News/Reviews/Opinion

Guns, Fear, Tragedy, and Misdirection

2013-01-18T17:55:00.000-06:00

So much debate and discussion has arisen out of the horrific events at Sandy Hook Elementary. Everyone is appalled at what an individual could do to defenseless children and needless to say, we wish that it could have been prevented.

While listening to or reading various media reports, many observations were made. Both sides are passionate but almost everything sounds like it has some sort of spin on it. The discussion is being steered down understandable but often misguided trains of thought. We need to sort this out thoughtfully and logically.

One of the most common aspects of this discussion is fear: Fear of having to worry about murder and crime in general, fear of being stripped of the right to defend oneself, and fear of just having to worry about the presence of guns in general.

While listening to a radio broadcast (Democracy Now, I believe) that was discussing the issue of guns, the discussion kept coming to points about gun violence and the need to do something in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. They discussed how New York's governor was implementing tough gun control in his state, limiting clips to 7 rounds and banning assault rifles, etc. They talked of how the NRA was spreading the fear that the government was going to"take all their guns" and how it was unfounded. The day before (on perhaps that same radio program) a caller spoke of cautionary tales being spread about how Hitler (and I believe they were saying "socialists" in general) had a policy of taking guns too. That caller was implying that it was a laughably silly claim because Hitler had simply banned pistols and gave licences to rifles for varying periods of time. He then went on to say that the caveat there was that if you joined the party, many of those restrictions went away so in reality, socialism gave guns out like candy. Now I can't personally verify this recount of history but it was apparent that the caller and host were in agreement about the silliness of worrying about gun control and how that in any case, it should take a back seat to protecting our children and citizens in general. Multiple remarks were made with negative connotation about how gun lobbyists were stirring fear up to keep filling gun maker's pockets and keep their high salaries. Language like that, especially when piled on and repeated is a red flag. Isn't referring to "rampant" mass shootings frequently also fear-mongering? Isn't placing so much emphasis on protecting our children from gun violence in particular also appealing to fears?

It is absolutely true that guns are dangerous and it is absolutely true that they can be used for harm. It is also absolutely true that guns themselves are impartial and perhaps most importantly are not the most likely thing lives will be threatened with. Vehicular accidents, disease, terrorism, and even depression all pose threats. One primary reason Sandy Hook means so much to us now is that it was an extremely rare occurrence in that the perpetrator targeted defenseless kids much younger than his peers and took them so quickly. But prior to that incident, usually when you hear of innocent kids being killed it is by desperate, estranged, or mentally ill parents. They were drowned, strangled, drugged, burned, or stabbed. When we think of all the horrible things that can happen to children or us in general, there are so many more likely things that would take our lives. I say all this not to be morose but to state plainly how guns are not nearly the sole face of violence and posed danger. It is entirely natural to feel the sting of the instrument that has been tied to several recent events but it is naive to hear "protect the children" and decide to remove and option for doing just that.

That being said, guns are dangerous and deserve to be handled with the utmost care. Most are of course designed to harm either in hunting or personal defense and as such it needs to be taken quite seriously. People need to take great personal care to ensure that they know when they are appropriate to use and how to keep those that may not fully understand the risks and responsibilities away from them. There need to be common-sense safeguards that we are diligent in enacting and maintaining.

Our nation's independence was won by armed militia and as such there is a deep tradition of self-protection and having the option to fight back against governmental oppression. There are arguments about how hand-held weapons are irrelevant against governments today given all the technology and massive firepower but clearly this too is a naive statement. For starters, even with massive advantages in weaponry, it is not politically advantageous. As we can see in Syria, using overwhelming force against internal opposition is highly frowned upon. Regular battle in smaller scale of course rages on. There is a reason there's only been nuclear deployment in one war in history. It's a very last resort and typically it isn't something you'd self-inflict. Likewise, rolling Abram tanks down residential streets or using a bunker buster on someone's basement is likely not something a government would want to have attention drawn to. There are huge issues of legitimacy that could unravel entire structures of diplomacy. Everything is held in balance with guarded trust.

While it is understandable that people would like to protect their freedoms and some small fragment of anonymity or privacy, it is also fair to want to screen those who would purchase weapons for registered mental health flags. There should also be a transparent non-partisan review process in place to combat abuse that would unfairly flag individuals or conversely and dangerously clear others.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that, just like with the banning and regulation of guns, gun ownership isn't a magic bullet for safety and governmental accountability. We are being polarized when the solution is in the middle, holding predominant peace in the tension. The key is in having the option and availability to be weapon-free but also the option to bear arms. It should be a personal choice. There is danger in both knowing everyone is armed and in knowing no-one is armed. Not knowing prevents assured planning but that concept is often reviled nearly as much as the heinous acts of violence. We want to know, we want to plan, we want to think we have it all figured out. That is the downfall.

As older generations pass on, we've grown up in a largely stable global environment. There have been threats of war and wars that have raged on but our western societies have largely remained intact. We are familiarized with freedom and flowing information and the idea that we are evolved civilizations who are now in some stage of the progression to utopia. The danger is in having too much confidence in our perceptions and capabilities. More and more I see attempts to revise and re-write histories and yet it seems that we ignore the common thread of humanity which is of course fallibility. It never ceases to amaze me how we can barely understand each other now and yet we make bold assessments of how well we understand people long gone.

It can be said that both of the two dominant sides of this gun control debate are both misguided and fearful. That said, I'm sure that many in both camps have noble intent. They both want to protect loved ones, the method is what differs. Greatly limiting firearms through law restricts freedom, owning extremely dangerous weapons affects the feeling of safety and comfort for those not in possession of them. There are clearly widespread effects to both sides and that's why there must be balance that is perpetually held in check from sliding too far in either direction.

I recently solicited thoughts and comments from friends in Australia who currently have pretty tight regulation on firearms. They had a massacre in Port Arthur back in 1996 that prompted their change in national gun laws. Most were quite happy with their overall feeling of safety since the stricter regulations and had no major qualms. Some weren't as comfortable, though for varying reasons. One issue that came to light was the subjective and potentially nonsensical cut-off points for the regulations (caliber, barrel length, action) that opened the door for bureaucratic encroachment on matters it might not fully grasp. Another pointed to the need for specifying the discussion on "guns" to fully automatic assault weapons and the like (of which, that commenter stated there was obviously no need). It is worth noting that many were still enthusiastic about using guns in sport and hunting but the general sentiment was one that didn't understand the American need for guns as protection. There was (of course) also some questioning of both side's statistics relating to what did/didn't/doesn't happen before and after the restrictions were introduced, thereby emulating the debate of the efficacy of restrictions that we have here in America. Australia is a pretty laid-back country in general and so the prevailing attitudes reflected in my informal polling are likely pretty indicative of the sentiment of the majority opinion. Of course the issue of arms is one that has many facets both in national attitude and political positioning so what's right for one nation may or may not be right for another.

Most of these recent incidents are committed by young alienated men and their psychology is almost always at the forefront. The "lone wolf" is by far the more common class of perpetrator. Experts say that they are also one of the the most difficult classes to track and preemptively intervene with. Massive media coverage of these events is even likely to inspire other copycats who want to emulate or surpass the tolls of events they hear of. So what can be done? How can we prevent barely traceable individuals from committing horrific acts and is it really containable within gun regulation? Would we be like the little dutch boy and simply fix one problem while causing another in an attempt to stop a relentless and mobile threat?

There are of course root causes for the evil that rears it's head from time to time and I'm convinced that as much as this discussion is about safety and defense, it's also all a red herring. Guns ultimately aren't an infallible protector and not having them around doesn't make us safe. What is at stake is the freedom to choose what you do.

There is a distinct difference between a healthy and knee-jerk reaction. The first learns from past mistakes, inspects the whole structure and makes comprehensive improvements addressing the root of the problem. The latter throws on specific patches without or before inspecting the core structure. The root of the problem of violent acts is selfishness and evil. Mental health issues are an inroads for evil to travel but mental health is an inexact science. Thankfully there is some discussion about how to care for those that do suffer from mental illness but it has been given a back seat to gun control when the opposite would probably be more helpful. The bottom line there is that people need to be accountable and responsible to each other. Whether it be shielding a troubled child from view or consequence or just not safeguarding weapons carefully enough, there have been failures on both sides.

I believe that we all want to live without fear but the best way to that point is to have an infallible object of trust. Self, government, and guns are not infallible. We will always have something to fear on this planet (or beyond) if we allow ourselves to be too closely tied to it. I just feel more safe with freedom because it leaves options open; restriction leads to exploitation with time.

While writing this, a news conference was being broadcast with the president speaking on the this very topic. President Obama sounds sincere in his speeches and desire to protect our children but this desire to push significant legislation through so quickly does not seem wise. The issue is not as straightforward as it sounds because protecting our children looks different to different people. His comments seem to assert that we can protect children by addressing guns. Our nation was founded on the concept of allowing people freedom to pursue life and liberty differently within the construct of the union. Unilateral pushes that erode some of the traditional obstacles to power grabs have to be looked at closely and carefully. If the legislation simply mandates the issues be decided state to state that is better but of course that also means citizens need to take a renewed interest in their local politics.

