"And So It Goes"

Photo Credit: Avalon Books
There is not one person of my generation who has graduated from high school in America and hasn't read a book by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. His books, including Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse 5, and Breakfast of Champions, were often recommended, if not required reading, for high school level literature courses. He exposed us to a level of satire and humor that went beyond Mad Magazine or Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, as well as political ideology that we may not have been aware of at the time.
Writing in the genre of Science/Speculative Fiction, his plots, story lines, and dialogue often reflected his personal beliefs in Socialism and Atheism. But, in spite of the fears of censorship advocates and book burners of the time, reading his books did not create a generation of anti-capitalists. Rather, his books opened up a dialogue in our minds where we were invited to defend our beliefs--Vonnegut, through his writing, did not try to force his beliefs upon the reader, he merely presented his ideology for scrutiny. Whether we agreed with his ideology or not, he made us think, and created constructive discourse among ourselves and our fellow students. In his way, he proved that freedom of speech/expression does not cause the End of Civilization As We Know It.
Political and social ideology aside, Vonnegut wrote good books--books that entertained us and made us laugh. He has often been called the Samuel Clemons (Mark Twain) of our time, which is, in our minds, a justifiable comparison. He allowed us to laugh at ourselves, often while identifying with his main characters who were almost always helpless victims of circumstance, with no control over their own lives. As darkly cynical as some of his humor was, a glimmer of hope was always present in his writing.
Kurt Vonnegut passed away Wednesday, April 11, reportedly due to head injuries suffered in a fall. He will always be remembered as an important and influential contributer to modern literature, perhaps the best of our time. "And so it goes..."

Whose job is it to tell us to be offended?

The questions generated by the Don Imus controversy have gone far beyond what he said, and how and why he got fired. The entire controversy has grown in such a way it affects everybody, whether we are members of the Rutgers women's basketball team or not.
Granted, Imus' bad joke was uncalled for, and never should have been said, much less repeated everywhere in the media. There were likely less than 300,000 people--less than one-one hundredth of the US population--listening when he said it, and it would be safe to say, given Imus' history of racism and sexism, that none of the listeners were members of the championship basketball team. The entire matter should have been irrelevant to most of us. The entire set of circumstances was escalated, by people who have chosen to make themselves the nation's thought police, into a situation that is life threatening to freedom of speech.
It would be entirely rational if the reason for firing Don Imus from both his radio broadcast and television simulcast was loss of revenue from lack of sponsorship. In that case, the question of First Amendment rights would be irrelevant. However, the reasons given by the Viacom/CBS broadcasting consortium that Imus was canned due to complaints by employees, and the pundits and newscasters across the media have speculated that it was because of the involvement of Sen. Barak Obama and/or the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It could be reasonably argued that the involvement of these three did have something to do with several large companies withdrawing their sponsorship of Imus' radio and television programs.
One question that comes to mind is, do we really need somebody to tell us when we should be offended? Certainly, we all possess the rationale to determine for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Most of us believe in the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King--that there will come a day when the color of one's skin does not matter. But the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton have too much to gain from perceived racism. There are sheep who accept without question anything that is said by these two men. Without being told they are oppressed, the sheep wouldn't feel oppressed. Jackson and Sharpton do not want to see Dr. King's dream come to fruition, for, if it did, they would be out of a job.
What precedent does the firing of Imus set? Where do we draw the line? It should be up to the individual to treat others with respect, not up to the Federal government and the FCC to tell us what we can say, see, or hear. Can anybody who feels offended by anything just say so, and thereby limit the choices we make for entertainment? It certainly seems that way, and, figuratively speaking, book burning has made a comeback. From the looks of things, song lyrics are next, soon to be followed by such entertaining television programming as The Daily Show, South Park, Red Eye, The Jimmy Kimmel Show, and The Cobert Report, all of which are satire, which is the most often misunderstood form of humor. We don't have to agree with the issues made by such programming, and we can often laugh at ourselves watching these programs. We really don't have to watch or listen--because we have the rationale to make such choices. In any case, we must realize that humor and satire are not news or opinion, in order to realize the significance, or lack of such, to the nature of society and culture as a whole.
As South Park creators and writers Trey Parker and Matt Stone often point out, in their program, we can only be offended if we choose to feel offended . We can either laugh at a joke, or feel that it is wrong, but in no way should we let it be an excuse to limit freedom of speech.

