According to StopTheNRA.com: "The NRA bans guns from its own convention year after year, yet does not want to give the citizens of the District of Columbia the same right to make that determination."
Nor to the citizens of anywhere else I presume. I find it fascinating to think that guns are banned from NRA conventions - although there must be an exception for the folks on stage, bragging about their "cold, dead hands".
Let me just amplify on StopTheNRA's point, because they certainly have one whether or not this intra-NRA ban is true, as I assume it to be. I haven't actually been able to verify or contradict this, but even if the precise statement turns out to be mistaken (or someone merely claims it to be out of convenience, which happens), the whole idea still leads to an interesting thought experiment. If you do have further info about this policy, please post it here.
In the Westerns, everybody carried a gun. Well, the men did anyway, and once in a while in the more progressive (?) Westerns, so did the women. But in many saloons you were expected to check your guns at the door. Even certain towns required you to leave your arms with the sheriff or marshall until it was time to leave. It wasn't personal; most of the people had their guns for self-defense and target practice. But everybody just knew that there was one nutcake out there who would actually use his gun to start something, to disrupt the order of the peace lovin' town. And they knew that, when that happened, everyone would have to pay.
Does the NRA have this same fear? At the same time as they would liberalize (yes, liberalize, I know you think they're some species of conservative) just about every gun law so that anyone and everyone can walk into a grocery store carrying a concealed Howitzer loaded with nuclear tipped, cop-killer shells, is it possible that in back of their minds they realize that in a room filled with thousands of gun nuts there could easily be one real, live, bona fide nut who would actually start a gunfight?
I'd like to pause to apologize to the thousands of gun enthusiasts whom I just called "nuts" and whose rights I unfortunately want to abridge in the name of other important rights, like the right to walk around without gaping holes in your flesh. I know most of you folks use and enjoy your guns more or less responsibly, and would not hurt a flea unless it fired first. I feel like we can engage in a little good natured name calling, and then go and have a beer afterwards, otherwise I probably would be a lot more delicate. Even I have enough sense not to call a real nut a "nut" to his face. You're not a nut, my friend Joe Average NRA -- (gulp) at least I hope not, since you're armed to the teeth. But one or two or a few hundred members of your community, or the community at large, might actually be cashews, and if it weren't for their having concealed Howitzers it might not be so important to you to have your own for self-defense.
But here's the rub. If StopTheNRA.com is correct, then the NRA actually agrees with me - some of you guys are cashews, not you certainly, but the guy four seats down whose coat is way too big since it has to have room for the Howie, so maybe we'd better check the guns at the door. It would certainly be a huge embarrassment to the NRA if a melee erupted at the convention. But if the NRA doesn't trust its own membership to bring guns into their own convention, why should we let the NRA turn the rest of society into a "Free for All", to quote the lyrics of NRA semi-celebrity macadamia Ted Nugent? If we grant that the NRA gives good training in the responsible use of guns, isn't society at large under a much larger danger because most gun buyers aren't members and don't get this valuable training?
Or, to get back to the image of the Western, where most of the men have guns but are peaceful and law abiding: sooner or later, Billy the Kid's going to ride into town. Without a gun, he's an obnoxious punk. With a gun, he's a deadly outlaw (and getting off on the fact that we know it). So now we need Wyatt Earp, who, without a gun, would be just a right-wing talk show host. With a gun, he's a quasi-fascist dictator. But we need him, and we let him bully us all around because Billy's got a gun, too and Wyatt's the fastest anyway, something to remember should we happen to get on his nerves. And this town was so peaceful!
Returning once again to modern times, let's look at school shootings. Something like 15 people died (including the two young gunmen) and 23 were wounded at Columbine, with the boys having planned much greater devastation and quite possibly having been close to achieving it. It seems doubtful they could have accomplished as much using their bare hands, or knives, or throwing stars, even if they had been well trained in combat. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", goes a popular NRA slogan. Well, hammers don't pound nails, people pound nails. But you can pound a lot more nails when you have the right tool.
