Consumer News

Fox News has published a list of news stories that they claim did not make it to the mainstream media during the course of 2009. I tend to follow a number of news sites (when I have time which, quite honestly, has not been so much recently) and I have to admit that some of the stories in the Fox story were hardly prevalent in some of the more mainstream news sites - or at least not above the fold.

I guess an argument could be made that the stories would more favorably fit the ideology of Fox News and therefore would likely be more high-profile there as a result - with the correlated belief that they would then be less high-profile on sites with a different editorial bent. But that does not excuse the fact that they were not reported (or at least not extensively) elsewhere. It is even more egregious when there was certainly no shortage of news footage given to the death of Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and his infidelities, the balloon boy and his family and any number of sundry celebrities. Quite frankly, there are tabloids for that sort of "news" but the self-professed news channels have been sorely lacking and there is little wonder that more people use Comedy Central's The Daily Show and less-than-biased blogs to get their news than they do the traditional news outlets.

It is time to return to an era where the media again returns to take responsibility for providing the public with the facts and news surrounding them rather than pandering to a consumerist ideology more beholden to the bottom line rather than the celebrity lifestyles that pass for news today.

Climate Change (aka Global Warming)

I have to admit that I am actually torn on this subject. On one side, you have fanatics screaming about how the planet is warming and being destroyed by mankind and its inventions which now pollute the earth. They discuss all of the science that supports their arguments while simultaneously denying or ignoring any evidence that contradicts them. Of course, the idea of using science or evidence to support an argument while dismissing any evidence to the contrary goes completely against the main scientific tenet - trying to prove a hypothesis wrong. And, contrary to the vehement arguments of those who support the idea that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, there is valid evidence that lends credence to the belief that it may not. Furthermore, what are the results of any actions taken to reduce the alleged man-made causes of the warming of the planet? The law of unintended consequences - which has been known to frequently raise its head as the result of new government legislation - seems a likely result. And when I mention unintended consequences, I mean examples like the use of DDT to destroy the insects that were eating crops in the 1950's and 60's in the United States - until it was noticed that it had a very deleterious effect on the people who consumed those crops. And there are many more examples that can be found in history. Additionally, if taking these actions does not alleviate or stop the warming, will other actions be undertaken? Will additionally studies be done to determine what else may be causing it? Does this mean that something should not be done? Not necessarily. There is a great deal of waste and pollution that certainly does not help the environment and that can and should be dealt with. Of course, there are already laws that exist to prevent and reduce pollution but that then requires enforcement. So, perhaps the key is not in creating new laws to reduce the global warming pollutants but to enforce the ones already on the books.

Oh, and as alluded to in my title for this post, has anyone noticed how "global warming" has now changed to "climate change"? Frankly, when I think of climate change, I think of the four seasons. But, then again, I tend to think pretty simply about this sort of thing. Of course, the argument for changing the title was some evidence that indicated the earth's temperature has actually not increased over the course of the last decade. The interesting part is that different measuring stations have provided different sets of data so there is no real standard - that fact in and of itself should serve as a warning sign as to whether the earth's temperature is in fact undergoing the changes that the alarmists claim. Or, perhaps that is nothing more than an inconvenient fact. (I wish I had considered how "punny" that is before I actually wrote it.)

On the other side, of course, are those who deny that the earth is warming or claim that, if it is warming, it is due to a normal cyclical pattern of the earth (among other potential causes). Furthermore, they argue, the global warming argument is nothing more than a naked power grab by a certain political faction whose intent is simply to impose their standards upon everyone else. Frankly, just because global warming is a theory does not mean that it may not be true. Indeed, that it is a theory at all is indicative that certain facts lend credence to it. To dismiss it out of hand is the same as ignoring anything that does not conform to a certain point of view. Additionally, to argue that it is cyclical or that it is nothing more than politics dictating how science operates ignores the facts that there is a problem with the pollutants being spewed into the atmosphere as well as the land and waters. Perhaps it is cyclical, but that does not excuse the actions of humanity that have certainly not helped the situation in any fashion.

Further, the recent "scandal" involving emails at a well-known think tank that deals extensively with the global warming issue may show poor judgment and lack of class among some of the leading proponents that man-made causes are hastening global warming, but it is not yet clear that there is a conspiracy on the global warming front.

Frankly, the issue on both sides boils down to the same thing - politics dictating how the scientific findings are received and interpreted. It should be the other way around but that is not how it is working at the moment. The best solution should be for both sides of the debate to step away from the divisive politics that they have enshrouded themselves within and to work together to come to a consensus that will benefit everyone. Unfortunately, as seen at the recent Copenhagen conference, that seems highly unlikely. Will the fate of both the planet and we humans who exist on it suffer as a result?

Maybe I need a Life Coach

Yes, you heard me right. I think I need a life coach. Someone who will essentially be my friend, my mentor, my coach. Someone who will help and encourage me to reach my full potential. Someone that I will have to pay in order to talk with me.

Um, or maybe not...

I heard the term recently on the radio and was thinking to myself, what the heck is a life coach? It sounds like someone whose job it is to essentially be a parent to another who is unable to think, do and act for themselves. Or, put another way, the perfect combination of sycophant to pampered elites who are insecure about themselves and yes-man (or woman) whose job is to confirm that they are doing a good job while still occasionally gently scolding the "student/athlete/child" to remind them that they are not always right and will need the help of a life coach in order to have the fulfilling life they otherwise seem unable to obtain. I guess it is no surprise to find life coaches in places where there are lots of pampered elites like, say, Los Angeles (Hollywood, to be more specific) or New York.

