I haven't posted here again in over a year. I'd been vacillating over whether to discontinue and shut down the blog as I just haven't had the time and motivation to maintain it. Inertia set in and things were more or less left where they were.
Until today. Today, I feel the need to put down a few quick thoughts regarding the political situation in the US. Today was not a good day as the largest white supremacist demonstration in a decade (if news reports are correct) took place today in Charlottesville, VA. I have ties to that area and the University there. And the demonstration that was planned and organized by the white supremacists is the very antithesis of that area and its citizens.
Yet that did not stop them from organizing and pushing through for their plans. From an organized march last night with torches to a few thousand (again, if reports are to be believed) white supremacists waving the Confederate and Nazi (seriously, NAZI) flags around and screaming about white power and how whites need to stand up for themselves. And I'm still stunned that they were waving NAZI flags in support of their ideals!
They were opposed by many counter-demonstrators and violence quickly erupted. Probably by both sides so neither is particularly blameless here. Extremists from both sides - white power advocates and antifa (short for anti-facists) - attacked each other and the police eventually stepped in and shut down the planned demonstration (and David Duke and others of his ilk whined about how their rights were being trampled - yet didn't seem to feel any sense of irony when the ACLU supported their right to demonstrate in the first place).
That might have been the end of it - until some idiot in a car decided to drive into a group of counter-demonstrators, killing one (so far) and injuring 19 others. Video of the attack (there isn't another word for it in my opinion) quickly went viral. Then President Trump went on television and condemned the violence by all sides (specifically not calling out the fact that it was all precipitated by the white supremacists) while simultaneously extolling how well the economy is doing under his leadership and then praising himself and a few others about a new VA bill he was signing at the same time. In essence, he spoke a few words condemning the violence in Charlottesville (by "many sides") before returning to his favorite topic - himself. And he refused to condemn white supremacists. This is odd given his predilection for condemning "radical Islamic terrorism" and damning anyone who is afraid to "call a spade a spade".
He later tweeted condolences to the family of the victim of the car attack and two Virginia State Police officers killed in a helicopter crash linked to the same demonstrations - again without calling out white supremacists and their "terrorist" actions. Oh, sorry, only Muslims can be terrorists...
What many people have pointed out is that, by not explicitly condemning white supremacists, he is implicitly granting tacit approval of their actions. And, on the other side of that coin, many of his supporters say that the violence was all the act of leftist extremists and they should be held accountable while denying anything wrong on the part of the white supremacists. This is ridiculous! And yet it is a sign of where our nation stands today. We are increasingly a nation divided. The job of the president should be to find ways to bridge those gaps but it is ever so clear that this president is singularly incapable of doing so.
I fear that things will get much worse before they get better. If they get better.
Today, I weep. I weep with frustration. I weep with sadness. I weep for my nation for which I am a patriot (not to be confused with a nationalist). I hope we can overcome but I fear that will not happen until Trump, and the divisiveness that saw him into office, are removed. I pray that day comes soon.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Balance of Power
I've spent more than my fair share of time annoying people by challenging their political ideologies - and have even been challenged on my own from time to time. I don't mind people challenging my beliefs as I feel it helps me to understand why I believe as I do and even to adjust as I feel it's necessary. I am not so locked into my beliefs that I feel they are infallible nor do I stay static in my own ideology. As I have grown older and have more experiences, I have sometimes found that earlier beliefs are no longer satisfactory to me and I am not afraid to admit when I have changed.
Politics is one of my (many) passions and that is probably obvious from the content of this blog. It should also be obvious that I am not a fan of big government or the belief that government is able to solve all of the problems. I have had more than a few discussions with people on the left side of the political spectrum who believe that more government and regulation is the answer to society's ills. I'm not particularly inclined to that belief and have been more than a little vocal at times trying to explain why. In short, more government means acceding more power to others (e.g. the government) rather than learning how to live for and with ourselves. More regulations means that the already large number of regulations are even less likely to be enforced and the problems that the new regulations were intended to resolve most likely either already have regulations that were not previously enforced or could have been resolved by a little common sense among people. However, in such a litigious society, it seems that the only way to resolve an issue these days is through lawyers rather than rational discussion among people. This is the result of a government that feels it has to be a part of every facet of day to day life.
However, an obtrusive government is not the only problem. Big business (the bugaboo of the Left) is also not the only problem. Frankly, the problem is that they both are working together to amass more power and control for themselves at the expense of the people that the government allegedly represents and for which big business needs to both create and purchase their products. This is neither Republican nor a Democratic problem - it exists for both though they both howl at the other for taking advantage of the people they allege to represent. Democrats rail against big business and how it takes advantage of people, denying them the opportunities to earn good livings in order to maintain a real middle class - all while accepting huge amounts of money from the corporate leaders who they denounce so readily on the campaign trail. Republicans, meanwhile, denounce big government and its intrusiveness into the lives of citizens while simultaneously stridently pushing for greater "morality" (and I hope I've been clear about how subjective terms like "morality" are) among citizens that are intended to be enforced through promulgated regulations. Both sides have secretly (until it was released by Edward Snowden) pursued policies that will allow the government greater ability to observe its citizens in their private lives and communications as well as killed US citizens abroad who were alleged to be members of terrorist organizations without the right of due process (though, admittedly, I am of two minds on this issue).
In short, the problem that we face (and it is not just a problem faced by the US but by a great many countries and citizens around the world) is of powerful forces, seemingly at odds with one another, that instead work together and collude to find ways to increase their power and control - with the losers often being the very citizens they allege to represent or benefit. Yet they are able to continue this pursuit of power by simple misdirection of those same people, giving them enough to distract their focus from the events that shape their lives and instead focus on things of otherwise little consequence to them.
There is no easy answer; indeed, there is not even a single right answer in all circumstances. Frankly, there are answers and solutions if people are only willing and able to pursue and implement them. However, to be clear, this battle has never ended. And it likely never will. But that should not preclude people from trying.
Politics is one of my (many) passions and that is probably obvious from the content of this blog. It should also be obvious that I am not a fan of big government or the belief that government is able to solve all of the problems. I have had more than a few discussions with people on the left side of the political spectrum who believe that more government and regulation is the answer to society's ills. I'm not particularly inclined to that belief and have been more than a little vocal at times trying to explain why. In short, more government means acceding more power to others (e.g. the government) rather than learning how to live for and with ourselves. More regulations means that the already large number of regulations are even less likely to be enforced and the problems that the new regulations were intended to resolve most likely either already have regulations that were not previously enforced or could have been resolved by a little common sense among people. However, in such a litigious society, it seems that the only way to resolve an issue these days is through lawyers rather than rational discussion among people. This is the result of a government that feels it has to be a part of every facet of day to day life.
However, an obtrusive government is not the only problem. Big business (the bugaboo of the Left) is also not the only problem. Frankly, the problem is that they both are working together to amass more power and control for themselves at the expense of the people that the government allegedly represents and for which big business needs to both create and purchase their products. This is neither Republican nor a Democratic problem - it exists for both though they both howl at the other for taking advantage of the people they allege to represent. Democrats rail against big business and how it takes advantage of people, denying them the opportunities to earn good livings in order to maintain a real middle class - all while accepting huge amounts of money from the corporate leaders who they denounce so readily on the campaign trail. Republicans, meanwhile, denounce big government and its intrusiveness into the lives of citizens while simultaneously stridently pushing for greater "morality" (and I hope I've been clear about how subjective terms like "morality" are) among citizens that are intended to be enforced through promulgated regulations. Both sides have secretly (until it was released by Edward Snowden) pursued policies that will allow the government greater ability to observe its citizens in their private lives and communications as well as killed US citizens abroad who were alleged to be members of terrorist organizations without the right of due process (though, admittedly, I am of two minds on this issue).
In short, the problem that we face (and it is not just a problem faced by the US but by a great many countries and citizens around the world) is of powerful forces, seemingly at odds with one another, that instead work together and collude to find ways to increase their power and control - with the losers often being the very citizens they allege to represent or benefit. Yet they are able to continue this pursuit of power by simple misdirection of those same people, giving them enough to distract their focus from the events that shape their lives and instead focus on things of otherwise little consequence to them.
There is no easy answer; indeed, there is not even a single right answer in all circumstances. Frankly, there are answers and solutions if people are only willing and able to pursue and implement them. However, to be clear, this battle has never ended. And it likely never will. But that should not preclude people from trying.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Anonymous Comments
I happened to catch a blurb on the news this morning regarding the decision that the Huffington Post (a well-known news aggregator site) will soon be disallowing anonymous comments on its site. I saw this and an attempt to justify this decision as a push to create a more civilized discourse from another point of view since this is nothing new to China-watchers. After all, authorities in China have pushed for similar legislation for all China-based sites in an attempt to crack down on rampant online dissent. And I was not at all surprised to subsequently find that Chinese media have picked up on this piece of news. While this piece by Xinhua (the China Daily) did not actively take sides (at least in English, my Chinese is not good enough to read that version and it would not be surprising to read there was a different version in Chinese), it should not be at all surprising to note that the article only referenced the "positive" benefits of registering all users who wish to leave comments.