So the debate rages on. What will happen will happen and time will tell which fears are founded or not. If history is any indication, we will inevitably make many of the same mistakes we've made before and eventually correct them until the next generations forget again, thinking they're impervious. This issue highlights the incredibly subjective nature of our perception of safety and why it makes sense to me that we have different states and nations. People should have the freedom to choose and global consolidation of policy is a slippery slope we probably don't have the full perspective to grasp.

Logical Fallacies - Appeal to Antiquity

2011-08-17T11:44:00.000-05:00

I bumped into a post on facebook that led to a 115+ comment thread recently. During the discussion I was accused of committing a textbook example of tradition fallacy, also known as the appeal to antiquity. On the linked website listed above, it is defined as this:

"An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is."

I agree that age alone cannot judge veracity. With that being said, it cannot be entirely discounted as it is still an item of corroboratory evidence. I say this because if an idea survives thousands of years, there is clearly support for it. One must ask why it is supported and if it has been challenged seriously with directly opposing evidence. There are plenty of ideas that come and go out of public awareness so the ones that stick around are notable. This is because they tell us something about human psychology and speaks to the needs and perceptions of that slice of humanity in history. Therefore I disagree with the conclusion this quoted definition asserts because it states "We therefore can't learn anything..."

Going back to the reason this all came up, the trigger for the accusation of employing a logical fallacy was this:
"I understand that it is not conclusive empirical proof to quote a source in order to prove it. In the case of what we're discussing though, it is not the claims of authorship so much as the claims of legitimate historical account. We have thousands of years of a people group believing the source and it's continued propagation which again doesn't empirically prove but does at least deserve a benefit of the the doubt."

I can see where the reader could draw some associations between an appeal to antiquity and my assertion but I was not actually claiming proof due to age. I was asserting that the feat of surviving and thriving over thousands of years is not a small one. I was also asserting that the idea simply deserves more honest consideration. Granted I believe that proof can be found and will be found if it hasn't actually already, but I think it was clear I was not attempting to give longevity the entire burden of proof. Logically, there are quite a number of circumstances and actions necessary to preserve something over a single year let alone a thousand.

In any case, the term "logical fallacy" seems to be a frequently touted one in debates in which a person's reasoning process is simply disagreed with. Fallacy is a strong word that has all sorts of negative connotations. I'd almost go so far as to say that the term "logical fallacy" is engineered specifically to add malice to a discrediting statement. Really there is either logic or the lack of it. The "fallacious" addition is really only the user's preference tag and in itself may not actually be logical regardless of the nomenclature used.

So there you have it. Call me crazy but I feel like I'm being reasonable!

place in the world

2011-08-17T11:14:00.001-05:00

The USA has an internal problem that is having many external effects. It regards our identity and place in the world. We are no longer that little underdog nation that rose up from under oppression, we have become the primary superpower, at least in name. It is not by accident and we certainly don't seem to be shy about it. We like the notion that we're the biggest and baddest, and we want to continue that trend.
The problem is that those notions aren't helping.

Being on top always has the disadvantage of being a target everyone else is focusing on. Expectations rise, scrutiny magnifies, and when you hold power you attract those who desire it greatly. Those people tend not to be the most admirable in intention or practice. The United States have been in this position for years and as such has been experiencing the effects of what I've just described. The question is what to do about it.

When I first had the idea to post about this and started this post it was during a time when I was seeing a lot of the reaction from 9/11/2001. Bumper stickers touting the power of pride were abundant, war to rout the suspected instigators of the attacks was in swing and we were going to get our retribution. Now we've taken out both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and are nearly 10 years out from those attacks that kicked the war on terror into full gear. Still, we are in an economic stagnation and face a largely uncertain future with no clear path out. What happened? It seems that the power of pride just (predictably) turned a nation on it's side. The pride of economic product salesmen made decisions about what was or wasn't risky investment wound up profiting them alone while leaving millions more (around the globe no less) in dire straits. The wars that had good intention but poor planning have left our pride and honor in limbo as we balance the monetary and human life costs over the ability to deliver on intention and promises to peoples that have a decidedly love/hate relationship with our presence both in their homeland and in the world.

Despite it all, Americans as a people (aside from the government and it's policies) have recognizably good intentions as we pour out charitable contributions to disasters and humanitarian crises year after year both from personal donations and institutional programs. Our cultural and entertainment products still hold large sway (for better or worse) globally and ultimately the ideals our nation professes to espouse are recognized as preferable. The main issues that arise tend to come from breaching sovereignty of other areas of the globe and of course this is where it gets tricky. There were enormous wars that came out of countries expanding across their borders with hunger for more control over more. We came in to stop those countries and wound up policing the world at large. Stopping those who sought to overpower and control others was what endeared us at one point and I would argue that the same principle is at work against us now in global opinion. It's not actually just the USA although we get the focus because we're at the top, the EU is also a major player. The Western superpowers at the moment draw ire because many countries see us as creeping in with economic structures and controls which leads to political control. Essentially they see us as an invading force that is simply (primarily) using financial might instead of military influence.

In countries with struggling economic, political, and social situations (sometimes caused by the creep of modern economy onto older, simpler lifestyles and economies) they are particularly wary and sensitive to our system's encroachments. In other major powers there seems to be a fair amount of suspicion as they deal with their own pride and ambition. Our perception isn't helped when we wind up using military might in areas that have debatable value for the ideals we profess to hold. It seems that at this point the main issue is what can be seen as the disconnect between stated ideals and action. Of course this is all a very complex situation and different people will have varying stated and actual reasoning for their opinions. What is clear to me is that whatever we do, it should be reflecting our strengths in a respectful and humble manner. We should concentrate on being an example to the rest of the world both in our respect of others and our rhetoric. We should support those who wish to retain their culture and boundaries as well as lend a helping hand in keeping with those boundaries. Our nation wasn't founded on world domination, it was on personal freedoms and creating a safe haven for exercising those freedoms. As good as those ideals are, it can't be forced without sacrificing credibility and credibility is something we can't afford to lose any more than it has been already.

This is a great country and I think we do a lot right, lets shed the parts that aren't helpful and continue striving towards productive goals like our humanitarian efforts at home and abroad. Lets bring back good honest blue collar work with pay that facilitates a decent lifestyle. Let's take down barriers to crops and products that are in place due to specific lobbies and unfair judgement calls. Let's let people make poor decisions and learn from them. Let's continue to clamp down on predatory practices and undue favoritism. We are a nation that is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Let's act like it, prideful only of the humility in which we implement whatever power we've been blessed with.

Deficits, the Debt Crisis, and the Obsession with Dirt Cheap

2011-07-18T15:42:00.000-05:00

"...a USA Today/Gallup Poll released Monday found that two-thirds of Americans believe both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are putting their own political interests ahead of the country's best interest."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-image-takes-hit-debt-ceiling-fight-173312513.html
Yep.

I also find it unsettling that the RNC is 17 million in debt while trying to tout itself as fiscally conservative. I don't want more taxes, but clearly something has been mismanaged if we've been deficit spending for the past 30 years or more. We can't just close our eyes, hold our ears, and start shouting "no new taxes!" forever. Now I can see how Republican party can be very aware of the deficit issue given it's own personal and current experience with it. It's fresh on their minds and they want to do something about it. Fine. We do need to do something about it. It's just completely mind-boggling that raising some taxes isn't on the table. I don't think we should have gotten so comfortable with spending more than we bring in that it's normally no big issue to raise the nation's credit limit. With that said, that's where we are.

This is a big issue across our society though. People are outraged that a dirt cheap video streaming service (Netflix) is charging $6 more a month for unlimited streaming and DVDs by mail, we find ourselves stunned that somehow 99 cent burgers and tacos go up 30 cents even though inflation probably should have dictated that rise 10 years ago. and we're just now figuring out that the massive shift to online shopping from brick and mortar stores is hurting local tax revenues in many places. We've gotten accustomed to dirt cheap without appreciating how that affects us. Yes other countries have cheaper products and services, but let's not forget something very, very important; People.

Yes, people. People that need to make a living. People that live next door to you or in the next town. Your family nearby out on the West Coast or North East. People. The cost of living moderately well in this country is drastically higher that other nations because we have a very high standard of living, or at least we did. That means we've got more money but it also goes around more quickly. The thing is that some have been skimming more off the top than others in the current of currency. Costs have been shuffled and shifted, we've been suckered in with the concept of "saving money" in the very process of spending it, and we've gotten a false sense of financial stability. Because these practices are so ingrained and we keep shoveling the burden to the next guy down the societal ladder we don't see anything wrong with something that is fundamentally unsound.

So yes, we've been spending more than we've been taking in as a nation (and for many, personally). Whether we agreed to all the spending or not, we're (mostly) all citizens and therefore liable. Given how upside-down we are financially I'd say it's entirely reasonable to both cut spending and raise some taxes. Why is that so hard to agree to?