Even scarier examples of guns out of control come from the Middle East. In Afghanistan and Iraq, most of the weapons aimed against us came from us. Why, so gunmakers could make a lot of money? Maybe that's who the NRA really benefits.
The "right to bear arms" shouldn't mean that everyone is entitled to their own concealed Howitzer. And yet that seems to be the direction that most NRA-backed legislation leans today.
And civil society (or what could be a civil society) bears the consequences.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Reacting to the News
What does a Raving Moderate do? I'm clearly not a journalist, not reporting what's going on in the world, just reading it elsewhere - and reacting, based on my life's experience and everything I know. I believe this is what we all need to do to participate in the way the world is being shaped. As the news media are now owned by large corporations who themselves have an interest in what we think about what's happening, and everyone under the sun is trying to get their two cents in to influence the spin (with the Republican Party doing by far the most effective job), individuals who want to retain their independence of mind have to be able to step back and think for themselves. I hope you read and find my perspective interesting. I even rather hope you agree with me. But please, think hard, and put everything you know into your opinions. Maybe then we can make the world safe from propaganda artists of all stripes, Bill O'Reilly.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Afghanistan Abuses
From the BBC:
Mr Karzai told journalists afterwards that "we are sad" about the abuse of Afghans by US troops, but that it did not reflect on the American people - "these things happen everywhere," he said.
Full story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4572657.stm
With this line, Karzai manages to simultaneously excuse America as a whole, pacifying his host, George Bush, while actually dissing America. Well, actually while telling the truth, a truth bound to bum out most Americans who care about it a little more deeply than Bush. "These things happen everywhere". "No!", my brain cries, "these things don't happen in America! They don't happen when Americans are in charge!"
But obviously, they do happen. I also yelled "No! - audibly that time - when I first heard about
the pictures from Abu Ghraib. I did the same thing driving my car back in '90, when I was delivering pizzas and I heard on the radio that Congress had voted to go to war with Iraq. I calmed down a bit when Clinton was President, but I remained uneasy when he bombed Kosovo, substituting one horror for another. At least he apparently brought the situation under control. There were not even rumors at that time, as far as I know, of Americans torturing prisoners. I'm sure there were other things I didn't see, awful deaths from bombs, because that is what bombs bring, no matter how carefully targeted. But nothing about willful torture by Americans -- or at least I retain a shred of hope that things really were better under Clinton, and that there are other leaders waiting in the wings who can help us to lift the curtain of darkness further, perhaps further than it has ever been lifted before. Hmm, now I'm quoting old disco songs.
Of course, under Johnson, Nixon, and Bush I, and probably under all the other recent Presidents whom I've left out because they were to some degree less obvious and perhaps less transfixed by power, there were always programs for meddling in international affairs, overthrowing governments, assassinating democratically elected leaders, training troops to brutally suppress insurgencies without regard for civilians. And there was napalm and God knows what else in Vietnam. Japan was also firebombed with napalm in World War II, as was Dresden -- mass torture and death from the air. It was argued that German and Japanese aggression could not be ended in any other way. I will give those who argued this credit for their sincerity. Whether it is true, I cannot say without seriously digressing, since I follow Gandhi in believing that 99.99% of violence is wrong and unnecessary even to counter other violence (although I admit that WWII makes the most interesting case to the contrary, which is another piece).
War. "The horror. The horror," wrote Conrad. America has long been involved in more than its share of this horror, though we were raised to believe we were the good guys most of the time. I can take some comfort from the fact that the Civil War emancipated the slaves.
But face to face torture. In a room, a lone victim with a lone interrogator, or surrounded by a bevy of thugs. Torture, inflicted intentionally, to wring out information, to create fear, occasionally just out of cruelty and a sick sense power. Perhaps other prisoners being brought in to witness the fate to which they could next fall. These are the things that we Americans were raised to believe we despised, because we lived in a land of freedom that was free from torture and did not torture people in other lands, either. Torture was what we read about in newspapers and magazines, and it happened in Nazi concentration camps, Chinese prisons, and Russian gulags. It was unthinkable to Americans. We did not do these things.
