This is a link to David Edelstein's comments about The Sopranos; The Hero as Villain.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/03/sunday/main2878717.shtml
He makes the point at the end, in one small sentence, that America is Hero and Villain.
"It makes you think of the ways most of us compromise, in big and little ways, for the sake of self-interest — and how our own lives, as Americans, are unsustainable."
Of course. Yes. Excellent. Thank you.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Norman Podhoretz essay about Iran
This is a link to a May 30, 2007 essay by Norman Podhoretz found at OpinionJournal.com. The essay is called "The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray President Bush will do it"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010139
I read the first six paragraphs and the last two paragraphs. The position he takes is based on a premise I don't agree with, so I don't see value in reading more. The title alone is horrifying.
1. Mr. Podhoretz believes the September 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center in New York was the opening salvo in World War IV (World War III was the Cold War). The war is between Islamofascists and 'us'.
He doesn't define 'us'. I may be against fascism, but I can't confirm I'm for Mr. Podhoretz' solution to fascism.
2. According to Mr. Podhoretz, Iran is the main center of Islamofascist ideology and the main sponsor of terrorism, which makes Iran an early front in World War IV.
I don't agree that Islamofascist ideology is centered on a specific country. All ideologies begin when groups of people feel they no longer have value, hope, opportunity, options, and a vision of the future. Even Christianity began with an oppressed people.
These conditions exist in many populations around the world. Even in countries rich in resources and opportunity there are isolated populations that don't benefit from the bounty.
That is where negative ideologies take root - anywhere.
3. To confirm that Iran is a dangerous nation bent on global domination, the essay references Ahmadinejad's quote that he'd like to wipe Israel off the face of the map.
I don't like Ahmadinejad, I think he's a provocateur and I think he has a religious agenda. In this case, though, I think his words are being taken out of context and misinterpreted. Most Arab Muslims (and later, most non-Arab Muslims) have always thought Israel should not have been created in the middle of Palestine. To wipe Israel off the face of the map, does not necessarily mean to kill all the Jewish people. I think it means to restore Palestine.
I don't disagree that anyone who is a Holocaust denier should not be trusted; their view of reality is warped. But, I don't think we should repeatedly use the same Ahmadinejad quote (that could be interpreted in different ways) as a justification for preemptive military action.
4. The final paragraph of the essay is a tribute to George Bush.
I think George Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States.
For those four reasons alone, I don't accept Norman Podhoretz' conclusions.
I'm still uneasy about Iran's aspirations, though.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010139
I read the first six paragraphs and the last two paragraphs. The position he takes is based on a premise I don't agree with, so I don't see value in reading more. The title alone is horrifying.
1. Mr. Podhoretz believes the September 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center in New York was the opening salvo in World War IV (World War III was the Cold War). The war is between Islamofascists and 'us'.
He doesn't define 'us'. I may be against fascism, but I can't confirm I'm for Mr. Podhoretz' solution to fascism.
2. According to Mr. Podhoretz, Iran is the main center of Islamofascist ideology and the main sponsor of terrorism, which makes Iran an early front in World War IV.
I don't agree that Islamofascist ideology is centered on a specific country. All ideologies begin when groups of people feel they no longer have value, hope, opportunity, options, and a vision of the future. Even Christianity began with an oppressed people.
These conditions exist in many populations around the world. Even in countries rich in resources and opportunity there are isolated populations that don't benefit from the bounty.
That is where negative ideologies take root - anywhere.
3. To confirm that Iran is a dangerous nation bent on global domination, the essay references Ahmadinejad's quote that he'd like to wipe Israel off the face of the map.
I don't like Ahmadinejad, I think he's a provocateur and I think he has a religious agenda. In this case, though, I think his words are being taken out of context and misinterpreted. Most Arab Muslims (and later, most non-Arab Muslims) have always thought Israel should not have been created in the middle of Palestine. To wipe Israel off the face of the map, does not necessarily mean to kill all the Jewish people. I think it means to restore Palestine.
I don't disagree that anyone who is a Holocaust denier should not be trusted; their view of reality is warped. But, I don't think we should repeatedly use the same Ahmadinejad quote (that could be interpreted in different ways) as a justification for preemptive military action.
4. The final paragraph of the essay is a tribute to George Bush.
I think George Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States.
For those four reasons alone, I don't accept Norman Podhoretz' conclusions.
I'm still uneasy about Iran's aspirations, though.
How to remove a webpage from Google's index (cache)
This is the area that describes some of the options to keep webpages off the Google Index/Cache:
https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=sitemaps&continue=https://www.google.com%2Fwebmasters%2Ftools%2Fremovals%3Fhl%3Den<mpl=urlremoval&hl=en
To request a URL removal, start here:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=61062
And, here is a link to the Google Webmaster Blog that could be a good starting point:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/04/requesting-removal-of-content-from-our.html
https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=sitemaps&continue=https://www.google.com%2Fwebmasters%2Ftools%2Fremovals%3Fhl%3Den<mpl=urlremoval&hl=en
To request a URL removal, start here:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=61062
And, here is a link to the Google Webmaster Blog that could be a good starting point:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/04/requesting-removal-of-content-from-our.html
Thursday, May 31, 2007
A Coda and a Prelude
Confession: I used a stranger's full name from the obituary as the starting point for a rambling commentary on death in my original blog.
Three month's later, a friend or family member googled the person's name and found my blog.
My respect and admiration for the deceased was hidden at the end of the post; just after several paragraphs where I struggle to articulate what I think are the absurdities of obituaries and our ideas of death. The tone of the entire post was questioning and blunt.
