Random Thoughts (during the holidays?)

Just a couple of things that have come to mind over the last several days. Naturally, none of them actually have to do with the holidays.

This little item about one of our vaunted public servants, convicted of unethical activities, is now asking for donations for his legal defense just made me stop to wonder at the unlimited gall those with power seem to have and the absolute barest regard they seem to have for the voters' intelligence. (Of course, in light of some of the people that have been elected in the US, maybe that regard is not so far-fetched, after all.) Just to make sure I have everything in perspective, a man who is paid a salary by the people that he is voted to represent then squanders the public trust by engaging in unethical activities (whether he meant to or not only causes one to wonder at his actual competence) and now is soliciting further donations from the citizens he purportedly represents to pay for his legal defense. In essence, he's ripping them off twice - at least. I'd be curious to see who actually pays into that fund. I'd bet that they're the same type of people who invest in pyramid schemes and hedge those bets with lottery tickets for retirement.

It's always funny to me how people conveniently forget, or outright ignore, history and its impact on our views of the present. A good example of this is the view of Afghanistan from a recent historical perspective. This was brought home to me when reading an article in Foreign Policy entitled Once Upon a Time in Afghanistan and viewing pictures from there dating to the 50's and 60's. Yet the pictures that we see today are the result of a nation that has essentially suffered through continuous war for more than 30 years - and still no reasonable end is in sight (in spite of President Obama's promises to the contrary). It made me wonder if someone will look at pictures of the United States (or some other highly developed nation from today) 50 years from now and wonder "What the hell happened? This isn't the United States that I know today!" It may not seem immediately conceivable but it is very possible to envision such a scenario. No nation will last forever (history has shown that to be true) and, as will all forms of life on the planet, every nation will evolve through various peaks and valleys as it develops. It's certainly worth thinking about and seeing what can be done today to avoid the mishaps that Afghanistan currently deals with.

Actually, since New Year is coming up very soon, I wonder if I should make a set of resolutions?

Nah, probably not. It's not like I've ever adhered for more than a short time to any other resolution I've made in my many years here. I will just continue with trying to do the best I can at what I do and prepare for anything that comes the way of me and mine. It's worked out ok so far, I suppose...

Writing

I was reading an article for blog writers that suggested that you pick a subject and focus your blog on that in order to encourage people to return to your blog. Obviously, based on that criteria, I am never going to have a "successful" blog. As any regular reader of this blog will already know, this blog goes all over the place. So the only way for me to follow that particular piece of advice is to either find a single topic that interests me more than any other and upon which I am willing write frequently or to create a new blog whenever I want to write upon a new topic. I am a little too ADD to only write upon a single subject ad nauseum within a blog and I am not willing to setup a new blog whenever I want to write upon a new subject as that is way more effort than should be needed IMHO. (Is it ok to use geek-speak in a blog?)

So the question becomes, for me, what is the purpose of writing a blog? And, as I noted in my very first entry, it was (and remains) an opportunity for me to expound on my varied interests. Of equal importance (though not noted in my first entry) is the chance for me to work on the craft of writing in general. I love to write and to think of myself as a writer. But having gone many years without truly working on my writing has caused me to become rusty. So, I write on random things on this blog and on some technical subjects (though, honestly, I think it is more on peripherally subjective topics) on LessThanDot. Either way, my end goal is to offer my own limited perspective on a variety of issues which interest me - both personally and professionally - and enhance my literary skills. And to that end, I must admit that it has helped me to rejuvenate my creative juices and get back to doing writing when I have the time. I've recently returned to writing poetry again (after a layoff of several years due to professional and personal concerns) and even worked on a few short stories. Perhaps other opportunities will be available as a result - at the very least, feedback and open communication will open new avenues for knowledge and friendships and for that I am always grateful.

What is fair?

In politics, there is a great hue and cry about making things fair and equal for everyone. The typical rallying cry is that the rich should be taxed more and we should provide for the poor. This way, everyone is equal it will be more fair. What this fails to take into account, though, is that it is not fair for anyone. It is not fair for the rich, obviously, as they are being treated negatively for no reason other than being rich. (Substitute "black" for "rich" and then see if you can follow the logical path.) And, in reality, it is not fair to the poor who are being disincentivized from succeeding as they feed from the breast of the government and thus will never have the opportunity to succeed (or fail) according to their abilities. Frankly, it does the same thing to the rich who will see little point to working hard when they will fail to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

This is not to argue that everything in life is fair and that everyone has the same opportunities - it is not and they do not. But if the desire is to make everything fair and equal, then it should be more important to create a fair and equal opportunity for everyone to succeed - not to punish people for being professionally and economically successful. Give children the tools they need to learn and to succeed. Give the perpetually disadvantaged the tools they need to achieve success. Those are the ways to grant some degree of an equal playing field upon which there is a degree of fairness. Do not establish policies that take from some and give to others in the name of fairness in the name of trying to establish an equality that cannot exist as propagated.

The reality is that nothing in life is fair. If life were fair, I would be better looking and have a lot more power (beyond that of the pen/keyboard). If life were fair, my family members would not suffer from illness. If life were fair, people would be smart enough to do the things they want in life. If life were fair, everyone would be happy with who they are and what they do. But life is not fair. The difference is with how we want to establish fairness - through the collective work and effort of a community or via governmental diktat? Government has its purpose and can do good (certainly the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's stands as one of the best examples of this), but reliance on government to establish "fair and equal" is not the best option as government (and those who run it) will execute its policies on the basis of its survival. And history has shown that every government will set "fair" policies that help it to stay in power.

Online Relationships

I've been far more involved with technology than I ever thought I would be when I was growing up. Indeed, my career is in IT and I spend my days in front of a computer hacking out code instead of hacking out stories and poetry. But I also have gained a great deal more than just learning how to write code - I have learned from many people I would otherwise have never had the opportunity to meet. Heck, some of them I have still never met and others I will never have the opportunity to do so (RIP DakotaRse).

While I have very good, close friends who I met in real life (the non-virtual world), I have to admit that I also have very good friends whom I met in the virtual world first and then had the pleasure to meet in person subsequently. There is one group with whom I have been particularly close; a group of technical folks with whom I actually help to run a technical web forum (LessThanDot). From these people I have learned not only a great deal about how to do my job better but have also established friendships that I cherish highly. While I would not have considered "online" friends to be real friends, the relationships I have made with these people are as real as any I have made with people I know and see everyday.

Now, whether these relationships would be as good as I consider them to be if I had not actually met many of them in real life (after we first met online) is another issue. The reality is that a relationship can best exist where there is physical proximity and a familiarity built up through such proximity. I know more than a few people only online and consider them to be friendly enough, but those with whom I am closest (either online or offline) are those with whom I have had time to create a truly personal relationship in person. People that I grew up with but live in different parts of the world today are still good friends of mine - even if we only talk rarely. People who I have known online for years may not be at the same level because we haven't had time to develop that personal rapport - something that I think is best done face-to-face.

But this should not viewed as a denigration of online relationships. If anything, many of my online relationships have opened the world to me in a way that would not have been possible in my father's generation. I count among my many online friends people from countries that I will likely never have the opportunity to visit; but their willingness to share their lives gives me an insight otherwise unavailable via conventional media. But should the day come where I have the ability to meet some of them, I will have a good opening from which to continue building those relationships. For that, I am grateful to be of this generation where the miniaturization of the world through our growing interconnectedness makes such relationships possible.

More random musings

The other day, I read an article in Foreign Policy discussing land mines being a war crime. I have to admit that the article was both blunt and poignant. It also got my blood boiling to think about it. In the West, people are rather fortunate that they have not had to worry about where they can walk for fear of whether they will be either maimed or killed by these land mines. The same cannot be said for a majority of people who have lived in war zones over the last 30+ years. Throughout Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, these explosives have deformed several generations and continue to do so. Sure, they may be easy to make and cost less in terms of material and manpower in order to defeat an enemy, but they also never go away and continue to destroy for many years after a conflict has ended. Where is the justice? Where is the right to live freely and without fear of loss of life and limb? What justification can nations offer to strip those rights away for generations? Even the current US president, he of the "Hope and Change" mantra of the 2008 election, has refused to sign the declaration to ban land mines! So what hope is there to stop the proliferation of land mines if President Hope and Change is unwilling to buck political and military expediency in order to enforce a change? Does the US really wish to continue its habit of acting in contradiction to its stated ideals? (Yes, that is a rhetorical question.)

