Categories
Connecting

Trust: Burden or gift

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Any movie that features betrayal as part of the plot usually features a scene where the injured party cries out I trusted you! In one form or another, it is the ultimate denouncement, the worst condemnation of another. Yet, how many times have we asked for trust, and how many times has it been thrust at us? We look at trust as a gift freely given, but I wonder if it isn’t more a burden than a gift.

When we have a child, even when we obtain a pet, we’ve accepted trust willingly because neither the baby nor the kitten or puppy, bird or fish, had any say, yay or nay, in entering the relationship with us. When I hear of a parent neglecting or harming a child, or when I hear of a person torturing or starving a dog, my blood boils because I can think of no greater crime than to betray the trust of the innocent. The child did not ask to be born. The puppy did not ask to come home.

When we are born, we enter into a relationship of trust with the world around us. We are taught that we have an obligation not to harm others, not to waste, not to destroy. But we betray that trust day by day, sometimes minute by minute, because we are consumers of raw material; we are producers of waste. But the mitigation of this betrayal of trust is based both on degree and intent. Destroying a tree to make paper is understood; destroying a city to kill one man, less so.

Such forms of trust are interwoven into our existence, an acknowledgement that life carries with it a disclaimer reading, in part …by continuing to breath, you accept that you have a responsibility to those around you; a responsibility not to be discarded without serious reprecussions….

Some forms of trust come with the roles we take on. We place a great deal of trust in those who enforce our laws; we trust them to do their jobs and, in exchange, we give them extraordinary power over us. Their betrayal, then, is when they stop trusting us.

There are forms of trust based on specific acts of mutual agreement. When we marry we enter into an agreement based on trust as much as love. When we take a job, we enter into an association based on trust – we trust the employer to pay us and to provide a safe environment, they trust us to work hard and be honest. The teacher and student accept the bonds of trust – the teacher to do their job effectively, the student to respect the teacher. In these acts, we enter into a relationship that depends on the other from the first moment, a contract of trust if you will.

Friendship is where the exchange of trust is at its most complex. At some point in a friendship, there may be an exchange of trust. Or there may not be. Two people can call themselves friends and be friends for life, but never trust each other. Another two may meet and in five minutes exchange trust and with it the intimacies that go with trust.

Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith was based on religious belief, but for me the truest leap of faith is when we give our trust to another person and call them ‘friend’.

Categories
Political

Please invade this city

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The President focused his weekly radio address on Iraq and the need to remove Saddam Hussein. He also issued promises to the Iraqi people that he will not leave them to suffer from this war:

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.

He equates the situation in Iraq to that of Japan and Germany following World War II. All that’s needed is for us to enter Iraq, with or without the UN, and this country, too, will soon be on its way to prosperity and peace:

America has made and kept this kind of commitment before – in the peace that followed World War II. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies; we left constitutions and parliaments. We did not leave behind permanent foes; we found new friends and allies.

As part of the requirements for a modern history class I took in college, the professor gave us an assignment to interview two people from the period of time we were most interested in. My focus in that class was on World War II and I interviewed my father, who had been part of the 82nd Airborne. I also interviewed Frank Turner, my sociology teacher who had lied about his age and fought during the end of the war, serving as part of the occupational forces.

During the interview, Frank told me about one event in particular. He was riding on a train that also contained food and canned milk destined for occupation forces and their families. At a stop along the way there was a large crowd of people from the surrounding communities, all hungry, all seeking help from the occupation forces. The crowd begged the soldiers for food or milk for their children, and pressed in against the train. In the panic, the soldiers fired, both into the air and into the crowd.

Frank told me that he didn’t see anyone killed. He didn’t believe anyone was killed.

There are so many differences between the situation in Germany and Japan at the end of World War II, and an invasion of Iraq today, that to compare the two situations is ludicrous. Both Germany and Japan had been aggressors in a war that involved the world. The US involvement in the occupation of both Germany and Japan not only had the support of all the allies and other countries, but most of the people in these countries, too.

John Dower, who wrote the book, “Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II”, has denied any similarity between Japan post World War II and the Iraq of today. In an opinion he wrote for the New York Time in October last year, Dower said:

Contrary to what self-anointed “realists” seem to be suggesting today, however, most of the factors that contributed to the success of nation-building in occupied Japan would be absent in an Iraq militarily defeated by the United States.