Needless to say, I do not have a life coach. And maybe I should not be so denigrating to those obviously in need of one nor those who have made a career out of being one. But it is hard for a simple person like me to determine the necessity for something like this. It strikes me more as a con than as a legitimate activity, much like the personal fortune-tellers (I'm sure everyone remembers Nancy Reagan and I know there are others) of years past. However, people are in constant need of such reassurance and that is not a fault. But seriously, I thought that is what friends are for. And you don't have to pay your friends.

Some quick hits

Just a few quick hit thoughts after a long Thanksgiving weekend in the US.

Hugo Chavez is threatening to nationalize banks in Venezuela. Ho hum... What else is new? Nationalize the oil industry! Get rid of the opposition media! Rig the election laws! But don't worry because this will not necessarily impact anyone outside of Venezuela, right? After all, the current US administration is currently in agreement with the Chavez administration regarding the current imbroglio in Honduras (a disputed and unwilling transfer of power that was supported by the elites that legally endorsed the removal of the former president but is alleged to have been an illegal coup by Chavez and his supporters). Come to think of it, when it comes to nationalizing certain industries, perhaps Chavez can learn a few things from his neighbors to the north.

Deferred success is apparently an old idea that continues to make its rounds on the internet. I found the subject being posted again last week and have to admit that I was more than a little disturbed about the subject. Of course, when I tried to follow up and get the whole story (maybe I should be a reporter since I seem more inclined to get the whole story before I just write up some opinion and post it as "fact and news" than a great many "news" organizations - and yes, I use that term loosely), I found that some of the original news sources seemed to be lacking. So I tried again a day or two later and discovered that this story is about 4 years old. Ah, yes, the power of the internet to recycle "news" every so often so that we can all get upset on a regular basis over stories that were resolved long before. Oh, and before I forget, my initial thoughts on "deferred success" - um, no, thank you. Do we need to have equality? Is equality even possible? Heck no! If it were, then I would want to be as beautiful as the people in the movies. That would be fair! But, since that seems highly unlikely, then why can we not recognize that equality is not obtainable in the form that people such as the originator of this harebrained idea might wish and instead offer opportunities that do not discriminate?! To suggest that failure is not an option is ridiculous! In the real world (which is obviously not inhabited by the aforementioned people), failure is not only a possibility but a distinct reality in many cases. But success is rarely instantaneous and often the result of previous failures which have offered the knowledge and experience for said future potential success.

Cancer is a vicious killer that I would not wish on my worst enemy. But recent months have continued to provide hope for those who have been afflicted with this terrible disease. Breast cancer may have some hope with a natural solution. And now the possibility that magnetic discs can attack and break up cancer cells offer more hope. There continues to be a great deal of research and funding poured into potential cures and we can only hope that the cures can be found before more people suffer through this terror.

If a lie is spoken often enough...

...then it becomes true. The same must be said for all of the nuances between truth and lies. The perception of an event will become the truth regardless of the facts of the event.

In other words, if enough people say that George W. Bush was the worst president in US history, then it will be true. Correspondingly, if enough people state that Barack Obama is a socialist, then it will be true.

It is at times like this that I am reminded of A Children's Story by James Clavell. Truth, as viewed by the children, is changed as much by repetition and by the reinforcement of the crowd (in this case, the students as they come to believe in the new teacher and then reinforce each other) as it is by the twisted logic employed by the teacher. Here, truth is relative to the person telling it and perspective is everything.

Yet, with all of that being said, were it not for my own desire and thirst for knowledge of history and social studies, I would know far more about the sordid personal life of Britney Spears than I would about the Bill of Rights and rules that set the basis for the freedoms I enjoy each day. Maybe I should devote my time to the study of UFO's. I would probably get more attention that way...

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.

Mourning Chaucer

I learned earlier today that a friend of mine, who I'll refer to here as Chaucer (I am the only one who ever called him that in an inside joke on his actual name), passed away yesterday afternoon. Chaucer was only 28 and a good man. We worked together for several years and remained friends after I left the company. I had actually seen him a few times in the last few weeks. Once to take him out for lunch for his 28th birthday and again just three days ago. He was not feeling well when I saw him on Wednesday but there was no clue that it would be the last time I would see him. I sent him an email on Thursday to ask if he was feeling any better and he responded late that the doctor had discovered a blood clot in his leg. I did not see the email until Friday morning. I sent him another email but never heard back from him. I spoke with a mutual friend on Friday afternoon to see how he was doing but by then (though we did not know it at the time), he had died.

The news started to filter out today when people started posting memorials on his Facebook page. It was a frantic afternoon today as friends were calling to confirm the news. Shock prevailed - and it still does.

Chaucer was a good man (it's hard to believe that I am referring to him in the past tense). He had a good sense of humor and could take a joke - which is a good thing because I am not above making very inappropriate comments at usually inappropriate times. He was often the victim of my pranks and never openly objected to them or my running commentary. He loved his music and was always generous with sharing his CD's when he thought I might enjoy listening to them. I enjoyed asking him for stories about "Band Camp" (a reference to the movie American Pie) and the things he did with his weekly travels to band competitions during the summer time. When he complained about how tired he would be at the office after a weekend at a competition, I pointed out to him that it was voluntary and all he had to do was not sign up for them again. So, of course, after listening to him complain for the first year about it, he signed up again the following summer. It was a running joke for the rest of the time we knew each other.

When he joined the company, it was my job to help and mentor him to develop as a programmer. He had an open mind and wanted to learn. He did not mind criticism and never took it personally on the rare occasions I had to give it. He wanted to learn from his mistakes and was always very personable. Rarely did anyone have a cross word about him personally. He was always open to people, friendly and had a positive attitude.

