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.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
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...
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...
Thursday, November 12, 2009
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:
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.
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.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
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.
- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)