Categories
Diversity Political Weblogging

Women blogging the Convention?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Since I’m on a roll about women’s apparent invisibility in weblogging circles, well except when we’re naked or shoving our titties in front of the faces of the boys, I am curious: which women bloggers have been credentialed by the Democratic party to cover the Convention?

We’ve already heard that a person infamous for indiscriminate and malicious comments about women has been given access. I’d like to think there might be a woman or two among the fifty or so men who will be going, so that the Convention goers don’t think weblogging is a boys only club.

Not that we think it is.

Of course not.

We all be equal here, we be.

update

At least it’s nice to know that we women don’t suffer blogger burnout like the guys.

Categories
Political

More old stuff, Moore, Canadian elections

That’s the last of the science essays I’m porting to the new location. I have a few stories from the now defunct Paths: The book of Colors that I’m moving over to the weblog.

Then I’ll see if I can squeeze out some original writing and my three Flash music shows.

All the chit chat is on the Michael Moore film, “Fahrenheit 9/11″. I have not seen the film, and probably won’t until it’s out on video. I think Moore has the potential to be a very good documentary maker, but he crosses the line from discourse into preaching, too many times. I don’t expect Moore’s new film to be any different, but will withhold any compliments or criticisms for when I do see it, sometime after the election, I imagine.

Speaking of elections, congratulations to our Canadian friends for their recent election, and for managing to keep the wolves at the door, rather than in the parlor.

Categories
Political

Dick Cheney and the F Word

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

All this use of the euphonism, the F-Word, and references to potty mouth since the newest Dick Cheney fooflah.

It’s ‘fuck’ people. F-U-C-K. And if you’re worried about being filtered at libraries and in grade schools, ask yourself: do you want to write something that’s equivalent to a G rating from Disney? Say the word, accept the filter, be proud of your raunch–it has history (but it’s not an acronym). If you can’t say it for yourself, say it for your country.

Anyway, I was over reading Ralph’s own colorful discussion on Cheney, and I had to drop him a comment that I just can’t get all that fired up over this issue. To be honest, I think “Fuck yourself” is about the most honest thing Cheney has said in three years.

I mean, compare it to the following:

“I had other priorities in the 60’s than military service”

” Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. “

“Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,…The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.”

“The plan was criticized by some retired military officers embedded in TV studios. But with every advance by our coalition forces, the wisdom of that plan becomes more apparent. “

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ”

I’d much rather have Cheney on the floor of the Senate telling Senators to go fuck themselves, then using the Middle East to demonstrate exactly how it’s done.

Categories
Political

America 101

I was in the midst of writing something on how to backup a database, export out of WordPress, and even how to do a direct database to database transform, but I wasn’t sure how to engineer a disaster first–to make my help seem like a miracle, and me a saint. What’s the fun of writing something helpful if all it does is, well, help people. After all, I am an American and this is a true American way of doing things.

I got to thinking, though, that perhaps those of you in other countries don’t know how all this works, and sit there in befuddlement and perhaps even a little outrage at all the daft things we do and say. In particular, it must seem at times as if we rush around breaking things and then, when we fix them later, call ourselves heros. So I thought a little cultural America 101 might be in order.

First of all, you need to be aware of our really fine use of semantics: whenever we make mistakes we never call them ‘a mistake’. In America, never call an apple an apple if by doing so you have to acknowledge that you picked the apple without permission. How can we forget that all important lesson: love means never having to say you’re sorry?

As an example at a very micro level, you don’t describe deliberately shutting down a server something like, “I’m deliberately shutting down the server where your material resides”. You call it an outage as in:

We now have a transition plan for the corner-turn, and have implemented most of it. The plan exceeds the commitment I made, by quite a bit; and will be implemented much sooner than promised. I’m writing the heads-up statement right now. The outage should be, Murphy-willing, completely cleared by the end of the weekend.

I had no idea that Boston was suffering a blackout. Or is it that a tree fell on someone’s head? Regardless, notice the small steps to redefine this event, until it morphs from a deliberate action into an act of accident or God? I am filled with admiration. Truly.

But this is small potatoes compared to others’ masterful use of semantics. Witness the invasion of Iraq: what started out as a move to ‘protect this country from weapons of mass destruction’ has now become a move to ’save the people of Iraq from a ruthless dictator and bring true freedom to the Middle East’.