My favorite memory of him relates to Star Wars. Our entire team did the interview process with each of the candidates (and, on a side note, I like this idea when hiring someone to work on a team). On the day that Chaucer came in for his initial interview, I was not there so he had to come back another day to interview with me individually. We talked both about work-related issues and inconsequential matters - this gave me an idea about both what he knew and how he was as a person as well as how he might be to work with. My final question - which always made my boss cringe - was whether he had seen Star Wars. Sorry, but if you are going to work in a technical position, you absolutely must have seen the movie. He assured me he had. I liked him and felt he would be a good addition and gave my recommendation to my boss, too (the rest of the team had already approved him). Perhaps only a month or two after he had started working, we were talking about something and I made a reference to something in one of the original movies. Chaucer missed it completely. It was then that I found out he had only seen Episodes I, II and III - he had never seen the original trilogy! Not only had he never seen them, he had never even HEARD of them! I was floored! He had lied to me! From then on, whenever I could fit it into a conversation, I made reference to him lying about Star Wars with the joking inference that he was just a liar trying to get ahead in the world - something that was obviously untrue. I should point out that I did bring in my copy of the movies for him to watch the next day and he did watch them, so at least he would get all future references to the movies.

There is much more to say but it is still difficult to come to grips with his premature death. I only hope that his family and friends will know how good a man he was. I will treasure his memory and mourn his loss.

Goodbye, Chaucer.

Big Brother is watching you

Actually, I am left to wonder how many people even know who Big Brother is or the reference in pop culture. As I talk with people, I have come to realize that many of them understand the Big Brother refers to an overly intrusive government but many fewer know where the term first originated. I guess that 1984 is not necessarily required reading these days. It almost makes me feel old since it was required reading when I was in school. But on the flip side, it gives a very gripping picture of life under a very controlling and authoritarian government. It is not something to which many Americans are accustomed, especially those who were born or grew up after the end of the Cold War. But it is something that seems to is generating a new level of attention within the parameters of the Obama administration and the recent health care debate. A major part of the debate concerning health care relates to the concerns of a large, intrusive government running the medical system.

This concern may seem to be overblown to supporters of the proposed reform, but is it? I received a link to an interesting site that was sent under the aegis of opposing President Obama's proposed reforms. What struck me as interesting, aside from the humor within the site itself, was that it was under the ACLU banner - a group that is not known as a supporter of conservative causes. Is it possible that data will be stored in the manner indicated in that site? Certainly. Is it possible that it can be used in such a manner as indicated in that site? Maybe. It does seem a bit far-fetched at the moment but it is never beyond human nature to misuse information to gain or maintain power.

Frankly, the best way to prevent the abuse of power by a government is to prevent the government from amassing too much power in the first place. Granting government additional power, even in the guise of helping its citizens in the form of guaranteed medical care, may simply be an inevitable progression in the existence of the US. But for a nation that was built upon the basis of individual liberties and rights, abrogating those rights for any reason, regardless of how reasonable it seems on the surface, may not serve the longer-term interest. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Health Care Reform

I have to admit that I am curious as to the definition of health care reform. Is it changing how health care is performed? The method by which the financial aspects are handled? Using new technology to improve health care standards? Providing a minimum level of subsidized care to everyone in the country? Some other definition that I have not noted here?

And I should provide a disclaimer here - I have not read any of the pending legislation because, quite honestly, I have a life where I work and have a family with whom I want to spend time (which is also why this blog gets updated only once or twice a week) and do not have the time necessary to read through the legislation.

But I think the crux of the issue for many people is that there does not appear to be a universal definition of health care reform. People call for it without specifically stating what they mean. Some people call for creating new efficiencies in the practice of health care. Others call for providing free medical care for everyone. Some call for a single payer system whereby all health care bills are paid for by the government (which will inevitably require higher taxes on a portion - if not all - of the taxpayers). Some are calling for the increased use of technology both in the provision of health care (better technology to prevent and cure illnesses) as well as in the business side (to reduce the costs of having to manually track patient records instead of having them digitized or speeding up the process between insurance, provider and patient in terms of medical billing among other ideas). Other definitions are also bandied about by various interest groups but there does not appear to yet be a coherent picture of what "reform" is actually about. At least not something that is readily accessible to the average US citizen via their news networks.

This is usually the point at which I would launch into a tirade against the news media and its fascination for all things related to "Jon & Kate", "Michael Jackson's death" or "Octo-Mom", but I believe I've covered that before. If not, I will most certainly cover it later. But I digress...

So, we have a portion of the population hollering for wholesale changes to the the medical care system. We have a portion of the population adamantly against any changes whatsoever to the best medical care system in the world. And a larger portion who would like to have the issue explained in simple terms that would allow for sensible debate to occur and sensible decisions to be made.

Does the US have the best medical care system in the world? If not the best, certainly one of the best (depending upon the metrics being used). Is it expensive and even inefficient? Probably, especially when measured in monetary terms within a cost-benefit analysis (I think I need to find some data on this). Could it be improved? Sure, along with almost every other aspect of life within the US. But two sides yelling at each other with no room for compromise is going to lead to wholesale changes that will likely prove to be more detrimental than helpful or no change at all which certainly will not prove to be very helpful in the future.

But to get started on the right road, we must first determine what the definition of the reforms needed are and then map out possible solutions from there. If we cannot accurately define the problems, then any solutions will prove useless at best, detrimental at worst.

Cult of Personality

I have to admit that Cult of Personality is one of my favorite songs. It has been ever since it first came out by the band Living Colour. I enjoyed it not only for the style of music but also for its political commentary - which makes sense when I tend to associate almost everything to politics somehow.

