Genghis Khan and power

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on freedom

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

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

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

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

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

Radical about moderation

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

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

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

Some more random thoughts...

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

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

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

Decisions

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

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

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

A positive generation?

NPR discusses how the millenial generation is more positive.

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

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

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

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

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

An artist's responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

Just some random thoughts

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

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

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

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

Literary inspirations

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

James Clavell
Douglas Adams
Ayn Rand

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

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

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

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

The letter, not the spirit, of the law

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

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

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

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

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

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