Writing

I was reading an article for blog writers that suggested that you pick a subject and focus your blog on that in order to encourage people to return to your blog. Obviously, based on that criteria, I am never going to have a "successful" blog. As any regular reader of this blog will already know, this blog goes all over the place. So the only way for me to follow that particular piece of advice is to either find a single topic that interests me more than any other and upon which I am willing write frequently or to create a new blog whenever I want to write upon a new topic. I am a little too ADD to only write upon a single subject ad nauseum within a blog and I am not willing to setup a new blog whenever I want to write upon a new subject as that is way more effort than should be needed IMHO. (Is it ok to use geek-speak in a blog?)

So the question becomes, for me, what is the purpose of writing a blog? And, as I noted in my very first entry, it was (and remains) an opportunity for me to expound on my varied interests. Of equal importance (though not noted in my first entry) is the chance for me to work on the craft of writing in general. I love to write and to think of myself as a writer. But having gone many years without truly working on my writing has caused me to become rusty. So, I write on random things on this blog and on some technical subjects (though, honestly, I think it is more on peripherally subjective topics) on LessThanDot. Either way, my end goal is to offer my own limited perspective on a variety of issues which interest me - both personally and professionally - and enhance my literary skills. And to that end, I must admit that it has helped me to rejuvenate my creative juices and get back to doing writing when I have the time. I've recently returned to writing poetry again (after a layoff of several years due to professional and personal concerns) and even worked on a few short stories. Perhaps other opportunities will be available as a result - at the very least, feedback and open communication will open new avenues for knowledge and friendships and for that I am always grateful.

What is fair?

In politics, there is a great hue and cry about making things fair and equal for everyone. The typical rallying cry is that the rich should be taxed more and we should provide for the poor. This way, everyone is equal it will be more fair. What this fails to take into account, though, is that it is not fair for anyone. It is not fair for the rich, obviously, as they are being treated negatively for no reason other than being rich. (Substitute "black" for "rich" and then see if you can follow the logical path.) And, in reality, it is not fair to the poor who are being disincentivized from succeeding as they feed from the breast of the government and thus will never have the opportunity to succeed (or fail) according to their abilities. Frankly, it does the same thing to the rich who will see little point to working hard when they will fail to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

This is not to argue that everything in life is fair and that everyone has the same opportunities - it is not and they do not. But if the desire is to make everything fair and equal, then it should be more important to create a fair and equal opportunity for everyone to succeed - not to punish people for being professionally and economically successful. Give children the tools they need to learn and to succeed. Give the perpetually disadvantaged the tools they need to achieve success. Those are the ways to grant some degree of an equal playing field upon which there is a degree of fairness. Do not establish policies that take from some and give to others in the name of fairness in the name of trying to establish an equality that cannot exist as propagated.

The reality is that nothing in life is fair. If life were fair, I would be better looking and have a lot more power (beyond that of the pen/keyboard). If life were fair, my family members would not suffer from illness. If life were fair, people would be smart enough to do the things they want in life. If life were fair, everyone would be happy with who they are and what they do. But life is not fair. The difference is with how we want to establish fairness - through the collective work and effort of a community or via governmental diktat? Government has its purpose and can do good (certainly the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's stands as one of the best examples of this), but reliance on government to establish "fair and equal" is not the best option as government (and those who run it) will execute its policies on the basis of its survival. And history has shown that every government will set "fair" policies that help it to stay in power.

Online Relationships

I've been far more involved with technology than I ever thought I would be when I was growing up. Indeed, my career is in IT and I spend my days in front of a computer hacking out code instead of hacking out stories and poetry. But I also have gained a great deal more than just learning how to write code - I have learned from many people I would otherwise have never had the opportunity to meet. Heck, some of them I have still never met and others I will never have the opportunity to do so (RIP DakotaRse).