I was reminded of this recently as I was thinking about the Obama effect. More precisely, the effect that he has apparently had on a new generation of young voters and supporters. While Bill Clinton enjoyed a certain amount of popularity, particularly among women voters, his overall effect was comparatively small when compared to the first black president of the United States. In an era where people seem to be increasingly judged upon their appeal and popularity, President Obama enjoys a tremendous amount of support. His appearances both on the campaign trail during the election last year attained the status of rock concerts with women swooning as soon as he appeared onstage. Since his election, his popularity has seemingly not waned. While there are many people who do not agree with his policies, none can deny the effect his appearance has had on not just Americans but people all over the world. Whereas his predecessor had engendered a great deal of derision for his policies and sometimes questionable decisions, Obama has just the opposite effect.

His appeal is not hard to understand. He is well-spoken, intelligent, cultured (though that is a subjective term) and good-looking (well, at least that is what I've heard women say). And to become the first black president in a country that is deservedly lambasted for its past with blacks has given him a special position in history that cannot be denied. However, at times, it seems that his appeal has also granted him a sort of invulnerability to criticism that is somewhat disturbing. While Janeane Garofalo is a somewhat extreme example of his supporters, it is rather representative of the beliefs of those who will defend him from any criticism, whether deserved or not. Essentially, the assertion by his backers is that those who would criticize him is that they are all racist regardless of whatever the criticism may be. They assign motive to his critics - something that is simply not possible for it would require the ability to read minds.

And, to be fair, it should be pointed out that such tactics are not only on one side of the political spectrum, as commentary from the other side was equally brutal during the previous administration. But a crucial difference is how Obama is held in regard by his supporters versus the supporters of President Bush, or any others for that matter. There is an almost reverent belief among his followers that he will make everything better. Like the pied piper leading his charges through his musical pipe, President Obama's supporters want to believe and thus they do, without reservation or question. Any critical analysis or advice given is automatically discarded because it does not conform to the hope being offered by the pied piper.

History has shown that blind belief without rational analysis, especially when applied to a charismatic leader, can often have disastrous consequences. Indeed, it is replete with many examples, both elected and not. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini are a few among many. And these examples are only within the last century!

I should caveat that this is not necessarily to infer that President Obama is the same as any of the aforementioned notorious rulers. It is meant merely to demonstrate how the power of wanting to believe in something can lead people to follow leaders whose leadership abilities is questionable at best, disastrous and deadly at worst.

It is not wrong to hope that a man can make a situation better. It is wrong to unquestioningly believe everything that a man may say. And for a great many people who were willing to not only question the abilities of his predecessor but to openly associate him with many of the aforementioned rulers, it seems particularly amazing that they are so blindly willing to follow the current leader without question or reservation.

Town Hall Protests

With the failure by Congress to pass legislation regarding changes to health care in the US, the congressional summer break has allowed for time for members of Congress to return to their respective districts and talk with their constituents about the proposed legislation. However, there has been an outbreak of dissension at various town halls conducted by some of the Democratic members of Congress. Perhaps dissension is putting it euphemistically. There has been vociferous opposition at those meetings to the proposed health care proposals being put forth by the Congress.

But it is not the health care debate that has generated headlines at these meetings but the turmoil resulting from them - and the possible causes of the turmoil. Namely, the charge by Democrats that the opposition is being organized and possibly even bused in by conservative lobbyists and other supporters. The charge itself is almost amusing in how it seems reminiscent of similar charges made against authoritarian regimes who claim popular support through similar measures of busing in supporters to demonstrations in their favor - except now it is the regime in power that is complaining about it from the opposition. The Republicans, in defense of the tactics being used by their supporters, claim that the opposition is to the administration's support and almost-unilateral push for changes to the health-care system and is entirely home-grown.

The end result is yet to be determined. In all likelihood, the Democrats will push through a package of changes (one man's "reform" is another man's unwanted or unnecessary change) for the health-care system. But the Republicans may have won the battle here by shifting the conversation away from a rational discussion of the issues to coverage of the meetings and the turmoil resulting from them. Whatever changes go through will please neither side (though it could be argued that the whole point of a good compromise is that both sides are equally unhappy) and likely will not resolve the issues relating to the problems in the health care system. But, so long as it is used as a political football that can be used to benefit a given party, expect nothing more.

North Korean hostages

What to make of the two female reporters who were released by the North Korean government as a goodwill gesture after Bill Clinton's sudden appearance in Pyongyang? It is certainly good that the women were allowed to leave, but the political farce is likely just beginning. The North Korean media have reported that, as a sign of their magnanimity after Clinton apologized on behalf of the US, they granted a pardon to the women. The Obama administration has stated that this was a private visit by former President Clinton and that there were no messages - and therefore no apology - delivered from the administration.

First, it is impossible that Clinton went to North Korea without the full knowledge and approval of the Obama administration. Clearly a deal was worked out beforehand that his simply showing up for essentially a photo op was sufficient to have the reporters released. So what do the two sides gain from it? Obviously, North Korea gets pictures of Bill Clinton sitting (rather stone-faced) next to Dear Leader and to trumpet that the women were pardoned after Clinton apologized (for what?!). Nobody except the North Koreans (and likely not even a majority of them) believe the propaganda put out by the Dear Leader and his cronies but it makes for a lot of publicity. Essentially, they have proven Hillary's point that they were nothing more than a whiny child wanting attention. And the best way to get back at her for such comments was to have her husband go and kowtow down to them (regardless of whatever spin anyone puts on it on the US side). It seems it worked rather well for North Korea.

