Inspiration

I love music. If there has been one constant to the events in my life it is that I tend to associate events and situations to music. For example, one time when I was being put under anesthesia prior to surgery, the doctors were playing "Our House" by Madness. That was the last song that I heard before I went out. Now, whenever I hear the song play, I am taken back to that moment immediately before surgery. It's neither a good nor a bad memory, simply a way for me to recall a given moment.

This comes in handy for me as I have a terrible memory. I often find myself unable to recall specific events or people, particularly if I have no music to relate to the situation. So I try to have music playing as often as I can in order to help facilitate a memory that can be recalled in the future. It does drive some to distraction, understandably so considering my eccentric tastes, but it is useful for me.

Beyond its capacity to assist my memories, though, I also find music to be incredibly uplifting and inspirational most of the time. Obviously, it does depend on the music and sometimes even the song, but music is more a form of poetry and I love poetry. Well, ok, to be more precise, I love to write poetry. I have a much harder time reading poetry. But music and the poetry often within is magical and provides me with feelings that life itself seems often unable to provide. Perhaps it is because I love words and the myriad ways they can be combined to convey thoughts and emotions. I sometimes wish I were equally skilled at words and could devote my time to them instead of spending my days as I do.

I guess that is a major reason for this blog - to be able to use words and practice my skills in a way that I am otherwise unable to do.

And, for the record, tonight's blog was inspired by Quincy Jones' Back on the Block album. A good blend of various styles ranging from rap to hip hop to soul. If you haven't heard it, you should give it a try.

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.

We just can't see the end of the world...

Warning, I first started this post a week or two ago but am posting it as originally written. Sorry if it seems a bit dated:

No, I'm not referring to the new Brad Pitt movie opening this weekend, World War Z. That would be too easy. Besides, it's a zombie movie and I don't like zombie movies. Nor horror movies, for that matter.

No, I'm actually thinking about the issues tied to the US government essentially spying on its own people and the fascination that is focused more on the source of those leaks (one Edward Snowden) than on the issue he revealed. It has made me want to step back and pause for a bit before offering any comment here. And even then, I will try to keep my commentary short and reserved.

Mr. Snowden, despite the best efforts of journalist Glenn Greenwald to the contrary, is not necessarily a hero protecting the rights of US citizens. He committed a crime. He stole information from his employer (in this case, Booz Allen Hamilton and the US government) and then publicized it to the rest of the world. And the rest of the world has subsequently spent the last few weeks attempting to dissect his intentions. Frankly, that is a wasted effort. It is impossible to discern someone's true intentions. They may say one thing yet have something else that drives it. Heck, it is similar to attempting to determine the real reason that George W Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. Once he committed the act, the reason became somewhat moot. The same holds here. Suggesting that Snowden here is a Chinese spy, a hero, a mercenary, a traitor or any of the other myriad reasons is really irrelevant at this point. All are probably true to some degree. And to suggest that his subsequent actions (such as now seeking asylum in Ecuador which, in 2012, received a partly free rating from Freedom House and is trending downward in that ranking scale) all validate his actions or that he has not changed since his thoughts and beliefs since he made headlines would be disingenuous at best. Regardless, the story has been focused on Mr. Snowden in an attempt to paint him as his supporters or detractors wish to paint him.

What has escaped much of the scrutiny have been the actions he revealed on the part of the US government. And surely it is no surprise that the government has worked very strenuously to keep his name in the headlines - in a very negative light in the (perhaps vain?) hope that it will not look so bad in comparison. Yes, at this point, the actions of the US government under the auspices of President Obama should be highlighted and yet they are not. A man who sought the presidency back in 2008 promising change and greater transparency has instead not only left the tools and mechanisms created by his predecessor (while promising to find ways to remove them on the rare occasions when challenged about them) but also sought to limit the rights of citizens to know what his administration is doing. As noted in many journalistic outlets, the Obama administration has worked hard to silence and prevent leaks, aggressively prosecuting whistleblowers and even going so far as to monitor journalists in trying to find those who are leaking information. Instead of the transparency promised by the president, it seems that it has gone to extremes in the other direction. And this is a problem because it sublimates issues such as the one Mr. Snowden has brought to light. Instead of the issues Mr. Snowden brought to light being addressed clearly and openly, the focus has been switched instead to the man himself. And we, the people, are too easily fooled to recognize it.

Americans have always believed that their nation is a great one and have believed in (and cherished) the ideals for which it stood. But today, instead of continuing to work hard to make their country great, they stand idly by while their government grows more into the tyranny that their forefathers fought against generations ago. They do not see where the changes taking place within the government are simply one large step in a very wrong direction and they do not care to know what the likely consequences will be. They are accustomed to others doing their thinking and their work for them and fewer are able and willing to step up to the line to continue the traditions that once made America great. Freedom and liberty are not just words or even ideals but a way of life that was previously unknown in the form once made accessible by the United States of America. We can only hope that way of life will not disappear again under the treacherous idea of "security".

Waxing Phisophic

I should preface this entry by pointing out that I actually had to go look up "philosophic" just to be sure it was a legit word and not just me making it up. I must be smarter than I think since it is. :-)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophic?s=t

I know I haven't written anything on this site in more than a month which is longer than I want to go here. But I can say that I have been doing other writing in the meantime. I wrote up a nice post on my professional blog that actually generated quite a few hits and comments and am quite proud of it. And I've also recently acquired a new notebook and have been trying to do some more writing by hand. I know, that means I'm likely the only one who'll actually see it in most cases but that's ok. That was how I started writing and sometimes it is nice to return to the basics.