The US off-year elections (does anyone wonder why all non-presidential elections are declared off-year, as if only the presidential elections hold any importance? Doesn't that, by corollary, then mean that Congress is irrelevant and that we are one step closer toward rule by executive fiat?) are coming up next Tuesday and I suspect that more than a few people are less-than-thrilled by the choices being offered. There is a great deal of discussion over the distinct possibility that the Republicans will be swept back into power as a result of dissatisfaction over Democrats holding the major power centers in both the executive and legislative branches. Yet, there is also no great enthusiasm over the Republicans after the previous decade under President Bush and a Republican Congress. Rather, it is a choice of the lesser of two evils. Which will lead to a situation of governmental gridlock - a situation that seems to be the intention of many voters. So we will once again entertain the question of the role of government - is it for the good of the people or better to be limited so as not to impinge on the rights of the people? Somehow, I don't think the question will be answered with this election, either.

Sticking with politics, how about the situation with NPR and its former "news analyst" Juan Williams? Certainly there is a belief that NPR is a liberal news outlet among many people (particularly conservatives) and their firing of Williams for comments he made while on a Fox show with (the less than unbiased) Bill O'Reilly only reinforces that belief. Especially when compared to other "analysts" or "reporters" who have made similar gaffes yet did not suffer the loss of their jobs with NPR, it seems to have been a politically partisan firing and makes it difficult to maintain their declared unbiased reporting. And the head of NPR's incendiary comments regarding her handling of Williams' firing only inflame the situation. Their best hope is that the situation will die down and people will forget it - but that seems unlikely so long as Williams is given an open forum on Fox News where he was immediately given a 3 year contract. Certainly in an era where the line between editorializing and factual news grows increasingly blurry, comments such as Williams' make it difficult to hold reporters and news organizations to unbiased standards, NPR's actions notwithstanding. The fact that he was immediately "rewarded" with a new contract by a competitor (that is often accused of being of a particular political bent) will make it that much more difficult to hold the line. In the end, while I am a listener of NPR, I listen while trying to filter out the obvious partisan editorial bent - the same as I do for Fox News and other news outlets. Too bad so few other people can or are willing to do the same.

Children today are constantly subjected to the standards of their parents when it comes to sports. Indeed, the level of competition, even at what is considered recreational leagues, continues to grow. I coach a youth soccer team at a recreational level. This is my first season in U-12 and the majority of my team is also playing their first season at this age group. In every match this season, we have been the smaller team and have lost most of our matches with two ties. I have been very proud of my kids and the effort they have put into each match and, while I know they want to win (as do I!), they have not gotten down on themselves but continue to work hard each week. After a heartbreaking loss today that we should have tied if not won, the father of one of my players caustically remarked that "We're not going to win any games this season, are we, coach?" Those were the same words I heard from his son before our match last weekend (that we actually tied). I told him that they were trying but it is hard when we can't get consistent practices - we have been rained out the last two weeks. Clearly upset, he took his son and, when I asked if they would be back for the second match, indicated they would not. I understand wanting to win but the only thing he taught his son was that it was ok to quit if you're not winning. Fortunately, cooler heads obviously prevailed at his home as the player did return for the second match - his mother brought him back. And while this particular player has improved dramatically (due in large part to his father who has worked as a coach before) this season, I worry that his drive in the future will be to win and to be the star at the expense of his team. He's a good player but no one player wins a soccer match - a lesson I have tried to impart with only some success to him. I hope that my weekly lessons on doing your best, working as a team and not worrying about the end score will sink in with all of my players. At the end of this season, these players will not remember how many games they won or lost. They may not even remember all of or how many goals they scored. But they will remember if they had fun and, if they didn't, they won't want to keep playing. In the end, if it is not fun, people won't want to do it (unless they have to).

Just random thoughts...

One of the wonderful things about the internet is the ability to learn only what you want to learn - everything else is completely useless trivia if it doesn't conform to your chosen point of view. And when I say "wonderful", I should put tags around it to convey my intended meaning. (Note to self - figure out how to convey sarcasm in a written medium)

I only follow a few blogs; most of them anonymously because I don't want someone going through my profile and attempting to peg me as something based on what I read. (That reminds me to check to see if my local library is cataloging all of my selected materials and then forwarding to the Dept of Homeland Security.) Some of those blogs are political - and all of them are very one-sided in their point of view. That is fine since no one should be taking what is written in blogs as an unbiased account of journalistic excellence. However, on more than one occasion, I have attempted to make comments on those same blogs to point out specific disagreements with stated arguments and the comments never make it past the review process. It seems that, if the comments do not agree with the author's stated points, then the authors will simply not allow them to be posted. Which simply perpetuates the narrow-minded views that increasingly crowd out the more nuanced (and often better informed) views that might help contribute to improve society overall. For the record, any comments made to this blog will not go through a review process but will be posted as they are submitted. The only time I might choose to make a revision/deletion is in the case of obvious trolling or flaming - and even then it would have to be pretty egregious. But simple disagreement with one of my posts does not merit removing someone else's opinion(s). However, this obviously is not the case with others (typically in the political realm) who do not wish to hear dissenting opinions. Too bad as the result is often just continued ignorance.

Switching gears, I have just finished reading Adam Robinson's Bin Laden: Behind the Mask of the Terrorist. As you can see, a wonderfully large picture of America's Public Enemy #1 (behind Saddam Hussein - oh, wait, never mind, he's already been dealt with) is displayed prominently on the front cover of the book. What I have found interesting is that some people, upon seeing the book, have been genuinely interested in both the book and my reasons for reading it (and that is because I happen to like history and the social sciences, not to mention I'd like to better understand how things have happened to this point). Others have given me looks that range from "Are you studying how to be a terrorist" to "I don't want to talk with someone who likes that guy on the cover of your book" to "WTF?!". Usually, I have to deliberately provoke discussions with people to learn and sometimes to help them see alternative points of view. Maybe I should just carry around that book all the time...

Come to think of it, the Department of Homeland Security sounds an awful lot like Orwellian double-speak. Since when did the US become the "homeland". Not to make light of the terrorist threat but I think they feel more threatened by our ideas and the freedom to live as we wish (for the most part - that is certainly not an absolute). To keep the "homeland" secure would require converting people to our way of thinking, not creating new barriers to keep them out and thereby reinforcing their misperceptions. I think I need to go back and do some research into exactly how "homeland security" works and what parameters they work within (or without, as the case may be). I'm betting that my beloved freedoms are not nearly what I think they were before 9/11/01. Of course, as I've noted here before, "freedom" is a relative term. But I won't go there again tonight...

This I Believe

A while back, NPR (National Public Radio for those not familiar with it) ran a series entitled This I Believe. It was a series of essays by people (many of them famous) on what they believed. I've wanted to follow up and write my own essay based on that pattern. Here is my attempt.

This I believe. I believe that I am not a one-dimensional person. I believe that there are no easy answers and no free lunches. I believe that things are no better and no worse than they were in our parents generation - or five generations earlier. The only difference is in what we remember and human nature tends to remembers things from the past in a more positive fashion than the present.

I believe that it is better to give than to receive, whether it be gifts, love or a hard time. I believe that I have to live for today because I do not want to regret yesterday. And when today has not a good day, then I believe that tomorrow will be better. I believe that my friends will be there to help me when I need help but I know that it is my family who will be there to support me no matter what else may be happening. I believe that education will be my greatest ally as I live this life and strive to learn as much as I can. I believe that the more I know, the more I will be able to pass onto my child so that he will be able to do better than I.

I believe that there is a right and a wrong - and that both are relative to who I am and what I believe. I believe that life is a story to which we all contribute and that no one will ever be able to tell it fully - though I want to try. Along that same line, I believe that there is no beginning and no end to the story, merely another point of view.

I believe that we will achieve that which we work hard toward, though perhaps not in the form that we originally envisioned. I believe that we are all the same in the end. I believe that we are more than what others may see us as and not as much as we might see ourselves as. I believe that we are free to make choices as to how we choose to live and what we choose to do. Equally important, I also believe that we are free to suffer the consequences of those choices. But, most importantly, I believe in me and what I can and hope to do in this life.

Burn a holy book!

It just goes to show that extremism and ignorance is not limited to only one religion or one group of people. Terry Jones, a pastor of a Florida-based church, has spent the last several months declaring that he would burn the Koran as a message to the Islamist extremists. Exactly what message he thinks that will send is another matter entirely. While much of the civilized world deplores such an action for a variety of reasons (it will harm US soldiers, it will inflame the moderate Muslims, it's heretical to do that to any other holy book, etc.), he has spent much of the last week or more garnering needless attention from a media that cannot get enough of him and asinine actions.