For the US, the only true benefit seems to have been the release of the two women. The Obama administration can protest all it wants that it was not involved but no one outside of the deliberately obtuse will rationally believe it. The logistics alone preclude that as a possibility (the South Koreans have their fishing ships taken prisoner for straying into North Korean waters, so how would a US airplane get to Pyongyang without prior agreement?). It is highly unlikely that any apology was delivered and almost as likely that any message was delivered by Clinton himself. If any message was delivered, it was during the negotiations leading up to Clinton's visit. But, the US does stand somewhat humiliated by this action. Now, any country that wants to get US attention simply has to get its hands on some US nationals and then make whatever demands they want. In the eyes of most Americans - and I am not offering judgment one way or another - a single American life is worth more than a hundred from almost any other nation. (If you don't believe it, ask anyone how many US service members have been killed in Iraq, then ask them how many Iraqis.) So, want to distract attention from the nuclear proliferation issue, just capture a few American civilians and then you can distract them with loud calls about how they're going to be punished and everyone will demand that the government cave in to whatever demands to get them released.

Say, come to think of it, this sounds like Iran now (except they have three instead of two).

And in both cases, how exactly did they end up in North Korea or Iran, anyway?

Race Today

In the last year, America has experienced almost a revolution in terms of race, ethnicity and how the two interact within society. The election of the first black president, Barack Obama, showed just how far America has come in terms of the overcoming the stigma of race. Or perhaps it showed how much race is still a factor within American society. It depends upon one's point of view. This was followed by the much ballyhooed case that went before the Supreme Court on the issue of white firefighters being denied promotion due to an insufficient number of minorities passing a promotion exam in New Haven, Connecticut - and the role played by the all-but-confirmed Sonia Sotomayor who will likely be the first Hispanic on the US Supreme Court. And the most recent example of race relations in the US is the case involving a white police officer arresting Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, a black Harvard professor which, on its own was newsworthy but escalated with the additional (and some might feel inflammatory) comments by President Obama on the case.

Certainly the election of the first black president is a sign of tremendous progress on the issue of race in America. It could be argued that it is a tremendous sign of progress in almost any Western nation - most of which have not equaled the feat. At the time of his election, it was being hailed as the "post-racial" era. Presumably, this meant that the era of racism was quickly reaching its denouement. However, and this is something that I pointed out at the time privately, racism is still a relevant issue in the United States and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the election of a black man (or woman, for that matter) did not signal an end to the path started generations earlier. Frankly, the beginning of the end for that issue will occur when a white man (or woman) can freely criticize that elected official for whatever reason and not be immediately labeled a racist. And it is clear from the reactions that have been shown toward those with the temerity to criticize the current president that the nation is still not approaching that point.

The white firefighters filed suit to claim their promotions shortly after the city of New Haven declared the results to be invalid and that there would be no promotions at that time due to the lack of minority candidates passing the exam. Their case was pursued all the way to the Supreme Court - along the way being denied by current Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor - where it was awarded its final merit and declared that the city did not have the right to deny them a promotion based on the lack of a higher number of qualified minority candidates. Some felt this signaled the end of race-based quotas while others felt this was clearly a strike against Ms. Sotomayor being elevated to the Supreme Court as her earlier decision in the case was overruled. But the decision did not resolve the underlying issues concerning race-based quotas and that will continue to be an issue for the immediate future. But this can be seen as part of a backlash against the race-based quota system under the larger aegis of affirmative action. Is affirmative action something that is no longer needed? Certainly it is debatable and there is merit on both sides of the argument. Certainly everyone should be given the same opportunities to succeed - after all, that is the founding promise of America. But are quotas the best way to even the playing field? Would not equal opportunities to education be an equal solution, if not better? And while it can be argued that educational opportunities for minorities are certainly better than they were 40 years ago, that does not mean that they are equal. Perhaps if affirmative action were aimed more toward education, then it would not be so polarizing for adults.

The case of racial profiling looms large when discussing Professor Gates. Was his a case of racial profiling? There is not enough public information to say for certain. But Colin Powell put it well. There was probably an over-reaction on both the part of Prof. Gates as well as Sgt. Crowley. Prof. Gates was likely tired and did not like being challenged in his own home and felt that race was the leading factor in him being questioned. Sgt. Crowley probably did not like being challenged for questioning Prof. Gates and, after a short time of listening to the professor, subsequently arrested and charged him with disorderly conduct - a charge that was soon dismissed. But it does beg the question of whether the perception by blacks is that, even when innocent, are they being challenged because of their race or because of other issues? And do the police profile potential suspects? Absolutely! Just as everyone does profiling of one sort or another. An older black man wearing a suit may not attract the attention of the police as quickly as a black youth wearing a bandanna. A young white man in shorts and sandals may not get a job as easily as a black youth wearing a shirt and tie. Everyone judges others by what they see immediately and color is one of those things that is immediately visible to everyone. But to argue that the profiling takes place only because of color is to suggest that we can know the motivations of others - something that simply is not possible. We know only what we see, hear and touch. We cannot prove what someone else is thinking. Indeed, everything else is subjective. But perhaps some good will come of this as it may be an opportunity for others to talk and be heard and to communicate and learn from others.

Institutionalized racism is no longer acceptable but that does not mean that racism is gone, only that it is not so overt as it was in earlier generations. It is unlikely that it will ever truly go away unless we all go blind and color no longer holds any meaning. But it does not mean that we should hold judgment based only on one's color nor necessarily withhold judgment solely for the same reason. Perhaps, with time and patience, we can learn that the definition of people is, and should be, based on the person themselves and not what is seen at first glance.