People are scared of getting a larger than due burden. Small businesses are (probably rightfully) scared of being treated like mid to large business. Big business, trying to cater to investors are worried about getting hit in revenue and having less than consistently high or predictable returns that would hit its stock price, and individuals who are already stretched just don't want any more of a burden than they're already got.

But we've got to do something. Clearly there are many who aren't hurting anywhere nearly as badly as a good half of the population. The fact that we wind up going to the trouble to file taxes every year and get money back that we overpaid is a nice little bonus but for crying out loud, if we're so much in debt and that money is already out of sight, maybe we should just start contributing that "bonus" back to the national debt to start a long dig out of a deep hole. Lets try and get back to being a nation of producers as well as consumers. Let's try and even things out a bit, shedding the tragically narrow-minded idea that we should be a predominantly white-collar country and making sure that there is good work for people who like to work with their hands.

Politics have gotten ridiculous and I'm not entirely sure if it's the actual politics, the way it's presented to us in the media, or perhaps the more likely combination of both. There is a clash of culture to be sure, but there always has been to some degree. What we seem to be forgetting is that we're all created equal and that this nation is supposed to first and foremost be a land of opportunity. Options get limited when you're in debt. We need to take decisive steps to climb out it and unilaterally take on the burden we've saddled ourselves with. If there were parties that were more responsible or more profitable from the spending than others, in ways that weren't widely beneficial, they may very well need to help pick up more of the burden. One thing is clear to me though. Flatly refusing tax hikes in the face of decreased revenue is like the old story about the raccoon with his hand stuck in a trap because his fist is clamped around a shiny object he refuses to drop. Dropping the issue doesn't mean it can't be revisited later with better tools and a greater chance of overall benefit.

Seriously? The ridiculous taxation system of the USA.

2011-06-09T15:10:00.000-05:00

As a new small business owner, I've been getting a crash course in a number of areas, the most annoying and complex of which is in the tax structure.

There's the business structure, registering for a DBA or some other option, getting a tax identification number, then applying for a separate sales and use tax permit. Add to that, apparently we're all supposed to be keeping track of online purchases that weren't taxed on purchase and then report those purchases and pay them to the state even if it was from an out of state retailer. The state tax is set but each city or county might have a different rate and if you happen to do business with someone somewhere else, you need to keep track of that, file and pay the respective jurisdictions. I'm a one man show. It's getting ridiculous.

I get it that governments need money but surely there must be a better way to do it. Are there not scales of company size that could simplify things for the little guy? Is a general sales tax just too difficult to implement? Is it really necessary to create an equal burden of reporting for small business or sole proprietorships? This is a classic example of bureaucracy running ahead on law and policy while not enforcing, leaving many oblivious to the law until someone decides they're going to prosecute. The false sense of security many have leads to ambivalence about issues they don't even know affects them, then it gets heaped on. Did you know that even if you're not a business, you need to keep records of untaxed purchases and pay Texas the tax on those goods? It may not be enforced but it is law and as such it puts tons of generally law-abiding citizens on the wrong end of the law without their realization. That is bull and it needs to be remedied.

It makes sense that brick and mortar stores want a more equal playing field with out-of-state retailers, but why is the burden of tracking and reporting shifted to the consumer? When is the last time you bought a book for $20 and thought to yourself, "I need to record this transaction, calculate 8.25% and make sure I save that up to pay come tax season?" Yeah, I didn't think so.

So what can be done about it? The common response is to write your government representatives. I'm not so sure any of them care. I've written various reps from both parties about another issue and gotten cookie-cutter responses. Now I get their spam in my inbox to boot. For all the talk in politics of helping out businesses or those in need of help, it sure seems like not much actually gets done in the legislation.

There are people who are as fed up with the current tax system as I'm getting but it just isn't getting fixed. Add it to the pile of national debt, social security, health care, immigration, etc.

This is more of a vent than anything, I wish I had a good idea that both simplified the whole tax structure and allowed some amount of independence for states and cities. Unfortunately I don't, but we need to be thinking. This getting seriously ridiculous.

Addendum:
One of the things that led me to believe we are supposed to pay taxes on online purchases made from out of state vendors is this blurb in instruction sheet 01-922.pdf

Item 3. Enter the total amount of taxable purchases that you made for your own use. Taxable purchases include items that were purchased, leased or rented for personal or business use on which sales or use tax was not paid. This includes purchases from in- or out-of-state sellers, exempt items taken out of inventory for use, items given away and items purchased for an exempt use but actually used in a taxable manner. Taxable purchases do not include inventory items being held exclusively for resale. Report whole dollars only. Enter “0” if you have no taxable purchases to report.

There's another place I saw corroborating that assertion in a FAQ located here. http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/sales/faq_use.html
To the question "What "purchases" are subject to use tax?", the answer was as follows with my emphasis in bold:

You used property purchased from an out-of-state retailer. In general, if you purchase a taxable item from an out-of-state retailer without paying Texas tax and use the property in Texas the purchase is subject to use tax and must be reported. If you paid Texas use tax to such a retailer, you are not required to report the tax. That retailer must provide you with a receipt showing, among other things, the amount of use tax collected. You should retain a copy of the receipt showing you paid Texas tax.

So apparently it's more of a use tax than a sales tax but it's still a tax. I'm not sure what law backs this up but they sure seem to be trying to make a point and have an avenue to get their money.

Osama Bin Laden - 10 years later

2011-05-02T00:04:00.000-05:00

Well that wasn't the way I expected this Sunday evening to wind up.

I first saw a post on facebook, then another, and then the television was turned on and all the networks were talking about what the president was about to announce. The tendency of news organizations to tell us the news before it is formally announced is starting to annoy me but that's not important right now.

Osama Bin Laden, the purported mastermind of the attacks on our nation on 9/11/2001, has been killed.

After 10 years and in the midst of 2 wars that he helped legitimize, this man has been met with justice. A friend of mine named Brandon quoted a proverb that is very wise in response to this news.

"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles. Proverbs 24:17"

Bin Laden's death, while a symbolic exaction of justice, is still a death. The reason we may be glad is that we feel he deserved death for the horrible acts he instigated and continued to encourage. But the fact that a person would be consumed with hate and malice is a saddening thing, and it would have been far better for everyone had he chosen a peace method of airing his grievances. This man was a son, a father, a husband, a human being. We tend to demonize historic figures who've done terrible things and effectively dehumanize them because no real human could act with so much evil. Except it's not true.

Even just recently I was listening to a radio program where a writer promoting a book of his experiences representing death row criminals. During the interview he spoke of how one of the things that struck him about his clients was that most didn't appear to be inhuman monsters and that in fact he was struck by how ordinary they seemed. Yet these men had committed horrible acts.

I mention all that to illustrate that as horrible as the acts that have been committed against us are, our enemies are still our brothers. I think the reason the Proverb admonishes gloating over a fallen enemy is that the whole situation is sad. The act of offense was horrible, and the fact it led to more destruction is horrible. How much better would it have been if the resources used to destroy buildings and lives a world away had been used to feed the hungry and poor in a place that still needs it. How much better would it have been if our countries had not been incited to war, killing many more on both sides? The whole situation is a damned shame.

We are glad that Bin Laden cannot incite or plot any more than he has, but it should not be because he is now dead. It would be a matter of rejoicing if he had realized the error in his ways and renounced terrorism, turning his organizations efforts from destruction to building. That would have been a result to celebrate.

It's hard to tell if this will actually dishearten Bin Laden's followers or if they are, as one mid-east reporter said, largely apathetic to this once prominent figure. It has been 10 years of pursuit by the most powerful national allies in the world. 10 years is a lot of time to escape the tremendous pressure. I'm sure it wasn't easy. Our enemy may not see this as any particularly meaningful defeat. With that said, in Bin Laden's killing we have an amount of resolution to a painful part of our country's history. It is a testament to our nation's determination and no doubt much sacrifice by our service men and women. It was a solemn task and whether it is received well or not, the message that we do relentlessly seek justice for crimes committed is clear. Our president offered a well written and well spoken speech to announce this historic event and even though we have political differences, I am proud of the way he chose to handle this.

If only this meant the war was over...

WTH NFL

2011-04-30T02:44:00.000-05:00

With news that the NFL owners were able to pop the lockout back in place within 24hrs, I'm left wondering how much the people (fans), the players, the vendors, and other support staff are willing to take.

I'm not a die hard fan, but I enjoy the game and understand it is a business. I don't know if the players are in the right, or the owners are because frankly I don't care enough to get into the details necessary to adequately make an informed decision. What I will say is that this situation is ridiculous. Some players probably get paid way too much. Some owners probably get paid way too much. I still think it's insane that any professional team gets cities to subsidize new stadiums that they have no control over. Sure there are jobs and tax revenue but it's a privately owned franchise and any stadium that isn't about to collapse will bring those same things in. It should be the owners and sponsors that raise funds, not public tax dollars. But I digress.

