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...
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The web needs an editor
Things like this drive me absolutely crazy!
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?
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?
Saturday, October 17, 2009
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...
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...
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)