When war ended in 1945, the United States-dominated occupation of Japan had enormous moral as well as legal legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world. This was certainly true throughout Asia, so recently savaged by the Japanese war machine. It was true among America’s European allies as well. There was a level of unequivocal regional and global support that a projected United States war against Saddam Hussein does not enjoy.

The occupation also had legitimacy in the eyes of almost all Japanese. The Japanese government formally accepted this when it surrendered. Emperor Hirohito, great weather-vane that he was, gave his significant personal endorsement to the conquerors. And Japanese at all levels of society quickly blamed their own militaristic leaders for having initiated a miserable, unwinnable war. Saddam Hussein will never morph into a Hirohito figure, and a pre-emptive war will surely alienate great numbers of Iraqis, even many who might otherwise welcome Mr. Hussein’s removal.

We are different from the America of long ago. Back then we were a country fresh from victory in a difficult war. We could afford to be compassionate because we had seen for ourselves the terrible price the Japanese paid for their invasion of Pearl Harbor, and the Germans paid for their aggression. We, who did not suffer the damages of most of the our allies, urged reform and pushed to bring about self-rule. As Dower wrote:

The great legal and institutional reforms that continue to define Japanese democracy today reflected liberal New Deal policies that now seem testimony to a bygone age: land reform that eliminated widespread rural tenancy at a stroke; serious encouragement of organized labor; the drafting of a new constitution that not only outlawed belligerence by the state, but also guaranteed an extremely progressive range of civil rights to all citizens; restructuring of schools and rewriting of textbooks; revision of both the civil and penal codes, and so on. It is hard to imagine today’s “realists” making this sort of lasting, progressive agenda their primary concern.

Japan has been strongly supportive of the US in its plans for an invasion of Iraq, and even sees itself being part of the postwar forces, a bit of irony if there is one. However, when one considers that one of the countries most vehemently against a US-based invasion of Iraq is Germany, the other ‘poster child’ of American occupational benevolence, one has to wonder exactly who the President is trying to convince with this eleventh hour urgency to help the Iraqi people?

However, if its true that the President will provide help to the people of a region after an invasion than I have a request for Mr. Bush: invade us.

California just updated its unemployment rates to find out that the earlier estimates of the unemployed were off by as much as 150%. This only adds to the general fear about jobs in this country. Petroleum prices are rising, and more and more people can’t afford to buy the medicine they need. To bad some of the money going for unwanted smallpox vaccinations couldn’t be used to help the people who are dying now.

Even Armani is feeling the pinch as fashion sales decline due to a the continuing discussion of war. Today’s new pink is definitely not orange.

If the only way that we the people of this country can get the attention of our president is to be invaded then so be it. Mr. President, please invade St. Louis. We need your help.

Categories
RDF Writing

Mardi Gras Blues

I had hoped to attend the Captain Morgan Mardi Gras parade, but this flu seems to be quite partial to my body, and has decided to take an extended vacation among my various crevices. Right now, I believe it’s paying a protracted visit to my lungs and throat. However, I have high hopes of making it to the traditional Mardi Gras parade Tuesday night, flu or not.

I am determined to pick up one strand of genuine Mardi Gras beads. Just one. Hopefully I won’t have to flash a breast to achieve it.

The enforced stay at home has been productive from a book stand point. I’m finishing up the first round edits in preparation for the chapters being reviewed one more time by a ’subject matter expert’, and then to my editor for the final edits and pre-production readiness.

If you’re interested, I just posted a note about the process in more detail, as well as an HTML version of the first chapter, in the book weblog. The chapter still needs some editing but it’s getting there.

In the edited introductory chapter, I put more focus on the purpose of the book, as well as the section on when to use RDF/XML and when to stay with straight XML. I also incorporated information that explains my interest in RDF/XML.

If I have any edge at all with writing about RDF/XML, it’s that I come from a politically neutral position in the battle between the semantic web folks on one end and the markup folks on the other. I’m neither semantic web nor markup; I’m a data person, with many years of experience working with data at different levels and for different companies. Because of this neutrality, I think I can safely represent all interests or biases in the material. Or perhaps a better way of saying this is: I piss everyone off equally.

