Month: April 2002

Categories
Just Shelley Legal, Laws, and Regs

Steal this ashtray

I know it seems at times as if Jonathon and I have become weblogging’s first tag team. I can’t help it — he finds these interesting things and makes these extremely open observations, and my hands go to the keyboard and I feel compelled to add my own observations to his. I have no control over this process.

Case in point: Today Jonathon discusses a weblog posting he found where a person, Michael Barrish, describes his initial reaction to critical comments:

1. Attack the accuser
2. Minimize the wrong
3. Defend your character

It would seem that the Michael Barrish’s girlfriend wanted him to help her steal a Duck Crossing Sign. That’s not the story. He ended up not stealing the sign. That’s still not the story. He received several critical emails from readers. However, even that’s not the story.

What is the story is that the Barrish didn’t steal the sign because he didn’t want to get caught, not because stealing was wrong.

My philosophy is, I’ll steal signs with my girlfriend but I won’t get caught.

And when he received emails from people saying that stealing is wrong, he tried to justify his actions. However, he faced his own moment of truth:

It’s worth noting that I’ve never been one for the rule of law. Fact is, I respect the law only in the sense that I can be punished for breaking it. The only laws that matter to me—and these matter quite a bit—are the ones I make for myself.

One such law or rule (this may sound strange in the present context) is that stealing is wrong, particularly when one steals for what Jay Perkins calls ‘unnecessary and idiotic reasons.’ And it doesn’t matter that one’s accuser is a righteous jerk, or that little harm comes from the theft, or that one is fundamentally moral. It’s still wrong.

What saddened Jonathon was Barrish’s final statement:

Of course I’m not just speaking about duck signs here, nor only about myself. The same self-serving logic used to justify petty theft is used to justify the destruction of the planet. People do what they want, then find reasons to justify it.

Bullshit. This is absolute and total bullshit.

Yes, some people will do selfish acts and then seek to justify their actions. However, most people, and I count myself in this group, making me a “goddamn paragon of rightousness”, follow our moral codes without any equivocation.

What Barrish failed to realize is that by saying this problem is a global problem, he’s absolving himself of any responsibility for his action and his reaction to the criticism he received.

“People do what they want, then find reasons to justify it.”

Bullshit.

Yes, I am not always law abiding. I walk against a red light when no car is around. (In Boston, the cops are suspicious of you if you don’t.) And I have been known to exceed the speed limit. And I’ll fib if someone asks me if I like their new dress and I think it’s the worst piece of crap.

But I don’t steal. I don’t cheat on my taxes. I screw up my taxes, constantly, but I don’t cheat.

I don’t break things, except by accident. I have found things and returned them, intact, to their owners. I point out billing errors even if it benefits the store. I’m kind to small children, pets, and don’t throw garbage out the window. I conserve electricity, I bought a small car with good gas mileage, I recycle.

I respect and value my friends, including my weblogging friends.

“People do what they want, then find reasons to justify it.”

Bullshit.

Time to tie this one back to an earlier topic: This might surprise you all when I say this, but there is no “justification” for the suicide bombings or for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. My seeking to understand the reasons behind these acts is NOT the same as seeking justification.

Somehow, the two — justification and understanding — got tied together. I’m extremely glad that this issue arose because I just now realized that I needed to say this. I needed to say the words, “There is no justification for the suicide bombings”. But I’ll still seek to understand.

Justification. There is no justification for not following your own moral code. None. To say otherwise, is nothing more than a justification for your justification, and is equivalent to not having any moral code at all. Just a few rules that you conveniently “forget” from time to time.

Self-righteous paragons of the world, stand up and be counted.

Categories
Photography Political

Front Window: A photo essay

If you’ve been reading my weblog for a bit, then you know that every once in a while I post photos from my front window. Well, I hadn’t done this recently, so I thought I would update you with new views from this last week.

There are two multi-mast sailing ships in the area, and I lucked out and was able to capture a photo of both of them when they were out on some kind of maneuver. I don’t think there’s anything more beautiful than an old sailing ship. The very look of them conjures up the mystery of the Far East (and those of you reading this from the Far East probably got a laugh from that one) — new lands, new people, unending ocean vistas, and adventure. Especially adventure.

One great thing about living on the Bay is that you can see some really lovely weather. Especially when a storm rolls in. We in the South Beach area call ourselves the sunniest part of San Francisco, because we’re the last section of the city that gets covered in fog when it rolls in.

Last week we had a little excitement when some guy climbed over the security barrier around the Bay Bridge. Two National Guardsmen walked over to check him out, but he was only some kind of photographer or tourist who wanted to take a photo of the Bay Bridge, the security barriers, and the soldiers. The Guardsmen here are getting to used to this and usually allow folks to take their photos. They know they’re here for the long haul and they have to get along with the “natives”.