While I have very good, close friends who I met in real life (the non-virtual world), I have to admit that I also have very good friends whom I met in the virtual world first and then had the pleasure to meet in person subsequently. There is one group with whom I have been particularly close; a group of technical folks with whom I actually help to run a technical web forum (LessThanDot). From these people I have learned not only a great deal about how to do my job better but have also established friendships that I cherish highly. While I would not have considered "online" friends to be real friends, the relationships I have made with these people are as real as any I have made with people I know and see everyday.

Now, whether these relationships would be as good as I consider them to be if I had not actually met many of them in real life (after we first met online) is another issue. The reality is that a relationship can best exist where there is physical proximity and a familiarity built up through such proximity. I know more than a few people only online and consider them to be friendly enough, but those with whom I am closest (either online or offline) are those with whom I have had time to create a truly personal relationship in person. People that I grew up with but live in different parts of the world today are still good friends of mine - even if we only talk rarely. People who I have known online for years may not be at the same level because we haven't had time to develop that personal rapport - something that I think is best done face-to-face.

But this should not viewed as a denigration of online relationships. If anything, many of my online relationships have opened the world to me in a way that would not have been possible in my father's generation. I count among my many online friends people from countries that I will likely never have the opportunity to visit; but their willingness to share their lives gives me an insight otherwise unavailable via conventional media. But should the day come where I have the ability to meet some of them, I will have a good opening from which to continue building those relationships. For that, I am grateful to be of this generation where the miniaturization of the world through our growing interconnectedness makes such relationships possible.

More random musings

The other day, I read an article in Foreign Policy discussing land mines being a war crime. I have to admit that the article was both blunt and poignant. It also got my blood boiling to think about it. In the West, people are rather fortunate that they have not had to worry about where they can walk for fear of whether they will be either maimed or killed by these land mines. The same cannot be said for a majority of people who have lived in war zones over the last 30+ years. Throughout Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, these explosives have deformed several generations and continue to do so. Sure, they may be easy to make and cost less in terms of material and manpower in order to defeat an enemy, but they also never go away and continue to destroy for many years after a conflict has ended. Where is the justice? Where is the right to live freely and without fear of loss of life and limb? What justification can nations offer to strip those rights away for generations? Even the current US president, he of the "Hope and Change" mantra of the 2008 election, has refused to sign the declaration to ban land mines! So what hope is there to stop the proliferation of land mines if President Hope and Change is unwilling to buck political and military expediency in order to enforce a change? Does the US really wish to continue its habit of acting in contradiction to its stated ideals? (Yes, that is a rhetorical question.)

The US off-year elections (does anyone wonder why all non-presidential elections are declared off-year, as if only the presidential elections hold any importance? Doesn't that, by corollary, then mean that Congress is irrelevant and that we are one step closer toward rule by executive fiat?) are coming up next Tuesday and I suspect that more than a few people are less-than-thrilled by the choices being offered. There is a great deal of discussion over the distinct possibility that the Republicans will be swept back into power as a result of dissatisfaction over Democrats holding the major power centers in both the executive and legislative branches. Yet, there is also no great enthusiasm over the Republicans after the previous decade under President Bush and a Republican Congress. Rather, it is a choice of the lesser of two evils. Which will lead to a situation of governmental gridlock - a situation that seems to be the intention of many voters. So we will once again entertain the question of the role of government - is it for the good of the people or better to be limited so as not to impinge on the rights of the people? Somehow, I don't think the question will be answered with this election, either.

Sticking with politics, how about the situation with NPR and its former "news analyst" Juan Williams? Certainly there is a belief that NPR is a liberal news outlet among many people (particularly conservatives) and their firing of Williams for comments he made while on a Fox show with (the less than unbiased) Bill O'Reilly only reinforces that belief. Especially when compared to other "analysts" or "reporters" who have made similar gaffes yet did not suffer the loss of their jobs with NPR, it seems to have been a politically partisan firing and makes it difficult to maintain their declared unbiased reporting. And the head of NPR's incendiary comments regarding her handling of Williams' firing only inflame the situation. Their best hope is that the situation will die down and people will forget it - but that seems unlikely so long as Williams is given an open forum on Fox News where he was immediately given a 3 year contract. Certainly in an era where the line between editorializing and factual news grows increasingly blurry, comments such as Williams' make it difficult to hold reporters and news organizations to unbiased standards, NPR's actions notwithstanding. The fact that he was immediately "rewarded" with a new contract by a competitor (that is often accused of being of a particular political bent) will make it that much more difficult to hold the line. In the end, while I am a listener of NPR, I listen while trying to filter out the obvious partisan editorial bent - the same as I do for Fox News and other news outlets. Too bad so few other people can or are willing to do the same.

