Just some random thoughts

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

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

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

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

Literary inspirations

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

James Clavell
Douglas Adams
Ayn Rand

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

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

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

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

The letter, not the spirit, of the law

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

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

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

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

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

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

No double standards here...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consumer News

Fox News has published a list of news stories that they claim did not make it to the mainstream media during the course of 2009. I tend to follow a number of news sites (when I have time which, quite honestly, has not been so much recently) and I have to admit that some of the stories in the Fox story were hardly prevalent in some of the more mainstream news sites - or at least not above the fold.

I guess an argument could be made that the stories would more favorably fit the ideology of Fox News and therefore would likely be more high-profile there as a result - with the correlated belief that they would then be less high-profile on sites with a different editorial bent. But that does not excuse the fact that they were not reported (or at least not extensively) elsewhere. It is even more egregious when there was certainly no shortage of news footage given to the death of Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and his infidelities, the balloon boy and his family and any number of sundry celebrities. Quite frankly, there are tabloids for that sort of "news" but the self-professed news channels have been sorely lacking and there is little wonder that more people use Comedy Central's The Daily Show and less-than-biased blogs to get their news than they do the traditional news outlets.

It is time to return to an era where the media again returns to take responsibility for providing the public with the facts and news surrounding them rather than pandering to a consumerist ideology more beholden to the bottom line rather than the celebrity lifestyles that pass for news today.

Climate Change (aka Global Warming)

I have to admit that I am actually torn on this subject. On one side, you have fanatics screaming about how the planet is warming and being destroyed by mankind and its inventions which now pollute the earth. They discuss all of the science that supports their arguments while simultaneously denying or ignoring any evidence that contradicts them. Of course, the idea of using science or evidence to support an argument while dismissing any evidence to the contrary goes completely against the main scientific tenet - trying to prove a hypothesis wrong. And, contrary to the vehement arguments of those who support the idea that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, there is valid evidence that lends credence to the belief that it may not. Furthermore, what are the results of any actions taken to reduce the alleged man-made causes of the warming of the planet? The law of unintended consequences - which has been known to frequently raise its head as the result of new government legislation - seems a likely result. And when I mention unintended consequences, I mean examples like the use of DDT to destroy the insects that were eating crops in the 1950's and 60's in the United States - until it was noticed that it had a very deleterious effect on the people who consumed those crops. And there are many more examples that can be found in history. Additionally, if taking these actions does not alleviate or stop the warming, will other actions be undertaken? Will additionally studies be done to determine what else may be causing it? Does this mean that something should not be done? Not necessarily. There is a great deal of waste and pollution that certainly does not help the environment and that can and should be dealt with. Of course, there are already laws that exist to prevent and reduce pollution but that then requires enforcement. So, perhaps the key is not in creating new laws to reduce the global warming pollutants but to enforce the ones already on the books.

Oh, and as alluded to in my title for this post, has anyone noticed how "global warming" has now changed to "climate change"? Frankly, when I think of climate change, I think of the four seasons. But, then again, I tend to think pretty simply about this sort of thing. Of course, the argument for changing the title was some evidence that indicated the earth's temperature has actually not increased over the course of the last decade. The interesting part is that different measuring stations have provided different sets of data so there is no real standard - that fact in and of itself should serve as a warning sign as to whether the earth's temperature is in fact undergoing the changes that the alarmists claim. Or, perhaps that is nothing more than an inconvenient fact. (I wish I had considered how "punny" that is before I actually wrote it.)

On the other side, of course, are those who deny that the earth is warming or claim that, if it is warming, it is due to a normal cyclical pattern of the earth (among other potential causes). Furthermore, they argue, the global warming argument is nothing more than a naked power grab by a certain political faction whose intent is simply to impose their standards upon everyone else. Frankly, just because global warming is a theory does not mean that it may not be true. Indeed, that it is a theory at all is indicative that certain facts lend credence to it. To dismiss it out of hand is the same as ignoring anything that does not conform to a certain point of view. Additionally, to argue that it is cyclical or that it is nothing more than politics dictating how science operates ignores the facts that there is a problem with the pollutants being spewed into the atmosphere as well as the land and waters. Perhaps it is cyclical, but that does not excuse the actions of humanity that have certainly not helped the situation in any fashion.

