Why blogging is good - the old internet archives

I’ve recently discovered why blogging is good.

Rereading the archives.

I was irked by the NYT article repeatedly showing up on my newsfeed (What Is It About 20-Somethings?) and thought of a letter to the editor for TIME that I wrote back in 2006 responding to an article characterizing our current generation, which described us as the multitasking generation. I found it later – and will respond to those articles again later if I find time, but in looking for the article I found out something else.

Years before I knew the queer community I took a stance in favor of same-sex marriage. Years before I thought I was interested in media I was comparing 3 to 4 news sources for biases in looking to current events. And years before I thought of myself as an activist I was taking the stance of speaking into the void of the internet to declare my opinion.

Selective memory means if you ask me about 2005 I’ll tell you about graduating from high school, starting at Foothill College, getting a job, a camera, travel – but I’ll forget which issues went where. I’ve forgotten which online quizzes I took (Just retook some – results have changed… ). I forgot what a big deal goodbyes were before facebook took off – the email exchange and numbers in yearbooks. How much more aware I was of the news and how it affected me before I could vote and suddenly received political spam rather than just newsprint to educate on the issues. I forgot a lot of the details, the mundane ones with the flavor of the ordinary. And in rereading them I remembered. I clicked old links, found friends old blogs, and recalled where they were. I meandered through time and in doing so actively reflected with a much greater depth than the current rut of thought I’ve been stuck in.

When I’m passively sitting, ideas used to be bouncing around like bubbles from the wand of a five year old. These notions were erratic and random, yet stemming from a common source. And at some point in the last few years I found my thinking actively declined. If I stopped without a topic in my mind, I’d go blank. Listening to the whir of fans or a breeze seeing the color of the light and then after the observation it was like my brain would be put on pause until I actively focused on something – and then thinking became an active act on whatever notion I chose to focus on. Thoughts didn’t just happen, things wouldn’t just occur to me, thoughts were the product of a focused effort. I’d get stuck in a linear progression that lead to a predictable product.

But rereading my own words set off fireworks in my brain last night. Like chipping a frozen waterfall and finding a gushing river underneath I’ve been thinking about everything since then. The traffic patterns, the paint between the lanes on the highway, the DMV, government structures, international politics, the texture of paint best suited for a photomontage, ideas for art, the difference between the same content in different context, flavors and texture in food, the practice of religion, people and their professions, maturation versus mindless conformity – anything and everything was back in play.

I’m not saying rereading old posts or journals or newspapers is always great, I’m sure if one was stuck looking backwards nothing good would come of it, but rather there is a great value to have an archive of one’s thoughts, public stances, the cross commentary of those who read, and the engagement around them. It feels like I’m eavesdropping on the past to explore that which might have not been posted today where people are so conscious of their personal branding online rather than seeing a forum of ultimate freedom. It’s realizing just how much the web has changed in a few short years, and how the dialogs possible alter with those conventions.

But I think the more interesting part is the casualness of it – the coffee table convo of a thought you’d share without researching it. The opinions, speculations, and unabashed biases displayed. It’s wonderful. I wouldn’t necessarily want policy based on it – but I would want that social dialog to happen, to be open for anyone to participate in, be open for future review and accessible across time and space– and those old blogs had that to a degree I find lacking now that every news outlet and pundit is online acting as if sound bites and repetition equal fair representation or debate. Anyways, my two cents on some internet nostalgia… I’ll probably start posting more – if nothing else to try to recreate a small piece of that conversation for myself and friends.

This is just the beginning

In 1948, the nations of the world came together and produced a revolutionary document which is about to celebrate it’s 60th anniversary, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Three years prior to this document being formed, the United Nations charter had been written in the city of San Francisco. My favorite part of every major festival in San Francisco is getting off of the muni, coming up the escalator and seeing UN plaza in all it’s glory. Although the UN was founded long before my birth, the fact that it was founded in my state was a great source of pride.

But this week California did something I never truly expected would happen here, we legislated discrimination. I say we despite the fact that I did not vote for this measure, because I could have fought harder. I went to phone banks over the summer, I told my friends my reasons, I protested till I lost my voice, I put a sign in my window, I gave what I thought was needed and I learned this week it was not enough. I should have left my bubble - I should have extended my efforts outside the Bay Area bubble and gone off campus. I should have done more, and you should have too.

By passing Proposition 8, we have legislated discrimination. We have removed rights from a portion of the population. And yet some have the gall to claim a vote on yes doesn’t mean they’re bigoted, it doesn’t mean they don’t tolerate queers, and some even go so far as to claim they accept the queer community and respect individuals within it while they vote yes on 8!

Californians - look towards this document, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and ask yourself if you’re living up to it. Americans, ask yourself if you really want your states to violate this document and if you think that equal rights should be considered a states rights issue when rights are clearly being violated.