The underlying message being promoted by the Huffington Post (HP) is that this will promote a more civilized conversation and less trolling with the oft-accompanying threats and other negative commentary that can derail conversations on the internet. And, on its surface, this is a well-known problem not just on the HP but almost anywhere on the net where people are allowed to post whatever they want with the belief that they are relatively anonymous. (It is also worth noting here that I have suggested previously here and here that the idea of true anonymity on the internet is a false one but that is an argument for another day.) It is a real problem but is stripping away that anonymity the right answer? And, if so, why is it the right answer for a US-based site but not in China? Should this perceived anonymity only be available in countries or sites that are run by totalitarian governments? Do we believe that civility is something that can only be achieved by unmasking those who only say things when they feel they won't be held accountable otherwise? And do we really believe that the US government is truly benevolent in comparison to other countries (I suspect there are more than a few people who would find that idea preposterous in light of recent revelations over the scope of spying on US citizens communications by the National Security Agency) in how it governs?
This is not to suggest that the HP is right or wrong in taking this move. Clearly they feel they are taking this move to make their site better for a majority of their users. But there are always two sides to every argument and it would be wise to see what the potential consequences of such a far-reaching decision may have to chill conversation that may otherwise not be possible if the ability to remain relatively anonymous are stripped away.
The underlying message being promoted by the Huffington Post (HP) is that this will promote a more civilized conversation and less trolling with the oft-accompanying threats and other negative commentary that can derail conversations on the internet. And, on its surface, this is a well-known problem not just on the HP but almost anywhere on the net where people are allowed to post whatever they want with the belief that they are relatively anonymous. (It is also worth noting here that I have suggested previously here and here that the idea of true anonymity on the internet is a false one but that is an argument for another day.) It is a real problem but is stripping away that anonymity the right answer? And, if so, why is it the right answer for a US-based site but not in China? Should this perceived anonymity only be available in countries or sites that are run by totalitarian governments? Do we believe that civility is something that can only be achieved by unmasking those who only say things when they feel they won't be held accountable otherwise? And do we really believe that the US government is truly benevolent in comparison to other countries (I suspect there are more than a few people who would find that idea preposterous in light of recent revelations over the scope of spying on US citizens communications by the National Security Agency) in how it governs?
This is not to suggest that the HP is right or wrong in taking this move. Clearly they feel they are taking this move to make their site better for a majority of their users. But there are always two sides to every argument and it would be wise to see what the potential consequences of such a far-reaching decision may have to chill conversation that may otherwise not be possible if the ability to remain relatively anonymous are stripped away.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Politics makes for inconsistencies
How hard is it to maintain a single political view? For example, the government was right to step in and enforce integration and racial equality (after denying it for so many years) back in the 60's. But should the government also be mandating emergency contraception for all females (regardless of age)? How does morality fall into that? It makes for strange politics at best and will seemingly always be inconsistent.
As some readers of this blog may have discovered, I am, among other things, an avid follower of politics and international relations, particularly as they relate to both the US and China. I find politics to be a fascinating process, if occasionally mystifying, sometimes unsavory and periodically perplexing. Looking even beyond what the politicians say and how they often seem to perform amazing mental and logical acrobatics to support positions that seem contrary to their stated views, the electorate who are most key to the process of politics are no less elastic in their own views and their votes. In some ways, I suppose that makes sense seeing as how the process seems to work in real life.
What should often be a straightforward, rational and logical process often ends up, much as math fractions reduced to their lowest common denominator, as something that in no way resembles anything approaching a straightforward, rational or even logical solution. The reason for this often seems to be a severe inconsistency that exists in how people rationalize their stated beliefs to fit within the reality of their lives. This exists on both the individual level of the citizens as well as at a higher level within the various structures of government and its representatives.
These inconsistencies, of course, exist throughout every aspect of life but seem to be particularly pronounced within the political realm. Within the American political discourse, it is not unusual to see Democrats who argue passionately for increased government intrusion into the lives of individuals in order to benefit everyone simultaneously argue that government should stay out of women's bodies as it pertains to the argument of abortion. Similarly, Republicans who may struggle to make ends meet, often working in jobs with no form of protection from companies who unilaterally (and sometimes seemingly arbitrarily) will layoff workers with no form of recompense, will rail against unions that helped to establish many of the laws that protect workers today. These positions make little sense when observed from an objective point of view yet they are tightly held by their proponents who see no inconsistency in them.
When challenged, they will defend those positions and not see how they contradict their own lives or experiences. Or they will recognize it but refuse to admit it as it is easier to deny a truth than it is to accept that your views and your choices are inconsistent. Either way, it makes politics a difficult way of life. And while I may enjoy the study of politics, the practice of it often leaves me amazed and not a little dismayed at times. It is easy to sometimes see why so many people choose to ignore it altogether.
As some readers of this blog may have discovered, I am, among other things, an avid follower of politics and international relations, particularly as they relate to both the US and China. I find politics to be a fascinating process, if occasionally mystifying, sometimes unsavory and periodically perplexing. Looking even beyond what the politicians say and how they often seem to perform amazing mental and logical acrobatics to support positions that seem contrary to their stated views, the electorate who are most key to the process of politics are no less elastic in their own views and their votes. In some ways, I suppose that makes sense seeing as how the process seems to work in real life.
What should often be a straightforward, rational and logical process often ends up, much as math fractions reduced to their lowest common denominator, as something that in no way resembles anything approaching a straightforward, rational or even logical solution. The reason for this often seems to be a severe inconsistency that exists in how people rationalize their stated beliefs to fit within the reality of their lives. This exists on both the individual level of the citizens as well as at a higher level within the various structures of government and its representatives.
These inconsistencies, of course, exist throughout every aspect of life but seem to be particularly pronounced within the political realm. Within the American political discourse, it is not unusual to see Democrats who argue passionately for increased government intrusion into the lives of individuals in order to benefit everyone simultaneously argue that government should stay out of women's bodies as it pertains to the argument of abortion. Similarly, Republicans who may struggle to make ends meet, often working in jobs with no form of protection from companies who unilaterally (and sometimes seemingly arbitrarily) will layoff workers with no form of recompense, will rail against unions that helped to establish many of the laws that protect workers today. These positions make little sense when observed from an objective point of view yet they are tightly held by their proponents who see no inconsistency in them.
When challenged, they will defend those positions and not see how they contradict their own lives or experiences. Or they will recognize it but refuse to admit it as it is easier to deny a truth than it is to accept that your views and your choices are inconsistent. Either way, it makes politics a difficult way of life. And while I may enjoy the study of politics, the practice of it often leaves me amazed and not a little dismayed at times. It is easy to sometimes see why so many people choose to ignore it altogether.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Random Thoughts
It's been a busy month with many things I've seen/heard but haven't had a chance to write on. Just a few quick hits to get me back in a rhythm, hopefully...
Though relatively tame, it's interesting to note how when Democrats offer racist commentary on non-white Republicans (why, yes, there are some!), there is little or no blowback. I certainly heard almost nothing on this incident involving Elaine Chao (the wife of Republican Mitch McConnell) from any major media outlet. In spite of the fact that they've confused Taiwanese with Chinese and their assertions that, as a "Chinese", she is working in some dark fashion to move US jobs overseas to China as if though she were some sort of modern day Fu Manchu character, I have not seen where the super PAC was punished or suffered any significant blowback as a result. On the flip side, though, when a Republican Alaska representative used the derogatory term "wetback" to refer to Mexican workers, it was plastered all over the mainstream media as another example of how Republicans are racist and even his own party, in their recent attempts to step away from being the party of racist rednecks, demanded (and received) an immediate apology. Both of the incidents were racist yet only one seems to have piqued any significant interest in the media because it fits a preconceived narrative. Yet, to listen to that narrative, racists only exist on one side of the political spectrum.
A friend of mine, some time back, tweaked me to Glenn Greenwald, a journalist with the British paper The Guardian. He is a bit on the left side of the political spectrum and I have found much of what he writes to be cogent and rational (compared to some). But I was super-impressed by his arguments when it came to Rand Paul and his filibuster when it concerned the rationale seemingly put forth by the Obama administration that it could order drone strikes against US citizens under certain circumstances. While the issue was highlighted by many in the media in terms of the radical right-wing legislator frothing against the popular Democratic president serving to valiantly defend his nation against the violent terrorists, Greenwald properly called out the supposedly liberal establishment for failing to stand up for one of its ideals and instead marching in lockstep with the administration simply to adhere to political convention. Whereas protesting against illegal drone strikes against US citizens would seem like something that would have been undertaken by a liberal lion such as Ted Kennedy, it was instead a libertarian (or so I took his approach) who picked up the standard and ran with it. It amazes me how little the Obama administration has continued policies that were originally put in place by his predecessor - who took amazing heat for it - and yet his party is now happily accepting of his actions and quietly acquiesce to those decisions. Of course, both Republicans and Democrats did the same things 12 years ago after September 11, 2001 and then Republicans openly supported while Democrats began to complain as his reign continued. Now, of course, the tables are turned and we see that the issue is not the issues themselves but instead who is in power when deciding those issues.