Further, the recent "scandal" involving emails at a well-known think tank that deals extensively with the global warming issue may show poor judgment and lack of class among some of the leading proponents that man-made causes are hastening global warming, but it is not yet clear that there is a conspiracy on the global warming front.

Frankly, the issue on both sides boils down to the same thing - politics dictating how the scientific findings are received and interpreted. It should be the other way around but that is not how it is working at the moment. The best solution should be for both sides of the debate to step away from the divisive politics that they have enshrouded themselves within and to work together to come to a consensus that will benefit everyone. Unfortunately, as seen at the recent Copenhagen conference, that seems highly unlikely. Will the fate of both the planet and we humans who exist on it suffer as a result?

Maybe I need a Life Coach

Yes, you heard me right. I think I need a life coach. Someone who will essentially be my friend, my mentor, my coach. Someone who will help and encourage me to reach my full potential. Someone that I will have to pay in order to talk with me.

Um, or maybe not...

I heard the term recently on the radio and was thinking to myself, what the heck is a life coach? It sounds like someone whose job it is to essentially be a parent to another who is unable to think, do and act for themselves. Or, put another way, the perfect combination of sycophant to pampered elites who are insecure about themselves and yes-man (or woman) whose job is to confirm that they are doing a good job while still occasionally gently scolding the "student/athlete/child" to remind them that they are not always right and will need the help of a life coach in order to have the fulfilling life they otherwise seem unable to obtain. I guess it is no surprise to find life coaches in places where there are lots of pampered elites like, say, Los Angeles (Hollywood, to be more specific) or New York.

Needless to say, I do not have a life coach. And maybe I should not be so denigrating to those obviously in need of one nor those who have made a career out of being one. But it is hard for a simple person like me to determine the necessity for something like this. It strikes me more as a con than as a legitimate activity, much like the personal fortune-tellers (I'm sure everyone remembers Nancy Reagan and I know there are others) of years past. However, people are in constant need of such reassurance and that is not a fault. But seriously, I thought that is what friends are for. And you don't have to pay your friends.

Some quick hits

Just a few quick hit thoughts after a long Thanksgiving weekend in the US.

Hugo Chavez is threatening to nationalize banks in Venezuela. Ho hum... What else is new? Nationalize the oil industry! Get rid of the opposition media! Rig the election laws! But don't worry because this will not necessarily impact anyone outside of Venezuela, right? After all, the current US administration is currently in agreement with the Chavez administration regarding the current imbroglio in Honduras (a disputed and unwilling transfer of power that was supported by the elites that legally endorsed the removal of the former president but is alleged to have been an illegal coup by Chavez and his supporters). Come to think of it, when it comes to nationalizing certain industries, perhaps Chavez can learn a few things from his neighbors to the north.

Deferred success is apparently an old idea that continues to make its rounds on the internet. I found the subject being posted again last week and have to admit that I was more than a little disturbed about the subject. Of course, when I tried to follow up and get the whole story (maybe I should be a reporter since I seem more inclined to get the whole story before I just write up some opinion and post it as "fact and news" than a great many "news" organizations - and yes, I use that term loosely), I found that some of the original news sources seemed to be lacking. So I tried again a day or two later and discovered that this story is about 4 years old. Ah, yes, the power of the internet to recycle "news" every so often so that we can all get upset on a regular basis over stories that were resolved long before. Oh, and before I forget, my initial thoughts on "deferred success" - um, no, thank you. Do we need to have equality? Is equality even possible? Heck no! If it were, then I would want to be as beautiful as the people in the movies. That would be fair! But, since that seems highly unlikely, then why can we not recognize that equality is not obtainable in the form that people such as the originator of this harebrained idea might wish and instead offer opportunities that do not discriminate?! To suggest that failure is not an option is ridiculous! In the real world (which is obviously not inhabited by the aforementioned people), failure is not only a possibility but a distinct reality in many cases. But success is rarely instantaneous and often the result of previous failures which have offered the knowledge and experience for said future potential success.