Sacrificial Lamb?

Photo credit: Don Imus-WFAN Pediactric Center For Tomorrow's Children

Freedom requires responsibility and that includes freedom of speech. When one person exercises his or her individual rights in a way that trespasses on the rights of others, it is no longer an expression of freedom, but of aggression.
Don Imus' statements, in actuality, hurt nobody except himself.. What he said, and the backlash to what he said, should not be used as an excuse to limit freedom of speech or expression, but as a warning that there may be consequences in what we say and do. Imus was wrong to say what he said, but he had every right to say it. It is conceptually erroneous to point out the apparent hypocracy that some are allowed to use language that others aren't. Offense is a relative concept that must include context, meaning, and scope, or sphere of influence. We would do well to see an example in the entire incident that respect for others is the best way to protect our individual freedoms, and it all comes down to personal responsibility. However, what we do see is a sacrificial lamb that negates the conscious of others who will continue to use unfounded and hateful terms such as "Nazi," "Chickenhawk," and, in the context it is often used, "neocon."
We should remember that our First Ammendment rights also give us the freedom to choose to listen or not to listen, and that includes the choice to or not to be offended. We have, at our disposal, a high tech device called the "on-off switch." Rather than using offensive speech to limit the rights of others, it is better to just ignore it.

Why Pike's Peak is my favorite photo subject

Iraq is not a political issue

Common sense would say that the best way to bring the troops home would be to complete the mission as quickly and efficiently as possible. It isn't going to happen tomorrow, but the "surge" operation prescribed by General Petreaus is, by all accounts, working toward that end. Iraqi troops are being trained in US military units, the Iraqi government is allowing and encouraging former Sunni insurgents to become involved in the peacekeeping process, and the insurgent groups are breaking up.
Both the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report and Gen Petreaus have suggested that military force alone will not resolve Iraq's problems--diplomatic means have to be a part of the process. The Iraqi government has responded to diplomatic pressure by the United States, budgeting ten billion dollars toward reconstruction, working toward peace initiatives between the Sunni and She'ya factions, mingling Iraqi troops with the coilition forces for training, becoming involved in regional talks with neighboring countries, and working out fair distribution of oil wealth. Iraq is on its way to becoming an independent, democratic nation, while its new government is gaining strength, and working to make a society that is fair to all its different factions.
There is still much work to do. Iraq does not yet have a strong enough military force to stand on its own. The presence of Baathist and foriegn militant forces is still felt in a violent fashion daily. If the coilition was to withdraw from Iraq before the democratic government is solidly established and in control of the country, all indications of the result forcast a much more widespread and deadly war. The Saudis have vowed to support Sunni militants in Iraq, if the coillition leaves, while Iran has supported and will support She'ya factions. This would amount to conflict over Iraq between the two Arab nations, which would most likely escalate into a world war. It is about oil, not Oil, and until modern society can do without oil from the Middle East conflict over the precious commodity will ensue. Most experts believe that energy independence will take twenty to forty years to achieve--until then, oil is a necessary evil.
So why do some politicians in the United States want to stop US involvement in Iraq? It is simply that they are politicians. Their agenda does not include a peaceful world and the future does not concern them unless it involves keeping their jobs. They do not want to see success in Iraq, because it would indicate to the voters that the policy they opposed was the correct policy. They will twist public opinion factors to justify their actions--such as interpreting the call for a change in direction in Iraq as meaning that we should withdraw right now. Every American wants to be able to call our troops home from Iraq, but not if it leaves a battleground which will be exploited in a way which will cause devistation to our economy. It is more likely that the ideology of these politicians will increase the violence in the Middle East, rather than decrease it. When politics become involved in a military operation, and in the movement of troops, defeat is often snatched from the jaws of victory.

Tears in my eyes

This recent video from Baghdad brought tears to my eyes, out of gratitude for seeing our troops trying to make good with the population, and out of sympathy for these children who live among so much violence. It feels good to see them have a happy moment.
I have to bring up a unattributed quote here, because I can't remember who said it:
"If the Iraqis loved their children more than they hate each other, they would stop the violence."