This is truly brilliant. After all, no one can deny that Saddam Hussein wasn’t ruthless and violent to his own people; so how can anyone deny the rightness of our actions when someone like him is displaced? And if people continue to try to question our actions, the answer is ready made: you must want the people of Iraq to suffer.

I don’t care what anyone says: Japanese marketing might be more novel, European marketing more clever, and South American sexier, but no one knows how to position the opposition into a rhetorical corner better than we Americans.

Of course, if people still question specific actions, then you bring in the bigger guns: what do you know, and what does it have to do with you?

Returning to our micro example, the ‘what does it have to do with you’ is wonderfully illustrated with the following:

I’ve found the same thing most of the time—those seemingly the most offended by something like an outage were those who it didn’t effect. People are strange that way.

True we haven’t heard much negative commentary from those whose files haven’t quite been restored yet. I imagine they’re still overwhelmed by how grateful they are for the free hosting they’ve had, and the four years of writing they’ve created during this time.

Of course, the same could be said–who are we to talk when the natives are so content– about the situation in Iraq. After all, we see pictures of smiling, happy Iraqi standing next to a Marine carrying a big gun all the time. And then there’s all the polls in Iraq saying how grateful they are for being liberated. Now would the Americans please, pretty please, leave now?

See, they’re polite ladies and gentlemen, too.

As for the use of “what you don’t know”, insider versus outsider knowledge is one of the most powerful weapons ever used in this country–much more powerful than any atom bomb. It has a long history, but I believe it had its most proud moment when Senator McCarthy waved around a sheet of paper that he claimed had the names of communists serving in the government. Didn’t matter that he was waving about a shopping list–all that mattered is that he knew. If people asked to see the list, they were told they couldn’t “…in the interests of national security…”

People are being held in prisons here and abroad without due regard to either national or international law and we’re told it’s in the ‘interests of national security’. After all, if these people are allowed access to the outside, they can warn their compatriots of…what? That the US knows about plans that are now two years old?

And how often have you responded to an overt act with a negative reaction, only to be told, “You don’t have all the facts.” The end result of statements such as these is to make you slink away, being made to feel as if you’re tromping on the kittens or stealing candy from babies. A more legitimate response would be to say, “Well then, give us the facts.” But then, of course, you’re invading the other’s privacy with callous disregard to their troubles.

This whole approach is effective, not because we in this country are particularly sensitive to harming others, as much as none of us cares to look bad–to look like we’re tromping on kittens and stealing candy from babies et al.

Personally I’ve long felt that if a person’s actions impact only on themselves or a small circle around them, they have a right to privacy. But when they impact on others, they either have to take responsibility for the act, or expect to be questioned. But you know, I’m not all that good at America 101–raised too close to the Canadian border, I ’spect.

Of course, if these approaches don’t work, we then pull out the final weapon in our American arsenal – we bring out our metaphorical checkbooks.

We make amends with toys and shoes and TV equipment, or perhaps we generate a call out to others to help and they come forward with things like frisbees and server space, or even their own personal time, and the issue then becomes…complicated.

You see, Americans are also a very generous people, and we genuinely want to, and like to, help others–but that help can sometimes form a camouflage around the event that generated the need for help in the first place. If this is called into question, the response may be the same, but isn’t necessarily rhetorical: does it matter what caused the problem, as long as we fix it? And isn’t it better to focus on the positive than the negative.

How does one respond to this? This is not an issue that can be painted black & white, with clearly defined good guys, and bad.

If I break a vase in a store and pay for it, does it matter the reasons I broke it? As long as I make the results ‘all better’, does it matter why I did an act? I may have broke it by accidentally brushing up against it; I may have broke it because I was offended by its looks, and ‘accidentally’ dropped it. Does it matter, though, if I pay for it? Why would a store owner keep questioning my act, once I made good on my damage? Wouldn’t it be better to just focus on the positive outcome?

If in the end, a desired outcome is achieved, what matters the means to achieve it? And if our generosity has a price tag attached, whether it be a name on a building, or a flag around a box, or even an expectation of gratitude, what does it matter if good results?

(I am reminded of a story I heard once about an old man who always dropped gold coins into the church collection bag every Sunday. When questioned about using such an odd form of currency, he replied with, “I’ve lived a long life, and I’ve not always been above sinnin’ now an a’gin. If I’m gonna donate money every week to save my soul, I damn well want to make sure God can hear the coins when I drop them in the bag!”)

