Michiko Kakutani penned a lovely, in-depth description of Rolling Stone guitarist Keith Richards' memoir, "Life". The article, located here, gives a detailed look into the once troubled rock-star's past, and offers readers explanations for many choices and accounts of the consequences of those choices.
As a Rolling Stones fan, I am very excited about this book. I believe that Richards is at the perfect age and point in his life to write such a book. It is important for there to be an accurate account of the life of clean and sober, influential rock musician. The rehabilitated Keith Richards is able to describe things that he has lived through that could possibly make an impression on younger musicians.
I think that the book will be a fun, insightful read, and I look forward to reading it.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Republican Donors Invitation in the NYT...Good or Bad?
The New York Times published an article today about an extremely exclusive meeting of the Republican donors' minds. The article was accompanied by an excerpt of a copy of a letter sent to possible donors, inviting them to this meeting to be held in at a resort in Ranchos Mirage, California. The invitation is from one of the two brother/billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries, a company that has long supported libertarian ideas.
I am afraid that my emotions about this topic are very mixed.
My first question is about the Times printing the letter, that includes the place, date and time of the meeting. Is it ethical for it to be printed, assuming that the letter was not directed towards the press and is presumed to be a secret? Perhaps there is someone who does not want the some of the wealthiest men in America supporting causes that they do not believe in, and that person wants to do harm to these men. Or is it the right of the people to know who is controlling the strings of government?
My next issue is the idea that a few wealthy members of society decide how to govern a nation. Does that make sense? Now, be sure that I am not saying these are not good, respectable people. But who is to say that they are not looking out for their own bottom line, instead of the good of the nation? I believe that the presence of knowledge, wisdom and good will, not money, should determine who makes decisions. But am I wrong? Should those who have been fortunate to have fortunes have such a large say in the government? I do not want to come across as wanting to limit free speech and the right to support the beliefs you choose, but why is there so much secrecy? Would it not be for the good of the people to have transparency?
What do you think about it all? You can read the article here and decide for yourself.
I am afraid that my emotions about this topic are very mixed.
My first question is about the Times printing the letter, that includes the place, date and time of the meeting. Is it ethical for it to be printed, assuming that the letter was not directed towards the press and is presumed to be a secret? Perhaps there is someone who does not want the some of the wealthiest men in America supporting causes that they do not believe in, and that person wants to do harm to these men. Or is it the right of the people to know who is controlling the strings of government?
My next issue is the idea that a few wealthy members of society decide how to govern a nation. Does that make sense? Now, be sure that I am not saying these are not good, respectable people. But who is to say that they are not looking out for their own bottom line, instead of the good of the nation? I believe that the presence of knowledge, wisdom and good will, not money, should determine who makes decisions. But am I wrong? Should those who have been fortunate to have fortunes have such a large say in the government? I do not want to come across as wanting to limit free speech and the right to support the beliefs you choose, but why is there so much secrecy? Would it not be for the good of the people to have transparency?
What do you think about it all? You can read the article here and decide for yourself.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The Miners' Mindset
An article in the New York times described how the Secrecy Pact is Eroding.
When the 33 Chilean miners were rescued, the collective sigh of relief from everyone keeping up with them could almost be felt anywhere. The men, who had survived being over 2,000 feet underground, had made a pact of secrecy during the 69 days that they were trapped in the mine. They were going tell the story together, and they were going to share the money from it.
However, when they made it up to the surface, it seemed that the pact was not as tight as it was supposed to be. As news outlets from around the world began offering the miners, who are poor for the most part, good compensation for their stories it became too hard to refuse for some. Some of the men have already given interviews, while others are set to give them later on.
I believe that it is very noble for the miners, who depended on each other for over two months, to try to share their profits. However, I also believe that it is going to be extremely hard from here on out to accomplish that in anyway. Even with their book, some miners will contribute more than others, and will want to be compensated for that.
It means a lot that they have not yet given any real detail as to what went on in the collapsed mine, even though they have given several interviews separately. I just find it hard to believe that they will be able to keep it up, at the rate that they are being offered large sums of many from many news outlets.
One thing is certain, though. The miners have made it through an amazing ordeal, and after this initial storm of media coverage, should be able to live well in the long run. I pray that they can continue being on friendly terms, and that their are no disputes, for their sakes.