To a friend or family member of the deceased, it would have seemed insensitive.
I see that now.
I didn't when I originally wrote the post.
The friend or family member left a comment on the blog.
She (I imgaine it was a 'she') let me know I was insensitive.
I was mortified. I never meant to hurt anyone. I never meant that anyone would see my blog. I didn't understand that people will see my blog.
I'm not a person who does well at learning from my mistakes. I still make most of the same mistakes I've always made. Often, I don't accurately recall the circumstances of the mistake, I don't learn from it, and I continue to struggle with guilt and shame.
In two days I wore myself out from guilt and shame, and wanting to hide under a rock.
While moping, I realized I want to write. I want to write on a blog. I want to get better at writing on a blog.
To do that, I'll have to pick myself up and learn from my mistake.
It turns out this mistake really does have some lessons I understand and can apply to my next attempt.
This is what I learned:
1. Don't use people's real name.
2. Death is a prickly topic.
3. People do see the blog - even if they got here by accident and they're only on the blog for an average of seven seconds.
4. I'm not getting better at writing by pretending the blog is for stream of consciousness writing. I don't write well enough for my consciousness to be readable. If I'm writing down every undeveloped thought and theory it could lead to misinterpretation and anger. Its irresponsible to use a public forum to develop ideas.
As I begin this new effort, I want to be very clear about why I want to write on a blog.
1. I want to send energy into the universe that was created by me. I want my voice to be part of the national (and international) conversation that could change everything.
2. I'd like to be a better writer. I'm inspired by essays that show me a new perspective on an old issue, or discover a new layer of truth inside the story, or see details in big pictures that give a personal story universal meaning, or write with a style that is both conversational and literate. I aspire to this level, but honestly don't expect to attain it. In the practice, though, my creativity will break free and I'll learn how to be better than today. I hope.
This post is my commencement speech. I've graduated.
In the old blog I was sprawling and out of control. I had unformed and unruly ideas. I didn't understand my words would be available to anyone and, no matter how hard I tried to be neutral or positive, my words could have a negative impact.
By starting this new blog I'm letting myself off the hook for the mistake.
I understand what happened, why it happened, and how I reacted (in order: mortified, panicked, defensive, angry, obsessive, rational/factual, apprehensively peaceful [because Google still has the cached version available in their database]).
I'm learning specific lessons from the experience that will help me do better in the next venture.
I discovered that I take criticism (even valid and not hateful criticism) very hard and to write in a public forum I'll need a thicker skin.
Even with the risk of feeling shame and guilt for unintentionally writing an insensitive, incorrect, or offensive remark, I want to try. I don't know how I'll react. I want to know.
I appreciate the opportunity to try again at the next level.
Three month's later, a friend or family member googled the person's name and found my blog.
My respect and admiration for the deceased was hidden at the end of the post; just after several paragraphs where I struggle to articulate what I think are the absurdities of obituaries and our ideas of death. The tone of the entire post was questioning and blunt.
To a friend or family member of the deceased, it would have seemed insensitive.
I see that now.
I didn't when I originally wrote the post.
The friend or family member left a comment on the blog.
She (I imgaine it was a 'she') let me know I was insensitive.
I was mortified. I never meant to hurt anyone. I never meant that anyone would see my blog. I didn't understand that people will see my blog.
I'm not a person who does well at learning from my mistakes. I still make most of the same mistakes I've always made. Often, I don't accurately recall the circumstances of the mistake, I don't learn from it, and I continue to struggle with guilt and shame.
In two days I wore myself out from guilt and shame, and wanting to hide under a rock.
While moping, I realized I want to write. I want to write on a blog. I want to get better at writing on a blog.
To do that, I'll have to pick myself up and learn from my mistake.
It turns out this mistake really does have some lessons I understand and can apply to my next attempt.
This is what I learned:
1. Don't use people's real name.
2. Death is a prickly topic.
3. People do see the blog - even if they got here by accident and they're only on the blog for an average of seven seconds.
4. I'm not getting better at writing by pretending the blog is for stream of consciousness writing. I don't write well enough for my consciousness to be readable. If I'm writing down every undeveloped thought and theory it could lead to misinterpretation and anger. Its irresponsible to use a public forum to develop ideas.
As I begin this new effort, I want to be very clear about why I want to write on a blog.
1. I want to send energy into the universe that was created by me. I want my voice to be part of the national (and international) conversation that could change everything.
2. I'd like to be a better writer. I'm inspired by essays that show me a new perspective on an old issue, or discover a new layer of truth inside the story, or see details in big pictures that give a personal story universal meaning, or write with a style that is both conversational and literate. I aspire to this level, but honestly don't expect to attain it. In the practice, though, my creativity will break free and I'll learn how to be better than today. I hope.
This post is my commencement speech. I've graduated.
In the old blog I was sprawling and out of control. I had unformed and unruly ideas. I didn't understand my words would be available to anyone and, no matter how hard I tried to be neutral or positive, my words could have a negative impact.
By starting this new blog I'm letting myself off the hook for the mistake.
I understand what happened, why it happened, and how I reacted (in order: mortified, panicked, defensive, angry, obsessive, rational/factual, apprehensively peaceful [because Google still has the cached version available in their database]).
I'm learning specific lessons from the experience that will help me do better in the next venture.
I discovered that I take criticism (even valid and not hateful criticism) very hard and to write in a public forum I'll need a thicker skin.
Even with the risk of feeling shame and guilt for unintentionally writing an insensitive, incorrect, or offensive remark, I want to try. I don't know how I'll react. I want to know.
I appreciate the opportunity to try again at the next level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)