"These things happen everywhere." Like innocent people everywhere in the world, we can be horrified when we find out that they do happen, but not blame ourselves for what our government (or, if you insist on keeping one eye shut, a few rogue privates) perpetrates. Here in America, we feel still fairly safe discussing these things, that talking will not lead to our own torture, as we once knew it would for the dissident in the USSR or China. Of course, I feel a little safer speaking out being white and middle class. Being a member of the political party in power might help, too, but I can't claim this affiliation. I'd feel even a little better if I hadn't recently been "selected" for special frisking on BOTH my flight to Washington, DC and back for no reason that is apparent to me other than my interest in politics, which, as I noted earlier, leans heavily toward pacifism. Can this selection be random if they get you coming and going? Was some Homeland Security administrator thinking that I might hold a peace march on the plane, which, being fairly small, might be diverted off its course by the people all stomping their feet and bunching up towards the front? Or does this person like to send subtle hints that we should not be too secure about being outspoken in America?
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, and we should all go back to worrying about muddling through the world ourselves. We should all go shopping.
But no, wait just a cottonpickin' minute. No, no, no, N-O-O-O! Let's get back to the point. We're not supposed to torture anybody, of any ethnicity, on any soil. We're not supposed to train people in other lands to torture. We're not supposed to send our prisoners to these other lands to have our dirty work done for us. We're not supposed to use technicalities in the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Constitution to say that torture, mistreatment, and denial of basic rights are "OK" this time. This is America. We're not the ones that need documents to tell us that torture and mistreatment, even of guilty prisoners, are wrong, and that, by the way, every prisoner is innocent until proven guilty and therefore must get every benefit of the doubt, of openminded inquiry, of representation, of the right to confront one's accusers until proven guilty. Not because we are forced by some document, but because they're human beings and that's what we care about.
What has happened to our standards such that torture has even become subject to debate? How long must even middle aged and older adults continue to lose what innocence they still retained after losing the previous layer of the innocence of childhood, and find out that the world is an even scarier place, and that even America has no special claim to morality, that whatever claim was there before seems to be in rapid decline?
"These things happen everywhere." I have been excused as an American, yet I feel insulted. But the insult comes from the truth in the statement. "These things happen everywhere." Even here. I thought we were special. I keep holding on to childish innocence: "No! We're still special!" My God, give us a reason to keep holding on to the belief that somehow we are still special.
Mr Karzai told journalists afterwards that "we are sad" about the abuse of Afghans by US troops, but that it did not reflect on the American people - "these things happen everywhere," he said.
Full story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4572657.stm
With this line, Karzai manages to simultaneously excuse America as a whole, pacifying his host, George Bush, while actually dissing America. Well, actually while telling the truth, a truth bound to bum out most Americans who care about it a little more deeply than Bush. "These things happen everywhere". "No!", my brain cries, "these things don't happen in America! They don't happen when Americans are in charge!"
But obviously, they do happen. I also yelled "No! - audibly that time - when I first heard about
the pictures from Abu Ghraib. I did the same thing driving my car back in '90, when I was delivering pizzas and I heard on the radio that Congress had voted to go to war with Iraq. I calmed down a bit when Clinton was President, but I remained uneasy when he bombed Kosovo, substituting one horror for another. At least he apparently brought the situation under control. There were not even rumors at that time, as far as I know, of Americans torturing prisoners. I'm sure there were other things I didn't see, awful deaths from bombs, because that is what bombs bring, no matter how carefully targeted. But nothing about willful torture by Americans -- or at least I retain a shred of hope that things really were better under Clinton, and that there are other leaders waiting in the wings who can help us to lift the curtain of darkness further, perhaps further than it has ever been lifted before. Hmm, now I'm quoting old disco songs.