Speaking of soldiers, the Governor and the California National Guard are trying a little cost cutting sleigh of hand. What they’ve done is put two National Guard trucks in the CALTRAN lot next to the Bay Bridge so that it _looks_ like Guardsmen are here, but they really aren’t. The Guardsmen do come, but usually only on the weekends or when there’s another alert (most of which are not published, but we know when they happen).

Now, this won’t fool any terrorists. An hour of easy snooping will show there are no soldiers about. The only reason the powers that be are doing this is to fool, well, the citizens of San Francisco. News for you Gov, Guard — we’re foggy, not stupid.

They finally took down the shack in the parking lot next to the Bridge. However, a homeless person has moved into the area, complete with bed. I’m not sure which impacts me more about this: that the person has “violated” the restricted area around the Bridge and no one cares; or the fact that the homeless have mattresses they carry around with them. Mattresses! In this the richest country in the world, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the homeless in San Francisco, probably one of the richest cities in the country, have beds. Looks like they’re here for the long haul, too.

From an eco point of view, nature is reclaiming Beale Street. Maybe we can go down and dig up the cement and plant something. Grass, and a tree.

No, not a tree. A sniper could stand behind a tree.

Categories
Stuff

Paul, you look good!

Paul McCartney opened his new tour tonight in Oakland. I would have loved to see the show, but it was sold out 15 minutes after the tickets went on sale. There are tickets still available for San Jose — at about 800.00 a pop or more. Needless to say, I will have to pass.

I loved the Beatles, and I think Paul looks and sounds better than ever — at 60, no less!

I did see Paul McCartney when he toured with Wings. I watched him in the Seattle Kingdome, one of the many, many people holding up their lighters that ended up being a cover shot for an album. What a great show, and what a great showman. I sure wish I could have seen him tonight. It would have been fun.

Paul just goes to show — you can’t get old when you still rock n’ roll.

Categories
Weblogging

On comments and communication

Jonathon just posted entries from a mailing list that seems to suffer the same fate of so many comment threads. Without repeating the entries here (you must take the time to read these) what started out as a discussion about scanner prices ended up with a rant about nuking all the liberals. Within the space of three entries!

It took Jonathon’s Sisterhood posts and the comments this weekend to make me realize that most of what’s happened to this weblog in the last few weeks — the feminist to free speech to freedom of religion to terrorist sympathezier thread — wasn’t personal. Aside from the emails, comments, and cross-postings of kindness and support, most of the other discussions just weren’t personal.

Well, shoot myself in the head with my own vanity, won’t I?

When I realized this one thing, it changed everything for me. Before this realization I was feeling battered, and hacked, and worse — that I wasn’t communicating effectively with my writing. And believe me the thought that my writing was poor hurt worst of all because I love to write. I love to communicate.

I realized this weekend that a lot of people have a lot of things to say, and sometimes, they’ll say them even when there is no context for what they’re saying. And sometimes they’ll say them even though the result is hurtful. They won’t mean to be hurtful (for the most part) — they’re just burning to say these things inside and sometimes reactions result.

Way back when, at least a week ago (almost a full weblogging generation), Mike Sanders said some things and I took these things personally. But he really wasn’t slamming me. He wasn’t attacking me. Not really. Mike was caught up in his own moment, his own crusade, and in his own hurts and thoughts and actions. And his weblog and his postings reflected that. Unfortunately, coincidentally, other things were also reflected, including implications of this and that, and discussions about moral equivalency and so on.

I reacted personally. I now know that this was a huge mistake. What I should have done at the time is just ignored Mike. Such a simple thing I could have done — ignored him. That was the *weapon* that would have been effective in this particular battle. And I’m finding out it’s the hardest damn weapon to learn how to use.

If anything, last week I should have focused on what Mike was saying outside of the “I’ve pulled these people” stuff — that was the issue. That was the important stuff.

Some of us (me) take so long to learn what others (you) already know.

I started this weblog back up today with a new “rule” I was going to apply — no comments unless you open your weblog to comments. Realistically, this isn’t always doable for some people. Or even wise or safe for others. It was a stupid rule, still based on that “I’m taking this all personally” effect from last week.

The silliest thing about this “rule” is that I’m probably one of the luckiest webloggers there is because I find that my readers’ comments are almost always on topic, erudite, thoughtful, and for the most part, civilized (well, except for my own a couple of times). I can count on one hand the personal attacks I’ve had in my comments. Considering the topics I originate, that’s pretty damn good.

Long and short of it is: This weblog is totally “open” for business. Under management with a new attitude.

Thanks for coming by. Come again.