Children today are constantly subjected to the standards of their parents when it comes to sports. Indeed, the level of competition, even at what is considered recreational leagues, continues to grow. I coach a youth soccer team at a recreational level. This is my first season in U-12 and the majority of my team is also playing their first season at this age group. In every match this season, we have been the smaller team and have lost most of our matches with two ties. I have been very proud of my kids and the effort they have put into each match and, while I know they want to win (as do I!), they have not gotten down on themselves but continue to work hard each week. After a heartbreaking loss today that we should have tied if not won, the father of one of my players caustically remarked that "We're not going to win any games this season, are we, coach?" Those were the same words I heard from his son before our match last weekend (that we actually tied). I told him that they were trying but it is hard when we can't get consistent practices - we have been rained out the last two weeks. Clearly upset, he took his son and, when I asked if they would be back for the second match, indicated they would not. I understand wanting to win but the only thing he taught his son was that it was ok to quit if you're not winning. Fortunately, cooler heads obviously prevailed at his home as the player did return for the second match - his mother brought him back. And while this particular player has improved dramatically (due in large part to his father who has worked as a coach before) this season, I worry that his drive in the future will be to win and to be the star at the expense of his team. He's a good player but no one player wins a soccer match - a lesson I have tried to impart with only some success to him. I hope that my weekly lessons on doing your best, working as a team and not worrying about the end score will sink in with all of my players. At the end of this season, these players will not remember how many games they won or lost. They may not even remember all of or how many goals they scored. But they will remember if they had fun and, if they didn't, they won't want to keep playing. In the end, if it is not fun, people won't want to do it (unless they have to).

Just random thoughts...

One of the wonderful things about the internet is the ability to learn only what you want to learn - everything else is completely useless trivia if it doesn't conform to your chosen point of view. And when I say "wonderful", I should put tags around it to convey my intended meaning. (Note to self - figure out how to convey sarcasm in a written medium)

I only follow a few blogs; most of them anonymously because I don't want someone going through my profile and attempting to peg me as something based on what I read. (That reminds me to check to see if my local library is cataloging all of my selected materials and then forwarding to the Dept of Homeland Security.) Some of those blogs are political - and all of them are very one-sided in their point of view. That is fine since no one should be taking what is written in blogs as an unbiased account of journalistic excellence. However, on more than one occasion, I have attempted to make comments on those same blogs to point out specific disagreements with stated arguments and the comments never make it past the review process. It seems that, if the comments do not agree with the author's stated points, then the authors will simply not allow them to be posted. Which simply perpetuates the narrow-minded views that increasingly crowd out the more nuanced (and often better informed) views that might help contribute to improve society overall. For the record, any comments made to this blog will not go through a review process but will be posted as they are submitted. The only time I might choose to make a revision/deletion is in the case of obvious trolling or flaming - and even then it would have to be pretty egregious. But simple disagreement with one of my posts does not merit removing someone else's opinion(s). However, this obviously is not the case with others (typically in the political realm) who do not wish to hear dissenting opinions. Too bad as the result is often just continued ignorance.