Of course, under Johnson, Nixon, and Bush I, and probably under all the other recent Presidents whom I've left out because they were to some degree less obvious and perhaps less transfixed by power, there were always programs for meddling in international affairs, overthrowing governments, assassinating democratically elected leaders, training troops to brutally suppress insurgencies without regard for civilians. And there was napalm and God knows what else in Vietnam. Japan was also firebombed with napalm in World War II, as was Dresden -- mass torture and death from the air. It was argued that German and Japanese aggression could not be ended in any other way. I will give those who argued this credit for their sincerity. Whether it is true, I cannot say without seriously digressing, since I follow Gandhi in believing that 99.99% of violence is wrong and unnecessary even to counter other violence (although I admit that WWII makes the most interesting case to the contrary, which is another piece).
War. "The horror. The horror," wrote Conrad. America has long been involved in more than its share of this horror, though we were raised to believe we were the good guys most of the time. I can take some comfort from the fact that the Civil War emancipated the slaves.
But face to face torture. In a room, a lone victim with a lone interrogator, or surrounded by a bevy of thugs. Torture, inflicted intentionally, to wring out information, to create fear, occasionally just out of cruelty and a sick sense power. Perhaps other prisoners being brought in to witness the fate to which they could next fall. These are the things that we Americans were raised to believe we despised, because we lived in a land of freedom that was free from torture and did not torture people in other lands, either. Torture was what we read about in newspapers and magazines, and it happened in Nazi concentration camps, Chinese prisons, and Russian gulags. It was unthinkable to Americans. We did not do these things.
"These things happen everywhere." Like innocent people everywhere in the world, we can be horrified when we find out that they do happen, but not blame ourselves for what our government (or, if you insist on keeping one eye shut, a few rogue privates) perpetrates. Here in America, we feel still fairly safe discussing these things, that talking will not lead to our own torture, as we once knew it would for the dissident in the USSR or China. Of course, I feel a little safer speaking out being white and middle class. Being a member of the political party in power might help, too, but I can't claim this affiliation. I'd feel even a little better if I hadn't recently been "selected" for special frisking on BOTH my flight to Washington, DC and back for no reason that is apparent to me other than my interest in politics, which, as I noted earlier, leans heavily toward pacifism. Can this selection be random if they get you coming and going? Was some Homeland Security administrator thinking that I might hold a peace march on the plane, which, being fairly small, might be diverted off its course by the people all stomping their feet and bunching up towards the front? Or does this person like to send subtle hints that we should not be too secure about being outspoken in America?
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, and we should all go back to worrying about muddling through the world ourselves. We should all go shopping.
But no, wait just a cottonpickin' minute. No, no, no, N-O-O-O! Let's get back to the point. We're not supposed to torture anybody, of any ethnicity, on any soil. We're not supposed to train people in other lands to torture. We're not supposed to send our prisoners to these other lands to have our dirty work done for us. We're not supposed to use technicalities in the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Constitution to say that torture, mistreatment, and denial of basic rights are "OK" this time. This is America. We're not the ones that need documents to tell us that torture and mistreatment, even of guilty prisoners, are wrong, and that, by the way, every prisoner is innocent until proven guilty and therefore must get every benefit of the doubt, of openminded inquiry, of representation, of the right to confront one's accusers until proven guilty. Not because we are forced by some document, but because they're human beings and that's what we care about.
What has happened to our standards such that torture has even become subject to debate? How long must even middle aged and older adults continue to lose what innocence they still retained after losing the previous layer of the innocence of childhood, and find out that the world is an even scarier place, and that even America has no special claim to morality, that whatever claim was there before seems to be in rapid decline?
"These things happen everywhere." I have been excused as an American, yet I feel insulted. But the insult comes from the truth in the statement. "These things happen everywhere." Even here. I thought we were special. I keep holding on to childish innocence: "No! We're still special!" My God, give us a reason to keep holding on to the belief that somehow we are still special.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Procedural Questions and the Death Penalty
Today I read with interest the New York Times report on the death penalty appeal of one Jose Medellin, on the basis that there was a violation of international law in that he was not allowed to consult with the Mexican consulate. For the moment, the Supreme Court has declined to review the case, on the basis that it is not ripe, as President Bush has ordered the states to revisit the issue, which could theoretically lead to a resolution in this case.