I’m not going to post the entire thing as it would make this note over 5 pages long, but I’m posting most of the relevant pieces regarding this issue.

“The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”

“Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
(I see no spirit of brotherhood in prop 8)

“Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
(I don’t care if you think homosexuality is a choice or not - if it is a choice then the opinion must be respected, and if you think it’s determined by genetic factors than it’s protected under birth or other status. )

“Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”
(No on 8 supporters - we should remember this as other rights are clearly violated and perhaps this needs to be escalated to a national tribunal to remedy this)

“Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
(Do you remember the yes on 8 threatening to run a smear campaign on those donating to the No on 8 campaign? Does passing a law that says some cannot marry seem like an interference within family and home to you? Because I certainly see a problem here)

“Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”
(I think this is pretty self explanatory. The first portion does not say men and women may only marry and found a family with a member of the opposite sex, only that they have a RIGHT to marry. I think this also shows why it is important to ask for marriage because a civil union is not the same as marriage, it is a civil contract, but marriage is the foundation of a family, recognized and protected by society and the State)

“Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
(When gay partnerships are not recognized and the state seizes property rather than leaving it to the spouse - that is arbitrarily depriving someone of his property.)

“Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
(The article before this is about the ability to believe and practice worship... And this one is basically the same in regards to opinions. The basic notion of those two articles combined is that the ideals we hold dear we should be able to express without interference. As I see it, when a couple would like to express their affection and others opinions interfere with the ability to have that recognize is violating the idea behind this Article. Also regarding gays in the military, Don’t ask don’t tell violates this principle.)

“Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.”
(Being queer is part of one’s identity and expressing this freely is a right. Marriage is a cultural right with social privilege and economic implications and being denied rights is not respecting an individual’s dignity.)

“Article 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”
(I think marriage is part of the cultural life of the community. Have you been to a wedding? In all those I’ve attended the majority of the ceremony is directed towards the community and its role recognizing the vows of the individuals.)

“Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
(As I see it this basically means everyone has a role in society and that rights will only be abridged in order to protect rights of others. And using a right to violate the rights set out in this charter is not acceptable. So given the amount of places where the right to marry is protected - your right to express your religion does not justify the abridging of another’s right to marriage, interference within their home, limiting their self expression, and discouraging their participation in the community etc... )

“Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”
(Nowhere here do we say you may destroy rights and freedoms, and we want to make sure you understand that.)

I could say more. I can and probably will later, because this is more than just a violation of rights this is an issue which affects individuals. And until everyone sees and acknowledges both the conceptual problems with the policy and the way it affects individuals in their private lives, I don’t think we’ll see any major changes. And until we rectify these problems, I have reason to keep speaking out.

An interesting point

Is the Bible indecent? Should it be baned for minors? Maybe according to some.

Thoughts on Books and More.

To start this let me establish the context: I am sitting at desk with 2 computers in front of me that I am using. This computer I am using to type rambling thoughts, the one next to me is being used play music. And the third computer behind is the desktop which is turned off to save power. I’m currently sick. Nothing major- just a cold. But as a result of it I’m a bit more rambly than normal, I have a headache, a stuffy nose, muscle aches and the usual what have you of symptoms. None of this previously mentioned information is relevant if you are looking for content- but they establish my excuse for what I will say when I read this while not half asleep and on cold medication.

I’m not much of a reader. I like to read. I enjoy books. But I’m not a bookworm. I also like music, but no matter how overloaded my hard drive gets and my CD binder gets, I’m not a professional listener. I enjoy it. It’s a hobby. It’s the difference between Lance Armstrong and the kid who is excited for the new 10 speed and a chance to get to a pal’s house 2 miles away. I enjoy the activity, it’s the means to an end but it’s not a profession and I’m no expert.

My system (if you can call it that) of organizing what I read is simple- after I get a book, I put it to the side to read when I have time. To make it easier to find when I need something to read, I put it in a laundry basket. If a book is on my shelf, I have either read it or read part of it and got distracted and have yet to pick it up again. Everything on my shelf I have read enough that I can have a conversation about it. (I hate it when I see good books on other people’s shelves and I ask them about it just to find out they’ve not read it). This is irrelevant however as my room is a mess and I generally don’t have people in my room observing the contents of my shelves. But if they did- I know the books.

When I have time I pick up a book from the top of the basket. No shuffling through- that’s cheating. Right now I’m actually in the middle of two books (excluding all school stuff). The Iraq Study Group Report is what I pulled out of the basket a couple days ago, however I left it in my car after work two days ago- and thus today when I was tired and sick needing something to read I started a new one to avoid going outside while sick and tired. I have now finished A Man Without a Country by Kurt Vonnegut. And I am now curious if indeed they will use for his epitaph: “The only proof he needed for the existence of god was music”. Among other things. Many lines in this book that I would quote were I to have a place to quote them where I felt someone would read them. But I’m still in the middle of the Iraq Study Group Report. Which is surprisingly dull- thus far it’s all common sense arguments that I started making before this was technically a war. Which probably makes me sound arrogant and like an egoistical intellectual snob- but I was hoping to read things I hadn’t learned from a hodgepodge of history courses, news sources and unfounded opinions with wishful thinking as to their accuracy.