Finally, I can't say as though I am a big fan of Noam Chomsky but I found this to be an interesting interview. He actually addresses the concern of double-standards both in his views as well as how they are reported in the media. Of course, that does not stop him from continuing to offer very pointed, one-sided points in his critical commentary on US actions while remaining silent in the face of abuses or wrongs committed by those whom he sees as being on the right side of history (Hugo Chavez being one example). Further, the idea that 9/11 could have precipitated a military takeover of the US establishment makes him sound more like a conspiracy theorist than the noted and recognized academician that he is. He sees evil in everything the US does yet has no problem with staying in the US as it will offer him the opportunity to speak as he does - perhaps he realizes that the relative free speech that he enjoys in the US is something that will not be so easily granted in other parts of the world. This is not to suggest that the US does not have problems but he appears to only see problems in the US most of the time while ignoring the same (or worse) in other parts of the world. He admits in the interview that he will call out the power establishment on their wrongs while all but ignoring those committed by those who are in ideological agreement with him. Granted, this is not something that is limited to Mr. Chomsky but nor does it absolve him, either. Frankly, it smacks of the same double standards that seem to apply to almost anyone involved with politics and which renders it as unpalatable on many levels to so many. Even when Mr. Chomsky sees and recognizes it he still continues to act and speak with it in mind, absolving himself from responsibility with the idea that it serves the greater good. Does the end justify the means?
Though relatively tame, it's interesting to note how when Democrats offer racist commentary on non-white Republicans (why, yes, there are some!), there is little or no blowback. I certainly heard almost nothing on this incident involving Elaine Chao (the wife of Republican Mitch McConnell) from any major media outlet. In spite of the fact that they've confused Taiwanese with Chinese and their assertions that, as a "Chinese", she is working in some dark fashion to move US jobs overseas to China as if though she were some sort of modern day Fu Manchu character, I have not seen where the super PAC was punished or suffered any significant blowback as a result. On the flip side, though, when a Republican Alaska representative used the derogatory term "wetback" to refer to Mexican workers, it was plastered all over the mainstream media as another example of how Republicans are racist and even his own party, in their recent attempts to step away from being the party of racist rednecks, demanded (and received) an immediate apology. Both of the incidents were racist yet only one seems to have piqued any significant interest in the media because it fits a preconceived narrative. Yet, to listen to that narrative, racists only exist on one side of the political spectrum.
A friend of mine, some time back, tweaked me to Glenn Greenwald, a journalist with the British paper The Guardian. He is a bit on the left side of the political spectrum and I have found much of what he writes to be cogent and rational (compared to some). But I was super-impressed by his arguments when it came to Rand Paul and his filibuster when it concerned the rationale seemingly put forth by the Obama administration that it could order drone strikes against US citizens under certain circumstances. While the issue was highlighted by many in the media in terms of the radical right-wing legislator frothing against the popular Democratic president serving to valiantly defend his nation against the violent terrorists, Greenwald properly called out the supposedly liberal establishment for failing to stand up for one of its ideals and instead marching in lockstep with the administration simply to adhere to political convention. Whereas protesting against illegal drone strikes against US citizens would seem like something that would have been undertaken by a liberal lion such as Ted Kennedy, it was instead a libertarian (or so I took his approach) who picked up the standard and ran with it. It amazes me how little the Obama administration has continued policies that were originally put in place by his predecessor - who took amazing heat for it - and yet his party is now happily accepting of his actions and quietly acquiesce to those decisions. Of course, both Republicans and Democrats did the same things 12 years ago after September 11, 2001 and then Republicans openly supported while Democrats began to complain as his reign continued. Now, of course, the tables are turned and we see that the issue is not the issues themselves but instead who is in power when deciding those issues.
Finally, I can't say as though I am a big fan of Noam Chomsky but I found this to be an interesting interview. He actually addresses the concern of double-standards both in his views as well as how they are reported in the media. Of course, that does not stop him from continuing to offer very pointed, one-sided points in his critical commentary on US actions while remaining silent in the face of abuses or wrongs committed by those whom he sees as being on the right side of history (Hugo Chavez being one example). Further, the idea that 9/11 could have precipitated a military takeover of the US establishment makes him sound more like a conspiracy theorist than the noted and recognized academician that he is. He sees evil in everything the US does yet has no problem with staying in the US as it will offer him the opportunity to speak as he does - perhaps he realizes that the relative free speech that he enjoys in the US is something that will not be so easily granted in other parts of the world. This is not to suggest that the US does not have problems but he appears to only see problems in the US most of the time while ignoring the same (or worse) in other parts of the world. He admits in the interview that he will call out the power establishment on their wrongs while all but ignoring those committed by those who are in ideological agreement with him. Granted, this is not something that is limited to Mr. Chomsky but nor does it absolve him, either. Frankly, it smacks of the same double standards that seem to apply to almost anyone involved with politics and which renders it as unpalatable on many levels to so many. Even when Mr. Chomsky sees and recognizes it he still continues to act and speak with it in mind, absolving himself from responsibility with the idea that it serves the greater good. Does the end justify the means?
Thursday, February 28, 2013
What is fair?
This is a speech that I gave at my Toastmaster's group recently. Not sure if it reads the same as I delivered it but thought it was worth sharing and hopefully provoking some thoughts. Bear in mind that I originally began writing this last October or November (though I finished it only within the last couple of weeks) so it is somewhat dated but still worthwhile, I thought. I'd be interested in any feedback.
What is fair?
In the wake of our recent election cycle, there were many calls heard for more fairness in our democratic system. On one side, people argued that those who earned more money should be taxed more in order to give back to society what they have reaped from it so that things would be more fair. On the other side, people suggested that the idea of taxing one small sub-group more was inherently unfair and that fairness was that taxes be fairly applied to everyone. Certainly both arguments merit further discussion but, on its face, the idea of “fairness” is, indeed, a fair one. After all, everyone wants things to be fair in competition and in life. For example, the parity that exists in today’s National Football League and many other sports is something that resonates with most people. Fans are more drawn to the games if they feel that any team can win any given contest. Of course, the one exception to this idea of parity are the fans of those teams that might be more "fair" than the rest of the teams.
Indeed, the idea of fairness is not a new ideal – it has served as the springboard for countless political initiatives and ideologies along with numerous social experiments to find some sort of resolution to the inequality that seems to plague us. And by us, I mean humanity, not some specific sub-set thereof.
I daresay that we are hard-wired to seek out equality where we can to bring a sense of fairness where we can. We do not like seeing people treated unfairly for whatever reason. We want a harmony to exist whereby everyone is the same – or at least we can feel that we are all the same.
However, the reality is that we are not. We are not equal and never have been equal. The ugly truth is that we are all terribly unequal and that the system, such as it is, is not “fair” no matter how it may be defined. No, the truth is that some people are smarter than others. Some people are better-looking than others. Some people are richer than others. Some people speak better than others. Some people are more artistic than others. Some people are more mechanically inclined than others. Some people are healthier than others. Some people have more hair than others (though I’d really like to see some fairness put in place for this issue!). Yes, I am sure that it is a surprise to everyone here that there are differences between us and make us all very unequal and it is impossible to create a “fair” system for all of us because of these inequities.
Really, is it even possible to create a “fair” system for everyone? And how do we define a “fair” system? One based upon the job title one holds? Their education? How much hair they have on the top of their heads? Their skin color? What type of homes people should own? How much money they make or pay in taxes? At its best, “fair” is a very subjective term, is contextually based, and should never be used as an absolute. Unfortunately, it is within the political realm that it is most often used as an absolute and that is a problem because it creates the false impression that fairness can be achieved. As an absolute, however, it cannot.
This does not, however, mean that we should not try to create a system that can serve to better benefit everyone. Indeed, the key is not that we should be working to make everything “fair” for everyone but should instead strive to create a system whereby everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. And the key words in that last sentence are “equal opportunity”. If you truly want a more “fair” society, then give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. And the only way to ensure that happens is to give everyone the same start at the beginning and let them take advantage of what they can.
It all begins at school. The US offers a free education to all children regardless of any other circumstance and this is a major part of what has allowed America to succeed in the fashion it has throughout its short history. Education has been the origin of the path to a better life for Americans and it should be treasured for the knowledge that a good education imparts is the beginning of bettering oneself and attaining the equality that we all seek. Yet, far too often, we take education for granted. We fail to see that equality and fairness can only begin in our schools and the knowledge that they impart to each new generation. Indeed, children are the ones who can offer the best examples of fairness and equality because they are the ones who are unrelentingly honest and recognize where things should be equal and where it is impossible to impose equality. It is those same children who seek to do better and, given equal chances for learning, can achieve and succeed on what the preceding generations have done. Schools should be the centerpieces of society from which the hoped for “fairness” and equality can have a hope of being nurtured and grown into reality.
Give the children a chance to seek a fair life with some equality where they are judged not by the factors that separate us today but on their own skills, knowledge and accomplishments. Provide them with schools that are set not to lowered standards to ensure everyone is treated “fairly” with no winners or losers but with schools that will challenge them to do their best and give them a “fair” shake at a future in a life that is not always fair and equal.
We are not all equal and life is not fair – that is an unfortunate reality of life. But that does not mean that we should not seek to provide the opportunity for the next generation to achieve and succeed so that they may be better than the labels of “fair” and “equal” given them today which, in the real and future world, may not always be applicable.