It is already amazing how much control the NFL has over it's media, it's employees, sports networks, and of course us. I cannot believe that a scrupulous court would allow an "emergency" stay of the decision to end the lockout to the owners. Clearly anything that keeps the gears of this behemoth of gridiron stopped has far more impact on the little guy than Jerry Jones. Heads need to be pulled from the rear that supports them. Especially in a time of economic hardship, I can't see why the minds in one of the biggest businesses in the country can't work something out to let people get back to work to prepare for the (hopefully) upcoming season. There is no good excuse.

Of course we can always just focus attention on the college game that, while exciting and entertaining, has turned institutions of learning into glorified sports clubs with lodging and a learning annex. That's a whole other issue and while I could go on about how in all practicality college ball players are either already professional athletes or exploited pawns, that's not my focus at the moment. Right now I'm just amazed people are standing for this circus of power plays that has the potential to benefit a very few while hurting so very many.

This circumstance raises questions about how, in a society of dependent consumers, we can actually give the voice of reason some time to speak and grab the attention of those that think of most of us as troublesome ants on their hill. On one hand, you could say boycott the NFL. That would have a lot of negative effects on the support infrastructure and players who aren't greedy prima donnas. My initial reaction was, if the GMs, coaches, players, and everyone else want to just get to business, why don't they just agree as a whole, aside from the owners, to just do that in defiance? I'm sure it is much more difficult in reality but part of me hopes it happens. There have been rival leagues to the NFL before, maybe now is the time to strike for them. Surely at least serious indications of that might get people back to the table in a settlement right?

It is just disgusting to see this sort of thing happen and with any luck, it will shift the national past time yet again. Soccer is football anyways, it should be an easy transition...

Freelash - Reaping the rewards of our addiction to "free"

2011-03-29T11:41:00.000-05:00

Reading both news articles and blogs about the trouble our current generations are having finding work prompted thought about the whys and hows of how we got to this place as a nation, even as a multi-national culture. No doubt you've heard about how so many youth with degrees are still having to live at home with their parents and take work that is in no way connected to their furthered education. We were crippled by the housing market and Wall Street taking a dive, to a lesser extent we were injured by the dot com bubble burst.

All this leads me to question how those industries got so much power and why other industries aren't filling the voids. I can't help but think it relates to the fact that, aside from food, a majority of what we consume has transitioned to new mediums we are accustomed to paying little or nothing for. I'm not saying most people got their iPods or PCs for free but more and more, we're expecting and getting a lot of stuff cheaply. This applies not just to digital product but also many household items. Much of these products are being sold at a level that is less than is healthy for most businesses. Part of the reason bigger businesses can sell things more cheaply is of course volume but they also rely on being able to consolidate positions and resources. This is efficient but not friendly to the millions of people who would otherwise have work to do. We're slowly choking ourselves to death.

I grew up with the rise of the digital age, I was one of the kids that marveled at all the cool stuff that you could do and create with computers. I was one of those kids that took advantage of the murky waters of digital music, movies, and software before the lines were clearly defined. Do you remember when every website out there was offering free mouse pads, email addresses, pens, and just about any other gimmick out there? Free information floating out there on the internet was touted as the opening to a new era of progress and jobs would be there to.... somehow. All that free certainly has accelerated progress in technology and has revolutionized many aspects of the infrastructure of our daily lives. The question now is at what cost that has occurred.

Music and movies are one immediate example of areas that have both been helped and hurt. One one hand you have unprecedented distribution opportunities. On the other, consumers are getting drowned in choice and we now burn through media at a rate never before seen. New becomes old incredibly fast and artists and producers get left in the dust or buried in the pile of new content that is continually being heaped on by everyone else trying to stay on top. Prices for that content are also falling which further hurts sustainability for any one artist, unless they get really really big of course. It can be argued that this ultimately leads to better quality for the consumer which in theory is potentially true. The problem with this is that the "consumer is king" model of business, while effective in drumming up business, is not responsible. What about the producers? What happens when the consumer's insatiable appetite eventually whittles down the producers to the bare bones and still demands more? What happens when we forget our civic responsibilities and stop caring about our neighbors being able to make a living doing what they do?

These are important questions and ones that have been largely ignored. We've been ignoring the tough questions and, like with the financial meltdown, we've just powered through with the motto of showing growth, even as we destroy the roots that would have sustained it. We're killing traditional media outlets like newspapers, magazines, and local news that have been identifiable, able to be held accountable, and been a pillar of how we've been able to develop this nation of information and progress. Granted, media organizations have also been hurting themselves but part of that is due to the mistake of putting the consumer on so high a pedestal. I'm not saying they should put producers, owners, or government on that pedestal either. There needs to be a commitment to truth, community, and sustainability first and foremost.

The "freelash" referred to in the title is how I'm choosing to describe the effects of our blind belief in using free to rope people in and/or just use advertisement revenue to sustain a business. Eventually it will backfire for consumers and the backlash is already showing up in the number of positions that are being eliminated to keep up with other bigger and leaner businesses. There is no such thing as free in business, someone will pay and it might actually be you after all. It's not just about the addiction to free though, it's also about things being cheap. Eventually it's not going to matter if something is cheap or not though because that quest will eventually leave many without a job and without money and it doesn't matter how cheap something is if you're flat broke.

Some things lend themselves to actually being able to offer things free to the consumer. Take mobile phones for example. The subscription fees and content revenue can definitely make up the loss on giving away the actual equipment. The manufacturers still get paid for their part, and consumers are essentially just hit with a payment plan as opposed to a single large charge. That's a pretty good win-win situation.

Online ad revenue for websites are still a bit shaky but can work for bloggers and a number of other content sites. The threat of clicking on ads leading to malware is still a hindrance to advertisements online being as effective as they could be but it still works to a decent degree. Still, most payouts to the content sites are very small.

For many smaller businesses "free to the consumer" just isn't sustainable.

All this translates into less consumers having a job and less consumers having the income to spend on anything other than necessities while a select few gain more and more market share to the point of monopoly or duopoly. What about competition though? Upstarts can rise and take over right? Yes. But in practice, you're just replacing one powerhouse with another and usually one will eventually fail. An ever-increasing population will need more and more occupation. Our drive for total efficiency inevitably constricts the number of available jobs. That drive for total efficiency is locked in because of our drive for cheap or free. It's a nasty engine that needs an overhaul if we intend to keep it functional.

There are solutions of course, but some that keep on the current course would lead to a less diverse job market for the vast majority of the population. This nation was built largely on people striving for the bettering of themselves and society. I fear that the loss of paying jobs in creative fields and other meaningful challenging work will stifle us and ultimately lead to the collapse of ideals and possibly worse.

The golden rule solves a lot or the problems we've gotten ourselves into. Paying a fair price for goods and services so we can enjoy them and also help sustain our neighbors and countrymen seems like the way to go. Let's see if we can't figure out how to beat the unhealthy parts of our addiction and keep moving forward.

The Tax Factor

2011-02-16T15:29:00.000-06:00

I'm not one for getting taxed exorbitantly but I'm also not one who wants to just close his eyes and pretend that raising taxes is inherently bad and unnecessary.
This issue came to mind after reading that the state of Illinois was increasing taxes by 66%. 66% sounds like a huge number because percentage-wise, it is. It is also somewhat misleading. Their rates changed from 3% to 5% which for all those that weren't math majors is a whopping... 2% increase...

Heaven help us.

I'm sorry if I don't sound sympathetic, I am, it's just that when you spend more than you're taking in, things need to be done about it. If you believe in the things you're spending on, find ways to actually pay for it. Every little bit helps or hurts, depending on the which direction that little bit is going, but if a jump from 3% to 5% is going to help fix that budget gap, it needs to be done. It seems that politically the numbers and percentages game is thriving much to the nation's detriment. Describing that hike as a 66% adjustment is accurate mathematically but it's use only serves to leave the reader with an unimportant number. Thankfully the article I read that announced this did first mention the actual change from 3 to 5. Still, it is worth noting that when numbers are thrown around, especially in politics, there are ways to use factual statements deceptively and we need to be aware of that. Inevitably we'll hear somewhere down the road that the state's administration is horrible for springing a 66% tax hike on the people. Critical thinking dictates asking the whys and hows of numbers, and we should.

Natalie Munroe versus the educational system.

2011-02-16T15:11:00.000-06:00

The educational system and parenting are, at this point in time, predominantly thought of as two separate albeit neighboring entities. They are about the same thing though, or at least they should be, and that is teaching a child how to grow into a responsible adult. There are certainly branches of that end goal including basic life skills all the way through complex math and language. Still the goal is the same, or at least it should be.

Articles I've come across in print and on broadcasts often lament the United States' position in educational benchmarks compared with nations all around the world. Political campaigns often highlight the issue and programs and funding have been devised and implemented with seemingly little effect. The vented frustrations of Mrs Munroe highlight what I believe to be an accurate trend. My reasons for not being surprised range from personal experience in my own schooling, observations of kids and teens, and the prevailing entertainment that is directed at them. Another key factor is the parenting and it's own trends over the past few decades. As usual, it seems that we (as a society) have swung from extreme to extreme. That transition seems to have probably started in the late 50's and swung to the opposite end by the 80's. From discipline that was overly harsh to softer and less immediate (but nonetheless life-changing), we seem to have dropped the ball in finding that middle ground that is effective and versatile.

