The Blogosphere

The blogosphere is an amazing concept. Some keepers of the blog create faux-journalistic fronts to expound opinions and ideas that would otherwise be kept in furtive minds. Others simply recognize the blog’s potential as an advertising avenue– The popular fiction novelist (Jennifer Weiner), the socially relevant academic (Barbara Ehrenreich), and the otherwise mea culpa journalist inculcate the internet sounding board for this reason.

Then there are blogs that are virtual diaries. The creators share their daily lives with friend and stranger alike, at their discretion. This is a byproduct of the reality TV phenomenon – Reality is boring unless it’s shared and commented upon - Viewed from the comfort of a television monitor, or in the blog’s case, a computer screen. These virtual diaries have faithful followers – very very faithful. There is a certain personality-type that gets glued to the electronic life portal of someone else's day – One that requires great “patience” and "time".

It’s interesting how some visitors find their way to a blog. Some are completely accidental. Blog writers can spot the accidentals. Fiji did not mean to come here, but here Fiji came. For many, the blog, virtual diary and all, is a way to stay connected with friends. Especially when they are far away. Thank you Paris, Berlin and Taipei.

Mainstream media uses the blog to create a sense of community. Online 'zines have blogs. Virtual celebrity rags have blogs. It's online democracy in a state of tempered anarchy. Sometimes it's perverted or overrun by the same old serial-blog readers. You know the kind. The ones with sophomoric monikers especially. A popular celebrity dish blog is hounded by San Francisco's finest who one-up each other with the same distasteful puns. It's their own strange virtual community - uncensored.

For whatever reason wherefore bloggers blog, there will always be a captive audience. For reasons both valid, normal, irrational, or eerie, for the blogosphere, this is only the beginning - and we’re already in the middle of it.

All Fired Up In Defense of Common Sense

The Valley Vantage, a very small local newspaper in the valley, recently printed a rather seething op-ed piece by guest columnist Burt Prelutsky against Al Gore, Arianna Huffington, and any other democrat that crossed his mind. Burt Prelutsky used to write a lot for TV, and his writing style is more hyperbole than fact. He isn’t a journalist, so I take his comments with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, there is often a backbone of conviction deeply rooted in most rants of the humorous variety (just think of Dennis Miller). He likens Al Gore to a raving Chicken Little with global warming as the falling sky. Global warming is not a political issue. But in his article, Prelutsky turned it into one. Global warming is a political issue with a soft, defenseless underbelly. The environment can’t defend itself. So, Prelutsky attacks the people who do. As a result, the cause of environmental conservation is muddied in all sorts of political clutter.

Here’s the letter I sent to the newspaper’s publisher.


Dear Kathleen,

Hello. I enjoyed reading your March 22nd issue of the Valley Vantage. I particularly took to Burt Prelutksy’s op-ed piece. It excited me, pissed me off a little, but most importantly, it ignited this letter. I hope that his political harangue, albeit humor-tinged, also ignited your other readers into thoughtful discussions, political ruminations, and most importantly, a call to action. Burt may not think that global warming merits immediate attention but his article may spark other Valley Vantage readers to a very different conclusion.

Global warming is not exclusive to democracies, California, or the United States. It’s not a political issue. It’s a human issue. It affects little girls on the bus in the Appalachians, Chinese motorcyclists in the chaos of a Shanghai intersection, and polar bears in the northern Arctic tundra. It affects us all. And we all have a responsibility to curb its disastrous effects on our planet.

He obviously had an axe to grind against certain people. And by people, I mean democrats. Popular, liberal-leaning democrats who are often attacked when their own convictions are mistaken for political ploys. He pushed a little too far, way too far in some instances, and made for a scathing attack.

Burt Prelutsky may have written his article solely as a piece of political sarcasm, but I find there is often a solid backbone of conviction deeply rooted behind such humor-tinged rants. His opening sentence, however unintentional, was a riot. “My friend Pat Sajak recently made an excellent point.” How could that not catapult into an even better punchline? “He said that inasmuch as he doesn’t take global warming to heart, he sees no good reason to alter his own lifestyle.” Burt started off with comedic potential but swayed into the widespread territory of the morally murky. A great opening for a celebrity-sponsored rant.

If everyone in the world adopted the Pat Sajak mentality, the world would be on a downward spiral. The poor would be poorer, and the rich more wasteful. Championed causes would lose champions. Public officials would be more choosy on who they represented. Good Samaritanism would be a silly obsolete notion. And that’s just the beginning. If everyone did no more than what they took to heart, the world would be a colder place. A wasteful place. A love-less place. It’s easy to close our eyes to issues that aren’t important to us. It’s comfortable. But it’s not responsible.