There is a lot going on in this case that I'd like to talk about further. But one particular paragraph stood out to me, because it reminded me of something that bothered me in law school. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer; never took the bar; may finally take it next February; nothing I say should be construed as legal advice!) The Times stated:
Last year, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas in ruling that federal relief for Medellin was barred because he did not file objections at trial. It cited a 1998 Supreme Court case that suggested treaties were subject to each country's procedural rules.
While the resources of the courts to review everything are limited, and lawyers are under some obligation to use those resources efficiently while representing their clients to the utmost of their abilities while following established procedures, it is beyond the pale that people should go to their death because of a lawyer's oversights and failures on procedural questions, such as failing to raise a timely objection. Where the objection means the difference between life and death, and is recognized as even potentially legitimate, it should be allowed in at any time. It seems to me that there is a convenient legal rationalization that gets the legal system out of a little extra work, or perhaps, to be honest, a lot of extra work. To paraphrase this mostly unspoken, but frequently implied, fiction, "the lawyer and the client are one and the same, and therefore the client must pay for the mistakes of the lawyer". In practice, this is actually pretty realistic, because that's the way the ball ends up bouncing, and again, there are limits to how much the courts can do. But a lawyer is only a human being, while a defendant in a capital case, who may in fact be innocent and in any case has certain rights which are important to our system of justice, has only so much resources and ability to hire a decent lawyer. In fact, the lawyer will be appointed if the defendant is indigent, and this attorney will almost definitely not be a former member of OJ's "Dream Team". When lives hang in the balance, if indeed we live in what President Bush has termed, though perhaps cynically, a "culture of life", then I believe that a defendant's fundamental rights under the law must be given more weight than procedural questions such as whether those rights were exercised in a "timely" manner by an attorney who was nevertheless trying to do his or her utmost.
The rules of procedure should not otherwise be loosened; efficiency is still important to clogged up courtrooms. If a lawyer intentionally abuses whatever laxity might be introduced by my suggestion, for example by strategically saving up objections to raise belated appeals, there should be a sanction against the lawyer for abusing the system, but not against the client's life.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Death-Penalty.html?hp&ex=1116907200&en=f39e0f684a49f45c&ei=5094&partner=homepage
There is a lot going on in this case that I'd like to talk about further. But one particular paragraph stood out to me, because it reminded me of something that bothered me in law school. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer; never took the bar; may finally take it next February; nothing I say should be construed as legal advice!) The Times stated:
Last year, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas in ruling that federal relief for Medellin was barred because he did not file objections at trial. It cited a 1998 Supreme Court case that suggested treaties were subject to each country's procedural rules.
While the resources of the courts to review everything are limited, and lawyers are under some obligation to use those resources efficiently while representing their clients to the utmost of their abilities while following established procedures, it is beyond the pale that people should go to their death because of a lawyer's oversights and failures on procedural questions, such as failing to raise a timely objection. Where the objection means the difference between life and death, and is recognized as even potentially legitimate, it should be allowed in at any time. It seems to me that there is a convenient legal rationalization that gets the legal system out of a little extra work, or perhaps, to be honest, a lot of extra work. To paraphrase this mostly unspoken, but frequently implied, fiction, "the lawyer and the client are one and the same, and therefore the client must pay for the mistakes of the lawyer". In practice, this is actually pretty realistic, because that's the way the ball ends up bouncing, and again, there are limits to how much the courts can do. But a lawyer is only a human being, while a defendant in a capital case, who may in fact be innocent and in any case has certain rights which are important to our system of justice, has only so much resources and ability to hire a decent lawyer. In fact, the lawyer will be appointed if the defendant is indigent, and this attorney will almost definitely not be a former member of OJ's "Dream Team". When lives hang in the balance, if indeed we live in what President Bush has termed, though perhaps cynically, a "culture of life", then I believe that a defendant's fundamental rights under the law must be given more weight than procedural questions such as whether those rights were exercised in a "timely" manner by an attorney who was nevertheless trying to do his or her utmost.