Monday, February 18, 2013
The politics of friendship
Ah, yes, the politics of friendship. Or, put another way, the idea that politics defines your friendship. At least for some people. I try not to allow it to affect my friendships; though, to be fair, I have never been above riding someone about their political views. But I would like to think I have never defined my friendships based on political views.
However, it is something that has become a glaring issue in my opinion. I have friends and family members who define their friendships based on their political views and wanting to associate only with politically like-minded individuals. I don't get it and, quite frankly, find it to be a very disturbing concern. Everyone has political views (particularly in the US) and there is a strong vein of politics that permeates American lives because of our history. Further, I am sure that the sense of polarization that is so prevalent today is nothing new and has existed throughout the short history of the US. However, that should still not pose the issue that it does with so many non-political friends and associates of mine.
A short thirty years ago (during the heyday of Reagan), there was a lot of political vitriol between the two political parties in the US, the Republicans and Democrats. Yet, at the end of the day, I remember the stories of the two main leaders of their respective parties (Reagan and Tip O'Neil of the Democrats who was the then-Speaker of the House) getting together to have drinks and engage in friendly conversation. These were the same two men who would put forth great criticisms of each other and their respective views on the issues of the day but they also realized that it was as much political theatre and did not allow it to keep them from being able to interact on other levels for the benefit of each other and the country as a whole. Today, however, the two parties batter each other to a degree that comes close to rivaling the demonization that preceded the genocidal massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. And that occurs just on the political level. However, what has followed today is a similar level of demonization on a non-political level by adherents of the various parties.
I have friends and family who will not speak to each other because they hold different political views. Some of them are on the political right and only watch Fox News because it is "fair and balanced" and read the National Review while anything else represents only the political left (those damn liberals!). Some are on the political left and only watch MSNBC and read Mother Jones while abhorring Fox News for being biased (stupid retarded conservatives!). And they will only associate with people who hold similar viewpoints while lambasting those who hold divergent opinions without ever truly attempting to understand them, let alone trying to find a middle ground. The result, of course, is a stark inability to find common ground on a personal level that could be used to help create a framework to help move them (and the country as a whole) forward. This deliberate limitation is amazing and completely idiotic to me. Why would people choose to limit themselves from learning from or about others? I have never understood this and the politicization of these relationships makes it even more difficult to fathom.
Of course, I see this because I tend to adhere to a more moderate set of views that crosses over into both major party platforms so I am not beholden to one or the others. I also prefer to learn as much as I can and do not limit myself to a single source of information - though I also am aware of the various biases that creep up in what passes for "news reporting" today. But the idea that I would allow my political views to dictate my friendships (none of which are "political") is abhorrent to me. And this is in spite of the fact that my degree is in Political Science and I have a fairly well-grounded knowledge base on a number of subjects.
I simply want to take some of these people (who will openly admit to such selective "friendships") and throttle them while asking them what the heck they are thinking in doing such a thing! Maybe I am just an anachronistic relic of an earlier age or an optimist? I hope not. I'd be curious for the feedback of others on this.
However, it is something that has become a glaring issue in my opinion. I have friends and family members who define their friendships based on their political views and wanting to associate only with politically like-minded individuals. I don't get it and, quite frankly, find it to be a very disturbing concern. Everyone has political views (particularly in the US) and there is a strong vein of politics that permeates American lives because of our history. Further, I am sure that the sense of polarization that is so prevalent today is nothing new and has existed throughout the short history of the US. However, that should still not pose the issue that it does with so many non-political friends and associates of mine.
A short thirty years ago (during the heyday of Reagan), there was a lot of political vitriol between the two political parties in the US, the Republicans and Democrats. Yet, at the end of the day, I remember the stories of the two main leaders of their respective parties (Reagan and Tip O'Neil of the Democrats who was the then-Speaker of the House) getting together to have drinks and engage in friendly conversation. These were the same two men who would put forth great criticisms of each other and their respective views on the issues of the day but they also realized that it was as much political theatre and did not allow it to keep them from being able to interact on other levels for the benefit of each other and the country as a whole. Today, however, the two parties batter each other to a degree that comes close to rivaling the demonization that preceded the genocidal massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. And that occurs just on the political level. However, what has followed today is a similar level of demonization on a non-political level by adherents of the various parties.
I have friends and family who will not speak to each other because they hold different political views. Some of them are on the political right and only watch Fox News because it is "fair and balanced" and read the National Review while anything else represents only the political left (those damn liberals!). Some are on the political left and only watch MSNBC and read Mother Jones while abhorring Fox News for being biased (stupid retarded conservatives!). And they will only associate with people who hold similar viewpoints while lambasting those who hold divergent opinions without ever truly attempting to understand them, let alone trying to find a middle ground. The result, of course, is a stark inability to find common ground on a personal level that could be used to help create a framework to help move them (and the country as a whole) forward. This deliberate limitation is amazing and completely idiotic to me. Why would people choose to limit themselves from learning from or about others? I have never understood this and the politicization of these relationships makes it even more difficult to fathom.
Of course, I see this because I tend to adhere to a more moderate set of views that crosses over into both major party platforms so I am not beholden to one or the others. I also prefer to learn as much as I can and do not limit myself to a single source of information - though I also am aware of the various biases that creep up in what passes for "news reporting" today. But the idea that I would allow my political views to dictate my friendships (none of which are "political") is abhorrent to me. And this is in spite of the fact that my degree is in Political Science and I have a fairly well-grounded knowledge base on a number of subjects.
I simply want to take some of these people (who will openly admit to such selective "friendships") and throttle them while asking them what the heck they are thinking in doing such a thing! Maybe I am just an anachronistic relic of an earlier age or an optimist? I hope not. I'd be curious for the feedback of others on this.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Random Thanksgiving Thoughts
Thanksgiving, that most American of holidays. And I had a very nice Thanksgiving for which I was thankful to see a cousin and uncle I had not seen in some time with the rest of my family (blood and otherwise). Hopefully will be able to continue to renew old family acquaintances in the near future. Ah, the joys of the internet making the world that much smaller...
Several things have been on my mind lately so I'll just skip over a few. First, in the interest of making sure everyone is treated fairly, what the heck was John Sununu and much of the Republican Party doing when they said that the only reason General Colin Powell, a staunch Republican who also happens to be black, chose to support President Obama's re-election (as well as the first time around in 2008) was because he is also black?! I've happily taken Democrats to task for such idiotic statements and will do the same here. Regardless of whether the Republican establishment liked the fact that Gen. Powell voted for Obama or agreed with his reasoning for doing so (and he clearly stated why he supported the president and it wasn't because he was black), to suggest he did so because they share a skin color is racist. The fact that no one prominent within the party rose up to disavow those comments is a major reason why there is a very real perception that the Republican Party is the party for racists (well, ok, white racists). Unless and until the party recognizes it cannot continue with the strategy it has employed for the last 40 years, it faces the very real possibility it will go the way of the Whigs.
Ok, it's been a while and I actually started another blog post on this but got sidetracked and not in the mood to finish that thought so I'll address it in short here. Thank goodness Lucas is no longer controlling the Star Wars empire! Don't get me wrong, I am most grateful for the empire (I know, an ironic word choice) he created back in 1977 and to suggest that I am an ardent devotee is a significant understatement. But over the course of the last 20 years, he has angered me far more than made me happy with the bastardization he has done to the franchise with continual technical upgrades to the original movies and the lousy prequels he did (well, ok, Episode III was watchable but still far lagged behind IV and V). Now, with someone else in charge, even if it is as part of Disney, I have a lot more hope for the future and am looking forward to seeing where the franchise goes from here. Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, I'm sure better things await.
Recently, have come across several people who have become much more politicized. That is in contrast to myself as I have grown less so in my old age. What struck me, though, was how they view everything in their life through the very narrow lens of politics. One person made it clear that they were removing all of their social network friends who had differing political viewpoints. Another tried to argue with me that I was wrong for not being as strident in my political views and that I should be focusing my efforts on getting one of the candidates elected for the betterment of our country as the other candidate would destroy the nation. Trying to point out to this individual that I would vote (without disclosing to whom, they simply made an assumption) and that I had problems with all of candidates and their views a variety of issues was useless as they took the opportunity to point out how the opposing candidate (only the major party candidates mattered to this person) was wrong on EVERYTHING and ignored anything I tried to say. I guess it goes along with the tendency of these same people to only hear things that support their particular worldview and ignore anything else as irrelevant. So, if I don't listen to Fox News then I am getting a slanted viewpoint that only supports liberal weenies who want to burn the flag, get rid of English and turn the country into Northern Mexico (or choose your own country) or if I am listening to Fox News then they only offer "conservative" news and I am some back-woods redneck hillbilly who spends every Sunday in church listening to ignorant preachers who hate gays. Nope, thanks but I prefer to get my news from many sources and ignore the many talking-heads who somehow manage to get paid for saying stupid things for both extremes of the political spectrum while ignoring the needs of the nation as a whole. I now hope that the day comes where we can come back to some sort of middle ground that will allow collaboration on big issues for the nation instead of small-minded wedge issues designed to only garner votes from a small subset of the electorate - because we are now in election mode every day of the year. Politicians now view their job not as one of governance but of getting re-elected. Unless and until this changes, things will likely not improve significantly.
