Author: Shelley Powers

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.

Categories
Semantics

Search engine

Since Google is going to the birds we should check out this new search engine that Allan found, Teoma.

I tried it and have found some really fascinating results based on burningbird, burning bird, and Shelley Powers.

For instance, with “burningbird”, Phoenix Systems who owns burningbird.com (note that I own burningbird.net), shows on the first page. In google, I have no idea where this poor company shows.

This new search engine promises hours of new fun. We’ll have to see how resistant it is to search engine bombs and assorted other weblogging games.

Categories
Weblogging

Missed it

By the way, you all totally missed the April’s Fool joke I did play today.

You’re all fired 😉

Categories
Weblogging

April Fools Not!

I wish I could say that my taking down the weblog was an April Fool’s gag, but it wasn’t. I seriously wanted to take this weblog down and remove any non-professional related material from the web as I conducted a job search. I even went so far as to hand delete postings at my old Manila weblog since I couldn’t remove the entire weblog.

However, when I saw weblog after weblog after weblog filled with such hate this morning, I knew that to take my weblog down now was morally wrong. If all of those who try and speak with reason, who try and see all sides of these complex issues, who try and protect freedom of speech, religion, and belief silence themselves, who will fight the battles that need fighting? Particularly in my country?

I can’t do much. That’s more than true. The most I can do is speak my mind and I’ll have to take satisfaction from that. Hopefully the fact that I live in a fairly liberal community means that speaking my mind won’t handicap my job search. However, I know that I’m effectively closing the door on getting a job in certain parts of the country with what I have spoken, and will be speaking in the weeks to come.

So be it.

However, there will be a new rule with this weblog now: All people are welcome to post comments — except for those people who have weblogs and don’t enable comments themselves.

If you don’t have a weblog, please feel free to post a comment. If you do have a weblog, and you have comments enabled, then feel free to say what you want. But I’m not going to continue providing a forum for free speech to those who will not provide a public forum of their own.

And I am more than capable of selectively deleting specific comments, so don’t think I won’t enforce this.

Am I being unfair? You tell me how the hell I’m being unfair.

Take a look at a posting at Jonathon’s, whose comments I’ve been appreciating. Notice how some of the comments aren’t even related to Jonathon’s posting topic? For instance, this Michael Glazer drops in some fairly vicious verbal thrusts about the Palestine/Israel situation (Jonathon’s postings were about sisterhood and the fact that women can be pretty vicious in our dealing with each other), but if you follow the link to his weblog — he doesn’t provide comments capability in his own weblog. Why is that Michael? Do you feel free to say anything to others but are incapable of allowing that same freedom in return?

Am I suppressing freedom of speech? Not a bit of it. These people have weblogs, they can speak on their own dime.

I’ve tried different means to communicate, including intellectual conversations, and poetry, and satire, and what have you. I admire those that can use these techniques and I will visit them and appreciate their efforts daily, as well as point out their choicest bits to my reading audience. However, these techniques aren’t me. I am passionate, with strong beliefs, a fierce love of my country and the principles upon which it is based — though these principles do get battered more than a bit.

And I will speak from an emotional base. I hope to also speak from reason, and compassion, and a sense of humor and perspective, but what I am and what I feel is going to remain a part of this weblog.