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.