February 2009 Archives
I may be a relative Luddite or perhaps a little antisocial, as I don't even give out my cell phone number much or use the thing other than for very specific purposes! I've been blogging for a long time, but MySpace and Facebook may be about as far as I want to take it and some of that has been experimental! These can be definite black holes of time consumption. MySpace offers infinite ways to personalize the page and Facebook lets people be pirates, throw food and be kids in many respects. Both have potential for political activity, artistic and musical networking and much more. I get invitations to join other social networking sites and now I delete them. I am maxed out. Do we have any idea how much data these people are collecting about us? Doesn't Rupert Murdoch own MySpace? Doesn't he own FOX News? Should we be wondering?
Now it's en vogue to "tweet" on Twitter and I have not figured it out entirely and am questioning whether to. Daniel Schorr (who is in his 90s but still comments at NPR) had kind of laugh at the idea this morning on NPR. "Why do people do it?" has asked, and the interviewer didn't seem to really have an answer! 140 keystrokes - that's how long a message can be! I can see text messaging someone but the whole world? Our "followers"? Or "following" someone? Can someone please explain this to me? I can't stay on top of emails!
I enjoyed reading what Lee Woodruff at Daily Beast had to say about it all:
How far are we from the minutiae of someone’s stomach virus, a lost button on a favorite pair of corduroys or, to steal loosely from the late John Updike, the announcement of a perfectly coiled bowel movement in the bowl after the morning’s first cup of Joe?
I do enjoy the fact that Greg Palast follows one of our blogs, and that I am a Facebook "friend" of people like Ann Magnuson and Max Blumenthal, who I think are intensely cool! It blows me away that these sites have people on them from all over the world! I may be reaching the breaking point though!
More from Lee (Is there a way I can be her "friend?!")
I don’t need to know that someone just visited their office vending machine for Doritos or that they are about to take their Shit-zu for a walk. I don’t want to know that kind of info about my own husband.
Again, who are these people who are Twittering back? If they are employed, shouldn’t they be (particularly in this economy) putting their noses to the grindstone? Shouldn’t they be concerned for their jobs, laboring away at their desks, working the phones, hopping to, rather than twittering away about last night’s bad Chinese food? And what if they aren’t employed? What if they are kicking about at home, maybe a wife or hubby just hanging out while the kids are at school, or someone in transit on a train or bus. Don’t these people have better things to do then telegraph their where-abouts? Isn’t there laundry to throw in, some real news to catch up on online or a good book to read? Books. Remember them? They came off a printing press. What about a little do-gooding in the community, English as a second language to teach, a PTO board to assist. How about, God forbid, an honest good old-fashioned moment of repose and reflection?
I am not embarrassed to post this and be all "uncool" and not Twitter (or is it "Tweet" ON Twitter?) So far I just can't face the fact of having a sea of messages on my cell phone or having to do anything social in real time (other than in person) and I don't have a great attention span in the first place! I can't even send pictures, which makes it a little too "wordy" for me, a little too "left-brained"!
I’m not gonna go all retro on you here. I know I sound a bit like Archie Bunker. I’ll be the first to admit that instant communication has a premiere place in my universe. My BlackBerry enables me to stay slightly on top of the pile while out of the office. And I’m not saying I’m never, ever going to join Twitter—I learned long ago never to say never. But people—let’s use a little moderation here. Get back to your desks. Go read an article in the New Yorker. You remember those, don’t you? Magazines?
Except magazines are going monthly (US News & World Report), upscale (Newsweek), small (Rolling Stone) and newspapers are going online or extinct (SF Chronicle, Seattle PI, Rocky Mountain News.) Is it because everybody is too busy "communicating?" Actually, I think it's because of a drop in advertising revenue and the fact that everyone is on-line, but don't the social networking sites also expose people to a whole new level of overt and subliminal "targeted" advertising? Wasn't it just last week or so that Facebook's new Terms of Service which allowed them to keep all content indefinitely were challenged by users and had to be altered? We need to examine the social and political implications of every new change in communication technology. On the one hand, we talk about Big Brother, the Patriot Act and privacy - on the other, we like to enjoy being social creatures with a sense of connection in our busy lives. Where is the balance?
In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Doesn't this sound eerily familiar to what is happening in America today?