To be fair, he lives in a country where he has the right to do such a foolish action. No such similar action would be accepted or tolerated in any Muslim country (whose populations are being roused to anger because of Mr. Jones' threats). The right to act stupidly seems to be a uniquely American right and is exercised often - and then hyped by a media seemingly starved for new lows upon which they can report. But just because one has the right to act stupidly does not mean that they should. Honestly, there are a variety of (very valid) reasons why Mr. Jones should not follow through on his threat to burn the Koran and they have been articulated by personages far more influential than I. But for a man who professes to be a man of God (and presumably the peace and kindness so often associated with God), this is an action that stands as a stark contradiction to that profession. But is it really that different from those whom he claims to be protesting against (Islamist extremists)? Except that he is only hurting a book (a grave crime in my personal belief but that is beside the point) whereas his avowed enemies seek to hurt anyone who opposes them - or even gets in the way.

Maybe the best answer is to take all of them, lock them in a room together and toss the key...

Just writing aloud

Normally, I suppose that would be just thinking aloud, but in this medium, I guess "writing" is more apt. Though it does cause one to wonder exactly how we use language to serve as a rational form of communication when we can twist meaning around to create a new form of intended meaning - sort of like double entendres.

I find that I am able to convey meaning via the written word oftentimes much better than I do the spoken word. With writing, it requires more time and effort to form the content of what I wish to convey and thus there is a forced deliberateness that allows me to express what I wish in a more structured format. With the spoken word, there is not that same sort of time to force a coherent sense of communication all of the time. As any of my friends will attest, there is little in the way of a filter between my brain and my mouth at times and things that pop through my head can (and often have) made their way out of my mouth. And while this means that I tend to have a very WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) personality, it has been known to create some awkward moments, too. And since I do not much like awkward (I've had more than enough of that in my life), I'll choose pen and paper (or keyboard, such as the case may be) if given a choice.

This also means that I tend to read a lot, as well. And, in this day and age where the English language is bastardized in ways that I cannot express without additional four-letter invectives, it can be very annoying that there is a growing laxness when it comes to spelling and grammar. Granted, I am not perfect in proofreading my own material before publishing here on this blog, but to see what passes for professional writing (news websites, professional editorials, etc) is often enough to bring the onset of an aneurysm. It gets progressively worse as I view blogs and other similar entities. Perhaps I am getting old and crotchety but I would prefer to think that standards are just failing and that in the generation of my grandchildren the English language will be reduced to nothing more than abbreviations in the written form containing nothing more than 3 consonants and perhaps a vowel. Hopefully the spoken language will not be similarly bastardized. If we think there is a generation gap between the techno-geek generation and their grandparents today, I shudder to imagine it 40+ years from now.

Of course, maybe I won't want to communicate with anyone in 40+ years, so maybe this whole line of thought is best left to the theoretical. And, not so oddly, I think theory is a wonderful thing and would only make the real much better if it were implemented as envisioned.

Naked Officials

Yes, I know, that is a titillating title bound to increase traffic to my site by people seeking cheap thrills. Unfortunately, they are going to be terribly disappointed to find that this term is not what they think it is - at least in this case.

A "naked official" is clearly defined by the Organization Department of the Central Committee (ODCC) of the CPC as an official whose spouse and children have migrated abroad and have become foreign citizens or taken permanent residence overseas, or who has no spouse but whose children have taken foreign permanent residence permits, or who has no children but whose spouse has become a foreign citizen or taken a foreign permanent residence permit.

Ok, I admit, I have known about this term and its implications for a while but I suspect it is something new to most Western audiences. So I wanted to address it and see if I could point out some of its implications in comparison to the West. In short, the point of this article is to address a concern that is prevalent in China when it comes to its "public servants" - public officials often are guilty of corruption or other crimes and, in order to help protect themselves and their families, will often ensure that they have a way out of the country. There are more than a few examples of this that can be found using Google so I will not belabor the point here.

Now, this does not mean that public officials and corruption are limited only to China. A review any nation's political leaders will turn this up as a trend that seems only to expand to all levels of society. In the past year, British officials have been forced to resign due to taking money from the public treasury for personal use and US officials are currently being investigated by their peers (ok, yes, I admit I found it hilarious that other foxes stand in judgment of the offending foxes) in the House of Representatives. The difference here relates more to the method in which each nation handles the problem and how the offending leaders react to the possibility of being caught. Outside of China, the officials may be censured, lose their jobs and their pensions, be publicly humiliated or suffer similar such punishments. In China, they truly can lose their lives.

It is not my intent to say that one way is right or another wrong. But why are the flagrantly corrupt in China (and to be caught, they tend to have to be flagrant) executed while similar such actions external to China result in non-life-threatening punishments? Accountability seems to be the most likely reason. For example, in the US, the system still works to a large degree since the offenders are simply removed from office via the ballot box (in many cases) and replaced with another crook. Well, ok, maybe I am being pessimistic, but you get my point. People, more or less, still trust the system to police itself and to regenerate in a fashion that is simply not possible in China (or most other authoritarian nations). In China, the system is imposed on the people and the only way to maintain that is to truly threaten the population - to maintain the sense of fear that is very necessary to keep the country relatively stable. Those who know that best are those with the most to lose - the leaders themselves. So, to keep the system running, they enable an "out" for themselves and their families. Then they have a place to go (e.g. the West in many cases) where they may not have the same perks and abilities - but at least they won't be executed. Why? Because they don't trust the very government which they are responsible for running!

One last thought on the subject. Why are the offenders put to death instead of in jail? One good reason (and this would also tie in with why their trials are not generally open to the public) is that they have the ability to bring the entire system down with them. So, to maintain the system, those who are caught must be eliminated because they can name names of the others. The corruption that goes on is clearly not limited to the few individuals that are so foolish as to be caught but is endemic to the system as a whole because there is no real accountability to the people whom they purport to serve. But, in order to maintain that illusion, it seems like a very real possibility that the only solution is to execute the few in order to preserve the rest.

I guess there is no reason to wonder why Western officials do not try to escape to China when they get caught up in their corrupt practices...

Liberty or Death?

"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"

Famous words by Patrick Henry that, in a way, launched the American Revolution. And the rest, as they say, is history. The US has stood as a beacon for freedom over generations and is often cited as a preferred location for people to be free - whether it be religious, political, social or otherwise. This does not mean that it is always the case and there are certainly instances throughout US history that demonstrate that the reality has not always fit the perception. However, the US is one of the few countries that has not necessarily shunned its past in favor of a more favorable presentation. Fights against perceived injustices permeate US history and a war was fought to correct the grievous injustice of slavery. For those (and there are many) who argue that the US has committed any number of wrongs (social, moral, etc.), they should consider the history of most any other nation in the world and how those nations have responded to the bad things perpetuated in their countries. Outside of Germany's reaction to the Holocaust, it is hard to find many other nations that have tried to make up for negative events in their history.

But I digress from my intended subject of liberty and freedom. I had the opportunity to watch a historical re-enactment of the Second Virginia Convention that was the scene of Henry's iconic speech. But what caught my attention was that the decision to take up arms for the pursuit of liberty was not undertaken with unanimous consent and that the discussions that led up to his speech were eerily reminiscent of arguments that take have surely taken place all over the world before and since - and are still done today. The decision taken by the members of the Virginia delegates to the second convention to raise arms and fight against the injustices they felt were inflicted upon them by the British in support of the colonists in Boston was one that had fervent support on both sides of the debate. Some felt that they could suffer no more under the taxation without representation under which they lived at the time while others felt that they had support that was building in England and that they simply needed to give them more time to assume the power that would enable them to return to the "halcyon days of yore".

The debate, essentially, was reduced to a peaceful and hopeful view that patience would see a return to more tranquil and reasonable days where everyone was allowed to prosper and live according to their own standards versus a belief that there was, and could be, no liberty to live free of the yoke of tyranny imposed by the British crown without an armed insurrection by the colonials. As was pointed out at the end of the re-enactment, the vote was won by only a slim margin of 5-6 votes in favor of raising a militia to serve as a defense against the British.

Freedom, as with most things, is a nuanced perception. Henry and his supporters were in favor of freedom to live and make choices on their own - or at least the right to have a say in the governance of their affairs. To those who stood in opposition, it seemed that freedom represented the ability to live their lives peacefully with the hope and belief that things would improve without forcing their active intervention. While it would seem that history has proven (for now) that the US was right to fight for its freedom, it was certainly not a decision taken lightly nor with the perceived consensus with which it seems it is often portrayed to the students who study that history. Only the future and its participants will determine how that freedom is partaken by the benefactors of that speech.