Examples of what I find frightening are as follows:
- Parents and schools that don't spank. (Done right it's a quick, direct, and effective negative reinforcement on bad behavior.)
- Calling the police and prosecuting under 18 kids for minor offenses. (I read about a kid being charged with assault for shooting spit-wads recently)
- Parents expecting the school or state to raise their kids. (Discipline only on one side can lead to all sorts of bad stuff.)
- The philosophy that throwing more money at the problem is the answer. (Surely most western parents can relate to spending a ton on some gift or necessity and their kid not caring or responding gratefully at all. If a kid doesn't already like to read, chances are a new library building won't change that.)

In the case of Munroe, she is clearly dealing with kids that are savvy to the limits she's been placed under as a teacher. I may be mistaken but as evidenced by the reaction by many and the school itself, she apparently can't implement tough love tactics. Of course the things she said weren't meant for the school or students to see, but the reaction reveals the underlying policies regardless.

I don't think beating kids or berating them constantly is the way to go, but for crying out loud, if they're not responding to more adult methods of discipline, they should be treated as the child they're acting like. There is a difference between beating and spanking, berating and critical honesty. I'd submit that most teachers, including Monroe, care about their students and want them to succeed. The same goes for parents with (probably) a higher percentage. If kids are being punished, it should be as quickly after the offense as possible and they should be told exactly why they're being punished as well as the reason for it which is to put them on the right track because of the care you have for them. Physical discipline should be something that stings but does not truly harm the child. Both that and verbal bluntness should be prefaced and suffixed by communication about the reasons and concerns for their well-being. It should also be from a known authority figure.

Of course all of this is made more difficult because our society has been diluted in it's understanding of proper behavior and common courtesy. How can we hold people with different beliefs or non-belief accountable and how can some students be punished while others are not? At this point, many parents are as indignant as the students the send out into the schools. That of course includes parents throughout the economic spectrum as well as intellectual one. Some won't believe anything negative about their kid and usurp a teacher's authority in doing so without due diligence in investigating their own child. Sometimes it's in part due to economical strains or personal choices with parents being too busy, sometimes it's due to learned defiance. The short of it is that the whole issue is a tangled mess with many complications. Regarding my thoughts at the moment on this, it can be summarized about like this:

It seems like if some people would take their heads out of their own behinds that maybe just maybe they'd see the correspondence between ever-softening approaches to parenting and discipline in home and at school to the steady decline of our educational produce.

From my experience in multiple locations throughout the world, I can offer this. Families that are strict in enforcing the expectations they have for their children tend to produce above average academic results. There are of course instances when it goes too far and traditional cultural preferences interfere with development in some areas. With that being said, most results speak for themselves and perfection is nearly always just out of grasp. Things that Munroe daydreamed of saying to some students may very well have been a good wake up call to the parents and student. I'm a fan of constructive criticism because it helps me learn.

There is another possible answer for the plague of under-achievement in our schools. Production. There are some that just don't have a passion for academia or social interaction and they need something to do. Perhaps we should focus more on rebuilding manufacturing and blue collar work. We fancy ourselves as a highly intelligent white collar nation it seems when many of us would be just as happy running a farm or producing goods as opposed to simply offering services. Our focus has been on educating everyone for the "jobs of tomorrow" without considering that the giftings and predispositions of others favor trade-related practical education. I mention all this at the risk of running into a hundred other topics but it should be said. Part of the reason many don't go into work like that is because of the low wages and benefits which to address leads to a number of other socioeconomic issues and so this is where this post will end.

History repeating itself....

2011-01-03T13:20:00.000-06:00

History is repeating itself in a sad and annoying way and I would think this would be one thing that could fairly easily be stopped and learned from. The problem is it isn't.

They say the devil is in the details and in this case I really think he is. Across news sites this morning I awoke to find a story about a Christian sect called Family Radio Worldwide who apparently feel like they need to set a date for the day of judgment. Of course they attribute this knowledge to reading the bible and being able to decipher some hidden meaning. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_on_re/us_rel_apocalypse_soon)

Really?

I mean really?

Are we back to this again? Are there still self-respecting people out there who claim to study the bible and pull out a date for something that is explicitly written about in the book of Mark chapter 13? There is more that the main verses that immediately come to mind (13:32-33) but here's the main bit that speaks to what this group is claiming.

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.

That is why I say the devil is in the details. Biblical text doesn't say not to warn people that the end could be near, it doesn't say not to anticipate it or do nothing, it says to be rational and responsible and to be on guard for something that will happen at a time we won't be able to predict specifically.

These sorts of claims pop up every few years it seems and is hardly new. I suppose people just assume that with more study and more number crunching that suddenly they can usurp God's ability to keep a secret. Frankly if I thought I had the power to outsmart God and get away with it, I wouldn't want to believe in one.

It is so absolutely disappointing and frustrating when people with fervor who are so close to truth take that wrong left turn and wind up in Albuquerque (no offense to the city intended, just a Bugs Bunny reference).

Stewardship, Environmentalism, and the Battle of Interests.

2010-12-30T03:16:00.000-06:00

"I'm not one of these fanatic environmentalists," Faupel said. "But when you are a seventh generation rancher, you are taught to be a good steward of the land . and you want the things on it, the cattle and the vegetation, to be healthy. And they're not."

The above is an excerpt from an article by the AP (link included) about the apparent detrimental effects of coal-fueled power plants on living plants. The examples used are just down the road for me and I've traveled in and through that land numerous times. The statement made by Faupel really hits the nail on the head of a battle that's been going on for decades if not longer. The progression of industrial/modern/civilized society versus the environment. But therein lies the problem. The battle's sides are confused and it tends to leave many on the fence with the natural tendency to fall on the side of short-term self-interest. The political powers that be tend to paint a two-dimensional picture of the matter but the truth is both simpler and deeper. I would submit that a majority of the population wants to live in a vibrant, healthy environment where nature and civilization thrive. We also don't want to be thrown under the bus financially or governed like we're 3-year-olds.

The "green" movement has certainly caught on as its stated objective of conservation and stewardship is a noble one. It is, however, only able to do so as new opportunities for commerce are gradually introduced through traditional channels. We need to keep in mind those that employ us and produce much of what we've built this country on. It is vital not to just suffocate them with a blanket of regulation while we nudge those that aren't taking enough care with our shared resources towards better practices. It is also imperative that entire economies don't get founded on thin air. The incentive programs introduced over the past number of years seem to have made a good impact. They have allowed those who have the means and desire the opportunity to opt in. I think that is the key, as with many things. Ideally things would be voluntary.

But incentives have their downfalls too, and one could argue that they're too easily exploited. It would be better if the right choice environmentally was also the best business choice. The discrepancy often comes in the realm of priorities.

The issue of priorities is not a small one. With the growing population and demand for both natural resources and man-made ones, there is bound to be some conflict. It needs to be realized that both livelihoods and natural life are equally important and only since the modernization of our society have the two drifted apart. It would be a no-brainer if the same population in urban areas was still farming and ranching. I think that with all the factors at play, there will be need to be concessions on all sides and neither of the polar-opposite players will get exactly what they want. There is a balance and it is not easy to maintain all the time.

We are charged with maintaining this earth as it is put in place to sustain us. The warring sides we're so familiar with come from ignoring the truth of the dependence and importance of both pieces of this ecological dilemma. Those with a passion for the earth's natural beauty in flora and fauna are right to appreciate it and those who are planning and working on ways to meet the demands of humanity are right to try and conquer the very real challenges of providing for people.

I do think the planet is hardy but I also think we need to be conscientious in our management of it. All the while we should also keep in mind there are natural forces far beyond our capabilities that could throw everything into a whole new playing field. Considering how little control of the big picture we have, we can only focus on what is placed within our grasp for the moment.

It would be so nice if everyone could just work together and be open about challenges, mistakes, and new ideas for the future. Perhaps it is happening despite all the politics. Let's hope so, We need more healthy shady groves here in Texas.