Starhawk (ecofeminist and justice worker) had contracted to speak at Women of Wisdom at Unity Church in Seattle, before the election actually happened, so she was ready to be grateful we could meet in an era of HOPE and CHANGE rather than in one where we are figuring out how to go on at all (in case a McCain/Palin victory had happened.) She talked about the "magical aspects" of the election and the emergence of a very different "energy." She compared it to sitting in a room full of toxic chemicals and all of a sudden, someone opens a window. After all, we had a financial crash just before the election, as though global warming and wars were not enough - we needed to be hit in the pocketbook. The universe made it clear to us that we needed change!
Starhawk talked about stories. The conservatives like stories that confirm people's sense of entitlement - endless expansion, globalization, the continuing tide of wealth lifting all boats. No tide keeps rising forever! Letting corporations roam free can't work and fraud is revealed daily, from Madoff's Ponzi scheme to sending youth to prison for kickbacks. Conservatives continue to stand behind policies that haven't worked, such as those of the neocons/"Chicago school."
She talked about how women, earth, minorities, workers were all devalued as "dark matter" vs the more cerebral and light and male corporate spirit. Yet she reminded us that "dirty could be good - to "go deep," "get down." She advocated new metaphors in which "balance" and emphasis on cycles were emphasized rather than "dark forces" or the "dark side" or "light being." She also spoke of a shift from objects to relationships, starting with our relationship with our self and then our community (so permaculture, buying locally, knowing what's around you.)
"We are mother earth's transition team," she said. The personal is political. We need to be "harpies" against war, killing and use of military rather than diplomatic solutions.
The most powerful moment for me came when she talked about women my age who were introduced to feminism in the 1970s and there was kind of a "woman good men bad" mentality. She wondered whether this had to do with the fact that for women my age (and hers), our fathers were veterans of WW2. As such, they were traumatized but had no way to socially process much of this. They were expected to be heroes in a glorious and their feelings and experiences were denied and repressed. Grief, loss, and fear were cut off and they became somewhat forgetful of events and distanced emotionally. For years, I had felt like it was just my father, who had "shell shock" and electroshock treatments at the VA, lost the ability to teach and never spoke much about the war. To think that it was a whole generation, and to think in terms of fatherhood as juxtaposed with their war experiences but collectively, was revelation to me. Starhawk concluded that trauma can disconnect, and that a shift to a world based on relationships is what we need.
On the personal level, she talked about how in consciousness raising groups, we would get together and talk about something, like "rape" and to do so was unheard of at the time. It would be surprising to find out how common of an experience rape, molestation and other exploitation actually was, and also to her this talked about aloud. The talking proceeded in a circle, without interrupting the speaker, to allow the quietest voices to be heard. I remember this! Getting the issue out in the open was powerful.
Beyond personal relationships, Starhawk advocated for extending relationship to community - to push against downsizing, pressures for productivity, lack of time off - against corporate culture. She reminded us that our wage had been flat since the 1970s, so women went to work, then hours got longer, then people started working two and three jobs, and finally they started to borrow money. It used to be possible to buy a modest house for around the same price as renting. Now people want mini-mansions with lots of square footage.
If we downsize and support our community, we are doing the opposite of globalizing as we are not serving first an abstract profit for someone far off. If you believe in killing off any aspect of the self of the world that you don't like, from pesticides for plants to "wars" for terrorists, you also kill off the "beneficials." Less hate is bred when we feed what we want to grow rather than killing what we don't want. (This line of thinking can easily be extended to events in the middle east.) The planet has people, not "haters" - we need to know their reasons and to listen - this is diplomacy. We are not small tribes anymore who can shut out outsiders - we need to draw a larger circle. Starhawk also advocated for saying "no" as well as "yes" - where "no" is the opposing of the wrong and "yes" is using ritual to action.
Republicans follow a strict father model and believe in punishment.
(Ed note: Today's thread header was submitted by Woz.)
Yesterday I read an article that alarmed me because it seems to go against the pledge made to Americans by President Obama. Truth. In these few early days with Obama, we are getting more Truth than we've had from any president in my lifetime. Truth. Without it, what do we have? Suspicion? Excuses? Forgiveness?
Just over a week ago, on a train going to Barcelona, I met a young man whose family had emigrated to New Zealand from Iraq after the first gulf war when he was just 8 years old. He remembered the first war. He was there. He was unashamed in his anger towards the Americans and told many stories of his relatives' lives having been turned upside down and looted by Americans in uniform right now. Still today. He told me of things last week, last month, last year. We've all read the horror stories. This young man witnessed some of them many years ago. Truth. His country/men/women want the world to know the Truth.
So, I cringed when I read this article.

Recent Comments