Cancer is a vicious killer that I would not wish on my worst enemy. But recent months have continued to provide hope for those who have been afflicted with this terrible disease. Breast cancer may have some hope with a natural solution. And now the possibility that magnetic discs can attack and break up cancer cells offer more hope. There continues to be a great deal of research and funding poured into potential cures and we can only hope that the cures can be found before more people suffer through this terror.

If a lie is spoken often enough...

...then it becomes true. The same must be said for all of the nuances between truth and lies. The perception of an event will become the truth regardless of the facts of the event.

In other words, if enough people say that George W. Bush was the worst president in US history, then it will be true. Correspondingly, if enough people state that Barack Obama is a socialist, then it will be true.

It is at times like this that I am reminded of A Children's Story by James Clavell. Truth, as viewed by the children, is changed as much by repetition and by the reinforcement of the crowd (in this case, the students as they come to believe in the new teacher and then reinforce each other) as it is by the twisted logic employed by the teacher. Here, truth is relative to the person telling it and perspective is everything.

Yet, with all of that being said, were it not for my own desire and thirst for knowledge of history and social studies, I would know far more about the sordid personal life of Britney Spears than I would about the Bill of Rights and rules that set the basis for the freedoms I enjoy each day. Maybe I should devote my time to the study of UFO's. I would probably get more attention that way...

Communism revived?

I have friends on both sides of the political fence. My tendency is to automatically take an opposing point of view when discussing politics. Not sure if it is because I just like to argue or I just like to annoy people or, as I will often argue, I just like to be able to rationally discuss an issue from different viewpoints. Well, ok, "rationally" may be overstating it but I try.

In recent months, a recurring subject (oddly enough) has been the benefits of communism. Twenty years after the fall of communism, there seems to be a growing legion of people who feel that communism still has its benefits - it simply was not done correctly in the locations where it was practiced (and failed). I find this belief rather mystifying.

I suppose it is possible, from a certain point of view with limiting blinders, to argue that communism has a positive benefit. Its official definition from Dictionary.com:

a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

And that is the most benign version. So, under that premise, private ownership is banned and everything belongs to society as a whole. Of course, society, as communism was previously practiced, was a relative term meaning a certain group of elites. And therein lies the problem with communism. What defines society? And does human nature allow for the communal sharing of all assets and property? In terms of national governance, history has shown that the answers are "the established elites" or "the revolutionary leadership" and "no".

People want to do better for themselves and their families. The incentive to improve their standing in life is predicated upon the ability to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Strip away from them those fruits and the incentive to do well is significantly reduced. Sure, there will always be some who are willing to work for the benefit of society overall (and I suspect those who argue for the benefits of communism are the same altruistic ones) but the tendency to look out for oneself is heavily imbued into human nature. (Of course, it is then worth discussing whether this is a natural human trait or taught through learned behavior, but that is another issue that is external to the more immediate issue of whether communism can actually work.)

A household may be able to practice communism because all assets are held in the family name and the family may share in them equally. Of course, the decision of how those assets are distributed typically will be made by the adults of the household - the elites who are most qualified to make those decisions. In society in general, the same would apply. It is not "society" - as a fully representative entity - that makes those decisions, it is the elites who make those decisions for the rest of society. What inevitably results is an authoritarian form of governance - the more recognized form of communism in practice.

What is perhaps more telling regarding communism is the reaction of those who have lived in communist (read: authoritarian) states when this discussion is raised. While it is obviously not universal - those who were among the elites in communist society will not see the problems with its practice - the feelings among the great majority are against it. Those who were not allowed the opportunity to possess personal property under that economic form (but then allowed to earn it elsewhere) apparently seem to recognize the basic point that the people best able to make the choices for how to earn and spend one's keep is not a formless "society" but the individuals themselves.

The best society is one that is governed by the rights of the individuals to make their own choices, not "society" to make the choices that it deems best. As the saying goes: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.