Switching gears, I have just finished reading Adam Robinson's Bin Laden: Behind the Mask of the Terrorist. As you can see, a wonderfully large picture of America's Public Enemy #1 (behind Saddam Hussein - oh, wait, never mind, he's already been dealt with) is displayed prominently on the front cover of the book. What I have found interesting is that some people, upon seeing the book, have been genuinely interested in both the book and my reasons for reading it (and that is because I happen to like history and the social sciences, not to mention I'd like to better understand how things have happened to this point). Others have given me looks that range from "Are you studying how to be a terrorist" to "I don't want to talk with someone who likes that guy on the cover of your book" to "WTF?!". Usually, I have to deliberately provoke discussions with people to learn and sometimes to help them see alternative points of view. Maybe I should just carry around that book all the time...

Come to think of it, the Department of Homeland Security sounds an awful lot like Orwellian double-speak. Since when did the US become the "homeland". Not to make light of the terrorist threat but I think they feel more threatened by our ideas and the freedom to live as we wish (for the most part - that is certainly not an absolute). To keep the "homeland" secure would require converting people to our way of thinking, not creating new barriers to keep them out and thereby reinforcing their misperceptions. I think I need to go back and do some research into exactly how "homeland security" works and what parameters they work within (or without, as the case may be). I'm betting that my beloved freedoms are not nearly what I think they were before 9/11/01. Of course, as I've noted here before, "freedom" is a relative term. But I won't go there again tonight...

This I Believe

A while back, NPR (National Public Radio for those not familiar with it) ran a series entitled This I Believe. It was a series of essays by people (many of them famous) on what they believed. I've wanted to follow up and write my own essay based on that pattern. Here is my attempt.

This I believe. I believe that I am not a one-dimensional person. I believe that there are no easy answers and no free lunches. I believe that things are no better and no worse than they were in our parents generation - or five generations earlier. The only difference is in what we remember and human nature tends to remembers things from the past in a more positive fashion than the present.

I believe that it is better to give than to receive, whether it be gifts, love or a hard time. I believe that I have to live for today because I do not want to regret yesterday. And when today has not a good day, then I believe that tomorrow will be better. I believe that my friends will be there to help me when I need help but I know that it is my family who will be there to support me no matter what else may be happening. I believe that education will be my greatest ally as I live this life and strive to learn as much as I can. I believe that the more I know, the more I will be able to pass onto my child so that he will be able to do better than I.

I believe that there is a right and a wrong - and that both are relative to who I am and what I believe. I believe that life is a story to which we all contribute and that no one will ever be able to tell it fully - though I want to try. Along that same line, I believe that there is no beginning and no end to the story, merely another point of view.

I believe that we will achieve that which we work hard toward, though perhaps not in the form that we originally envisioned. I believe that we are all the same in the end. I believe that we are more than what others may see us as and not as much as we might see ourselves as. I believe that we are free to make choices as to how we choose to live and what we choose to do. Equally important, I also believe that we are free to suffer the consequences of those choices. But, most importantly, I believe in me and what I can and hope to do in this life.

Burn a holy book!

It just goes to show that extremism and ignorance is not limited to only one religion or one group of people. Terry Jones, a pastor of a Florida-based church, has spent the last several months declaring that he would burn the Koran as a message to the Islamist extremists. Exactly what message he thinks that will send is another matter entirely. While much of the civilized world deplores such an action for a variety of reasons (it will harm US soldiers, it will inflame the moderate Muslims, it's heretical to do that to any other holy book, etc.), he has spent much of the last week or more garnering needless attention from a media that cannot get enough of him and asinine actions.

To be fair, he lives in a country where he has the right to do such a foolish action. No such similar action would be accepted or tolerated in any Muslim country (whose populations are being roused to anger because of Mr. Jones' threats). The right to act stupidly seems to be a uniquely American right and is exercised often - and then hyped by a media seemingly starved for new lows upon which they can report. But just because one has the right to act stupidly does not mean that they should. Honestly, there are a variety of (very valid) reasons why Mr. Jones should not follow through on his threat to burn the Koran and they have been articulated by personages far more influential than I. But for a man who professes to be a man of God (and presumably the peace and kindness so often associated with God), this is an action that stands as a stark contradiction to that profession. But is it really that different from those whom he claims to be protesting against (Islamist extremists)? Except that he is only hurting a book (a grave crime in my personal belief but that is beside the point) whereas his avowed enemies seek to hurt anyone who opposes them - or even gets in the way.