History

Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Or something like that, anyway. And yet it seems that the past is an event that is forgotten within the customary 24 hour news cycle. Don't believe me? Then try the Internet Archive by looking at your favorite site (preferably news site) and seeing what the news was and how much you remember of that news. Heck, try to see how much you know of what happened after the actual event itself? Was it a huge murder case? What happened to the murderer(s)? If it was a scandal, what actually happened to those involved in the days and weeks following the scandal?

The great majority of people do not, and will never, know. They do not care. They care about the big explosion but not in how it was fixed. They care about the grisly murders but not in the convictions that (hopefully) followed. Because those are far more mundane and not nearly so exciting (to the general public, anyway). And, because the temporary excitement created by the latest tragedy is what tends to catch the public's opinion and everyone seems to want their 15 minutes of fame (or infamy, as the case may be), it seems inevitable that people will start to plan something even worse than the most recent event.

Soon, they all become part of the cacophony of our normal lives to the point that tragedy is all a part of the history that no one wants to remember and thus learn from. Yes, I'm pretty certain I should not be ending a sentence with the word "from" but I will remember this in the future and hopefully not repeat this mistake again.

Are you serious?!

It never ceases to amaze me how seriously people will take themselves - and each other. I suppose this problem, er, issue, is most prevalent among those who we assume should be taking themselves, and the world at large, seriously; namely the politicians. Yet to hear them talk endlessly about how wonderful they are and how much they care about themselves, er, their communities and constituents, I am often reminded of young children in kindergarten who talk endlessly over each other paying no attention to what anyone else is saying - creating a cacophony that is unintelligible to anyone who may be trying to listen.

I feel rather certain that most of them could not cogently explain in plain simple language the variety of issues that their attempted legislation attempts to solve at any given point in time - let alone their proposed solutions. But they become oh-so-very serious as soon as someone begins to question their premises on a given subject. They will happily (if not so coherently) pontificate for hours on the potential impact of a given event without saying anything of actual substance that will make any sense to their intended viewers. Instead, the viewers will see the men and women in nice suits and well-coiffed hair using big words (that they probably could not spell if challenged) to make themselves sound far more intelligent than they may actually be.

Yet the most intelligent people that I have come across in my life are those who are the least self-conscious about it - and certainly the least willing to show it. A good doctor is one who can explain to their patients the illness that they may have and what needs to be done to heal it without the patient not remembering anything said ten minutes after they have left the office. A good developer is one who can not only write the programs that accomplish what is needed to get it done but then explain to the casual user exactly what the program does in a language that does not require a binary decoder so that said user can actually use it as its intended. A good teacher is one who can speak to their students in a fashion that the students can actually understand while still enabling them to function at a level higher than that in which the lesson was explained.

As for me, I harbor very little illusions about how seriously to take myself. I understand technology enough to perform my job but not enough to necessarily grasp the higher-level concepts to abstract out some of the more serious applications, let alone explain them to a lower-level developer to a level that would be commensurate with their own knowledge level. My most significant ability is that to learn new things but, come on, how seriously do we take life-long students?

Re-learning to write

As a result of a friend of mine and her post yesterday on getting back to writing (at least she entered a short story contest which is more than I have done in the last few years) along with my own very noticeable lack of motivation to go back to writing in spite of having (I think) some very good ideas that need to be fleshed out on paper, I am writing this in the hope that I will perhaps be able to hammer out a quick short story this week. Who knows, I may even work to try to publish it. I just need to find some places that do this sort of thing - preferably reputable places that do not necessarily require entry fees. Though, I guess that I'm not above a small entry fee for the opportunity to be published. Maybe...

I noted on my friend's blog my own concerns regarding self-censorship and I will endeavor to write without it. Of course, as most of my friends will note, self-censorship is certainly not one of my endearing qualities else I would probably be more popular than I currently am. Which is not to say I am not popular, merely that I have a tendency to certainly rub people the wrong way due to the lack of a filter between my brain and my mouth. Strangely enough, though, the lack of a filter between those two is apparently more than replaced by the heavy-duty filter between my brain and my fingers since I tend to write far differently than I speak. And that is why writing is my preferred medium rather than speech...

Just an observation as I type, anyway...

And now back to the RedRoom (you can google it) and see what I can learn and do there...

Remembering Chaucer

It has been almost a year since my friend Chaucer passed away. In some ways, I still have not come to grips with his death. There have been many times where, while doing something, thoughts of him and how he would have reacted have passed through my mind - stark reminders of an emptiness that has not yet healed. When I learn something new in the world of technology, I tend to think of how I would talk with him about it (whether he really cared or not - and I suspect he didn't). The same goes for music for we had similar tastes (well, ok, except for him and his band camp thing). I recently picked up a copy of a Lady Gaga CD and remembered that he had first introduced her music to me and I discarded it thinking it was nothing more than light pop/dance music that wouldn't keep my interest. Of course, he thought the same thing so go figure why he bought the CD in the first place.

He loved playing the video game Need For Speed and we had done it at my house - where he promptly beat me soundly each time we played. I have not played the game since he died; I think in part because I am not sure I want to play and remember him and the pain that is still associated with his passing. His contact info is still in my phone because I don't want to delete it for fear that I may forget one day. I still have him in my email and chat applications as if though he may someday just magically reappear and we can discuss politics and race relations (he was one of the few blacks I knew who actually halfway considered voting for McCain (though he wouldn't admit that to anyone else) - then voted for Obama anyway). I thought of him a couple of weeks ago when I read Clarence Thomas' opinion on the Chicago gun control case and the history of black ownership of guns in the US - and knew that he would have enjoyed discussing that opinion.

His death has affected me more than I would have thought possible. I certainly feel I have been more distant from friends and even family because I worry about how I would feel if I lose them. A stupid way to live and one that I am working to change back again but something that I would not have considered before Sept 4, 2009. I know I am not the only one who misses him as his many other friends continue to post messages on his Facebook account.

I wish I could have truly told his parents and his brother(s) how their son/brother affected me, what a positive influence he was (and still is in many ways) on me - even though I am a generation older than he - but I could not find the right words to express it and I am too proud to cry. I am sure that they are even more affected by his untimely passing than I but maybe it would help them to know that he is not forgotten and that he won't be. I miss the dude...

Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul

The title of a Douglas Adams book - and this post has nothing to do with that book. I just happen to like the title.

I would like to be writing and doing much more than I am doing now. But I am not. When I get to the end of my day, I am so mentally drained that trying to pick up a pen and paper and focus long enough to start working on putting down on paper the ideas in my head is a difficult challenge. Yet this is the goal to which I allegedly ascribe my purpose. A sad commentary, I think, on self-definition.

I think perhaps a cup of tea may help...

Freedom to be stupid?

Gov. Schwarzenegger halts use of welfare debit cards at casinos. Now THAT is a headline that is likely to raise some hackles - whether it be for "Gov. Schwarzenegger" or "halts use of welfare debit cards at casinos". Since the idea of the governator does not bother me - surely worse have been elected by free countries throughout the world - I did have to raise my eyebrows at the idea of people using welfare debit cards in casinos. Isn't welfare intended to help people survive - to maintain their personal and family welfare? I may be wrong, but I feel rather certain that welfare does not include using the money provided by the government to go gambling.

But this does tie back in with some of my thoughts on freedom. What are the actual limits placed on the recipient of the card as to its use? It's called a welfare debit card so the implication is that it is not intended for gambling money, but are there rules that explicitly forbid it? And should there be if there are not? Finally, if there are limits placed on its use, do those limits impinge upon the freedom of the recipient?

I am inclined to argue that beggars cannot be choosers and it is certainly the right of the lender to tell the borrower how they may use the funds. But banks make loans to individuals and companies all the time - with the only proviso that the money must be paid back. The government, however, gives money to people with no such provision or requirement. (After looking through the California Department of Social Services site, I cannot see what the actual rules are for receiving, using or paying back welfare payments.) At most, it appears that the main requirement is that the recipients show an effort to seek work. So does this then grant the government the right to tell people how to spend their money? After all, once the users receive it, then it technically *is* their money.

For the government to assert dominion over how people may spend their money - regardless of where it came from - seems an abuse of power and certainly a restriction of individual freedom. That people should stupidly spend the money given to assist their personal welfare is a choice that they are allowed to make and they should be forced to suffer the consequences. But if that freedom (to be stupid) is taken from them, it is not only the stupid who shall suffer. As I had pointed out earlier, suffering the consequences of one's actions is a freedom.

And, as with most things, freedom can be a double-edged sword.

