in power when deciding those issues.
Finally, I can't say as though I am a big fan of Noam Chomsky but I found this to be an interesting interview. He actually addresses the concern of double-standards both in his views as well as how they are reported in the media. Of course, that does not stop him from continuing to offer very pointed, one-sided points in his critical commentary on US actions while remaining silent in the face of abuses or wrongs committed by those whom he sees as being on the right side of history (Hugo Chavez being one example). Further, the idea that 9/11 could have precipitated a military takeover of the US establishment makes him sound more like a conspiracy theorist than the noted and recognized academician that he is. He sees evil in everything the US does yet has no problem with staying in the US as it will offer him the opportunity to speak as he does - perhaps he realizes that the relative free speech that he enjoys in the US is something that will not be so easily granted in other parts of the world. This is not to suggest that the US does not have problems but he appears to only see problems in the US most of the time while ignoring the same (or worse) in other parts of the world. He admits in the interview that he will call out the power establishment on their wrongs while all but ignoring those committed by those who are in ideological agreement with him. Granted, this is not something that is limited to Mr. Chomsky but nor does it absolve him, either. Frankly, it smacks of the same double standards that seem to apply to almost anyone involved with politics and which renders it as unpalatable on many levels to so many. Even when Mr. Chomsky sees and recognizes it he still continues to act and speak with it in mind, absolving himself from responsibility with the idea that it serves the greater good. Does the end justify the means?
Thursday, February 28, 2013
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.
Monday, February 18, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, February 11, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
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.
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.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
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...
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...
Saturday, January 12, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
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*
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*
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)