The rules of procedure should not otherwise be loosened; efficiency is still important to clogged up courtrooms. If a lawyer intentionally abuses whatever laxity might be introduced by my suggestion, for example by strategically saving up objections to raise belated appeals, there should be a sanction against the lawyer for abusing the system, but not against the client's life.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Death-Penalty.html?hp&ex=1116907200&en=f39e0f684a49f45c&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Sunday, May 22, 2005
The Raving Moderate
Having talked about the nuclear option, it's time to start taking the blog seriously, and get on topic. After all, ravingmoderate is in the url (I'll also be pointing ravingmoderate.com and ravingmod.com this way shortly). Here's the long version of my blog description, and an indication of the way we're going:
You may think I'm left wing when you read my posts, but I'm just practical about what it takes for human beings to get along and thrive. I start with the premise that all people are created equal. That's a moderate point of view. If my moderation strikes you as liberal, that's OK. "Liberal" is not a bad word in my book. The word only started to take it's lumps after George Bush Sr. pronounced it with two extra "l"s: "l-l-l-i-b-e-r-a-l". What do I care what old S-s-s-k-u-l-l-l 'n' Bones members think? (He wasn't stuttering, by the way, and I'm not making fun of stuttering, it was a long, sustained "l-l-l" sound, to which I hiss back with a long, sustained , don't tread on me "s-s-s"). True liberals care about liberty; they share that with "libertarians". But they realize that big corporations and the superrich can step on liberty as easily as can the government, and those who don't fit into those categories cannot afford a team of lawyers to solve the problems created by Big Money. We also think that violence is wrong 99.99% of the time, and tax dollars ought to be used to give the whole of the people a better life, not to enrich the already rich. And once again, yup, I do consider myself a moderate.
You may think I'm left wing when you read my posts, but I'm just practical about what it takes for human beings to get along and thrive. I start with the premise that all people are created equal. That's a moderate point of view. If my moderation strikes you as liberal, that's OK. "Liberal" is not a bad word in my book. The word only started to take it's lumps after George Bush Sr. pronounced it with two extra "l"s: "l-l-l-i-b-e-r-a-l". What do I care what old S-s-s-k-u-l-l-l 'n' Bones members think? (He wasn't stuttering, by the way, and I'm not making fun of stuttering, it was a long, sustained "l-l-l" sound, to which I hiss back with a long, sustained , don't tread on me "s-s-s"). True liberals care about liberty; they share that with "libertarians". But they realize that big corporations and the superrich can step on liberty as easily as can the government, and those who don't fit into those categories cannot afford a team of lawyers to solve the problems created by Big Money. We also think that violence is wrong 99.99% of the time, and tax dollars ought to be used to give the whole of the people a better life, not to enrich the already rich. And once again, yup, I do consider myself a moderate.
The Nuclear Option
The filibuster is the minority's last chance to weigh in and balance the most extreme elements of the opposite wing. It is as valid for judicial nominations as for any other issue, probably more so, for it effects the lives of so many Americans on so many issues. All Bush has to do is nominate reasonable candidates, including for the Supreme Court, and they will not be filibustered. The move by the majority party to remove the filibuster when and where it is convenient to the majority party, already in charge of both houses of Congress and the Executive branch, in order to ensure that they can remove all roadblocks to every appointment in the Judicial branch, is rightly seen by the American people as an attempt to consolidate total and unopposed power, in other words a move towards totalitarianism. Americans don't like to use this particular word, but where are the checks and balances in the current scenario? The filibuster is the last remaining check against stacking the Courts, who are the last remaining check against a right-wing dominated government. Once this is achieved, if the Republicans, with the right wing in the lead role, still dominate the Legislative and Executive branches after the next election, the people will never again by able to believe the results of an election were not rigged, for no one will have been present to act as a check or balance to discourage such behavior.