More thoughts on freedom

In the US, there is a great hullabaloo regarding the reduction of freedoms that were allegedly once enjoyed by the masses. These allegations typically are made by people on the political right as the situation relates to the political ideology of the current administration - both executive and legislative. The loss of freedoms tend to subsist of the argument that there is a greater governmental intrusion into the lives of the private individual - more so than existed in the past. And while there is a certain credence that can be given to this argument, it certainly is not an argument that should belong to one side or the other of the political aisle.

Frankly, it can be argued that there has been a continuous loss of the individual freedoms upon which the US was established. As the government continues to expand its powers over the daily lives of its citizenry, albeit at the alleged benefit of those it governs, it continues to reduce the liberties to which the people once may have had rights. One example, hot button issue though it is, is the right of gun ownership. There continues to be an active movement to restrict the ownership of firearms in order to reduce the violence that plagues many areas in the country. The motivation for this movement is seemingly a pure one intended to help reduce the number of victims of gun crimes perpetrated by criminals with supposedly easy access to guns. To argue against them paints the opponents of gun control as violent fanatics. Yet the purpose of the second amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to own firearms not for the purpose of shooting fellow citizens at will but as a guarantee to mitigate the power of the government. A government that has no fear of its unarmed citizens is a government that is either already, or on its way to, a tyranny.

But this does not mean that there are not other ways for the government to exercise its expansion of powers over the daily lives and freedoms of its citizens. And certainly in recent memory, no newly elected leadership has refused the powers that were accumulated under previous administrations nor has failed to increase the powers that it could wield through whatever machinations it could create or twist to its own desires.

Frankly, power begets the desire for more power. And power in the hands of a few, even those who are freely elected, is freedom given to those same few for whatever pittance may be granted in return. So handing over the freedoms that the people may currently possess for whatever meager promises the government may make is a dangerous bargain in the long term. Even Thomas Jefferson knew that

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

How much further down the path must the people trod before they are willing to see it?

Disappointment

After having lived through the agony of another match with the Cardiac Kids on the pitch, I am not sure whether to feel upset that they will go no further in this World Cup or relieved that I will not have to suffer a potential heart attack from watching them concede an early goal and wondering if they will be resurrected again by the heroics of Landon Donovan. When they went down by a goal in the 5', I was pounding the floor with my fist in frustration. How could they possibly give up ANOTHER early goal and be forced to play harder to come from beind?!

But the blame here goes squarely with Bill Bradley who must have believed that tweaking the lineup that delivered a victory in their previous match against Algeria would confuse Ghana enough to allow the US a win. His two changes, involving the over-awed Robbie Findley (who could not finish a sandwich let alone a scoring opportunity) and Ricardo Clark (who was directly responsible for the early goals in both the England and the Ghana matches) were incomprehensible to me. The players he had brought in off the bench had been far more effective than those two starters - and they were again today. To his credit, at least Bradley took Clark out before the first half was done; but that meant that another substitution was not available for later. Findley did not come on for the second half but that meant another substitution was also gone (read: wasted). The net effect was that he had only one other sub for the remainder of the game and, when it went to extra time and they gave up another inexplicable goal, there was no energy to get possession and opportunities for a matching goal.

It's still early and the repercussions of these decisions will likely take time before they are made public. This may well have been the last World Cup for stars Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey - and more is the pity that their efforts and heroics (particularly in Donovan's case) will have been for naught. While getting past the first round was their oft-stated goal, to have then been knocked out in this manner must have been maddening and a sad epitaph on their World Cup ambitions. Perhaps those who follow them will make them proud in the future. We can only hope...

Lessons not learned

Of course I was 100 percent behind everything that happened in the Cultural Revolution — it was a terrific experience.

To offer some perspective for Americans (or other Westerners), the Cultural Revolution is a mix of the most radical aspects of the upheaval of the 1960's and 70's combined with some of the heartbreak that tore families apart during the Civil War (or the War between the States, as it is sometimes known). It would be useless to offer more substantive details when there are several books that detail that lost decade in Chinese history where the country essentially went crazy. A Google search is a good place to start. I would also recommend Nien Cheng's Life and Death in Shanghai, a very moving, personal tale of survival during the Cultural Revolution.

Regardless, I digress. The above quote is attributed to Joan Hinton, a physicist who helped to work on the Manhattan Project who grew disillusioned and subsequently moved to China. Reading the quote at the end of her obituary in the New York Times, however, floored me for two reasons. First, I find it hard to believe that anyone could see any good in the Cultural Revolution - particularly anyone forced to live through it. Second, for anyone to make a comment like that, regarding a decade-long event that ultimately cost the lives of untold numbers of millions and refashioned its survivors into the "Lost Generation", shows a glaring inability to rationalize the theoretical with the practical.

Rarely does anyone who lived through the Cultural Revolution have any desire to discuss it or its impact on their lives. The actions that people took during that time revealed the lowest depths to which people would sink in order to survive. If anything, the survivors have striven to forget. Ms. Hinton's comments reveal a shocking inability to relate to the horrors that others lived through. That Ms. Hinton should have so overtly praised an event (and its creator) that caused so much suffering to an entire nation is, well, mind-boggling. Further, they indicate that she is more tied to an abstract world of theoretical ideas than their impact on the real (and often practical) world and that the reality of the practical application of said ideas apparently held no burden for her whatsoever. While it is one thing to adhere to a particular ideological worldview, it is quite another to impose it upon others when the adherent is unwilling to participate in the suffering if (or, in this case, when) it should go awry. But to praise the Cultural Revolution in the face of overwhelming evidence of its terrible impact is evidence that the power of the idea was more important to her than its practical application.

And yet, it seems that she was more practical than such a comment would otherwise indicate. After all, though she spent most of her later years in China, she never gave up her US passport, claiming that it made travel easier for her. Yet she never failed to condemn US actions regarding the nuclear weapons (her thoughts on the Chinese possession and use of nuclear weapons apparently remains unknown); actions that were, and still are, allowed under US law but would not have been permitted in China under Mao - or any subsequent leader since his death.

While Joan Hinton may have passed on, the ideas in which she believed so fervently over the practical realities of an existence she obviously wished not to see, persist with others who deliberately choose to remain similarly obtuse.

What refunds?

Somehow, I doubt the government would be as forgiving if the situation were reversed. Yet government officials can easily express their sympathies to their constituents who overpaid their taxes and are having their refunds, um, delayed until the beginning of the next fiscal year. People who overdraw their accounts are punished by their banks, credit agencies and other lending institutions. Yet when government does it, "ho-hum" appears to be the majority response. Sure, we're in an economic crunch but the citizens are feeling it as much the government. I'm curious as to what recourse there may be for people who've been denied what is rightfully theirs within a timely fashion. Perhaps if the citizens all got up and declared that they are in an economic crunch next tax season and refuse to pay their (underpaid - since most people have their taxes taken from their paychecks directly) taxes, maybe people would start to realize that it should be they who have the power since they are the ones funding government and not the other way around.

For those incumbents who survive the 2010 elections (on both sides of the aisle), maybe it would be worth stripping them of the monetary accoutrements of power next tax season and see if turnabout is fair play (with the government).

Genghis Khan and power

I recently finished a history of Genghis Khan and the empire he created. The novelist fashioned a rather favorable opinion of Genghis Khan and not just his method of making war but also his statesmanship and the positive cultural aspects of his reign. To read the book lends credence to the belief that Genghis Khan was an enlightened dictator more than a bloodthirsty barbarian. It is also eye-opening from the perspective of the role of authority and how it is imposed (for lack of a better term) for the benefit of all. Indeed, while Genghis Khan was portrayed in the West as a curse sent by God to punish the morally wayward it would seem that this book offers a more enlightened view, such as it were.

While I found the book to be engaging with its introductory approach to both his military prowess as well as his model of governance, it also caused me to reflect upon the idea of government and freedom such as we espouse today. While acknowledging Genghis's approach as all-or-nothing (you either lived under his rules or not at all), the book makes the argument that there were many benefits to his rule. Trade and commerce flourished under Mongol rule to each of its domains. Furthermore, there was a rather liberal approach to religion. I should caveat that by liberal I mean that the role of the church was sublimated to the role of the state and that there was an egalitarian view of each of the religions that operated under the with neither special favor nor particular disfavor toward any of them. Each was free to practice as they saw fit so long as it did not impinge upon others. In one section of the book, the author discusses a contest between theologians of the various major religious sects of that time and region (I believe it was Christian, Muslim and Buddhist) organized by the Mongol leadership. The main rule was that (on pain of death) "no one shall dare to speak words of contention." And thus did a discussion among equals on the merits of their various beliefs proceed. Though none of the contestants necessarily changed their minds it offered an example of the power of the state to reduce and/or modulate the stress caused by the otherwise fractious relations between the various religions. Indeed, the offspring of Genghis Khan worshiped as they wished without the concerns that permeated much of the rest of the world at that time. The result was Mongols who converted to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and other religions - unheard of in that time. Considering that many states of that time were ruled by religious fiat (which granted the power to rule to a select few who paid homage to the religious leadership as a condition for God's approval of their rule), the difference is certainly striking.