Maybe the best answer is to take all of them, lock them in a room together and toss the key...

Just writing aloud

Normally, I suppose that would be just thinking aloud, but in this medium, I guess "writing" is more apt. Though it does cause one to wonder exactly how we use language to serve as a rational form of communication when we can twist meaning around to create a new form of intended meaning - sort of like double entendres.

I find that I am able to convey meaning via the written word oftentimes much better than I do the spoken word. With writing, it requires more time and effort to form the content of what I wish to convey and thus there is a forced deliberateness that allows me to express what I wish in a more structured format. With the spoken word, there is not that same sort of time to force a coherent sense of communication all of the time. As any of my friends will attest, there is little in the way of a filter between my brain and my mouth at times and things that pop through my head can (and often have) made their way out of my mouth. And while this means that I tend to have a very WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) personality, it has been known to create some awkward moments, too. And since I do not much like awkward (I've had more than enough of that in my life), I'll choose pen and paper (or keyboard, such as the case may be) if given a choice.

This also means that I tend to read a lot, as well. And, in this day and age where the English language is bastardized in ways that I cannot express without additional four-letter invectives, it can be very annoying that there is a growing laxness when it comes to spelling and grammar. Granted, I am not perfect in proofreading my own material before publishing here on this blog, but to see what passes for professional writing (news websites, professional editorials, etc) is often enough to bring the onset of an aneurysm. It gets progressively worse as I view blogs and other similar entities. Perhaps I am getting old and crotchety but I would prefer to think that standards are just failing and that in the generation of my grandchildren the English language will be reduced to nothing more than abbreviations in the written form containing nothing more than 3 consonants and perhaps a vowel. Hopefully the spoken language will not be similarly bastardized. If we think there is a generation gap between the techno-geek generation and their grandparents today, I shudder to imagine it 40+ years from now.

Of course, maybe I won't want to communicate with anyone in 40+ years, so maybe this whole line of thought is best left to the theoretical. And, not so oddly, I think theory is a wonderful thing and would only make the real much better if it were implemented as envisioned.

Naked Officials

Yes, I know, that is a titillating title bound to increase traffic to my site by people seeking cheap thrills. Unfortunately, they are going to be terribly disappointed to find that this term is not what they think it is - at least in this case.

A "naked official" is clearly defined by the Organization Department of the Central Committee (ODCC) of the CPC as an official whose spouse and children have migrated abroad and have become foreign citizens or taken permanent residence overseas, or who has no spouse but whose children have taken foreign permanent residence permits, or who has no children but whose spouse has become a foreign citizen or taken a foreign permanent residence permit.

Ok, I admit, I have known about this term and its implications for a while but I suspect it is something new to most Western audiences. So I wanted to address it and see if I could point out some of its implications in comparison to the West. In short, the point of this article is to address a concern that is prevalent in China when it comes to its "public servants" - public officials often are guilty of corruption or other crimes and, in order to help protect themselves and their families, will often ensure that they have a way out of the country. There are more than a few examples of this that can be found using Google so I will not belabor the point here.

Now, this does not mean that public officials and corruption are limited only to China. A review any nation's political leaders will turn this up as a trend that seems only to expand to all levels of society. In the past year, British officials have been forced to resign due to taking money from the public treasury for personal use and US officials are currently being investigated by their peers (ok, yes, I admit I found it hilarious that other foxes stand in judgment of the offending foxes) in the House of Representatives. The difference here relates more to the method in which each nation handles the problem and how the offending leaders react to the possibility of being caught. Outside of China, the officials may be censured, lose their jobs and their pensions, be publicly humiliated or suffer similar such punishments. In China, they truly can lose their lives.