Regarding our troops and their use

2006-03-04T00:51:00.000-06:00

I am usually troubled in several ways when I read things like this. There is the empathy for the situations those fighting men and women have to deal with and also unease at the reasoning or method behind what they are instructed to do or sometimes do of their own will.
It comes down to the fact that as uniform as the military may be, there are still personal touches based on the men and women on the ground and making decisions. I understand where some intentions are, whether they be to free people or simply to get the job done for the ticket home. The problem is that the main polarized sides of the argument are just that, polarized. I don't think most Americans disrespect the troops (although they aren't fully appreciated either), I also don't think that our *stated* Mid-East policies are necessarily as beneficial to the people in all those foreign countries as one might be led to believe. It isn't necessarily that intentions are wrong but when it comes down to it, it is their country, not ours. Right or wrong, they need to come to realizations themselves or else the same effect with teenagers and their parents will occur (and it is it seems).
I believe that those who are blowing themselves and other up are wrong in doing so but I can see how desperation and suspicion coupled with religious fervor and other socio-economic factors could drive people into such actions. It is something that should be able to be curbed. My fear is that too much emphasis has been put on military presence and that this is detrimental to the stated goal of winning hearts and minds. The flip side of this of course is the issue of trust between our nation and those abroad. The point has been made that there was a serious breach at the end of the 90's Gulf War when many were led to believe there would be an uprising against Saddam Hussein. When the US decided to pull back, those who had joined the bandwagon to overthrow the dictator where consequentially targeted and suffered for it.
Of course there are reasons we were also suspicious and reasons we had to be concerned about the goings on of the Mid-East world. There are many that feel strongly about the western world and both its produce and policies. My concern is about who is going to keep the cycle of violence from continuing and how to get it to stop. I don't think the world is a worse place because there are self-sacrificing soldiers, I think it is a worse place because there are unfortunately some that aren't. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that part of the blame for that is leadership misunderstands or underestimates the implications of actions they consider reasonable and puts troops in places that they perhaps are not the most effective in. That is in no way meant to disrespect the troops or leadership, there are complications and considerations that if all factored in and attempted to be catered to would simply not be possible. I would simply state and ask for further re-assessment of goals and methods, honestly looking at everyone's best interest. When it comes down to it, we're all just people, and we all have the same palette of basic human emotion and need. There are people around the world that endure hardship, throughout generations, regular people have fought and suffered to help bring both our own and other's freedoms and standards of living to great heights. We should be very grateful to those that serve and repay them with being careful in their use, caring for their needs, and honoring those who are brave enough to face situations daily where their lives are literally on the line. At the same time, we should be cautious, humble, and respectful of those that our country interacts with.

This post came from a response to the following bulletin:
*****************************************************
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!

Your alarm goes off, you hit the snooze and sleep for another 10 minutes.
He stays up for days on end.
__________________________
You take a warm shower to help you wake up.
He goes days or weeks without running water.
__________________________
You complain of a "headache", and call in sick.
He gets shot at, as others are hit, and keeps moving forward.
__________________________
You put on your anti war/don't support the troops shirt, and go meet up with your friends.
He still fights for your right to wear that shirt.
__________________________
You make sure you're cell phone is in your pocket.
He clutches the cross hanging on his chain next to his dog tags.
__________________________
You talk trash on your "buddies" that aren't with you.
He knows he may not see some of his buddies again.
__________________________
You don't feel like helping out your dad today, so you don't.
He does what he is told.
__________________________
You walk down the beach, staring at all the pretty girls.
He walks the streets, searching for insurgents and terrorists.
__________________________
You complain about how hot it is.
He wears his heavy gear, not daring to take off his helmet to wipe his brow.
__________________________
You go out to lunch, and complain because the restaurant got your order wrong.
He does not get to eat today.
__________________________
Your maid makes your bed and washes your clothes.
He wears the same things for months, but makes sure his weapons are clean.
__________________________
You go to the mall and get your hair redone.
He doesn't have time to brush his teeth today.
__________________________
You are angry because your class ran 5 minutes over.
He is told he will be held an extra 2 months.
He does as he is told.
__________________________
You call your girlfriend and set a date for that night.
He waits for the mail to see if there is a letter from home.
__________________________
You hug and kiss your girlfriend, like you do everyday.
He holds his letter close and smells his love's perfume.
__________________________
You ditch class to go to a movie.
He goes where he is told.
__________________________
You roll your eyes as a baby cries.
He gets a letter with pictures of his new child, and wonders if they'll ever meet.
__________________________
You criticize your government, and say that war never solves anything.
He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own government and remembers why he is fighting.
__________________________
You hear the jokes about the war, and make fun of the men like him.
He hears the gun fire and bombs.
__________________________
You see only what the media wants you to see.
He sees the bodies lying around him.
__________________________
You are asked to go to the store by your parents. You don't.
He does what he is told.
__________________________
You stay at home and watch tv.
He takes whatever time he is given to call and write home, sleep, and eat.
__________________________
You crawl into your bed, with down pillows, and try to get comfortable.
He crawls under a tank for shade and a 5 minute nap, only to be woken by gun fire.
__________________________
You sit there and judge him, saying the world is a worse place because of men like him.
If only there were more men like him
Please repost if you appreciate those who fight for your freedom

*****************************************************

Reactions to The US National Strategy in Iraq

2005-11-30T12:40:00.000-06:00

The strategy outlined in this report issued by the White House made a number of good points and should function as a tool for clarification about our official policy and aim. That having been said, I saw recurring and troubling omissions of what I believe to be very important information.
The main issue is the continuing effort to either deny or ignore the fact that the strongest and most powerful factor driving most terrorists and insurgents is the idea that it is a holy war and that Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi (among the others utilizing terrorism) are "defending Islam." I can only assume the White House is opting to term this very vaguely as propaganda instead of taking on that viewpoint head-on (no pun intended).
I would think that addressing the Islamic world's concerns more prominently would be advantageous but there could be other unknown factors that justify the current stance. Especially taking into account how these suicide bombers and religious extremists are being recruited and developed, it makes sense to focus on the skewed perspective equally if not more than taking on the force directly with military action.
Everyone wants purpose. In a region that is tough in climate, economic environment, and religion, it is no wonder there is a deep pool of recruits. With strong political viewpoints that are hammered in by religious and political leaders in the area, they feel morally vindicated and a common bond in the oppotunity to fulfill what they see as a very worthy cause. They believe we are evil. They believe our country is trying to invade them for our own benefit and attack Islam to assert Christianity. I don't believe this to be true but they most certainly do. When you view someone or something as attacking your core beliefs and way of life by what you understand to be an evil empire... well, it doesn't take a genius. Violence isn't the answer, but it is a proven human reaction to hightened emotion and reaction to threat. [sarcasm] ...Not that a country that fought for its own independence and even itself (in civil war and cultural and familial wars) would be able to relate to those feelings. [/sarcasm]
They seem to have limited sources of information and when they do get an outside source from the west it is greeted with paranoia and great skepticism. This means we have an incredible obstacle to overcome that was built over hundreds of years. While it is very important to not encourage people using terror, we have a responsibility (and it is a necessity) to be careful and respectful of the people and nations we interact with. They need to be certain we aren't there to attack their way of life and their religion and we need to make sure we aren't making their perceptions reality. We need to make it clear in word and in action that our first objective is to make sure the people are safe and taken care of, our second to ideally give them the freedom to practice whatever faith they decide to. Instilling the capacity for tolerance and pointing away from violence is an unfortunately difficult task. Insituting the freedom of religion is something that they very warily look at because it is an effort coming from what they see as a Christian nation and therefore "must be" a method for undermining Islam. That is the crux of the whole situation it seems. If it were just about freedom there would be no problem. The problem comes because many in the Arab world don't and refuse to see our efforts in that light. We as a nation carry a fair share of responsibility as we take for granted our freedoms to criticize and ridicule at will things we don't fully understand. As a whole we've failed to realise the differences between how we think and things we're used to as compared to other's nations. Awareness about the daily lives of people in groups both within and abroad and their governments and rights is important to international relations and we forget that our media is broadcast almost everywhere.
For all these reasons the outline is both interesting, informative, and somewhat worrying. I can only hope that those in power realise what I've pointed out and are simply working on those issues out of the spotlight. There are so many factors it is nearly impossible for anyone to say with authority what is the best method for dealing with the the situation in Iraq let alone the world political and social theater.
Because there are those that are lawless and oppressive, war is sometimes necessary. However, it is in everyone's best interest to strive for peace. No one wants to be maimed or killed, no person wants to starve or be unduly restricted in living their life. There will be polarizations and for that reason everyone should be willing to both listen to gain perspective and open to forgiveness and understanding. To look through history is to see the cycle of things and human emotional triggers in major world events that impact empires and civilizations. We need to be able to view our world and ourselves objectively and critically or as the time-tested cliche goes, history will simply repeat itself and it will continue to until we stop refusing to see the parallels in our own and other countries and civilizations.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/11/30/iraq.strategy.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/iraq_national_strategy_2005.pdf

Buying Money

2005-07-26T08:43:00.000-05:00

Detroit Free Press
MTV.com
Fox News

... In particular, Sony BMG buying airplay at radio stations to boost their earned lower spots in the top 100s and the like. Pushing a product as the best and having it seen more is a pretty good way to buy more sales... after all, it's a hit right? everyone loves it.

It has been pretty much assumed but now something is being done about it. Will this mean better music and more variety like just about every pop/hit radio station currently claims? We can cross our fingers... if not, at least now we have Napster and iTunes, to name a couple of legal current music download options.

There are so many good and struggling bands/musicians out there that aren't nicely pre-packaged for the pop-culture market. It's nice to maintain that image for those that need a constant happy face surrounded by "beautiful things" but lets give the myriad of talent and diversity out there a chance.