As I was writing this, a solution appeared to the little micro-example I used in ths writing, and alls well that ends well. Others have even commented about how useful this all is from a bitter herb get o’r yerselves’ metaphysical point of view; re-awakening the issue that it doesn’t matter if our writing disappears, none of us owns what we write anyway.

I’m trying to find the logic in this, and all I can find is: Writing is an action; none of us owns our actions; therefore, none of us owns our writing. The logic seems valid, but the arguments give me heartburn, and cause me to stumble in confusion–I feel as if I’m listening to the hollow echos of a language, and a culture, that has past me by.

So much to do over nothing. Why don’t you all tell me to stop thinking about these things so much, and to stop making such a to do over nothing? Oh, you have? Well, perhaps I’ll start listening to you more in the future. But it’s an addiction you know–thinking.

To return to the here and now, and the quandary that began this writing: how can I write a helpful essay without first generating a disaster to make it truly worthwhile?

I don’t suppose some of you would be willing to just blow away your weblogs, would you?

Categories
Political

We don’t need more heroes

I didn’t know that today was going to be a national day or mourning for Ronald Reagan until I took some books back to the library last night and saw the sign saying it would be closed today. I was surprised because it’s not as if Reagan was King or still president, and do we do this with all presidents? It’s been so long since a President died; I can’t remember.

My reaction to Reagan’s death this week was indifference. I was no more ‘mad’ about his tenure than I was going to jump on the wagon hailing him as our nation’s greatest leader. I don’t remember him as a particularly good leader, or a particularly bad leader. I do remember that many of us were uncomfortable with the the rumors going around towards the end of his presidency that his cabinet and his wife were providing more of the leadership of this country then we would like.

I hadn’t even planned on writing anything about Reagan’s death until I read a Christian Science Monitor article on Reagan’s passing. The article talks about the deep divides in this country, and how his death is providing a temporary respite from the acrimonious disputes:

While the bitter divisions in American politics circa 2004 do not reach Lincoln-era levels, they are much more pronounced than in Reagan’s day. Florida’s long ballot count, disputes over gay marriage and abortion, and widening gaps over the Iraq war have split the nation at every level, from the courts to the makeup of Congress. More than half of Americans now believe the country is on the wrong track.

Frankly, I think the divisions in this country are as strong as they were in Lincoln’s time; the primary difference is they lack the cohesiveness of that time because there is no single issue to rally around. No, not even the war on terror or Iraq is enough to cleanly divide the people and provide an impetus to act–other than vote this Fall. Frustrating, isn’t it? Having to wait to November.

I voted for Reagan his first election, but not his second. He was a good speaker, and did bring a sense of confidence into the White House. More importantly, being brought up to fear the great Communist conspiracy, I never felt ’safe’ with Carter. Happily, that election was the last time I let the boogie man control my vote.

Some are saying now that Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of our history, but I think these same people are forgetting all the controversy and anger and mistakes made during his tenure. I think they’re looking for a hero. And even people who don’t care much for Reagan are looking for something to ‘heal the rifts’, as if this is the most important thing we can do now.

Personally, I think we should face the issues polarizing us and acknowledge that on some issues, there is little or no middle ground. Though it does no good to get into a slapping fight, polite chit-chat in the interests of communal good makes me feel faintly ill. Does this sound confrontational? Confrontation is arguing with people you know you’ll never convince, just to hear your own lips flapping. Or getting frustrated because some people just don’t recognize the facts you find to be so glaring. People will see what they will see. Some people you can convince, some you can’t. Resolution does not equate to a national group hug, with kissing and making up afterwards.

But this is about Ronald Reagan and him dying this week. Folks are saying that Bush is going to benefit somehow from Reagan’s death. They say that Bush will tie himself to Reagan’s leadership style and hope to ride this uber-mourning to a victory in November. However, as I read in one opinion piece–it’s a long five months to the election.

I liked what Roger Benningfield had to say:

He was also charismatic, and was capable of coherent –sometimes even compelling– public speech. As we’ve learned over the last four years, those are two absolutely vital characteristics in a president. For all his faults, he spoke to the rest of the planet in a way that made even the nuttiest policies seem at least tolerable, while our current Executive Employee couldn’t give a dyslexic reading of the phone book without setting off riots in four different countries.

…when you distrust all politicians as much as I do, “he could have been worse” is a flash-flood of praise.

I am both sorry and happy for Ronald Reagan’s family, because his death must in a way be a relief. If his legacy is to help increase stem cell research, then there is good attached to his passing. Other than that, he was from a different era. That was then, this is now. And we don’t need more heros.