It is not my intent to say that one way is right or another wrong. But why are the flagrantly corrupt in China (and to be caught, they tend to have to be flagrant) executed while similar such actions external to China result in non-life-threatening punishments? Accountability seems to be the most likely reason. For example, in the US, the system still works to a large degree since the offenders are simply removed from office via the ballot box (in many cases) and replaced with another crook. Well, ok, maybe I am being pessimistic, but you get my point. People, more or less, still trust the system to police itself and to regenerate in a fashion that is simply not possible in China (or most other authoritarian nations). In China, the system is imposed on the people and the only way to maintain that is to truly threaten the population - to maintain the sense of fear that is very necessary to keep the country relatively stable. Those who know that best are those with the most to lose - the leaders themselves. So, to keep the system running, they enable an "out" for themselves and their families. Then they have a place to go (e.g. the West in many cases) where they may not have the same perks and abilities - but at least they won't be executed. Why? Because they don't trust the very government which they are responsible for running!

One last thought on the subject. Why are the offenders put to death instead of in jail? One good reason (and this would also tie in with why their trials are not generally open to the public) is that they have the ability to bring the entire system down with them. So, to maintain the system, those who are caught must be eliminated because they can name names of the others. The corruption that goes on is clearly not limited to the few individuals that are so foolish as to be caught but is endemic to the system as a whole because there is no real accountability to the people whom they purport to serve. But, in order to maintain that illusion, it seems like a very real possibility that the only solution is to execute the few in order to preserve the rest.

I guess there is no reason to wonder why Western officials do not try to escape to China when they get caught up in their corrupt practices...

Liberty or Death?

"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"

Famous words by Patrick Henry that, in a way, launched the American Revolution. And the rest, as they say, is history. The US has stood as a beacon for freedom over generations and is often cited as a preferred location for people to be free - whether it be religious, political, social or otherwise. This does not mean that it is always the case and there are certainly instances throughout US history that demonstrate that the reality has not always fit the perception. However, the US is one of the few countries that has not necessarily shunned its past in favor of a more favorable presentation. Fights against perceived injustices permeate US history and a war was fought to correct the grievous injustice of slavery. For those (and there are many) who argue that the US has committed any number of wrongs (social, moral, etc.), they should consider the history of most any other nation in the world and how those nations have responded to the bad things perpetuated in their countries. Outside of Germany's reaction to the Holocaust, it is hard to find many other nations that have tried to make up for negative events in their history.

But I digress from my intended subject of liberty and freedom. I had the opportunity to watch a historical re-enactment of the Second Virginia Convention that was the scene of Henry's iconic speech. But what caught my attention was that the decision to take up arms for the pursuit of liberty was not undertaken with unanimous consent and that the discussions that led up to his speech were eerily reminiscent of arguments that take have surely taken place all over the world before and since - and are still done today. The decision taken by the members of the Virginia delegates to the second convention to raise arms and fight against the injustices they felt were inflicted upon them by the British in support of the colonists in Boston was one that had fervent support on both sides of the debate. Some felt that they could suffer no more under the taxation without representation under which they lived at the time while others felt that they had support that was building in England and that they simply needed to give them more time to assume the power that would enable them to return to the "halcyon days of yore".

The debate, essentially, was reduced to a peaceful and hopeful view that patience would see a return to more tranquil and reasonable days where everyone was allowed to prosper and live according to their own standards versus a belief that there was, and could be, no liberty to live free of the yoke of tyranny imposed by the British crown without an armed insurrection by the colonials. As was pointed out at the end of the re-enactment, the vote was won by only a slim margin of 5-6 votes in favor of raising a militia to serve as a defense against the British.

Freedom, as with most things, is a nuanced perception. Henry and his supporters were in favor of freedom to live and make choices on their own - or at least the right to have a say in the governance of their affairs. To those who stood in opposition, it seemed that freedom represented the ability to live their lives peacefully with the hope and belief that things would improve without forcing their active intervention. While it would seem that history has proven (for now) that the US was right to fight for its freedom, it was certainly not a decision taken lightly nor with the perceived consensus with which it seems it is often portrayed to the students who study that history. Only the future and its participants will determine how that freedom is partaken by the benefactors of that speech.