Returning to my old blog

New posts will be here.

Finding an Active Voice

I was talking with my mom and sister earlier today about observations on reading my old blog when I shared that I didn’t think my writing has changed much since 2005 when high school ended. My sister begged to differ and specifically commented on how in previous writing I would often use the passive voice which drove her mad; and in my recent writing I’ve been much better about using active language.

While I agree with the observation, I think this change isn’t as much about my writing as it is about changes in myself and my action. In 2005 I wasn’t just writing with a passive voice, I was passive. Things in life happened. Things in life happened to me. But I wasn’t making them happen. School happened. Homework happened. Current events happened. And I took little to no part in making these things happen. If I didn’t show up to school (Which rarely happened unless I was sick. I didn’t cut my first class until a Prop 8 rally when I was at UCSB) the day would the same as if I wasn’t there. With or without my presence my bubble of the world would have been roughly the same. Thus when I wrote it was from the stance of observation. Not experience.

Fast forward to the present. Almost everything I’ve written about recently has been personal anecdotes to share with friends or political calls to action. Experience on the ground in multiple campaigns for various causes makes it much easier to speak about the process directly. It’s not just voters were registered and calls were made. I lost my voice in the days leading to the election doing GOTV work and called people until my phone’s battery died. Laws weren’t passively happening anymore – active lobbying on both sides made for active struggles. Whether it was being a part of a production or being a community organizer – at least my bubble I was actively doing something. (Who knows if it actually did anything – we’ll look back in 5 years.) so I began to speak as such. And thus began to write that way too.

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.

365 Faces of the Year

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure."
—Marianne Williamson

I just finished posting this poem on one of my other blogs:

Everest


With sunlight drenching his smile he begins to cry. Waves roll down his cheeks and prayer flags wave in harmony with his emotions – tragically grounded, gaudy signs of ownership, hopeful and symbolic of the heavenly, the holy and hurt. The wind bitterly whips his face reminding him time is precious, pain will build upon itself, and he is more exposed now than ever before. With numb fingers he pulls out a camera and tries to freeze the moment, but the coldness curtly stops him before he is satisfied with his efforts. He sighs as he replaces the camera in his pack. Breaking off his icicle tears he looks around once more – the zenith of his quest and there’s a long way yet. The deadly descent back to the reality he wished to escape still waits for him. With storms on the horizon, he places one foot on the ridge leading away from heaven while praying he will someday return.

I just completed the time dependent part of the largest project I've ever attempted, 365 Faces of the Year. And as a result I'm feeling too many things for a single adjective to encompass.

Shameless plug

Want a 365 Faces of the Year shirt?
See my gallery at Zazzle

JibJab

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

Google Wisdom

As of 5:13 Pacific time on Sunday June 15th, 2008:

The number of results on google was:

28,300,000 for meaning of life

605,000,000 for reason
1,480,000,000 for why?
1,760,000,000 for art
2,380,000,000 for love

69,200,000 for stanford
1,030,000 for stupid web searches
265,000 for reasonable bananas
149,000 for mohawked monkeys
135,000 for toliet paper (9,470,000 for toilet paper)

470,000 for sitting at your laptop with nothing to do

2,870 for Urvashi Nagrani
257 for Urvi Nagrani
(= 3127 for me)

Using this scale:

Love is greater than all.
Art is second best.
Ask questions later.
Reason will follow.
Stanford is above the meaning of life.
Stupid web searches are more common than sitting at your laptop with nothing to do.
There are more reasonable bananas than mohawked monkeys.
Even “toliet paper” is noteworthy.
And I’m the most insignificant thing I’ve thought about today.

Help Urv with a Photo Project

Label this individual!

Ban Ki Moon in SF July 26th

So I was at a World Affairs Council event with Ban Ki-Moon, and I found something rather ironic.

He mentioned the goal of getting the UN to employ 50% men and 50% women, a goal they've previously mentioned and not met.

He was also interrupted three times during his speech. First by 2 men with signs asking for greater focus on gay rights. Then 3 women yelling that Palestine will be free. Lastly another man threw a rainbow flag over his shoulders and said gay rights are needed now. All 6 of those individuals were quickly taken out by security.
3 men overall. 3 women. The UN can't be balanced in it's hiring, but by random chance the protesters kicked out equally represent both sexes.