Passionless society, and the rights therein

2005-01-31T19:13:00.000-06:00

This story almost surprised me. Understanding of the 1st amendment (let alone the rest of the workings of the country) among most of the youth in this country is definitely lacking. A lot of us have been raised with music and gone through youth with an ear to some pretty cynical/paranoid influences. There's no doubt some are reasonable concerns, while some are exaggerations, some are understatements, and others complete fabrications. These sorts of things, not just coming from celebrities in entertainment but pretty much any public figure, have played a role in shaping our society into one that is naturally suspicious of authority but at the same time having a desire to have some things taken care of by a central source. It's an odd paradox.

And now to refocus a little more on the issue of a passionless society...
Really it all ties in together, the lack of any real care besides a sort of mild hedonism, but there are multiple facets. A friend beat me to the punch about one of the concerns, that a significant portion of highschool students surveyed thought that the 1st amendment went too far. That being said, I can understand why they might think that. To make up for an increasingly low sense of personal accountability that can arguably be traced to the disintegration of the family (and therefore societal structure), schools, law enforcement, and the government in general have had to make numerous compromises and take some steps that do infringe on freedom. Abuse of freedom can be traced to our natural general tendency towards breakdown of higher level things and embrace of personal needs/wants above all else. It really is all very circular and unless people step out against some natural tendencies the circle will be a slow but potentially accelerating spiral downwards. While it is natural to want the best, we certainly fall into settling or actually acting on far less noble things.

And I'm slightly off track again... The reason is probably in the fact that the mindset I've seen as the predominant one in today's generations is decidedly slanted downhill. Part of it is due to the older generations attempted sanitization of reality without explaining the truth of things. Another part is our veracious hunger for entertainment at a rate that arguably is greater than any other society in history. Our youth are bombarded with messages of danger and excitement and desire and ambition. Acceptance is being touted as tolerance and in a mix of fear and marketing (whether it be politics, business, or self-preservation) we have decidedly clumped ourselves into billions of little groups and stereotypes for "easy" management. Why is this relevant? It's relevant because the kids in these schools who took these surveys are getting their understanding largely from a product rather than the true unbiased source. That's bad because these kids aren't dumb, and I'm sure at least some know they aren't getting the whole story but they're buying into it anyway because that's what they know. Still, they see flaws. The thing is that they aren't coming in at the ground floor and when they see effects of causes they've never really seen or experienced, they're going to act on what they know which is what we feed them (for the most part). Sources we trust most can be wrong even if its just in motivation. You can be doing something right with the wrong motivation or reason and it might even work for decades on end. Racism, class prejudice, sexism and numerous other faults ranging all the way to pride and selfishness that puts ones own comfort over desperate needs of others. All these things are often passed down through generations.
I keep getting off track it seems... It's just a lot of concern built up.

I suppose the reason I'm not surprised these highschoolers don't have that much care about these rights and our governmental structure is that they're so used to the mountain of preventive rules and regulations they live with. From dress codes to metal detectors, from cliques to pop culture, these kids are working off an ever tightening structure of law and acceptable society. It's only natural that they see it as applying to everyone else.

The lack of passion is understandable to me too. We're bombarded with information and suggestion from an wide range of sources and philosophies, we are introduced to things before we're ready and without proper guidance many times. After a while, after you've experimented with whets available and the rush is gone, you start getting numb when the myriad of both fiction and reality passes through your consciousness and leaves you with unrealistic expectations and limited or false understandings.
If you want to be cool or have fun, it is increasingly necessary to have money or do something unusual, extreme, or taboo. Being unique and special, having self-esteem and being rewarded is broadcast as the thing to do. Those things aren't bad in and of themselves but without context and inner direction of higher substance, it gets confusing when you see the millions of others clamoring for the same thing. It simply gets dreary in highschool. Many just accept things as they way things work and think they'll always be that way. We've settled into a way of life that is more fragile than most understand.
And so this post has turned into a scatterbrained rant that exemplifies the ideas that were attempted to be communicated. At least that much will make sense... Or will it...

Rock the vote, in a new sense

2005-01-31T10:58:00.000-06:00

This article caught my eye both because of the voting reform and the artist involved. Nirvana has been one of my favorite bands and its always interesting to hear what they're up to.

Voting reform of the sort mentioned in this article may very well be a useful addition to our election process that even the major parties would endorse. At the least, it's something to think about.

------------------------------
Grunge-Rock Pioneer Stumps for U.S. Election Reform
(Variety, Tuesday February 1)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Eleven years after the demise of his million-selling rock band Nirvana, Krist Novoselic is back on the road, but this time he's getting out of bed before noon.

Novoselic, whose bass guitar anchored one of the most popular and influential bands of the 1990s, now spends his time pushing for voting reforms that he thinks could change the cynicism many people feel about U.S. politics.

It's a gig that requires him to wear a suit and tie and speak to audiences that measure in the dozens, rather than the thousands.
ADVERTISEMENT

But Novoselic, 39, sees parallels with the heady days when Nirvana stormed up the charts and brought grunge into the mainstream before singer/guitarist Kurt Cobain killed himself in 1994.

"Once music becomes predictable and a formula to sustain the establishment, people tune out, they become cynical and they stop buying records. But then a new wave of bands come in, and that restores vitality to the music scene," Novoselic told Reuters after a recent appearance at a Washington think tank.

"What we need is a new wave of democracy, because elections are predictable and they're formulas for sustaining the establishment," he said.

In a slim book, "Of Grunge and Government: Let's Fix This Broken Democracy!," Novoselic outlines two approaches that he believes would breathe new life into politics.

Instant-runoff voting allows voters to pick several candidates for the same office, ranking them in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority of first choices, second choices are considered.

Supporters of third-party candidates like Ralph Nader could feel like they're not throwing their votes away because their secondary choices would be considered in a close election, Novoselic said.

The second method, known as proportional representation, would allocate legislative seats based on the percentage of votes a party receives -- if the Republicans win 60 percent of the vote in a district, they would get 6 seats out of 10 available.

These methods could give greater influence to third-party candidates, other election-reform advocates say.

"These are things the parties don't talk about, the Republicans and Democrats, because it might mean they might have to give up the holy and privileged position that they have under a two-party system," said former Illinois Rep. John Anderson, who won 6.6 percent of the popular vote as an independent presidential candidate in 1980.

FROM PUNK TO POLITICS

Novoselic grew interested in election reform while fighting laws in his native Washington state that kept minors from attending rock shows or buying certain CDs.

Novoselic developed a taste for the day-to-day work of politics -- attending hearings, building coalitions, lobbying lawmakers. He testified in front of the U.S. Senate and even considered a run for lieutenant governor in 2004.

But as he became more involved, he realized that many of his peers felt that the Republican and Democratic parties didn't address their concerns, or they lived in an area so dominated by one party that there was no competition for their vote.

Instant-runoff voting and proportional representation would offer voters a wider range of choices and make political races more competitive, he said.

"If competition drives our economy, competition can drive our democracy. Why vote in an uncontested election?" he said.

Novoselic admits that these reforms won't catch on easily in the United States, where most elected officials belong to one of the two parties that benefit from the current system.

The best possibility lies at the local level, where ballot initiatives can allow voters to put them in place directly, he said. San Francisco recently adopted instant-runoff voting and several other cities have plans to use it as well.

Novoselic says he hasn't ruled out a run for office on the Democratic ticket, but right now is devoting his energies to election reform.

And music? Novoselic says he still plays for fun but has no interest in the rock and roll life anymore.

"A lot of being on the road is waiting around, waiting to play," he said. "I love Pittsburgh, don't get me wrong, but the fourth or fifth time through ... I'd rather be home."
Reuters New Media
Copyright © 2005 Reuters/Variety. All rights reserved.
------------------------------

Lies, Allegatons, Spin

2004-09-21T15:47:00.000-05:00

I was watching some PBS yesterday afternoon and came across John Kerry's recent speech. I've seen him speak before as well as Bush, and both have said things that really rub me the wrong way.
Politically, I'm a blend of all sorts of things with a focus on a path that will work for the best for the most people in the long term. I try to think globally but with sensitivity to place and propriety. I mention this to set the context for my observations about both speakers/candidates.

I voted for President Bush at the last election and have been, for the most part, supportive of his service. There are things that his administration has done that I don't agree with, but I do not see any evidence that the shortcomings or failures are malicious in intent, some of which aren't even his fault necessarily. What has really bothered me was some of the rhetoric used in many of his speeches in the past few years. I do think he's put a lot of people off by not directly addressing some concerns and giving direct answers. There is the security factor of course (regarding how much and what is wise to officially disclose) but there many socially issues at home that I wish he would really answer more candidly. The main thing that has really gotten to me though is how he keeps saying that the terrorists are attacking use because they hate how we're free. I can say with almost 100% certainty that (although freedom could be a small factor for some) the majority of those that hate America have at least two much bigger reasons: #1 We support Israel, the most hated of all in the Arab world. #2 We are perceived as a Christian nation of infidels and a harborer and purveyor of impurity, filth, and many other undesirable things. Somewhat contradictory, yes, but we're talking about their motives not our perception of them. We are dealing with people that put a much larger emphasis on their religious beliefs, who, because of many factors (including poverty, age-old grudges, and limited or biased information sources) simply hate our culture and influence on their side of the earth.
I can understand some of their positions, and I'd like to think I have a grasp on our situation and where we're at, but it is absolutely imperative that we not allow ourselves the luxury of thinking these people are so angry for reason that boost our own ego. Truth is what people need.