Anger management

Anger is one of those emotions that demonstrates a loss of control. More precisely, it is a glaring symptom of a loss of control. A loss of control over any situation, large or small, can trigger an angry reaction. And anger can fuel itself to rages that grow increasingly uncontrollable until the underlying anger is spent.

So what to do about it? It is nigh impossible to prevent getting angry because on one can control everything in their life - presuming of course, that anger is the natural reaction to a loss of control. For many people, myself included, this is true. So if it is not possible to prevent becoming angry at a loss of control, the next best solution is learning to manage the anger instead of letting it control you. Using the anger as a tool to or a focal point can help to manage the anger to a point where control can be regained not only over the anger itself but even to the underlying cause. It is not easy and does not always work but even working to get to that point can help restore the sense of balance that is lost in the maelstrom of the anger and the (often) accompanying rage. Focusing on a single point of restoration can be, in itself, the first step in recovering that which has been lost - control.

And while most of us would deny we are control freaks, few of us like to be out of control of the people, events and emotions surrounding us.

Popularity contest

"People's support doesn't bring legitimacy, but popularity". So goes a quote by a senior Iranian cleric regarding the continued discontent by a large part of the Iranian populace about the June 12 presidential election in that nation. And I am sure that the cleric and others within the ruling leadership feel that they do not need popular support so long as they possess the guns with which they can continue to quell support for alternatives to their leadership. The problem is that they were on the other side of the equation 30 years ago in opposition to the Shah and they certainly had no problem declaring that popular support granted them the legitimacy to take the actions - and the leadership - that they did.

However, power begets the desire for more power and a lower tolerance for dissent. That, in turn, reduces the standards of legitimacy from popularity by and from the populace to legitimacy through whatever means are necessary. Lies, coercion, force or anything else in between are fair tools to use within their eyes and, unfortunately, it continues a downward spiral from which it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to recover. History is littered with many examples of those who failed to learn the lessons of their predecessors. And thus does the cycle continue.

Communication

What are words for? For whatever reason, I was thinking about that today. Not the video, per se, but the idea behind that phrase. Words are simply a form of communication between people. But words are very interesting in the larger context of communication. Words are can be very expressive and beautiful, they can be limiting and even insufficient at time, and they can be more brutal than physical force. All living animals have the ability to communicate but it seems that humans are the only ones with the ability to articulate in a verbal form.

A caveat here - we know, for example, that dolphins and whales can communicate with each other through what we (as humans) interpret as song. Does that mean that they cannot articulate? Perhaps not in a manner that we can easily understand. But that means that articulation takes on a very narrow definition that is likely incorrect in the larger picture.

Poetry and literature are examples of the beauty and the power of words. Poetry has the ability express emotion in ways that are seemingly limitless. Putting words and phrases together that can convey a meaning whose interpretation depends upon the reader is an awesome ability. Literature possesses the ability put the reader into a new environment or to share knowledge of people, places or events that would otherwise be completely alien to the reader. Literature allows us to create new perspectives through which to view the world - all of which is possible through the power of those words.

In the Christian Bible, it is said that God destroyed the tower of Babel and allowed the creation of a multitude of languages. But the existence of different languages creates difficulties in the usage and understanding of words. It allows for confusion when speakers of different languages attempt to communicate and such miscommunication has been known to start fights and even wars. Words used in one context can easily be misinterpreted in another context. And all of this is provided that the people involved in the conversation both speak the same language - even if not natively. Furthermore, native speakers of the same language can fail to communicate effectively. Any conversation between parents and their children is proof of a failure to communicate in the same language.

Words can also cause more damage to people than physical actions. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." This children's mantra is intended to ward off hurtful things that other children may say. But taking away the pain caused by hurtful words to children is a difficult thing for any parent. An even more worse example is the demonization of people that are different in any fashion. Jews in Germany, the Tutsis in Rwanda and even Blacks in America and Western European nations have been victims of the language of demonization. It is always easier to treat others poorly when they are called names that dehumanize them. When their individuality and personality is stripped away and they can be grouped by whatever separates them from others (whether it be language, religion, color or any other grouping option), the ability to cause great harm and pain is made much easier.

So, do we still beg the question of what are words for?

Something to lose

Billy Joel sang that only the good die young. Perhaps they die young because they have nothing to lose so they are more likely to do things that risk their lives. Those with something to lose are often far less likely to participate in actions that can hurt them, whether it be physically, emotionally, financially, or in any other manner. The reality is that everyone has something to lose - no one is invulnerable. The difference is that older people, or those with families, are typically more cognizant of that fact. And if they recognize what they have to lose, they are far more reticent to change anything that could impact them negatively.

When put in the context of revolution, the contrast is stark. Revolutions are often started by the youth of a nation while their success often depends upon the support of the middle class and some of the elites. Several examples come to mind, including the failed protests in China in 1989, the failed protests in Iran in 1999 and some of the "color revolutions" that occurred in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. A great majority of those who came out to protest their governments were students and other youngsters. In spite of the dangers of crackdowns by the governments they were protesting against which often resulted in beatings, arrests and even death, they came out in the belief that their presence would result in a change that would grant them what they sought. In some cases, their presence resulted in enough pressure that they were soon joined by the middle class who had previously stayed aloof for fear of loss and they would find a leader from one of the elites who sensed an opportunity to ascend higher. In other cases, they suffered disastrous consequences.