The Mongols, once they had acquired a territory, sought out professionals who could help them to maintain their empire. These included engineers, scientists, teachers, doctors and other professionals. And once they were found, they were then included as part of the state entity to help facilitate the process of ruling the many far-flung lands they had conquered. The obvious benefit was the spread of information and knowledge from one place to many others. And more information, even if it is not something with which the recipient will necessarily agree, is better than not enough. The collaboration that was a natural result of this process, as noted by the author, provided several benefits to everyplace under the Mongol domain.

Many of the issues that play out in the world today are issues that were not so different almost 800 years ago. Power is often the ultimate goal regardless of the dressing worn - ethnic, religious, nationalistic or otherwise. Genghis Khan in his time sublimated each of them to his own rule under which was allowed to exist in harmony within the larger framework of the state that he created. Does this mean that everything should be sublimated to the state in order to promote the harmony that people often desperately pursue? As with all other issues, there is not a clear answer. Perhaps the best answer is a patchwork approach that allows for the resolution between power and freedom. Under the seemingly benevolent dictatorship approach proffered in this book, it would seem that submitting to the authority of said dictator offered a great many other benefits (including the freedom of choice in many personal issues like religion). But this did not last more than a few generations beyond the death of Genghis Khan himself. In the end, any dictatorship - benevolent or not - will inevitably become a not so benevolent one depending upon the actual people in charge. So a combination of freedom to make the choices of individual preference combined with some level of subservience to a protective authority may be of benefit. But to maintain that level is not a hard and fast issue and will require constant attention to ensure that the scales do not tip too far to one side or the other.

Thoughts on freedom

This will be one of several posts I hope to make on the subject of freedom. Given its importance in our political world today, it is certainly worth serious consideration. And I will note that my viewpoints may be contradictory at times or somewhat disjointed. These posts are meant to serve as a method for fleshing out the ideas on the subject. Perhaps, once I have done that, I will write up the more fully fleshed out idea in its entirety.

Freedom from responsibility for the actions taken by the individual leads to the further abdication of freedom for the individual in all other respects.

Or, put another way, responsibility for one's actions are an important freedom. When abdicating that responsibility, one abdicates their own freedom. The freedom to do what you want when you want comes with ability to enjoy, or suffer, the results of those actions. If you are only willing to enjoy the good results and slough off those that are unfavorable, then you are not free. It means that you will choose not to do certain things for fear of suffering negative consequences. Or worse, you will choose to assign the blame for those actions undertaken by you to others and, in the end, those others will then soon make the choices for you.

At the risk of offering a political example, I submit that the housing and foreclosure crisis is but a step in this direction. Many people who could not otherwise afford the homes they bought subsequently found themselves in default and foreclosure when the economy turned sour. However, instead of taking responsibility for making the poor choice to purchase homes they knew they could not realistically afford under the premise that they could simply borrow forever on equity (that somehow was not vulnerable to the normal ups and downs of economic principles), they blamed the mortgage lenders or the government for "encouraging" them to make such poor choices. Clearly it was not their fault and therefore they were entitled to government assistance to absolve them of the morass they later found themselves in.

This is not to argue that the government and mortgage may not share some blame, but this does not absolve the individuals of the choices they made. But the tendency to deflect blame for their actions is the next step in reducing the freedoms that they/we all once enjoyed.

Radical about moderation

The only thing about which I am radical is moderation. This means, however, that I am in a very strict minority. In an era that both glorifies and amplifies the most extreme views until they obliterate any other (more muted or nuanced) views, it seems that only the most radical views are given the space for expression. Any attempts to moderate those positions are typically met with howls of protest from their proponents claiming that they are being marginalized for their opinions. Never mind that their opinions typically exist at the margins of public opinion to begin with.

In most of the democratized West, this tendency toward extremism (though it should be noted that extremism is not necessarily solely a Western trait, merely that there is more freedom to express it in many cases) has often manifested itself in negative ways - and often on the most innocuous subjects. It is not uncommon to see radical viewpoints on issues of race, politics and religion. If anything, it would be uncommon not to see them. But, it seems that extreme points of view now roll over into more mundane or trivial subjects such as entertainment, celebrity or even sports. Take the recent commentary regarding the marriage of Sandra Bullock and Jesse James or the storylines revolving around the Pittsburgh Steelers and their treatment of two players with troubles off the field. More precisely, a perusal of the message boards on various entertainment and sports sites to see the points of view relating to these stories demonstrates the radical opinions that even casual observers have on these events. Frankly, when those views can be expressed via the relative anonymity of the internet, the likelihood of self-censorship is further reduced since there is little possibility of actual consequences - other than equally radical opposing viewpoints being expressed in similar anonymity.

Yet, despite the increasingly radical rhetoric spewed about on the airwaves, the moderate opinions still hold sway - for now. This does not mean that radical stands have not occasionally shoved their way to the forefront of decision making, but that they are still the exception and not necessarily the rule. However, at some point, a stand must be taken to ensure that the extremists (on both sides of any given issue) do not become the law of the land. Extremist opinions are not necessarily always wrong, but they should not be given preeminence in a debate simply because they are so far different from the more common (read: moderate) positions which often come from common sense and logic. Moderation is a good thing, not a bad. Equating moderation with compromise (an apt comparison in my view) - a good compromise is when both sides leave the table unhappy with the final decision.

Some more random thoughts...

China's firewall goes international. Ignoring the technical side for a moment, the possibility that people outside of China are having their requests routed through China - and its firewall - poses a conundrum. One of the major selling points is the absolute freedom of information available on the internet. And while there is a growing possibility of mini-nets that will be regional, or even country-specific, and thus liable to suffer from whatever forms of control asserted by the local authorities, the possibility that an error such as that described in the linked article could occur can have consequences far beyond the given area. Indeed, it is the opposite of the problem that many authoritarian countries face now whereby they worry about information getting to their citizens. But the ability to export their controls external to their regional area is far more frightening for everyone. It simply goes to show that there is balance everywhere. It is easy to see the "good" side of the internet and its information flow and ignore the "bad" side where impediments to that same free flow can be far too easily exported. Hopefully a good answer will be found in the near future - though the fact that this has occurred previously does not bode well.

The nanny state is at it again. In a plan that seems more reminiscent of something from the designers of The Patriot Act (or maybe the creators of The Matrix or even V for Vendetta), it would appear that the UK government is asking internet cafes to voluntarily monitor the usage of its customers. The stated purpose, of course, is to help prevent terrorism. The problem is that this becomes a rather slippery slope. Once we know that you're helping us to check up on your fellow citizens, then let's see what else we can do to continue to establish the sense of paranoia and fear that allows us to exert other forms of control over a citizenry too cowed to tell us no. Is it scare-mongering to warn us to be on the lookout for those who would potentially harm us? Is it just responsible government? Is it another step on the way to a more dangerous form of authoritarian government with fewer controls on its exercise of power? To know the answer would be to know the intent of those who wield this power. And the reality is that it is impossible to know the intent of anyone regardless of their actions. If history has not yet demonstrated the ability for government to relinquish its hold on power, then it would seem that we are fated to learn the lesson - again.

And, just so no one thinks it's just a Western thing, moderates in Islam continue to suffer losses. And for some perspective, bear in mind that Qatar also hosts CENTCOM Forward HQ (US military central command). It also is the home of Al-Jazeera, the most widely viewed news source in the Middle East and the source, according to some, of the inflammatory rhetoric used against the West (and has regularly been the primary source for Al-Qaeda communications). But now, to help reshape it as a more religiously conservative site, the government has forced out the moderate leadership (moderate, of course, being a relative term), including Al-Qaradawi, of the company that funds the site. What is the old mantra? Money talks, BS walks? Yes, that is it. And here it is clear that if the moderate message put through by the site could not be erased by an equally rational message from those who disagreed with it, it is easier to simply wipe the site out (or at least dilute it) by taking away its funding. Then the government can step in and force its own message onto the site. Come to think of it, I'll bet Hugo Chavez could learn a lesson from Qatar...

