Done with Facebook

Since a few years ago until a week or so ago I had been using Facebook as one of the ways to keep in touch with the world out there. I was able and willing to wade through a lot of FB junk to get what I wanted and to say a few words of my own as well. However, the fact that I did use FB has negatively impacted my private life in ways I do not wish to share. So, I decided to quit Facebook -- and I do not miss it.

I am convinced that I will be able to keep in touch with my true friends (not 650+ FB friends) in other, more direct ways. And I will limit my Internet writing to my weblogs. Look out! Life is more peaceful this way.

polls and politics

I hear results of various polls cited by the politicians and political pundits alike in support or in opposition to whatever the subject of contention may be. Recently the health care reform has been the subject of vicious debate across the nation and in the various halls of government, from local to federal.

Now, how many of us actually critically think through those results. For example, the Rasmussen Polls report results of national telephone survey on health care reform showing the majority of those polled in opposition to the "plan."

I wish I could also find in those same reports the actual questions being asked. Most important question in that context would be whether or not the person being interviewed actually studied the "plan." Without that piece of information, the results are meaningless.

death is a death is a death

It almost seems that a death of a soldier hits home in a worse way than a death of a worker. Death is a death is a death, but somehow we hear all the time about those prematurely taking out military personnel, but almost never of those striking men and women who make the stuff and provide services we use.

According to a federal government report, there were 5,071 industrial deaths in 2008 (down from 5,657 the year before).

According to a Congressional Research Service report, there were 1,441 military fatalities in 2008 (down from 1,953 the previous year).

Does this nation value more those who fight, albeit in the name of defending the nation, than those who make things for us to use, thus building the nation? What would you conclude, if anything?

The audacity of what?

This whole Obamania thing started with the "Audacity of hope" and now we have "The Audacity of Winninig." As Ariana Huffington says it nicely,

"How did the candidate who got into the race because he'd decided that "the core leadership had turned rotten" and that "the people were getting hosed" become the president who has decided that the American people can only have as much change as Olympia Snowe will allow?"

Well, no politicians that I know have the cajones to really put up the fight, to really stand up for what they believe. They all calculate, strategize, and eventually succumb to what seems to be doable, rather than what is desirable. Why would Pres Obama be any different. Those who thought he would be, suffered from delusions. So did I, regretfully for my old age.

Karzai

It's perplexing! This thing where Karzai is declared the winner of the so-called election in Afghanistan.

Some time ago, the UN said that up to one third of the votes cast for Karzai were fraudulent. Then they set up the run-off to appease the brewing unrest. Finally, Karzai's opponent withdrew.

What a smokescreen! I mean, are we supposed to be totally stupid. I certainly do not know all the facts, or even most of the facts, but this whole Karzai thing really smacks of PR game.

And, on top of that, all the major players immediately congratulated Karzai. What a farce! But it is not surprising.

Obama and Nobel

Well, it's been now a few days since that announcement one early morning last week. The frisky and sometimes vitriolic debate is by no means subsiding. And that is both from the left and from the right and all the places in between. Ideological accusations, summary condemnations, demeaning belittling, and all sorts of similarly colored declarations fly all over the public spectrum.

I am sitting back and thinking of one simple thing. Folks are asking "what has he done?" as if the president is supposed to take a hammer in his hands and actually physically create something or lock up folks in a basement and make them love each other. We forget that the president is a politicians, he is a manager. And what do those folks do? Well, they offer a vision and facilitate creation of an environment in which folks would want to make that vision a reality. Their power is their vision expressed in their words.

If we can accept that, then let's see what President Obama has done.

• Has he offered a vision for the country and for the world? Judge for yourself.
  
• Has he intrigued and mobilized masses of people in this country and around the world and created an atmosphere in which multitudes can adopt his vision, however it may be modified through a personal prism, and work on its realization? Judge for yourself.
  

Has he created enemies? or at least made them come out of the woodwork? Sure he has.

Another way to look at the "controversy" is to see what Nobel Peace Prize Committee offered as their reasoning behind awarding the prize to President Obama. They said that they awarded President Obama the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Only two questions are relevant:

• is that a good reason to reward a person with a prize and
  
• is that a true characterization of President Obama's work
  

Anything else is superfluous and serves as self-aggrandizing, self-righteous posturing.

If your answer to the first question is no, so be it! It is an opinion one way or another which can not be scientifically supported by facts. It is a judgment call, which is why the prize is awarded by a committee of people, not by some computer program. Once you have your own committee for your own prize to be awarded out, you can set your own, presumably better, rules.

As for the answer to the second question, that too can not be scientifically proven or disputed - ergo a committee to pass judgment. Yours may be different and so "once you have ..... "

So feel free to feel one way or another, but, please focus on the right questions.

Homosexual acts and same sex marriage

It just occurred to me that in the same-sex debate I hear frequently people stating how such-and-such religion prohibits homosexual acts and therefore same-sex marriage is prohibited by extension, which got me a bit confused, frankly.

First, I do not find those same people defining homosexual acts, but it may be safe to assume that by homosexual act, people mean sex in all of its forms with a person of the same sex/gender. Okay, fine.

(I hope we do not ever have a law somewhere defining sexual acts.)

But then, what has that got to do with marriage? Marriage is not about sex, is it? It may be about sex, in addition to many other things, but not necessarily.

So, I wonder about the following scenario. Say two persons of the same sex want to marry and they commit not to engage in any "homosexual acts" with each other, however they, the homosexual acts, may be defined. Would that be okay? I mean, there is no requirement of the married couple to have sex with each other, no?

(I hope we do not ever have a law somewhere defining those acts married couple must do with each other in order to maintain the married status.)