But why did they risk themselves in such ventures? The reasons are myriad and sometimes perhaps even conflicting. It would not be a platitude to argue that many of them sought freedom, though that term is subjective and was often interpreted differently by those who risked themselves. One example is China during the spring of 1989, when the students protested against government corruption as well as the ability to be able to do better for themselves. While they enjoyed a great deal of support among the general populace and even among some of the leading elites, their protests were eventually crushed by an apparatus that was unwilling to tolerate any criticism and feared a loss of its unlimited power. It could be argued that the protests did succeed in some small measure as official corruption has become a persistent whipping boy of the government and the great majority of Chinese have seen dramatic increases in their lives in the 20 years - all of which is claimed as a validation of and by the government and its brutal crackdown of those student protesters.

But it is important to note that the protests began among the students, as they have for much of the last century in China. The great majority of citizens, middle-class and elites, held back from participating in the protests until it appeared that there would be no forceful response from the government (which occurred due to disagreements within the government as to how to handle the protesters). That the protests failed was not as important as who led them. The initial risk (which is always the greatest) was assumed almost exclusively by the students. Whether one agreed with the risk - and it can be rather certain that the parents were not happy for their children to risk themselves - the students felt the risk was minimal to themselves. Perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps out of a false sense of bravado, perhaps the naivete of youth that it is invulnerable, the youth were the ones to strike out on the new path. It was for the remainder to determine whether the path upon which they set out had a destination that could be reached.

Each new generation spawns new ideas. The lessons of the past are often left in the past - a past that only the older generations can recall with ease. Much like the story of Pavlov's dogs, if punished for taking a particular action (or for putting their necks on the line), then they are less likely to do it again. But for those with little experience - good or bad - then the lure of taking risks is sometimes too strong to resist. And with great risk can sometimes come great reward. But the opposite corollary holds equally true in that that risk can be realized. One of the definitions of risk is "the hazard or chance of loss" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/risk). To understand risk and loss, each generation must first experience it.

Michael Jackson

I am not sure whether to be appalled or amazed at the hoopla surrounding the death of Michael Jackson. The morbid fascination with a singer - albeit a very famous one - is simply stupefying to me. I have read some of the obituaries written about him and it is clear that he was, among all other things, human and fallible. He had his incredible musical gifts and his personal foibles that made him into the media target that he had become in the last half of his life. Prior to his death, it seemed that as many people admired and loved him for his music and talent as despised and hated him for his personal failings. Yet, in the aftermath of his sudden (we could say premature, but that would suppose a level of knowledge that he should have died at some later point in time that is impossible to prove) death, he has returned to his status as a musical giant whose legacy outshines all else in his life. He is being worshiped and remembered as he was at the height of his fame and not as he was in his later years.

This is not to say that we should speak ill of the dead, but the level of celebrity worship is worrying at best, dangerous at worst. Celebrity status is highly sought after with the (mistaken) belief that its very attainment is a justification of sorts for the methods employed to gain it. Additionally, it almost seems as celebrity status confers a knowledge of almost any subject and the ability to speak to said subjects with an authority normally reserved for those with years of study and education. It is a sad state of affairs when well-known actors or actresses are asked to serve as "ambassadors" for UN agencies in order to generate attention for the cause du jour instead of allowing people whose livelihoods are helping others serve in similar capacities. After all, who wants to hire John or Jane Smith to serve as an "ambassador" for [insert generic] relief agency when they can hire Johnny or Jenny Millionaire actor?

This does not mean that celebrities are not allowed an opinion or to help on causes that are important to them but that celebrity status should not make them more important than others. Nor should celebrity (and its attendant - and sometimes unwanted - attention) detract from other more important (another subjective term, to be sure) issues. The protests and crackdown in Iran, which was a major event in the world news, was quickly replaced by Michael Jackson's death. Subsequent events in Iran have been relegated to "below the fold", under the continuing mass coverage of Jackson's death and any related issues. And that is just one issue. The US economy and its continued free fall, a major military offensive by US troops in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of US troops from Iraqi cities have all been relegated to the back pages to satiate the public's thirst for knowledge of everything related to Michael Jackson.

But he is one man. Certainly a man who had a great impact on the world through his music (I remember where I was when his "Thriller" video was first released), but one man nonetheless. Yet the public is more concerned over the minutiae of his death than with events throughout the world that hold more sway over their daily lives. The devoted attention of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people at the expense of many other issues could be written off as curiosity run amok, a one-time event. Yet recent history and its fascination with all celebrities would indicate that this is a trend that continues to roll on - very possibly to the peril of all and not just to the obsessed fans.

I wonder if the thousands arrested and likely being persecuted in Iran feel as concerned about the death of Michael Jackson as those who have followed his death for the last week or so. Somehow, I doubt it...

A day at the beach

A day at the beach crabbing is an exercise in futility. Crabbing is the process of fishing for crabs or, more simply, just like fishing. It is an exercise in patience and persistence with an undetermined end that can be either exhilarating or exasperating. Ultimately, its reward is not so much the end result but the process itself - or so I am told. While I cannot profess to be a fisherman nor to enjoy its alleged benefits, I am not blind to some of the things that are a result.

Fishing is an opportunity to talk with others who share the same passion. Stories are passed along, tips are freely offered and accepted on the best ways to accomplish the task at hand and drinks (typically alcoholic) are consumed with great gusto. This is an opportunity to share and partake of large event that would not be available in most other settings. There is a personality to those who enjoy fishing that is refreshing in a world otherwise locked within itself or its immediate surroundings. People with whom there is otherwise nothing in common giving and taking is very reassuring. There is a diversity that does not seem to percolate very far beyond those piers but, on those piers, everyone is equal and that is refreshing in a world where equality seems to be a quaint dream otherwise yet to be realized.

A turning point in Iran?