Categories
Political

Searching for understanding among the hyperbole

I feel I must preface postings of this nature with the words “I do not support terrorism. I do not sympathize with terrorism”. I resent having to do so, but it is the nature of debate in my country at this time that communications such as these that are about to follow automatically label oneself as a pro-terrorist, or at a minimum, a terrorist sympathizer. So:

“I do not support terrorism. I do not sympathize with terrorism.”

Mike Sanders posts material from Thomas Friedman an opinion journalist writing for the New York Times. Interesting opinions. Let’s just take a look at some of Mr. Friedman’s points one by one, from a purely historical context, shall we?

Friedman states:

The world must understand that the Palestinians have not chosen suicide bombing out of “desperation” stemming from the Israeli occupation. That is a huge lie. Why? To begin with, a lot of other people in the world are desperate, yet they have not gone around strapping dynamite to themselves.

Friedman implies that these acts are not born out of desperation, but are coldly calculated acts. Surprisingly enough, I would agree. I would imagine that there are people in Palestine who are, at this moment, calmly and coldy calculating the costs of a suicide bomber at this location or that.

However, I also imagine that this has happened in every violent revolt since Man first fought with something other than his own hands, including the United States Revolutionary War.

For instance, Nathan Hale was reported to have said, “I regret I have but one life to give for my country” before being hanged for treason during the Revolutionary war. He was captured and executed because he was found behind enemy lines spying for the revolutionary war effort. In fact, he was caught trying to leave New York as a result of heightened security due to a suspicious fire set in the city at the time that destroyed over a quarter of the city, putting the British commander in the area in a rather pissy mood. No mercy was shown Hale, and he wasn’t even given the dignity of a firing squad.

Hale wasn’t a “desperate” man, but he was resolved in achieving freedom for his country, regardless of the cost to himself. He was assigned to his duties as a spy from a commander who also wasn’t a “desperate” man — a man who calmly, and coldy analyzed the cost of the effort that Hale could provide compared to the cost of Hale’s life — and then sent him behind enemy lines.

No successful revolt in this history of humanity was ever based on “desperation” — it was based on commanders who coldly calculated the cost in lives to achieve a goal, and it was based on those willing to give their lives to follow these commanders, again to achieve that same goal.

Next point:

More important, President Clinton offered the Palestinians a peace plan that could have ended their “desperate” occupation, and Yasir Arafat walked away.

There’s been a lot of discussion about this — why did Arafat walk away from a peace plan that would have ended all of the bloodshed, and given the Palestinians what they wanted.

Actually, you can find the answer to this at a posting at Yourish.com. In this posting, Meryl says:

Oh, that’s right–there are other nations in the Middle East that have Palestinians in their midst, and have had them for more than fifty years. They still live in squalor. They have no voting or citizenship privileges.

Reading the whole post, Meryl brings this fact up as a criticism of Arab unity, but look at the words. The Palestinians have been a people forced out of their home, looked down on and despised throughout the Middle East for over fifty years. Over two generations of people have been without a home, and without the dignity of a home. What would you do if you were one of these people? I’m not condoning terrorism — I’m just asking a question: what would you do? Or more importantly, what would you not do?

There is and has been one item on every peace plan that has led to failure of that plan — reinstatement of Palestinians back in their original homes within the borders of what is now Israel. Not occupied Israel territory — Israel itself. Israel has said this will never happen. Palestine has said there will never be peace without this happening.

Finally the last point of Friedman’s article that I’m going to cover in this posting:

Still more important, the Palestinians have long had a tactical alternative to suicide: nonviolent resistance, � la Gandhi. A nonviolent Palestinian movement appealing to the conscience of the Israeli silent majority would have delivered a Palestinian state 30 years ago, but they have rejected that strategy, too.

Sorry, I have no idea what this is based on. India’s independence from Great Britain? Mr. Friedman would have to explain his premise on this one in more detail before would could intelligently comment.

I found a web page at MidEast Web that lists documents  that basically map the history of the current state in the Middle East. Documents, not opinions. I would suggest that all of those who point to one side as being more entrenched in hatred than the other might consider exploring the documents in this page. In fact, I think it’s time we all stopped with the rhetoric and the hyperbole and started learning a bit more about the situation in the Middle East.

Along with the historical timeline and documents, I also found the following words at this web site:

If any one person, viewpoint or source had the �straight story� about the Middle East, it would an easy matter to solve all our problems. It is easy to read a biased summary of �talking points� regarding any issue and march off on a crusade, disseminating more biased opinion and rallying followers to the attack. We have far too much of that in the Middle East. If you read a �fact,� consider the source. If you hear a news story, check that that it is true. Getting the facts straight is the beginning of understanding. Making sure that everyone gets the same facts – all of them – is the beginning of dialog and understanding.

I just discovered MidEast Web. I hope it lives up to words of understanding I’ve seen so far. I’ll know more after I spend time looking around. The beginning is promising.

Getting the facts. It might lead to understanding. And understanding might lead to peace.