Speaking of which- I’m tired of the news. For several months (before that I read the news but not so many daily reminders and alerts) I’ve read every daily summery from Reuters (morning, afternoon and evening- plus the plethora of alertnet updates) and BBC (only one summery e-mail and breaking news). I’ve also read the front page of the Mercury News and skimmed the other sections for any stories that have headlines which look relevant. To top off this mix is GoogleNews blend of news from every source and MSN’s headlines What have I learnt? No clue. Too much input to remember it all. But if you get a conversation started on current events you might trigger a memory of some article and I’ll feel smart. Just don’t make me speak first. There’s too much bad news to remember it all.

Speaking of bad news, sucks about Virginia Tech. In my inbox at the same time however was news of 118 dying in a Bagdad car bomb. My ability to be shocked and scared is about the same to both. Really I’m not trying to say it’s unreasonable for people to be more shocked about deaths in the US. But it makes me more cynical when the local paper’s front page was about VT and didn’t even have a blotter about the car bomb. And the emphasis on the shooter being Korean I found unnecessary, I think more important was that he was depressed, lonely, very antisocial and dissatisfied with his environment. Gun toting is more American than Korean anyway. We’re the crazy cowboys.

How the hell did I end up on this topic?... Sorry for that rambling tangent of whatever it was. I’m not rereading it. Anyhow back to books. My favorite part of A Man Without a Country:

“But if you make use of the vast fund of knowledge now available to educated persons, you are going to be lonesome as hell. The guessers outnumber you- and now I have to guess- about ten to one.”
-Vonnegut (page 86 if anyone wants to check.)

Let's just call me lazy, forgive the break and move on

Oh yes, I'm alive and using this blog. Again. For... I don't know how long. Maybe today only, but we shall see.

First I shall prove my laziness goes beyond the large gap in posts. In that I shall copy and paste my thoughts on the State of the Union from something I wrote in a news community on facebook:

In terms of the speech, I thought it was well written, clear and appropriately somber. And on content I’ve got much more to say. I think what I found most irksome was Darfur got less time than Baby Eienstein in the speech. And the energy bit I found noteworthy mainly for Cheney’s reaction and the minimal Republican support in the applause and the simultaneous lack of Democrat support. He’s starting to get into the neighborhood of issues which need to be discussed but it seems like he’s so lost about them that he can’t think of ways to address them and he’s spent so long ignoring them he doesn’t have ideas for solutions that would be feasible. I especially didn’t like his opposition to the thought of raising taxes while simultaneously discussing the need to balance the budget. It was also a bit strange to see him talking about domestic issues as even in the pre-election debates dedicated to that, he always dodged into the war on terror defense. I think the actual discussion of domestic issues is a reflection of how poorly things are going in Iraq more than anything he said addressing the war. The vouchers he tried to slide in ruined an otherwise positive response on the importance of education. An odd thing coming from him, was the defensive tone when listing plots foiled. The other positive sign was the lack of the fight alone tone and the actual mention of plans to work with the UN, EU, Russia etc... Although I found it weird he did not actually mention either Pakistan or India. Given both our military and NATO’s need of Pakistan, I would expect that alliance to be recognized with other’s we’re working with. The lack of recognition of India given recent deals on sharing nuclear technology also struck me as weird. Especially because India has been working more with Russia in recent weeks and we need to make sure we maintain that alliance as it has been valuable and has the potential to become even more so. And despite eluding to relations with Mexico, he didn’t even dedicate a full sentence to nations in the western hemisphere. And the only direct mention was of continuing to support democratic movements within Cuba. On the promising side he mentioned climate change finally even though he couldn’t use the term global warming. Questionable action plan, but at start at least. The other thing I found interesting was in the response clips on NBC, Clinton got asked what democrats think and went with the party position before plugging her own visits to the troops in Iraq. Meanwhile Obama was mainly asked to analyze the leadership and the writing. Much more polished yet without the full substance.

Did you actually read that? If so give yourself a pat on the back, give me a comment and then eat a cookie.

In other recent news the holiday season never dies at Starbucks. As soon as New Year’s past we immediately rolled out the Valentine’s Day merchandise and started promoting the need for chocolate, flirt mugs and more. New Barista bears etc.. The works. If you’re in need of a cheesy romance themed gift- see your local starbucks and go berserk- if you’re single like me and you don’t want it rubbed in your face: avoid coffee.

If you want more regular updates you should check my two photoblogs as they’re both updated semi-frequently although not yet daily .