Ok, ok, I've digressed so I'll stop ranting now.
Several things have been on my mind lately so I'll just skip over a few. First, in the interest of making sure everyone is treated fairly, what the heck was John Sununu and much of the Republican Party doing when they said that the only reason General Colin Powell, a staunch Republican who also happens to be black, chose to support President Obama's re-election (as well as the first time around in 2008) was because he is also black?! I've happily taken Democrats to task for such idiotic statements and will do the same here. Regardless of whether the Republican establishment liked the fact that Gen. Powell voted for Obama or agreed with his reasoning for doing so (and he clearly stated why he supported the president and it wasn't because he was black), to suggest he did so because they share a skin color is racist. The fact that no one prominent within the party rose up to disavow those comments is a major reason why there is a very real perception that the Republican Party is the party for racists (well, ok, white racists). Unless and until the party recognizes it cannot continue with the strategy it has employed for the last 40 years, it faces the very real possibility it will go the way of the Whigs.
Ok, it's been a while and I actually started another blog post on this but got sidetracked and not in the mood to finish that thought so I'll address it in short here. Thank goodness Lucas is no longer controlling the Star Wars empire! Don't get me wrong, I am most grateful for the empire (I know, an ironic word choice) he created back in 1977 and to suggest that I am an ardent devotee is a significant understatement. But over the course of the last 20 years, he has angered me far more than made me happy with the bastardization he has done to the franchise with continual technical upgrades to the original movies and the lousy prequels he did (well, ok, Episode III was watchable but still far lagged behind IV and V). Now, with someone else in charge, even if it is as part of Disney, I have a lot more hope for the future and am looking forward to seeing where the franchise goes from here. Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, I'm sure better things await.
Recently, have come across several people who have become much more politicized. That is in contrast to myself as I have grown less so in my old age. What struck me, though, was how they view everything in their life through the very narrow lens of politics. One person made it clear that they were removing all of their social network friends who had differing political viewpoints. Another tried to argue with me that I was wrong for not being as strident in my political views and that I should be focusing my efforts on getting one of the candidates elected for the betterment of our country as the other candidate would destroy the nation. Trying to point out to this individual that I would vote (without disclosing to whom, they simply made an assumption) and that I had problems with all of candidates and their views a variety of issues was useless as they took the opportunity to point out how the opposing candidate (only the major party candidates mattered to this person) was wrong on EVERYTHING and ignored anything I tried to say. I guess it goes along with the tendency of these same people to only hear things that support their particular worldview and ignore anything else as irrelevant. So, if I don't listen to Fox News then I am getting a slanted viewpoint that only supports liberal weenies who want to burn the flag, get rid of English and turn the country into Northern Mexico (or choose your own country) or if I am listening to Fox News then they only offer "conservative" news and I am some back-woods redneck hillbilly who spends every Sunday in church listening to ignorant preachers who hate gays. Nope, thanks but I prefer to get my news from many sources and ignore the many talking-heads who somehow manage to get paid for saying stupid things for both extremes of the political spectrum while ignoring the needs of the nation as a whole. I now hope that the day comes where we can come back to some sort of middle ground that will allow collaboration on big issues for the nation instead of small-minded wedge issues designed to only garner votes from a small subset of the electorate - because we are now in election mode every day of the year. Politicians now view their job not as one of governance but of getting re-elected. Unless and until this changes, things will likely not improve significantly.
Ok, ok, I've digressed so I'll stop ranting now.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Say what?!
I found the statement below from an article on CNN to be absolutely amazing in its oxymoronic insanity (and emphasis really should be on "moronic") and belief that people are going to be so stupid to actually take it at face value:
Really, by charging your customers up to $100 for luggage, it makes things more efficient for your company so that you can then pass those savings back onto your customers?! Um, how does charging your customers more to bring their luggage onto your planes save them money?! Aren't you doing the exact OPPOSITE by making your customers pay more rather than actually saving them money?! The only way they will save money is not to fly on your freakin' airplanes!
Maybe the airlines should go ahead and seek a government bailout? Seems like a good possibility based on how the election is likely to go. If banks and the auto industry can do it, why not the airline industry (which has been in decline for the last couple of decades)? Then people can pay more in taxes AND the same ridiculous fees that the airlines are making up as they go along...
"Our goal is for no customer ever to pay the $100 fee," said Spirit Chief Operating Officer Tony Lefebvre in a statement. "By planning ahead and paying for bags before getting to the boarding gate, our customers are saving time at the airport and speeding up the boarding process. When our customers choose these time-saving, self-service options, our costs go down, and we can pass those savings along to our customers."
Really, by charging your customers up to $100 for luggage, it makes things more efficient for your company so that you can then pass those savings back onto your customers?! Um, how does charging your customers more to bring their luggage onto your planes save them money?! Aren't you doing the exact OPPOSITE by making your customers pay more rather than actually saving them money?! The only way they will save money is not to fly on your freakin' airplanes!
Maybe the airlines should go ahead and seek a government bailout? Seems like a good possibility based on how the election is likely to go. If banks and the auto industry can do it, why not the airline industry (which has been in decline for the last couple of decades)? Then people can pay more in taxes AND the same ridiculous fees that the airlines are making up as they go along...
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Really, who is the racist?
As I have pointed out on this blog a few times before, I have a hard time understanding how it is that, in the political landscape, Republicans are racist and Democrats are the new party of Abraham Lincoln come to rescue the downtrodden blacks.
And apparently I'm not the only one is willing to point this out as this one gentleman did. And he did a good job in pointing out that he doesn't necessarily have to agree with her choice or her reasoning in making said choice (and he doesn't on both counts). But to suggest that she is a race traitor or worse because she is expressing her freedom to choose someone else and to stand outside the mainstream is not wrong but is a step that shows that the color of one's skin should not be the determining factor in one's political affiliation. After all, wasn't that the point of the Civil Rights Movement?
Unfortunately, I suspect that such a nuanced point of view will continue to be ignored because it's an uncomfortable thing to reflect upon contradictions in our views. Well, for most people, anyway...
And apparently I'm not the only one is willing to point this out as this one gentleman did. And he did a good job in pointing out that he doesn't necessarily have to agree with her choice or her reasoning in making said choice (and he doesn't on both counts). But to suggest that she is a race traitor or worse because she is expressing her freedom to choose someone else and to stand outside the mainstream is not wrong but is a step that shows that the color of one's skin should not be the determining factor in one's political affiliation. After all, wasn't that the point of the Civil Rights Movement?
Unfortunately, I suspect that such a nuanced point of view will continue to be ignored because it's an uncomfortable thing to reflect upon contradictions in our views. Well, for most people, anyway...
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
What is fair and what do we deserve?
It's the high point of the political season in the United States and there is a steady refrain of how things should be more fair and clearly the poor (or insert your own group here) deserve more than what they have. I have to admit that this is a subjective subject at best (is it really possible to say "subjective subject"?). When we talk about "fair", what is fair? Fair to whom? The idea that it is fair to take from some and give to others is a Robin Hood-esque idea that makes everyone feel all warm and fuzzy. And I say that as a fan of the story of Robin Hood. However, there is a significant difference between Robin Hood that should be pointed out. Namely, Robin Hood was an individual who sought to assist people from the tyranny of the governing power. However, in many of the arguments bandied about today, the suggestion is that government should be taking from the rich and re-distributing to the poor, or protecting the poor from rich. Should the government take that role? Doesn't that make the government tyrranical - to at least a part of the society that it alleges to represent? At the very least, the Robin Hood comparison is a poor one.
But to cut to the idea of fair, it would be more appropriate to ask if fairness can ever truly be achieved. After all, the reality is that life is not fair. Some people are better looking than others. Some people are taller than others. Some men have more hair than others. Some people are smarter than others. There is no equality in life as people may wish for and it is not possible to make people equal in this fashion no matter how much they may think they deserve it. Yet the refrain is that we should strive for equality, particularly in terms of economics. While I would not argue against striving for equality and giving people equal opportunities, it makes no sense that the fairness being argued for only deprives those with (money) unfairly to give it to those without. Instead of giving people money to make it "fair", give them the same opportunities to make money. Those who can take advantage of those opportunities will get what is both fair and what they deserve. Those people deserve the opportunity to succeed, not the money or the goods that others have earned.
Somehow, though, I fear that this may not make it into the political discourse. *sigh*
But to cut to the idea of fair, it would be more appropriate to ask if fairness can ever truly be achieved. After all, the reality is that life is not fair. Some people are better looking than others. Some people are taller than others. Some men have more hair than others. Some people are smarter than others. There is no equality in life as people may wish for and it is not possible to make people equal in this fashion no matter how much they may think they deserve it. Yet the refrain is that we should strive for equality, particularly in terms of economics. While I would not argue against striving for equality and giving people equal opportunities, it makes no sense that the fairness being argued for only deprives those with (money) unfairly to give it to those without. Instead of giving people money to make it "fair", give them the same opportunities to make money. Those who can take advantage of those opportunities will get what is both fair and what they deserve. Those people deserve the opportunity to succeed, not the money or the goods that others have earned.