John Kerry is still on my radar as a "investigate further before trusting" blip. His speech I just watched didn't help my perception of him. It was actually improving until that speech. He claimed that Bush never let the American people know what the war might cost and also alleged that Bush was inventing new reasons for the war in Iraq. The whole tone was laden with claims that Bush is simply lying to the public and is bent on deception with malicious intent.
I can remember way back right as Bush was making his nationally televised speech regarding the decision to depose Saddam Hussein and this is the primary thing that really set off alarm bells. The President clearly stated in that speech and others that this was going to be a long and difficult war, all part of the war on terror. Bush plainly stated that we were going to be in it for the long haul, there would be a high cost, but it would be infinitely worth it in the long run. The reasons for going to war were also laid out by Bush; there is no new reason popping up. It only seems that way if you're going by headline reasons emphasized by the media. Goodness knows the full reasons wouldn't have made an attractive headline statement. Looking back over the actual records of the Presidents speeches should be more that enough evidence to disprove these particular allegations by Kerry. The other issue is the ever-so-popular misconception that Iraq didn't have any ties to Al-Qaeda. This was widely published as a product of the 9-11 Committee's findings in its official report. The discrepancy is in the context. The report did find that Iraq did not have a direct hand in the 9-11 attacks but that is all. It has been confirmed that Iraq has ties and has had ties with numerous terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda. To allege that Iraq was innocent of all terrorist ties is simply a lie. Kerry really should know this and if he doesn't, that really worries me because that means that he and his administration are either incompetent or just simply spinners and liars. I've seen some decent public speaking skills out of Kerry, even some good ideas and observations, but his overall rhetoric is more nearsighted than he even realizes. When I've heard him talk, more often than not I've always gotten the sense that he's making dangerous oversights. For things he is right about, his plan to rectify things also seems lacking. I'm not going to say Bush has it all together but at this point Kerry does seem like the greater of two "evils."
I'm not sure Iraq was the appropriate second target on the war in terror, I'm not sure the economy is on the best track, and I doubt that putting a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage is the best way to deal with things (in the format of this nation). What I do know is that the US needs to a lot of hard work and really examine itself to find out who it really is. We are not the same nation we were 50, 30, or even 10 years ago. Our basic makeup is different, we are incredibly diverse, and we are quite weak in some areas. We can't afford to deceive ourselves internally for the sake of politics.

Ruins

2004-08-28T00:14:00.000-05:00

While watching olympic coverage, several things have popped into my head. Pride, concern, intrigue, and enjoyment have all been feelings ellicited by the games. It's just always great to see competition.

One thing that has struck me as silly/odd is the announcers continually jumping on the greek gods bandwagon. The most recent occurance was during the women's mountain biking final. The commentator was talking about the lead rider from Norway and said that she must be praying to all the greek gods that they'll see her through. It may be silly of me to take offence, especially over a perhaps only hypothetical situation, but I know that I'd certainly rather not have someone associate me with or insinuate I might be praying to any mythical gods for strength or success.
It's granted the games are being held in its country of origin, it's granted that they did worship those gods back in the day, but I find it over-indulgent of our announcers to just jump into the mythology as much as they have been.
It gets my head spinning, starts me thinking about benchmarks and similarities between the United States and the Greek and Roman empires. It always strikes me when people delve into a culture of polytheism that went to ruins, giving credit to gods whose temples lay in ruin. I can't help but wonder when the great "western civilization empire's" time will come to a close. There are signs, moral uncertainty, plateaus and oversights, complacency, and human nature's effect with time. I only wish I could lay it all out, my memory and intellect don't serve me quite that well just yet. I need practice, instruction and guidance.
The point remains, based on personal and historical observations.
What is our place in history? Will the current world order stay? If so, for how long? What might replace it? Will there be a transfer of technological, political, and military power? What effect does magnetic, burning fuels, electric, and other somewhat delicate, depletable, or potentially volatile energy and technology mediums have and what might happen if those mediums are taken away? There are a million different questions. Tons of fun discussion...

3-Sided Commentaries

2004-08-20T12:42:00.000-05:00

Until I get more articles written and up, here's a link to some political commentary that a friend of mine is now writing for.
http://www.watchblog.com/
Enjoy. :)

The Book of Ecclesiastes

2004-08-01T10:02:00.000-05:00

I had read Ecclesiastes before and had the incination to check it out again this morning. I was not disappointed. It is a book that covers the broad aspects of life and provides a number of timelessly relatable examples and references. Wisdom, foolishness, wealth, povery, health, happiness, pleasure, pain, death, relationships, government and ambition are all included.

The translation I just read was the New Living Translation (metal edition). It seems to use more modern phrasology and consequently interprets more easily. All 12 chapters are more than worth the time to read and effort to look into. I would say it is best read from start to finish in order to really get the full perspective and get a good idea of how the author's mind seems to be working.

Going into specifics is something I'll leave for another time and perhaps another medium. Just have a look, there is much truth and wisdom in those words. There were certainly numerous thought-provoking assertions about life and manner of living, some of which seem quite contrary to what western culture preaches, some of it suprisingly close.

Ecclesiaste 1:9-11 (New Living Translation)
"9 History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new. 10 What can you point to that is new? How do you know it didn't already exist long ago? 11 We don't remember what happened in those former times. And in future generations, no one will remember what we are doing now."

2004-07-28T11:30:00.000-05:00

this is what is happening to the more ethically minded who are feeling defeated and forced to make lemonade out of some nice awful lemons.

A Conservative's Perspective on Iraq

2004-07-24T16:13:00.000-05:00

I was directed to this article on our actions and policy in Iraq by a friend of mine and found it thought-provoking. The logic behind it seems quite sound and reasonable although I realise there is much that we may not know and/or can't know. I am troubled that we aren't helping pacify Sudan, among other places. The US definitely should show that it doesn't go to war soley for personal profit as is often suggested (and sadly has some base).

That reminds me of something else that bothers me. I keep hearing the President and others saying that the reason these terrorists hate us so much is because of our freedom and what we stand for. Although partially true, it seems unfair not to mention the fact that our relationship with Israel is the number one reason many muslims and arabs cite for hating America. I'm not going to say whether this is right or wrong but leading americans to believe these people just hate us for our freedom or are simply jealous is not right. If they hate freedom so much why are we bringing it to them? Why aren't we just doing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid? thats something that no one can argue against if it's making a difference.

Drinking Water

2004-07-22T02:07:00.000-05:00

I've always been raised to be a big fan of good plain water. While browsing through Fark.com I came across the link to this MSNBC article on drinking water. Have a look-see.
Go drink water now.

The Taiwan Dilemma and the USA's Socio-Economics

2004-07-17T07:55:00.000-05:00

This article at FoxNews.com caught my eye. I don't know how true this is but if it is, it is worrying.

I personally don't think getting into a military tussle with China is anywhere near a good idea, especially/at least not right now. US involvement in the Taiwan issue is a sensitive part of US/China relations with neither side wanting to budge. Taiwan wants to be independent from China for the most part but China considers Taiwan an offshore state in the People's Republic. They are basically a rogue state in China's eyes but Taiwan wants to keep it's pseudo-independence and the US likes the concept of freedom and independence even though they officially support the "One China" policy.

I would love for all countries to be democratic and free but I can't say i think exerting military force in this situation is wise. China is bigger in population and apparently is getting more investment dollars and growth nowadays. While the US system has worked well in the past, socio-economic changes have weakened out country in my view. Before we go around trying to be the defender of freedom everywhere we've got to make sure our foundation is strong and truly up to the task.

Our culture has become soft, self-serving, service-industry based, entertainment based, and cocky. That all needs to change. America grew the most when we were fighting with an true underdog mindset, when common sense was common, when we weren't dulled by the all the safety precautions, when people truly understood life and mortality. Humility, love, and hard work are key ingredients to a productive and growing society. Most of us are so addicted to convenience we would scoff at the idea of growing our own food or making our own clothes. Our pride dictates that we strive to fill ourselves with any and every luxury we can get whether we can truly afford it or not.

"Made in the USA" has become a rarity in pure form. So much of what we use daily is imported that American production and American material has dwindled. It bothers me that we are not more prepared to be self-contained or self-sufficient. I don't mind imports at all, I just think we should maintain sufficient structure to be able to replace the demand for imported goods if needed.

Living beyond our means is dangerous. That is why the national debt concerns me so much. Our whole culture is based upon an optimism that we will have enough money to repay our creditors and that it's just a matter of time. We assume things will be like they always were; we take for granted or overlook possible realities. The world has changed and is continually changing, the US needs to come back to root principles and re-evaluate our core structure both in legislature and culture.