Decisions

Some people have a very difficult time making decisions. Others like to delay them - sometimes indefinitely, it seems. And others simply hold their noses (figuratively) and plunge in and hope that their decisions work out for the best. But therein lies a key issue with decisions. It is not the decisions themselves that are the issue but the consequences (and the related fear of) that cause the problems for people trying to make decisions. A cascading series of "what ifs" leads to a paralytic state whereby it becomes impossible to make an otherwise simple decision. Frankly, the concern is not so much for the decision itself as it is that the decision-maker is the one ultimately held accountable for the decision.

Taken at a political level in view of the recent passage of the health care "reform" legislation by the US Congress, the decision about what to do by various representatives was shaped by the potential consequences of this single vote. Democrats were particularly vexed at having to make a decision that could potentially make or break their legislative careers. For those on the far left, they were unhappy with voting for something they felt did not go far enough and feared that their supporters would drop them for not following through on their convictions. For those more toward the middle, there was concern that independents would drop them due to a concern among a majority of voters about the bill itself and its corollary costs and enlarged government implications. While the end result - with the assistance of a great deal of executive encouragement (or strong-arming, depending upon one's point of view) - speaks for itself, the final results of their respective decisions will be known further down the line. But the hesitancy of many of the final supporters to commit to a decision earlier was because they worried about the consequences of such a decision. Their subsequent rationalizations aside, many of those who voted in favor (and even against) this legislation would have preferred not to have been forced into making this decision at all. The fact that the possibility of "deeming" the bill to have been passed without an up and down vote was even pondered by the Democratic Congressional leadership (though it was finally submitted to a formal vote) speaks to the fear that many had of being held accountable for their decisions.

But this goes far beyond the realm of politics. Some people hesitate to get married, fearing what may happen if it turns out they are their intended ultimately are not compatible and having to deal with those consequences. Conversely, married people may push off a decision on getting a divorce for similar reasons - namely, that making the decision to get married in the first place was a bad decision. Even more simply, why purchase the car now when you can put the decision off and perhaps get a better deal later? Or suffer if you fail to take advantage of a deal now and a better one fails to materialize later? Or, perhaps at its most simple level - should I eat that ice cream now? Because if I do, I need to know who I can blame later because it's not my fault that I was tempted... The people who sold me the ice cream should have known better and they're responsible for my poor decision.

A positive generation?

NPR discusses how the millenial generation is more positive.

Um, ok. I guess that is not hard to believe. After all, youth is typically not yet as jaded about life and experiences as their elders. Not quite sure why this should be such a headline but it seems that some people are rather surprised by it. "OMG! Young people seem to be more positive?! Who knew?!"

But there were a couple of things that got me about the piece. First was the pervasive belief that many of them were overwhelmingly liberal (OH NO, the "L" word!) and have a positive feeling about government. I guess that seems reasonable when it is many in their generation who helped to elect the nation's first black president - an action that few who grew up during the turbulent 60's felt would happen in their lifetime. It also seems reasonable when one considers that it is the young who often change the world. The older one becomes, the more likely they are to be entrenched in their ways as well as to maintain the status quo. The young, on the other hand, tend to not only see many of the wrong and the iniquities of the world (along with their elders) but are far more inclined to want to work hard to make changes to help improve it. If we recognize that liberal, in a political context, is the antonym of conservative (more resistant to change), it seems rather obvious that they would be more liberal. Indeed, it would be much more surprising if they were not liberal.

The idea that they are more trusting of government is interesting. Earlier generations have been less trusting of government. For those who grew up during the Nixon era or the Cold War, a lack of faith in government seems completely reasonable. It is surprising that those who grew up during the Clinton and Bush 43 presidencies would have more positive feelings regarding government. But the generation that voted for hope and change may still be hopeful that things can change for the better, thus the positive feelings regarding government.

There is also a sense among this generation that things will work out for the best in the end. Despite the turmoil that exists in their lives today - high unemployment or underemployment, two wars, rancorous partisanship, less religious beliefs (though they do not apparently lack for spiritual beliefs) - they have faith that things will improve. Perhaps they have faith that the government will be there to support them and make sure that they are taken care of in the future - in spite of the overwhelming evidence of history that may serve as a warning otherwise. People and civilizations have survived, governments have not. But for those who are too young to remember and unwilling to learn the lessons of history, perhaps this is not an unusual attitude.

After all, history does have a tendency to repeat itself.

An artist's responsibility

The job of an artist is to create things that can entertain, enlighten and even provoke people. To be an artist is seemingly not difficult. Everything that exists in the world today is a form of art. Not just the books and the movies and music and pictures that we normally imagine at the term "artist", but the very objects that surround us every day. From the highest technology to the most mundane of objects - all are a form of art that creates the fabric within which we all exist. From this point of view, it would be easy to believe that everyone is an artist.

But those are not the artists to which I refer. No, the artists to which I refer are those who deliberately set out to create the objects which others recognize as art. It is they who set out to inspire with their creations. It is they who imagine the future and create it with their hands. It is they who challenge the beliefs and understanding by which we live. Indeed, it is that ability to challenge the recognized order which allows the artists to transcend the mundane and breach immortality.

This does not mean that an artist should deliberately seek to be provocative simply for the sake of being provocative. Instead, an artist should recognize the world for what it is and what it could be - and even what it should be. Sometimes, the artist's view will be uplifting, bright and spiritual - a recognition of the positive in a life that often seems harsh. Others can be so dark as condemn themselves to despair - wallowing in a negativity that is so pervasive as to block out all else. But it is the manner in which these artists convey these emotions that becomes the context upon which they are ultimately judged.

The responsibility of the artist is to convert their ideas into a framework that satisfies them and can still give their audience the opportunity and desire to reflect on the ideas presented to them by the artists. Whereas the majority of people live their lives in a struggle to achieve the goals that may be important to them individually, artists feel compelled to seek answers that can then be offered to a much larger audience beyond themselves. And if answers are not readily available, then an acceptable alternative is the opportunity to provide insight that may differ from the common. Frankly, the common is not acceptable for an artist and is considered a failure if that is the best that they can offer. By the same token, however, to be unusual is not a sign of success. The artists work must have meaning and offer a different perspective. It is often a fine line.

But then again, artistic works are all subjective and that, in the end, is the final truth for an artist.

Just some random thoughts

Several weeks (heck, maybe a month) since my last ideas. I had meant to write up some more thoughts on the ideas of racism that continue to pervade the US - not to mention its subsequent assignment to the level of abortion and gay rights in the political spectrum. I was taken to task by one reader (who deliberately did not read my recent missives) that my points were all one-sided against Democrats. So I was going to write up a scathing editorial on comments by both Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson but it almost seemed repetitive since they'd been taken to task by pretty much everyone else. So what would be the fun in piling on? Besides, since all Republicans are racist by political definition, to re-state the "obvious" would simply be rhetorical. Right? (Oh, that is also rhetorical.) Of course, it's hard to raise up a sense of indignity about such a serious subject when your leader in the Senate and an ardent supporter on MSNBC are both making "innocuous" comments that, had they been uttered by Republicans, would be railed against as racist. Or at least it should be. But I guess hypocrisy only applies to Republicans on the sensitive subject of race. Democrats believe in diversity - of colors. And only because all colors other than white should "obviously" be Democratic and, if not, then clearly they are racial turncoats. Nope, no hypocrisy there...

But there have been so many other things happening in the world that have merited attention from the media. Yes, in the last several weeks, I have received "Breaking News" emails from CNN on important subjects such as the charges against Michael Jackson's doctor for killing him (inadvertently) and the tragic death of Brittany Murphy (who?). But continued attacks against the establishment in Pakistan, relief efforts in Haiti (well, ok, there has been some news on that, mostly about those evil white religious fanatics who tried to kidnap a bunch of kids before being stopped at the border of the Dominican Republic), the continuing tragicomedy of healthcare reform (whose definition apparently still remains amorphous at best to the general public) and deteriorating relations between the US and China (among a great many other equally important subjects) remain missing - or at best grossly underreported - from the news. I guess it is far more important to sell commercial time for the "news shows" (and yes, I lose that term very loosely - I would be hard-pressed to consider Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck as news shows instead of editorials loosely related to truth and facts) which means that people will only pay attention when a blond-haired teenager has gone missing (preferably in some third-world vacation destination) rather than facts that are far more likely to impact one's life such as the state of the economy or legislation that has a more direct effect on how one may live.

I think I should just carry a soapbox with me sometimes...

And, to live to my motto of being completely random, can anyone explain to me why socialism is bad (in the US)? And then explain why capitalism is bad? Rationally? Without rhetorical flourish? Thanks.