Somehow, though, I fear that this may not make it into the political discourse. *sigh*
Sunday, July 29, 2012
How many ways to pay in DC?
So we recently took a quick day trip to Washington DC on a weekend to see some of the memorials and parts of the Smithsonian. Should have been a fairly quick drive to the outskirts where we were going to take the Metro into the city. We've done the trip before and it's usually a pretty good trip. However, on this trip, things went sour fairly quickly. We got to the metro station to find that it was having a problem and therefore non-operational. There was the option of commuting via bus to another metro stop and going into the city from there or driving in ourselves. The idea of having to take a bus to another metro stop (rather than into the city directly) and still having to pay the money to do so did not appeal to us but I didn't have a map to know where to go into the city - a city that I personally hate driving in because the city streets seem to have been laid out by a hyperactive schizophrenic with no sense of direction.
Yet I didn't have much choice. I recalled that L'Enfant Plaza is near the Smithsonian so just needed to figure out how to get there. On a Saturday, provided I could find a parking spot, I could actually avoid any parking fees and now I would be able to avoid the metro fees, too. Which is probably just as well since my taxes clearly weren't enough to help ensure the smooth operation of the metro in the first place - probably because they're being used to pay for the waste and inefficiency so endemic to the city and the government that it hosts. So, using my Android, got the address I needed and mapped out the drive which was only about another 10-15 miles beyond the metro station.
Once I got to L'Enfant Plaza, I received my next surprise - parking was no longer free in this area. If it had been, I'm sure that I would have fond no available parking spots. Instead, there was a plethora of spots available and, once I found a spot, realized that I had no spare change to put into the parking meter. However, in the spirit of the government, er, city finding additional ways of fleecing its citizens and visitors, they have now set it up where you can pay your parking fees using your smart phone. While I am normally a proponent of utilizing technology to create efficiency, I was simply annoyed that what used to be free parking on Saturdays was no longer and they were finding new ways of making people pay. While I have a smart-phone and can do this, there are still many people who don't and this is just another annoyance to trying to visit the city - a city that hosts the federal government that represents us all and for which we pay to maintain it with the taxes that it imposes on us. Yet, in order to visit it, we continue to pay in other ways.
Before I go too far into that rant, let me continue on with my little story. So, after spending 10 minutes setting up an account on my Android, I find that I can only park for two hours in that location. If I want to stay longer, I have to move my car (again!) and then pay again using the same method. So, I could only go so far from the vehicle to ensure that I had enough time to get back and move it without being ticketed. Which meant that we would be unable to visit the Jefferson Memorial (which was the one thing I wanted to go see that day!) and could only spend limited time at the Smithsonian museums. So, we went to the Air and Space Museum and had a quick lunch before I took the kids to to looking at some of the exhibits. Then I took them back to my better half who went with them while I went back to move the car and pay for another two hours. And, two hours later, I thought I might be able to renew the parking without moving the car again - but couldn't connect to their application this time. So, instead of most of the day enjoying my day in DC, I spent it paying for a failed mass transit system and parking that previously had worked fine. Exactly where do my taxes go?
Maybe it's not such a big issue and this is just the way of things. Perhaps I am just being too demanding and should lower my expectations. It is possible that I am just blowing up a minor annoyance into something far more significant than it should be. However, I believe that there is a growing failure on the part of a leadership that claims to represent us and yet the evidence instead indicates only serves its own interest. But instead of whining about it here, I should spend more time looking for ways to help fix the problem. I just hope that others will feel the same way and there is yet a way to a viable solution for the entire country and not just the entrenched leadership.
And I'll stop my rant now...
Yet I didn't have much choice. I recalled that L'Enfant Plaza is near the Smithsonian so just needed to figure out how to get there. On a Saturday, provided I could find a parking spot, I could actually avoid any parking fees and now I would be able to avoid the metro fees, too. Which is probably just as well since my taxes clearly weren't enough to help ensure the smooth operation of the metro in the first place - probably because they're being used to pay for the waste and inefficiency so endemic to the city and the government that it hosts. So, using my Android, got the address I needed and mapped out the drive which was only about another 10-15 miles beyond the metro station.
Once I got to L'Enfant Plaza, I received my next surprise - parking was no longer free in this area. If it had been, I'm sure that I would have fond no available parking spots. Instead, there was a plethora of spots available and, once I found a spot, realized that I had no spare change to put into the parking meter. However, in the spirit of the government, er, city finding additional ways of fleecing its citizens and visitors, they have now set it up where you can pay your parking fees using your smart phone. While I am normally a proponent of utilizing technology to create efficiency, I was simply annoyed that what used to be free parking on Saturdays was no longer and they were finding new ways of making people pay. While I have a smart-phone and can do this, there are still many people who don't and this is just another annoyance to trying to visit the city - a city that hosts the federal government that represents us all and for which we pay to maintain it with the taxes that it imposes on us. Yet, in order to visit it, we continue to pay in other ways.
Before I go too far into that rant, let me continue on with my little story. So, after spending 10 minutes setting up an account on my Android, I find that I can only park for two hours in that location. If I want to stay longer, I have to move my car (again!) and then pay again using the same method. So, I could only go so far from the vehicle to ensure that I had enough time to get back and move it without being ticketed. Which meant that we would be unable to visit the Jefferson Memorial (which was the one thing I wanted to go see that day!) and could only spend limited time at the Smithsonian museums. So, we went to the Air and Space Museum and had a quick lunch before I took the kids to to looking at some of the exhibits. Then I took them back to my better half who went with them while I went back to move the car and pay for another two hours. And, two hours later, I thought I might be able to renew the parking without moving the car again - but couldn't connect to their application this time. So, instead of most of the day enjoying my day in DC, I spent it paying for a failed mass transit system and parking that previously had worked fine. Exactly where do my taxes go?
Maybe it's not such a big issue and this is just the way of things. Perhaps I am just being too demanding and should lower my expectations. It is possible that I am just blowing up a minor annoyance into something far more significant than it should be. However, I believe that there is a growing failure on the part of a leadership that claims to represent us and yet the evidence instead indicates only serves its own interest. But instead of whining about it here, I should spend more time looking for ways to help fix the problem. I just hope that others will feel the same way and there is yet a way to a viable solution for the entire country and not just the entrenched leadership.
And I'll stop my rant now...
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Random Thoughts
Is $750 million enough to win the presidency? Or could it be put to better use? President Obama spent about $750 million to win the presidency in 2008 and his staff has indicated that he'll raise about the same amount for this year's election from all of his sources. Romney will likely do the same between his own campaign and the PAC's who support him. So it does beg the question of what is the difference between them and are we reduced to the point in our democracy where only the rich (or the super-rich who support them) are able to have a serious opportunity to "serve" the people? From my limited vantage point, I'm not seeing much of a difference. All I see is a new class of elite leadership that enriches itself and perpetuates its own hold on power through that enrichment. I wonder if we could find a better way to invest that combined $1.5 billion for the nation as a whole instead of on a couple of power-hungry rich guys...
Two lawmakers say that the Secret Service needs more women? So goes the line from senators Susan Collins and Carolyn Maloney. Temporarily bypassing the idea of bipartisanship (in Washington DC?!) that these two are temporarily displaying, I have to admit that my first thought upon hearing this was "why?". I am not opposed to diversity in any workforce or group and think that it is a fine idea. However, in the aftermath of the Secret Service sex scandal (should I capital Sex Scandal?), the underlying point becomes "if there were more women there, then there wouldn't have been a sex scandal." Riiiiiight. Because women are never involved in anything dirty like a sex scandal.
http://www.zimbio.com/The+50+Most+Infamous+Female+Teacher+Sex+Scandals
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/12/11/why-women-dont-have-sex-scandals.html
Sorry, if we want to push for diversity in the Secret Service (or anywhere else, for that matter), let's not use stupid excuses to do so. Let's push for it but let's do so for the right reasons - not as a political sop based on the actions of a few stupid people.
And now, I'm tired and off to bed... I may have to review this later to be sure it's coherent since I don't feel particularly so at the moment. :-)
Two lawmakers say that the Secret Service needs more women? So goes the line from senators Susan Collins and Carolyn Maloney. Temporarily bypassing the idea of bipartisanship (in Washington DC?!) that these two are temporarily displaying, I have to admit that my first thought upon hearing this was "why?". I am not opposed to diversity in any workforce or group and think that it is a fine idea. However, in the aftermath of the Secret Service sex scandal (should I capital Sex Scandal?), the underlying point becomes "if there were more women there, then there wouldn't have been a sex scandal." Riiiiiight. Because women are never involved in anything dirty like a sex scandal.
http://www.zimbio.com/The+50+Most+Infamous+Female+Teacher+Sex+Scandals
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/12/11/why-women-dont-have-sex-scandals.html
Sorry, if we want to push for diversity in the Secret Service (or anywhere else, for that matter), let's not use stupid excuses to do so. Let's push for it but let's do so for the right reasons - not as a political sop based on the actions of a few stupid people.
And now, I'm tired and off to bed... I may have to review this later to be sure it's coherent since I don't feel particularly so at the moment. :-)
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
“We are selling weapons to Syria for its national defense, national security,” Lavrov told lawmakers in the lower house of Russian parliament. “We aren’t providing Syria with any weapons that could be used against protesters, against peaceful citizens, helping fuel the conflict. We aren't doing that, we are only helping Syria to protect its security against external threats.”