When the 33 Chilean miners were rescued, the collective sigh of relief from everyone keeping up with them could almost be felt anywhere. The men, who had survived being over 2,000 feet underground, had made a pact of secrecy during the 69 days that they were trapped in the mine. They were going tell the story together, and they were going to share the money from it.
However, when they made it up to the surface, it seemed that the pact was not as tight as it was supposed to be. As news outlets from around the world began offering the miners, who are poor for the most part, good compensation for their stories it became too hard to refuse for some. Some of the men have already given interviews, while others are set to give them later on.
I believe that it is very noble for the miners, who depended on each other for over two months, to try to share their profits. However, I also believe that it is going to be extremely hard from here on out to accomplish that in anyway. Even with their book, some miners will contribute more than others, and will want to be compensated for that.
It means a lot that they have not yet given any real detail as to what went on in the collapsed mine, even though they have given several interviews separately. I just find it hard to believe that they will be able to keep it up, at the rate that they are being offered large sums of many from many news outlets.
One thing is certain, though. The miners have made it through an amazing ordeal, and after this initial storm of media coverage, should be able to live well in the long run. I pray that they can continue being on friendly terms, and that their are no disputes, for their sakes.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Is three a crowd?
American politics are at a stand-still. Both sides of the government are bogged down with loyalties to special interest groups, companies and party platforms that it is nearly impossible to practice law-making without partisanship barring compromise.
Politicians are too willing to bend their moral values and the basis of what they were elected for than to risk losing essential campaign dollars. Their concern is not for the people they represent, but instead for getting re-elected.
In an article by Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times, there was a comparison of America to the great fallen empire of Rome. Friedman quoted the book “The Condition of Man” by historian Lewis Mumford. The book, which recounted the fall of Rome, described how "everyone aimed at security: no one accepted responsibility." The excerpt continued to describe details of problems within the structure of the empire. As Friedman commented in his Op-Ed, the account deeply echoed the appearance of American society today.
Politicians are not held accountable for their actions as representatives of the people of the United States of America. Americans are looking for and clinging to the idea of security-maintaining what they have.
As Friedman points out, the problem is not with the "inner-go" of America. We are still intellectually curious and adventurous for the most part. The problem is with the idea of the Democrat and Republican parties controlling the country, and not running it with the best intentions for the present and future.
I agree with Friedman's hint of a "serious third-party candidate" for the President if the two major parties do not shape up (which is highly unlikely). This country NEEDS a true voice, that can look into the needs of the future, as well as the present, that can speak the true necessities of the citizens, that can look for solutions and plan ahead, without having to worry about party politics.
In George Washington's farewell address, he warned against political parties. "The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual," of Washington said. The point of a democracy is so that the people rule. The people. Something needs to happen so that the people's voice is heard, be that a major third party, party reform or the abolishing of the two-party system all together. So to answer the name of the post, I believe it might not be. Three just may be the answer.
The article can be found here.
Politicians are too willing to bend their moral values and the basis of what they were elected for than to risk losing essential campaign dollars. Their concern is not for the people they represent, but instead for getting re-elected.
In an article by Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times, there was a comparison of America to the great fallen empire of Rome. Friedman quoted the book “The Condition of Man” by historian Lewis Mumford. The book, which recounted the fall of Rome, described how "everyone aimed at security: no one accepted responsibility." The excerpt continued to describe details of problems within the structure of the empire. As Friedman commented in his Op-Ed, the account deeply echoed the appearance of American society today.
Politicians are not held accountable for their actions as representatives of the people of the United States of America. Americans are looking for and clinging to the idea of security-maintaining what they have.
As Friedman points out, the problem is not with the "inner-go" of America. We are still intellectually curious and adventurous for the most part. The problem is with the idea of the Democrat and Republican parties controlling the country, and not running it with the best intentions for the present and future.
I agree with Friedman's hint of a "serious third-party candidate" for the President if the two major parties do not shape up (which is highly unlikely). This country NEEDS a true voice, that can look into the needs of the future, as well as the present, that can speak the true necessities of the citizens, that can look for solutions and plan ahead, without having to worry about party politics.
In George Washington's farewell address, he warned against political parties. "The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual," of Washington said. The point of a democracy is so that the people rule. The people. Something needs to happen so that the people's voice is heard, be that a major third party, party reform or the abolishing of the two-party system all together. So to answer the name of the post, I believe it might not be. Three just may be the answer.
The article can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)