Slavery does not help the poor

A socialist economy, such as that which Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is imposing on his country--and is attempting to impose on the rest of South and Central America--does not represent "freedom for the masses." Such an economy, if we are to use Cuba as a model, creates a form of slavery that, historically speaking, has never done anything to help the plight of the poor.
In nationalizing the economy, Chavez is giving himself the authority to determine the lot of every individual in Venezuela. Food, housing, medicine, education, income, and property are all controlled by Chavez. If Chavez, as he has said himself, is modeling his country after Castro's Cuba, he needs the absolute control of Venezuela and its populace to be in his hands. The people of Venezuela must become dependant on Chavez for their needs.
Certainly, Chavez has helped his country in some ways--building schools, hospitals and housing with government money. But what impetus is there to ensure that the education and medical aid meet the needs of the people? Technology will suffer. The schools will only teach what is pertinent to Chavez's idea of Socialism. The students will be indoctrinated to the will of the State. Travel restrictions will be placed on those in the medical profession, as they are in Cuba, so that the medical professionals don't leave the country. This also means that these doctors and medical scientists will be unable to keep up on new medical advances and techniques, and the health of the country will stagnate and decline.
Using his money to build houses for the poor is a way of showing the people that they need to look to El Jefe for their needs, for there is no other way they would get a house. Because Chavez has all the money, he decides who gets housing and how they get the housing. As the Benifacter of the People, he has the power to ruin those who oppose him. while demanding loyalty from those he benifits. When there are no jobs, there is the citizens' militia. We have seen video of this militia parading down the street, cradling imaginary guns. Of course, Chavez won't arm the militia, the members of which get paid nine dollars a week. An armed militia could be instrumental in the overthrow of a government, something no dictator would want while he's in the process of consolidating power.
The Venezualen economy has already declined 38% over the past two years. In a Socialist economy, there is no incentive for investment, as there is no profit to be found. There are no new jobs created in this way, and every person in Venezuela who has a job has little hope of finding a better job. Worse yet, there is no way to help the economy grow. Within the next five to fifteen years, new technology, instability in the Middle East, and environmental conservation will diminish the need for oil, which is the main source of revenue for Venezuela. So Hugo Chavez will have to go elsewhere for revenue, outside of Venezuelan territory. He has already begun the process, using his oil revenue to support Socialist and sympathetic candidates in other countries, bribing the governments of other countries to help spread his influence, and hiring demonstrators for pay to protest against those governments he feels are against him.
He has gone so far as to direct his oil company, Citgo, to implement a program to give a large heating oil discount to those in selected American cities who can't afford the regular rates. Chavez knows enough about capitalism to know the value of good public relations. He knows that by making Citgo appear altruistic, he can circumvent a large scale boycott. Notice that the U.S. has not slapped sanctions or tariffs against Venezuelan oil, or Citgo, nor has Venezuela closed its five refineries in the United States or shut off its oil supply to the U.S. Chavez wants the revenue from our country, and our country wants the oil from Chavez.
The latter is important in the need for a dictator to create an external enemy (Natan Sharansky, The Case For Democracy). An external enemy, real or imagined infuses nationalism into the general population. The tyrant becomes the sole protector, and the more evil the protector can make the enemy seem to the people, the more job security the dictator has. It should be noted that in the war of words between the U.S. and Venezuela, the only shots fired have been from Venezuela. All the name-calling has come from Chavez. It won't matter who the next President of the United States is, he will continue his anti-U.S. rhetoric no matter if that President's Rodham-Clinton, Obama, Giulianni, or McCain. He has to, because he needs an enemy to help him solidify his position.
Why, then should we even be concerned about the direction Chavez is taking? There is little short term concern, but in the long run, the fear society Chavez is building will create insurrection, in Venezuela, and in other South American countries. Chavez and his allies will blame the instability on the U.S.A., while other countries will ask whoever the next U.S. President is for aid in quelling the rebellion, which, most likely, will be given in one form or another, military or not. This in turn will be used by Chavez to further incite terrorists and revolutionaries against the U.S. It is inevitable, and centuries of human experience and historical fact will support this prediction.