The above quote is from the Russian Foreign Minister as it relates to the Russian government selling weapons to the Syrian government. So, in addition to the fact that the Russians (along with the Chinese government) have blocked any serious action from the UN taking place (ok, yeah, it's funny to think that the UN can do anything even if the Russians and Chinese aren't deliberately blocking them), they're also selling them weapons and then thinking the rest of the world is stupid enough to believe that they're selling them weapons that can only be used against "external" enemies. Or perhaps their definition of "external enemies" refers to anyone who opposes the government? Frankly, I'm curious to know exactly what kind of weapons can only be used against external enemies but can't be used against protesters and peaceful citizens? Tanks? Fighter jets? Oh, wait, no, those have been used against protesters and peaceful citizens.
Now, to be fair, do I think that Western or other Arab nations haven't been selling weapons to those opposition forces in Syria? Heck no, I'm certain they have - though probably not to the same degree or dollars as the Russians. But at least they're not trying to use logic (or the obvious lack thereof) to justify that it's ok to do so and watch the tragedy currently unfolding in Syria. Or maybe the rest of the world really is just that stupid or uncaring. I probably shouldn't be surprised...
Monday, February 27, 2012
Killing the messenger not so softly
Every so often you are criticized for being “radical.” So triumphant is the critic that it is as though once the word “radical” is laid on you, nothing you have said is of any worth, the foundation of your argument collapses on contact, and you are defeated and dispatched. On the other hand, your critics never say a thing about the atrocities of the government perpetrated over decades, they hold no principles against it and have unlimited tolerance for it. They suffer from severe Stockholm syndrome without knowing it; they even feel complacent about this mental deformation.
Before I get into the source of that quote, I think it's important to consider context here, particularly for the first part of this statement. Frankly, when I first read it, I considered politics in the US and the carelessness with which terms like "liberal" or "commie" or "radical right" or "religious fundamentalist" are bandied about by political opponents. Quick, if you want to discredit someone, assign some label to them which will be readily interpreted by your followers as a symbol of denigration and therefore not worthy of consideration! It is a sad and unfortunate commentary that when people are unable to argue the merits of a particular point of view that they then reduce themselves to demonizing the ideological view of their opponents. I am not so naive as to argue that we should all agree but no justice is served by attacking the messenger when the message itself cannot be refuted.
For reference, the above quote comes from Ran Yunfei ( 冉云飞), a Chinese intellectual and blogger, in relation to the government of his own nation. It's sad, however, how applicable it is elsewhere throughout the world... *sigh*
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Movie weekend
Apparently, it must have been movie weekend. I suppose, when the temperature is hanging around "cold enough to snow" (and we got 30 whole minutes of it! thunder snow, no less!), that is a good time to spend inside watching movies. So that is what we did on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Friday night we watched "Aftershock" (or 大地震). I have to say that is probably one of the better movies that I've seen in recent years, especially for something that was produced in mainland China. One of my criticisms of movies coming out of China in recent years is the overt politicization and/or nationalism that seems to pervade the great majority of them. Perhaps there many people who enjoy them; I am not one of them.
But I did enjoy Aftershock. It was emotional, I didn't have to suspend my disbelief and, while the disaster scenes at the beginning of the movie may not have hit some of the high standards that have emanated from Hollywood in recent years, it also wasn't a movie about only the disaster. I felt that the mother in the movie was a bit of a martyr but I also understood (and admittedly agreed with) her attitude and choices. The children were also realistic to me and it was great to see such a wonderful story being told (that was not as depressing as some movies feel they have to be these days). As I put it to my better half, this was one of the best movies I'd seen in a while. "Out of China?" was the response. "No", I responded, "period". I enjoyed it and it didn't matter to me where it came from. I wish there were more stories like this sometimes.
Saturday was an old favorite, Lord of the Rings (The Fellowship of the Ring). Of course, now I have to go back and also watch The Two Towers and The Return of the King, but that goes without saying. Combined with the fact that I also need to go watch Star Wars Episode I in 3D soon, you could argue that it is a week or rehashes, but that's ok. I happen to like each of the movies.
Sunday was "The Flowers of War", another Chinese movie by Zhang Yimou. While I've not been impressed by Zhang in recent years (as much for his philosophical changes and willingness to toe the government line), I have to admit that this movie was almost a guilty pleasure. There were parts where I felt the movie was good and moderately realistic and other parts where they seemed to be carrying things to excess (a single Chinese sniper wipes out an entire Japanese patrol single-handedly?). I enjoyed the story even if it seemed to swing wildly between excess and sappiness, often in all the wrong places. I know enough of the story of Nanjing during that time to believe the worst of the Japanese but there were times it really annoyed me, too. More of the politicization and nationalism that I mentioned earlier. And that doesn't even mention the fact that they kept saying "Nanking" rather than "Nanjing". Perhaps someone can tell me if that is actually accurate or playing to Western wordplay... Regardless, while not the best movie I've seen, it wasn't as bad as I thought it might be, either (though I did have to really suspend my disbelief at times).
But I did enjoy Aftershock. It was emotional, I didn't have to suspend my disbelief and, while the disaster scenes at the beginning of the movie may not have hit some of the high standards that have emanated from Hollywood in recent years, it also wasn't a movie about only the disaster. I felt that the mother in the movie was a bit of a martyr but I also understood (and admittedly agreed with) her attitude and choices. The children were also realistic to me and it was great to see such a wonderful story being told (that was not as depressing as some movies feel they have to be these days). As I put it to my better half, this was one of the best movies I'd seen in a while. "Out of China?" was the response. "No", I responded, "period". I enjoyed it and it didn't matter to me where it came from. I wish there were more stories like this sometimes.
Saturday was an old favorite, Lord of the Rings (The Fellowship of the Ring). Of course, now I have to go back and also watch The Two Towers and The Return of the King, but that goes without saying. Combined with the fact that I also need to go watch Star Wars Episode I in 3D soon, you could argue that it is a week or rehashes, but that's ok. I happen to like each of the movies.
Sunday was "The Flowers of War", another Chinese movie by Zhang Yimou. While I've not been impressed by Zhang in recent years (as much for his philosophical changes and willingness to toe the government line), I have to admit that this movie was almost a guilty pleasure. There were parts where I felt the movie was good and moderately realistic and other parts where they seemed to be carrying things to excess (a single Chinese sniper wipes out an entire Japanese patrol single-handedly?). I enjoyed the story even if it seemed to swing wildly between excess and sappiness, often in all the wrong places. I know enough of the story of Nanjing during that time to believe the worst of the Japanese but there were times it really annoyed me, too. More of the politicization and nationalism that I mentioned earlier. And that doesn't even mention the fact that they kept saying "Nanking" rather than "Nanjing". Perhaps someone can tell me if that is actually accurate or playing to Western wordplay... Regardless, while not the best movie I've seen, it wasn't as bad as I thought it might be, either (though I did have to really suspend my disbelief at times).
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Ignorance is taught
I do not normally post things that happen to me on this blog because I like my privacy. However, I encountered a situation recently that made me step back and wonder just what is happening to the world today and whether I am missing something or perhaps there is more I should do to prevent such situations in the future. So, first, a little background. I have a wonderful wife who means the world to me and a son who is no less important. My wife is not of the same ethnicity nor language and, while it has sometimes given itself over to troubles in our life together, it has also forced us to work harder to overcome those differences. As anyone in a multi-cultural relationship can attest, there are difficulties that are not always obvious nor easily resolved - beyond the means of a monocultural relationship. However, I support my wife completely and she the same. So, enough background and onto the situation.
While with my son and several other boys his age, some of whom I was not immediately familiar with (and who were not familiar with us), one of the boys kept referring to me as "Don's" dad. After it was pointed out to him that I was not Don's dad but my son's dad on several occasions, he finally looked at me and my son and stated, "I see 'Mike' (my son) has darker skin but you have really white skin. How can you be 'Mike's' dad?"
Ok, I think to myself, I can see past this as an innocent mistake, though not one that we've encountered in his near 12 years. "'Mike's' mom is from China. He has his mom's skin."
"Oh, is she black?"
Say what?! This is an 11-year old boy and he's just been told that someone is from China and his first question is whether she is black?! Frankly, my nerves were beginning to be plucked at that point but I persevered with patient responses. After all, he's only 11 and I don't know if perhaps he has some issues with his intellect. Though, it would be very hard to imagine my son as having any black ancestry from his appearance. Frankly, most people have assumed he is white though they have wondered about perhaps some Hispanic or Asian roots in his background based on his appearance. So, again, I respond, "No, she is Chinese."
That was not enough for him. "Oh. Does she have a green card?"
Taken as a single statement, this would probably not have been too bad. On top of the already ignorant questions this child had asked, I could only wonder if he was not either deliberately obtuse or profoundly mentally deficient. Mentally, my first response was, "Oh, so all Chinese must be immigrants and therefore need a green card?! Only white people are able to be native-born Americans?! Seriously?!" Instead, I answered with as much patience as I could muster, "No, she is a US citizen." I could have gone further and pointed out that she is a first-generation immigrant who came to a brand-new country, has worked hard to learn its language and its customs and has tried very hard to fit in to what, at times, has been a very alien culture to her, but it would have been wasted effort on my part. In the end, it was just as well I didn't for this boy's final statement answered the questions that had been building up in my own mind about his mental acuity.