To this point, I have not posted links to other sites here on this blog nor am I certain if I will in the future. But I am sorely tempted to post what has become perhaps the signature moment of the recent turmoil in Iran - a video of a young woman who was allegedly shot by the Iranian security forces dying. I have seen the video and it is very disturbing, to put it mildly. Even in the generation of the gratuitous violence freely available through our many media outlets, this video is chilling. In the video, you can see the woman falling down and others rushing to her side (including, allegedly, her father). There is blood on the ground surrounding her and it continues to pool around her chest area - she was apparently shot in the heart. Then, blood starts pouring out of her facial orifices, until her young face is changed into a grotesquely bloody visage reminiscent of a horrifying Halloween mask. Men surround her in a futile attempt to save her.

Her death is clearly haunting the Iranian leadership. Her family was allowed to bury her quietly and have been told that there are to be no public remembrances. The implication is clear - her death can all too easily become a rallying cry. Despite government attempts to prevent it, the video is available in Iran and protesters who have spent the last week demonstrating for what they feel was a rigged election will soon demand justice from their government for the unnecessary murder of one of their countrymen/women. What has been a series of protests focused on the election results that were worrying for the leadership but perhaps not truly threatening could become the death knell for the Islamic Revolution. The government may well survive, but it is unlikely that it will enjoy the same legitimacy that it has since its inception under Ayatollah Khomeini 30 years ago. If it does not, then the cause will be one of its own making.

Father's Day

In the US, tomorrow is Father's Day. A day to celebrate the men who are fathers. And a father is not necessarily the man who can physically create a child but the one who can take on the role of a father and be the role model and the guide for his children. To be a father, much like being a mother, is not a mantle that can be taken off at times where it may be inconvenient or to take on only when it suits him. It is a role that, once assumed, will last for the rest of his life. It does not demand perfection, it requires perseverance. It does not require money or a certain physique, it needs time, patience and understanding. It is the most demanding effort that will ever be required of a man and the most rewarding - often at the same time. The more that is put into being a father, the more that will be reaped - though not always in the most obvious ways.

A good father is not just the one who carries pictures of his children everywhere to show to others. A good father is not just the one who plays games with his children when he gets off of work. A good father is not just the one who is rubbing his children's foreheads when they're ill. A good father is the one who knows that he is the one who is setting an example for what he wants his children to do and to be when they grow up. A good father knows that there is never a timeout in setting an example, only when he must apply one for bad behavior by his children. A good father can be a friend to his children but it does not prevent him from having to impose discipline when needed. A good father knows that he must be all things good at all times and any mistakes and failures must be addressed as quickly as possible.

Given these criteria, a good father is hard to find. But aspiring to be a good father is perhaps the most important thing of all. And fathers everywhere reap the rewards today of their efforts to be good fathers.

Writer's block?

Barely a week into the effort to work on a blog and I hit a writer's block. Or perhaps that is a misnomer. I can think of plenty of things about which to write, but the issue is more related to whether I can write well about them. This is particularly troublesome because I have to be able to not only write on whatever subjects are at hand but I also want to be sure that they're written well with no grammar or factual errors. On more than one occasion, I have posted something only to have to go back and then edit out the grammatical errors. And I only have four posts prior to this one! Perhaps if I had an editor, this would not be an issue - or at least not as much of one. But, then again, if I had an editor, I probably would be compensated for the things I write. That, however, is something to which I will have to aspire for the future. Perhaps when I retire from my current career - not a career based on writing, unfortunately.

Tomorrow I may feel more inclined to editorialize on the other issues randomly floating through my mind at the moment. Or not...

Another revolution?

Like many others, I am sure, I have been thinking about the recent presidential election in Iran. More precisely, and unlike many others, I have been comparing it to elections in the US. Most precisely, to the 2000 election as well as to the 1876 election.

In the 2000 election, there were disputes as to the votes that were tallied and the battle went to the (relatively) impartial US Supreme Court - where the end result was the elevation of George W. Bush to the presidency. There is no independent judiciary in Iran that can be used to resolve this issue - the closest is the Guardian Council which will have to confirm the election results (normally a pro forma process). The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, after initially accepting that Ahmadinejad, has now ordered an investigation by the Guardian Council into possible (and that term is used somewhat loosely at this point) election fraud. While many think it is simply a delaying ploy to temper down the protests by Mousavi supporters, it is possible that they will invalidate the results and... do what? Have a new election? Declare Mousavi the winner? Declare that Ahmadinejad won but by a closer margin? Or simply validate the results? In the end, it seems like very little will be gained by whatever the Guardian Council decides. In truth, it seems that the protests will likely continue (until what?) or they will be brutally put down by supporters of the current administration (the military and para-military forces).

However, an option that seems more likely in Iran can be pulled from the 1876 election. In that election, Rutherford B. Hayes is commonly thought to have worked out an agreement with some Democrats that would allow him to be elected in return for removing Republican troops (and thus control) over several southern states - a move that, in reality, stopped the progress of blacks that had been instituted after the Civil War. This would probably be the most face-saving move that would work in Iran, as well. Mousavi, for all of the moderate tendencies he has attributed to him (rightly or wrongly), is still a member of the conservative elite in the country and may well concede the election if granted certain wishes. He could then move to calm down his supporters which would allow for the leadership to continue as is. The only question is, if such a deal is struck, would the supporters who have protested in his name for the past several days return to their previous lives or consider it another betrayal and continue with the mass demonstrations that have rocked the nation? Just because the system worked in the US (ignoring the long-term effects, the nation stayed together and there was no systemic failure) does not ensure that it would work in Iran. But it could potentially be the lesser of several evils in the eyes of the Iranian leadership.