But, you know, I can live with this.

Besides, people haven’t necessarily been beating down the doors to write books on RDF. If you go out to Amazon and search on the term ‘RDF’ only a few books get pulled up, and they haven’t been exactly flying off the shelves. Of course, this will change when my book comes out and all of you go out and buy your copies of the book. And, no, Amazon still hasn’t corrected the author list, removing Ray as a co-author. I told you his name would be there forever. Grrr.

As usual when I mention the book, I have to again send kudos to Simon St. Laurent, my editor. This last week he helped me deal with the rather detailed criticism of the book I received from some of my reviewers – something that’s not always easy for an author to absorb.

Simon is what is known in our industry as and a Good Man and a Very Cool Dude. I owe him a box of my favorite chocolates – as soon as I get my advance and can pay for it. Or maybe I should send him a box of Tim Tams?

There’s a funny story associated with the list of books at Amazon on RDF. If you look at this one you’ll see that it’s ‘authored’ by Dan Brickley. The story behind this is that the publisher grabbed the W3C specifications, which were, I believe, public domain or at least allowed this type of re-publication, and then did nothing more than reprint them in the book, exactly. They plunked Dan Brickley’s name on it since he was one of the co-authors of the original specification. This action pissed Mr. Brickley off quite a bit, as you can imagine.

Cheesy thing to do? Damn right it was. But also an excellent example of what can happen to material once it’s in the public domain.

Categories
Weblogging

From the ashes came the re-born, born dying

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I have to return to Baldur’s posting, Death of the Blogger, and his discussions about the dangers of memes, those Thought-viruses, which have undermined the craft of academia (referencing, research, analysis and debate) and doomed most of academic practice into irrelevance. The same memes that Baldur sees threatening weblogging:

 

The meme-plague is the only thing which can destroy the weblogging revolution, murder it in its tracks.

 

However, it’s difficult to figure out how to proceed, because even a rejection of memes becomes a meme itself over time.

Last year we waged a battle to pull weblogging out from under the link-and-comment crowd, and breath fresh life into it by opening the doors to communication. I pushed comments and trackback as deligently as any dealer on the corner selling crack. I was joined by others just as interested in establishing a community online, and we have succeeded. Sticky Strands are here to stay.

I write, and Scott comments, and then Dan comments, and possibly Mark. Karl writes in response, and Liz, and Phil reply and various folks chime it, and it’s all Good. The community that grows up around the conversation isn’t exclusive, as anyone can trackback to the posts, anyone can comment. We are self-forming.

Power to the People. If we didn’t topple the empire built on the Link-and-Comment, we at least irritated it enough to be noticed. “Hiya! Just passing through. Don’t mind us. Continue doing whatever, hmm, it is, ah, that you’re doing. I’m sure it’s all very interesting…to someone.”

We dripped scorn as we enabled the technology to build the neighborhoods. We raised our lips everytime someone introduced a quiz. We lapped up the media spotlight. We googled and daypopped. We brought up ‘cat’ as our secret insider joke, and it was funny.

It’s still funny. Cat. Cat. Cat.

Cracks me up.

We asked each other questions and we debated on topics small and large, and with the same level of ernestness regardless of whether the topic was the new Movable Type release, Creative Commons licenses, sexism, Postmodernism, the beauty of ugliness, or the War in Iraq. And we are eloquent, and learned, and profound, and well written of that I have no doubt. I am surrounded by people who are, in a benevolent sense, scary-smart.

Still, too much of anything is not a good thing and it seems lately, as if we’re all stuck in the strands, caught in the web of our weaving. I look back on my recent posts and find that lately all I talk about is weblogging, and all I’ve done is link and comment.

See! I’m doing it again!

Perhaps we laughed at the old school too soon. Perhaps the Original Meme of Weblogging, like the Original Sin of Man, still exists, but has gone underground.