"Oh, so she's like President Obama. He was born in Africa, y'know."
This boy was simply parroting what he had heard at home. At that moment, I almost felt sorry for him. Almost... He is a product of his environment - and his environment is his home. But this child will likely grow up to be as ignorant as I feel his parents to be. To him and them, non-whites are all foreigners (and apparently all black) and America's first black president is illegitimate despite significant evidence to the contrary. (I do not intend to argue for or against the "birther" discussion, I simply state that there is significant evidence that the president is a native-born American from Hawaii.) It is an attitude from an uglier time in America and one that I had hoped had faded to the background - I am not so naive as to believe that racism has been erased. But I had hope that it had receded and was less acceptable. Instead, it seems that it has been thrust into a new paradigm using code words and phrases to delegitimize people based on something they cannot control - the color of their skin. I only hope that the recent situation described here is the aberration.
While with my son and several other boys his age, some of whom I was not immediately familiar with (and who were not familiar with us), one of the boys kept referring to me as "Don's" dad. After it was pointed out to him that I was not Don's dad but my son's dad on several occasions, he finally looked at me and my son and stated, "I see 'Mike' (my son) has darker skin but you have really white skin. How can you be 'Mike's' dad?"
Ok, I think to myself, I can see past this as an innocent mistake, though not one that we've encountered in his near 12 years. "'Mike's' mom is from China. He has his mom's skin."
"Oh, is she black?"
Say what?! This is an 11-year old boy and he's just been told that someone is from China and his first question is whether she is black?! Frankly, my nerves were beginning to be plucked at that point but I persevered with patient responses. After all, he's only 11 and I don't know if perhaps he has some issues with his intellect. Though, it would be very hard to imagine my son as having any black ancestry from his appearance. Frankly, most people have assumed he is white though they have wondered about perhaps some Hispanic or Asian roots in his background based on his appearance. So, again, I respond, "No, she is Chinese."
That was not enough for him. "Oh. Does she have a green card?"
Taken as a single statement, this would probably not have been too bad. On top of the already ignorant questions this child had asked, I could only wonder if he was not either deliberately obtuse or profoundly mentally deficient. Mentally, my first response was, "Oh, so all Chinese must be immigrants and therefore need a green card?! Only white people are able to be native-born Americans?! Seriously?!" Instead, I answered with as much patience as I could muster, "No, she is a US citizen." I could have gone further and pointed out that she is a first-generation immigrant who came to a brand-new country, has worked hard to learn its language and its customs and has tried very hard to fit in to what, at times, has been a very alien culture to her, but it would have been wasted effort on my part. In the end, it was just as well I didn't for this boy's final statement answered the questions that had been building up in my own mind about his mental acuity.
"Oh, so she's like President Obama. He was born in Africa, y'know."
This boy was simply parroting what he had heard at home. At that moment, I almost felt sorry for him. Almost... He is a product of his environment - and his environment is his home. But this child will likely grow up to be as ignorant as I feel his parents to be. To him and them, non-whites are all foreigners (and apparently all black) and America's first black president is illegitimate despite significant evidence to the contrary. (I do not intend to argue for or against the "birther" discussion, I simply state that there is significant evidence that the president is a native-born American from Hawaii.) It is an attitude from an uglier time in America and one that I had hoped had faded to the background - I am not so naive as to believe that racism has been erased. But I had hope that it had receded and was less acceptable. Instead, it seems that it has been thrust into a new paradigm using code words and phrases to delegitimize people based on something they cannot control - the color of their skin. I only hope that the recent situation described here is the aberration.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Derailed Plans
I actually had started making up my collection of thoughts on the Republicans running for president (in a biting, sarcastic format that I was really enjoying as I thought about it) when I suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure on my primary desktop at home. And, since I only write on this blog from home, that was obviously going to be a problem. As it stands, I'm currently writing this on my home laptop - the same laptop that I really hate using since it runs slower than an insurance company paying on a claim and runs on Windows Vista (I guess that could be another blog post all unto itself).
Mind you, this desktop is less than a year old and already has a hard drive failure. I suppose I've been lucky that I've never had a hard drive failure previously (though I have crashed a machine or two). And, discovered today that I could at least retrieve the data from the drive so that is a good thing - my book is currently on that drive so I'm going to have to come up with another plan for saving that data. I may have to finally break down and get an external drive. I know, my own fault if I lose anything but live and learn. Or, as I've been told I can be at times, live and don't learn. Oh well...
Maybe once I get that situation straightened out, I will get back to working on my original thoughts... Cain's suggestion that China was on the brink of possessing nuclear weapons (ALREADY?!) and Perry's inability to remember the names of the the government departments he would shut down if he were elected (hey, the Dept of Energy was so unimportant since he's going to get rid of it, there's no need to remember its name) were the two most immediate ones. I just wish there were some more Democrats to pick on. I hate not being able to be an equal opportunity offender...
Mind you, this desktop is less than a year old and already has a hard drive failure. I suppose I've been lucky that I've never had a hard drive failure previously (though I have crashed a machine or two). And, discovered today that I could at least retrieve the data from the drive so that is a good thing - my book is currently on that drive so I'm going to have to come up with another plan for saving that data. I may have to finally break down and get an external drive. I know, my own fault if I lose anything but live and learn. Or, as I've been told I can be at times, live and don't learn. Oh well...
Maybe once I get that situation straightened out, I will get back to working on my original thoughts... Cain's suggestion that China was on the brink of possessing nuclear weapons (ALREADY?!) and Perry's inability to remember the names of the the government departments he would shut down if he were elected (hey, the Dept of Energy was so unimportant since he's going to get rid of it, there's no need to remember its name) were the two most immediate ones. I just wish there were some more Democrats to pick on. I hate not being able to be an equal opportunity offender...
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Political Disgust
It's only a year until the next presidential election and already I am tired of it. The pursuit of power in this country has become a big game between the rich and powerful and the more rich and powerful. It is nothing more than the pursuit of a new trophy to put on the mantle of those who achieve it. They claim to work for the people but it is, in reality, they work for themselves alone with a veneer of humble public service - and not much of a veneer sometimes. They are often bland personalities who cannot think for themselves and shout rhetorical platitudes designed to inflame passions and reduce logical thought. And, based on the reactions of their frothing partisans, it seems to work. Unfortunately, it is the smaller partisan groups that tend to dominate because they are such a vocal minority and they override the moderate, middle majority who so desperately wants true public servants who are willing to serve for a short time and in the best interests of all not the narrow interests of just a vocal few. And, because they do dominate in such a fashion in the political arena, those who pursue power cater to them and leave rational discourse until the very end - when the general public has become so embittered with the extreme positions staked out by the candidates that those who vote do so only out of a sense of responsibility rather than a sense of genuine trust of their chosen candidate.
There are those who argue that the candidates are as trapped as the general public by the extreme positions of the most rabid politizens (I wonder if this is a new word and, if so, I want the credit for it!). In order for the candidates to win their respective parties nomination for the general election, they must cater to the extreme positions. Even the candidates with the most reasoned and nuanced positions must swerve to the sides of heated rhetoric in order hope to get to the general election within the party framework that has come to command the political system in the US. And as soon as they swerve to one side, all hope of moderation is lost and the debate has moved from one of being in the interest of all to the interest of the few. And, as the nation continues down this path, it is only a matter of time before the many move from their continued blind devotion to the ideals of the republic to the recognition that their public servants are no longer acting in the best interest of the nation as a whole but in the interest of those who wish to maintain power simply for the sake of power. And, upon that time, the issue becomes what will that majority do?
This is not to sound negative nor to imply that this is a fait accompli - merely a scenario that seems to be a likely occurrence given the way things progress today. I hope not.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Apathy is pathetic
Apathy is pathetic.
Actually, apathy is a lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting. That sounds like a pretty apt definition of the situation in the United States as pertains to politics for a great number of people. And it seems pretty pathetic when people are so turned off by the practice of politics that they are unsure of who their elected representatives are - and don't care.
This is not to say that everyone should be a political animal but people should at least know who represents them in government and be at least minimally informed on the issues of the day. But there a great many people who are not. And that is worrisome.
Sure, everyone knows who Barack Obama (or President Obama) is - even if not everyone likes him. But they do not always know who the senators or representatives are. Heck, I suspect there is a good number of people who do not even know who the Vice-President (Joseph Biden) is. Sure, it is important to know who the president is but it is not (and should not be) the president who drives everything in the country. It is the Congress who should generate legislation but they have chosen to abrogate their responsibilities which, unfortunately, has also rendered them mostly invisible to the general public. Indeed, between their abrogation of responsibility and the high degree of partisan gridlock that has gripped the nation's capital, not to mention the constant campaigning that now consumes the majority of a politician's time instead of actually trying to run the country in a responsible manner, it should probably be no surprise that people pay little attention to their representatives.
In which case, I guess it really is not a big surprise why there is such apathy in the US when it comes to issues that matter in the running of the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)