Literary inspirations

Mind is roaming a wee bit today and started thinking about influences on me - particularly literary influences. There were three that came immediately to mind. In order, they are:

James Clavell
Douglas Adams
Ayn Rand

Clavell is an awesome storyteller who managed to tell whole stories from various points of view all in the same book. Read any of his Asian saga books and you can see how he weaves different characters into the same plots while presenting each of their disparate viewpoints. If there were ever an author I would want to be able to follow, it would be Clavell. I have read each of his books multiple times to the point where each is worn with care and, in some cases, taped back together. For those who do not like to read 1000+ pages at a time, then read A Children's Story. It is a short book that weaves heavy (and dark) political undertones to an innocuous school room of children and their teacher. It is different from his Asian saga but certainly a telling piece, much like Orwell's Animal Farm.

Douglas Adams did satire within a science fiction format that is one of the few to have me in stitches each time I read it. The satire of human nature and how foolish people tend to behave is both hilarious and telling. Whenever I want to start cracking on people, I tend to think of how Adams may have phrased it and then hope to rise to his standard. Indeed, one of my favorite things to point out is that his Hitchhiker's trilogy actually consists of 5 books. Makes sense to me.

Ayn Rand, I have discovered, is an author (and person) who is either loved or hated. There is no middle ground, much as her characters in her major novels. Indeed, I recently saw a bumper sticker asking "Where is John Galt?" and it made me smile. It is a reference that only a Rand devotee would understand. Her writing is passionate about her point of view (more commonly known as Objectivism) and she brooks no dissent nor disagreement from it. While it has been called extreme by critics (among other things), there is certainly more than a grain of truth to her commentary - which is why she still has such a huge following almost 30 years after her death. Whether one agrees or not that the rights of the individual supersede the rights of society, her argument is extraordinarily powerful. Regardless, my favorite of her books is Atlas Shrugged and, while it is long and the commentary occasionally repetitive, certainly worth the read.

What are some others that I may be missing? There are others whom I enjoy reading but I am always open to other suggestions that I may have missed. While I don't read as much fiction as I used to, I think it is because much of what is published today is tripe (don't get me started on John Grisham).

The letter, not the spirit, of the law

Tagging onto my commentary from yesterday (about which I still have some thoughts that I need to coherently put together before posting), there is another issue dealing with race in this country - one that will probably receive more attention from the Democratic members of Congress than Harry Reid's comments have. That is the NFL's Rooney Rule. Yes, that is the rule that was put forth by the owner of the NFL's Pittsburgh Steelers that required owners of teams to interview at least one minority candidate for open coaching (and subsequently general manager) positions. The underlying hope for this was to open the door to more minority coaches in the NFL. And, putting his money where his mouth was, Rooney himself hired Mike Tomlin several years ago when his former coach resigned. Tomlin, who is black, was not even one of the leading candidates prior to his interview with the Steelers but surprisingly won the job.

However, in the same way that quotas tend to work in the "real" world, compliance is often met with the letter of the law, if not the spirit. This season has been clearly indicative of following the letter of the law in regard to the hiring of new head coaches. The Washington Redskins and the Seattle Seahawks both fired their previous coaches with clear designs on who their intended replacements would be - Mike Shanahan and Pete Carroll, respectively. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to hire a specific individual if you think that person will able to provide the services you need. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with either team hiring the individuals that they hired.

No, the problem is that the teams paid lip service to following the Rooney Rule. The Redskins interviewed one of the assistant coaches already in the organization (several weeks before they ever fired the head coach!) in order to comply with the rule. And the NFL green-lighted the interview as being within the framework of the Rooney Rule. Frankly, the interview was clearly perfunctory as no one believed that he would be hired - the rumors regarding the Redskins pursuit of Shanahan was big news even before the interview and they were simply waiting until the end of the season when they could fire the previous coach and openly pursue him. Indeed, it took only two days for Shanahan to become the new coach after the season ended.

The Seahawks fired their coach a week later and there were rumors immediately following that there was an agreement in place to hire Pete Carroll - then the coach at the University of Southern California. However, before they could hire Carroll, they first had to interview a minority candidate. They asked Leslie Frazier (an assistant with the Minnesota Vikings who has interviewed for several positions previously) to interview and he promptly rejected the interview request on the basis that he would not have a serious chance at the position based on the rumors of Carroll's impending hire. However, additional negotiations took place and Frazier (and the NFL, apparently) was convinced that it would not be a pro forma interview and he would have a serious shot at the job. He was interviewed over the weekend and no further consideration was given to his chances for the job. Two days later, on Monday, Pete Carroll was officially announced as the new head coach - the person originally sought by the Seahawks. Again, Carroll may be the best person to help the team and they have every right to hire him.

The larger issue is that there is a regulation in place to help promote minority coaches in the NFL by mandating a quota to be interviewed and, while the regulation was technically followed, the spirit has seemingly been completely ignored. So should the rule be discarded (as it apparently does nothing more than create hypocrites of the NFL and the owners of the various teams)? Should additional efforts be made at enforcement with both the spirit and the letter of the regulation? If so, how do you ensure such enforcement? Would it not require "knowing his [the owners'] heart[s]" in order to determine whether the spirit is still being followed? And clearly, based on the racism issue that Harry Reid stepped into, seeing into one's heart is clearly subjective at best.

But don't worry, I have little doubt that the US Congress will step into the debate in the NFL and leaders from both sides (but especially on the Democratic side since this is one of their best political footballs) will demand new actions be taken to remedy this grievous error! I will hopefully be able to record Harry Reid as he speaks (from a script) with no hint of hypocrisy on the need for more black coaches in the NFL - just like our light-skinned president with no Negro dialect! (If not, someone will hopefully point me to the YouTube clip...)

No double standards here...

Nope, the Democratic Party and its supporters - particularly African-Americans - are all lining up in support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after comments he made about then-candidate Obama were printed in a new book about the 2008 campaign. Specifically, his comments were that Obama was:

a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one

[sarcasm]Yep, nothing racist or even stereotypical in those comments. I can see why no African-Americans would be offended by something so trivial. Heck, I can't see why I, or anyone else for that matter, should be offended by such commentary. [/sarcasm]

I think the problem here is that this exposes the political hypocrisy to which race and racism has devolved. Without defending the idiocy that has been perpetrated by Republicans in equal measure, the refusal of Democrats and leading African-Americans to condemn either the comments or the speaker lend a great deal of credence to the belief that racism has become nothing more than a political tool for Democrats to abuse Republicans. George Allen in Virginia during the 2006 Senate campaign with his "macaca" comment and Trent Lott's commentary on Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday celebration in 2002 are two of the more egregious examples by the Republicans in recent memory and both were pilloried by their Democratic opponents and subsequently lost their positions of authority. Indeed, there was no shortage of commentators, leaders and supporters from the left of the political spectrum who rose up indignantly and shouted for some form of punishment to be inflicted upon the two of them.

And that is all reasonable when the same standards are applied to the idiots on the left who make similarly embarrassing gaffes. The problem that arises here are the double standards that are clearly evident. The racist card is to be applied to your political opponents to ensure that they are labeled as such and to establish the moral high ground for your own side of any debate. But when your side makes comments that are clearly racist, then it is best to find some other way of deflecting attention away or defending them in the hope of "the greater good". The problem is that, by doing so, you then minimize the injustice of the racism that clearly does exist (except within the Democratic Party, obviously). So what is the greater good?

There has been commentary from Democratic apologists that Sen. Reid's comments do not compare with the comments of some of his Republican predecessors. That is a subjective (and specious) argument. According to those apologists, Republicans are all racist by nature so the intent of racial commentary is obviously racist by design whereas similar comments by Democrats are not intended to be racist because they are more enlightened on the subject of race. Therefore, the arguments do not compare. The problem with such an argument is that they are arguing intent and motive which can never actually be known by anyone other than the offender. Furthermore, if Democrats are so "enlightened", how can they possibly countenance such comments in the first place, let alone utter them aloud?

In a further galling move, Senator Reid apologized on the Sunday morning talk shows and then has followed up by calling every African-American leader that he can find to beg their forgiveness. And while this is obviously a necessity to help deflect attention away from his mistake, it seems that no one is questioning the fact that his mea culpa comes more than a year after the comments were made and only after it was published in an upcoming book. So, would he have apologized for his comments if someone had not outed them in the first place? Not likely. Additionally, the president, in a move clearly intended (and hoped) to defuse the situation, dismissed it with clear political motivations. If the Senate Majority Leader becomes embroiled in a distraction such as racist comments, it can only serve to detract from his goal of passing healthcare legislation - and those distractions must be avoided at all costs. There can be no clearer sign of the political machinations that have now superseded the issue of racism.

And in a country with as many open wounds relating to racism, this clearly is a problem.