Lately, when I stumble across a weblog posting that writes in-depth on something of personal interest to the author but completely unrelated to whatever is the ‘hot topics’ of the day, I just sit and savor it as an unexpected treat. Treat? It’s as if the more we communicate, the less original writing there is. We’ve become those people at parties, you know the type; the ones who in the interests of making sure someone isn’t left out, holler out to the person standing in the corner, “Hey, get your butt over here. Join the conversation!”

But what if the person in the corner prefers to be in the corner? What if they don’t want to join the conversation. What if I don’t want to respond in comments? What if you don’t want to join the cross-weblog conversation? Whatever happened to the tales of Korea, and the story of World War II? Whatever happened to the simple discussions about personal belief, and the stories from our youth? What if today, I want to write about a river flowing past a field and under a bridge in the dead of winter?

When did communication go from being something shared and warm and glorious to something dutiful and required, like sex between a couple after the love is gone?

But, but, there’s always the but…

It is the communication between us that makes the writing that much more special. I can read absolutely beautiful things from someone I don’t know, and be moved by them. But when people I’ve come to know write beautiful things, it becomes that much more personal and special.

I was never one for poetry because poems seemed so intellectual and my roots as a high school drop out are never very far. Yet through Loren’s gentle introduction to the poets he loves, I have found not only a new appreciation for poetry, but an actual liking for it; not one based on trying to impress anyone, but based on sheer joy in the music and artistry of the words. Without meaning to put Loren to the blush (but then, embarrassing people has never stopped me in the past), I can’t speak for his previous students, but he made an impact on a 40-ish unemployed computer consultant who writes technical books and hikes a bit.

No matter the skill and the introduction, I never would have looked at Loren’s writing and the poetry if I hadn’t ‘met’ Loren through comments and cross-blog discussions. I would have seen the poetry and tuned out, instantly. The same can be said on so many topics I’ve been exposed to, from movies, to books, to marketing, to religion, and yes, even postmodernism.

The Meme bring. The Meme taketh away.

Jeremy Zawodny recently wrote a posting called The 10 Habits of Highly Annoying Bloggers, which, as you can imagine quickly went from “posting” to “meme” status. As would be expected with this type of posting, much of the humor attached to it appears in the comments, which is as it should be. Other than wondering what a ‘FontBitch’ was, and deciding to use this as my ‘about me’ link, it was the survey that Eric’s Weblog posted about the 10 habits that truly fascinated me. This survey allows people to ‘vote’ on which of the habits is most significant to them.

According to this survey, people were vastly more annoyed by the mechancs of weblogging, such as comments, RSS, font size, and the about page, then they were about the person providing original content. Original writing lost out to FontBitch and comments, RSS and “about me”

I have seen the Meme, and it is us.

Which leads me back to Baldur’s posting and the discussion of memes and original writing. I wrote a great deal in this posting, much more than the …short volleys of 80 word meme brain-boils where the thought-virus biomass simmers under the thin skin of comments and trackbacks. However, I’ve only referenced Baldur’s writing at the very beginning and the very end. And this was supposed to be about Baldur’s posting. And it is.

 


photo of river in winter
 

 

 

Categories
Political

Can’t sleep might as well write

I gave up trying to sleep and since I was in a writing mood I thought I would put my sleeplessness to good effect. Besides, I forgot to mention that I was interviewed by Newsweek yesterday for a story on weblogging.

(Of course the interview was for a story on weblogging. Did you think that Newsweek would be interviewing me for my views on the President? The Iraqi war? The current domestic situation in the country?)

The reporter was writing a story for an international edition of Newsweek, European I believe, about weblogging and how to start a weblog. He found me through the Essential Blogging book and when he asked about ‘blogging etiquette’ I knew I wasn’t the only weblogger interviewed. The term ‘etiquette’ was a dead giveaway.

I laughed when he asked that question, which probably lessened my chances of appearing in the interview. (I’ve been interviewed for major publications before, and have had my sound bites left lying on the cutting room floor.) Still, etiquette.

I told him that the reason we’re weblogging is because we want to be able to publish online without having to follow any rules. To be independent. Free thinkers and writers — as long as we write in reverse chronological order, provide perma-links, link to interesting stories or other weblogs, comment on same, attribute other sources, never delete postings, maintain archives, write only the truth, have a blogroll, and never write about cats or what we had for lunch, we can weblog anyway we want.