Just in case this "fiendish plot" doesn't work out, or the judiciary manages to retain its reputation for being independent despite being stacked, there is already a rhetorical movement in the right wing to say that the courts regularly "overstep their bounds" and need to be reigned in by the other branches.
All of this needs to be seen clearly for what it is - a grab for absolute power, and an attempt at undermining the Constitutional system of checks and balances.
Just in case this "fiendish plot" doesn't work out, or the judiciary manages to retain its reputation for being independent despite being stacked, there is already a rhetorical movement in the right wing to say that the courts regularly "overstep their bounds" and need to be reigned in by the other branches.
All of this needs to be seen clearly for what it is - a grab for absolute power, and an attempt at undermining the Constitutional system of checks and balances.
Monday, May 16, 2005
To Blog or Not to Blog? That is the query.
I'd rather blog than write a book. When I write something, I want it to be publicly available right away. This may not always be prudent; perhaps it is nobler to write and re-write, getting all the words right. Certainly, many fans of writers find a certain nobility in this pain and perseverance, at least those fans who are interested in the process of creating writing as well as its contents. And perhaps I will, but in the meantime, I'm thinking in terms of the experiment of just putting my thoughts "out there" when I find the time to type them out. I want to be part of the active dialogue of humanity, part of a flow. Whether this blog will be in and of itself a dialogue depends on whether and how others choose to participate in it. Whether comments continue to be allowed on it depends on whether anybody actually responds, and whether I find it helpful to my project -- whose nature should become clearer over time both to myself and to anybody else who may be interested. If I cease to allow comments, I don't think it will hurt democracy, since everyone can start a blog on this site. On the other hand, I would love it if my blogs -- I intend now to start several -- became a center of give and take and active dialogue.
"Putting my thoughts 'out there'" only seems to happen once every several months, if this blog is a measure. I do also post my opinions on other bulletin boards from time to time, and also write songs. But in my head, I am constantly writing, usually about politics, whenever I am not engaged in some sort of activity that ties up my thought processes in some other way. So it is my hope to become more engaged in this blogging process.
It is also my hope to take the concept of freedom of speech very seriously, and perhaps to test its boundaries a bit, because we live in times that are dangerous to what the Declaration of Independence described as "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".
Although I'd rather blog than write a book, I do additionally hope that the blogging project leads to a book -- or at least some sort of coherent whole -- through one process or another. So far, I don't think I've written any part of a future bestseller. In fact, I think I sound like a windbag! But my blogs will be my journal and the place where my thoughts will be flung out, so if you want to read them you'll get the good with the bad. Then again, if I want to rewrite a ramble, and turn it into an essay or a chapter of the bestseller, I will... But perhaps I will be able to lift part or all of my book for my blog, or perhaps the blog will just be a warmup, a practice session open to the public.
"Putting my thoughts 'out there'" only seems to happen once every several months, if this blog is a measure. I do also post my opinions on other bulletin boards from time to time, and also write songs. But in my head, I am constantly writing, usually about politics, whenever I am not engaged in some sort of activity that ties up my thought processes in some other way. So it is my hope to become more engaged in this blogging process.
It is also my hope to take the concept of freedom of speech very seriously, and perhaps to test its boundaries a bit, because we live in times that are dangerous to what the Declaration of Independence described as "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".
Although I'd rather blog than write a book, I do additionally hope that the blogging project leads to a book -- or at least some sort of coherent whole -- through one process or another. So far, I don't think I've written any part of a future bestseller. In fact, I think I sound like a windbag! But my blogs will be my journal and the place where my thoughts will be flung out, so if you want to read them you'll get the good with the bad. Then again, if I want to rewrite a ramble, and turn it into an essay or a chapter of the bestseller, I will... But perhaps I will be able to lift part or all of my book for my blog, or perhaps the blog will just be a warmup, a practice session open to the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)