It's funny, but I recently came across a collection of my written works, stories and poetry, done ever since I was in middle school from what I can tell. It's not like I've always dated my work. But it's always interesting to go back and see what you've done in the past and be able to compare it to the present. You can see where you have grown in some ways and where things have changed in your perspective and outlook on life. So it was with what I found in my collection. I only had time to go through a small portion of the work but it will give me a fair amount of things to consider and perhaps some inspiration to make some changes to how I live today and perhaps take on a simpler attitude. At the very least, it will make for some very interesting reading.

Thinking of writing has also caused me to start to look for good writing material. Over the last few years, I have not done nearly as much as I would like and I realize that it is, in part, due to the fact that I no longer carry a notebook with me wherever I go. This was my habit for many years and I kept a variety of information in my notebooks. In a way, those notebooks and random slips of paper were the closest thing I ever kept to a diary. But I do not want to just grab any old notebook and start writing in there. I want to find a nice, leather-bound notebook that will serve as a more lasting memorial to my random musings, poetry and prose. And, since I'm writing about them right now, I just found something that may work (and is comparatively cheap since some of the others I saw are several hundred dollars). I think that will be my Father's Day gift to myself.

Of course, that does not mean I'll abandon this. But since this site covers a random variety of subjects and none of my poetry, then I think there'll be enough random thoughts to spread around everywhere.

Enough melancholy for one day. Tomorrow is a new day.

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?

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.

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.

Law of Unintended Consequences

There was a great deal of fuss over President Obama's health care plan when it was passed last year. Much of the debate was on how it would be paid for and who would be covered and whether private insurance would be phased out. What was not discussed were things like cutting the hours of part-time workers to ensure that they do not trigger certain provisions in the health care law. Yet that is what the state of Virginia is currently looking into and, while it does its research, is cutting the hours of its part-time work force to ensure that it does not trigger anything.

So, while the law was intended to help provide health coverage for all citizens, it is now inadvertently creating a situation whereby people are unable to earn their normal paychecks for fear it may end up costing them or the state more money. I am sure that many proponents of the legislation will argue that this was either unforeseen or the fault of the state of Virginia (though I find it hard to believe that Virginia is the only state that is currently working to figure it out) but that does little to help those workers who are now being punished by circumstances beyond their control. And, considering the glacial pace at which government typically works, I cannot imagine they will be having a solution anytime soon.

So, the intent was to help the underprivileged or underserved and yet the unintended consequence is actually harming them. This is one reason why all legislation should be carefully considered rather than rammed through regardless of possible (unforeseen) consequences. Somehow, I doubt that those who pass these laws (and are unaffected by them) will do anything to remedy the situation - at least not anytime soon.

Good social media usage

In my last post, I referenced what I consider some of the downsides to social media in general and Twitter in particular - namely, being flamed and trolled as well as the inability to fully articulate complex or controversial subjects. However, that is not to say that social media is useless or not worth using.

Earlier this week, I noticed that a national corporation whose offices are on my way to work was flying a very tattered and torn American flag. Frankly, it was disgraceful display as it was hanging almost upside down and torn to pieces. I'm sure it was there for a while (something that was subsequently pointed out by others) but it seems like no one had said or done anything about it. I intended to go over to the office myself later in the day to tell them to fix it but then thought, why not see if they have a Twitter account? So, I looked them up and discovered they did. I tweeted to them asking them to please take the flag down as it was a disgrace. Within 30 minutes, I received a response (via Twitter) asking for clarification of the offending location and the flag was taken down shortly thereafter.

I am deliberately not stating the company here but I did later send them an email to express my appreciation for their prompt response to the issue. Prior to Twitter, it may have stayed there even longer which would have tarnished its image locally as I know I was not the only person to observe it but, with just a few minutes and an online connection, the issue was resolved. And, instead of publicly embarrassing the company by sending pictures viral (which is another scenario made possible by the advent of social media), it was handled promptly, professionally and with minimal embarrassment.

I guess we can chalk one up in the win column.

More gun-related thoughts

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote up a post on the raging debate on guns and gun control. Part of my diatribe at the time concerned how both sides of the debate stake out extreme positions and neither side is willing to listen to the other. Over the intervening few weeks, this has not changed. If anything, both sides have grown more vocal on the issue. And, as I have pointed out previously multiple times on this blog on another controversial issue - racism - neither side is immune to being guilty of arrogance, ignorance or outright stupidity in their handling of the issue.

Last week, I responded via Twitter to a comment made by a New York Times journalist who commented that "responsible" gun owners support new gun control legislation. My response was something along the lines of "it seems that 'responsible' is a subjective term when it comes to your views on gun control". The journalist did not respond back but a few of his other followers did. While I tried to rationally clarify my point on "responsible" gun owners, they spent their time stating that I was an idiot, a gun-lover, a redneck, a hillbilly and worse. (I will simply state here that I am none of those things.) In other words, I got "trolled".

Granted, trying to engage in a serious debate on Twitter probably isn't the smartest move because of the inherent limitations of that medium but I found it curious that people who are arguing for gun control should be so full of vitriol and, in hindsight, I hope that they are not gun owners themselves because they were terribly angry at me for what I felt were very reasonable comments. To me, it seems similar to my issues with Democrats when it comes to their claims about diversity and minorities - they believe in it so long as those diverse minorities support them, otherwise they are race traitors (for lack of a better general term). But there is a perception that those who support gun control are the more peaceful people but this seems to be a farce based on those comments.

This is not to say that the opposite does not occur with those who support the right to own guns trolling and antagonizing those who oppose them but they are rightly called out for it when it occurs. However, it seems that the criticism for such actions is one-sided. Just because gun control advocates are perpetrated as being more peaceful and reasonable does not hold it to be true. Now it is time to hold gun control advocates to the same level of criticism as proponents when they act like idiots.

I am ever the eternal optimist...