The Iroquois nation, the first peoples to adopt a participative democracy in North America, and ironically, the first to be put on reservations by the US government, have a saying - “Think not of yourself, but of the seventh generation coming”.

Prelutsky challenges scientists that deem global warming an eminent threat. He scoffs at politicians who cite scientific claims he finds dubious. As mindful residents of this planet, we shouldn’t require much convincing to know the environment is hurting. We know that exhaust fumes pollute the ozone, that excess consumption yields excess waste, and that the polar ice caps are melting. These are things that we learn in elementary school. We didn’t question them then. So what happened?

We grow up. Some people become so politically charged (or, perhaps, religiously blind-sighted) that their common sense becomes muddled with misguided passion. That’s OK. It happens. There is nothing wrong with passion. And Mr. Prelutsky’s op-ed piece was extremely passionate. But it had no direction. It had no practical purpose other than to release a tirade, make liberal democrats irate and make conservative republicans giddy. Above all, it had no reason. And passion without reason is a recipe for disaster.

But sometimes, if presented in a civil (even humorous) way like an op-ed piece in a community newspaper, it may ignite passionate and mindful people to speak up and put common sense in its place. For the environment’s sake, I hope it did just that.

Thank you for your time. Looking forward to more igniting articles.

From Hate to Hope

I met many interesting people during my professional association with the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance. Two of them, Matthew Boger and Tim Zaal, will now be introduced to all of you. Their unique relationship will be profiled on the Oprah Show this Thursday, April 5, 2007.

I first met Matthew, a gay man, when he was a museum volunteer. I remember him well because of his interesting upbringing. He was one of many children to a Catholic Brazilian mother and a father who was a member of the Bay area’s infamous Hell's Angels organization. Not long after my departure as museum manager, Matthew became a manager himself.

I probably met Tim Zaal during one of many conversations in our employee lunchroom. A large imposing man with a shaved head and a walking stick, Tim is a former Neo-Nazi skinhead who speaks to students and at-risk youth weekly about the dangers of following a path of hate. Now married to a Jewish woman, Tim was once a high-ranking recruiter for California’s Skinhead movement.

While Matthew and Tim were at the Museum, they discovered that they actually knew each other in a past life. In their youth, both men were members of two very different underground circles that hung out at the same Hollywood hot dog stand. Tim was a skinhead, and Matthew was a young gay runaway. That’s just the beginning. It turns out that Tim participated in a brutal attack one late night at Okie Dogs – a confrontation that left Matthew battered and passed out in a nearby alley.

The experience was a turning point for both young men. For Tim, it was an escalation into the violent Skinhead movement. For a Matthew, it was a harsh realization that his gay identity made him a continual target for hate – This just after his mother closed her door on his own son.

Over twenty years later, their relationship has taken an unusual turn. They speak about their path of growth and forgiveness at the Museum of Tolerance. Now they will share their unlikely friendship with Oprah on Thursday.

Check your local listings.

http://www.museumoftolerance.com/site/c.juLVJ8MRKtH/b.1415309/k.C753/Calendar/apps/cd/content.asp?event_id={8451D43E-1857-4FE2-AC04-48786C11D200}&content_id={524BE7E0-BEFE-4568-B917-8BDFF2F96E88}&seid=

Gay in Iran

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) produced a short documentary on gay rights (and lack thereof) in Iran that aired on March 7, 2007. Under the current regime, homosexuality is a capitol offense. Check it out at http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2007/03/030407_1.html

Living with Alzheimer's

There is a great article on Alzheimer's in today's New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/health/29alzheimers.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

It examines the rocky road in the relationship between a person with Alzheimer's and his/her spouse turned caregiver. The writer looks at how people afflicted search for coping techniques especially in the early stages - when they must stand witness to its devastating effects.

San Francisco Ahead in Environmental Policy

Kudos to environmentalists in the city of San Francisco. Mayor Gavin Newsom just signed a proposition to ban plastic bag use in supermarkets. See the following link for more information: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8888798

This is a good lesson for cities such as Los Angeles which do not have the ban. Please know that:

In this country, an estimated 12,000,000 barrels of oil are required to produce the 100 billion plastic bags used annually
and in every square mile of ocean it is estimated that there are over 46,000 pieces of plastic.

This is what I do when I go to the supermarket:

- Do not use plastic baggies for your fruits and veggies. Just take them au natural and wash them well when you get home.

- Take canvas bags, or reuse paper bags when you go grocery shopping.

Also,

- Re-use pastic sandwich baggies and ziplock bags at home.

And, this is a BIG one.

-When you go to Starbucks, or any other coffee shop, do not ask for a to-go cup. If you are planning on enjoying your beverage in the store, then ask for a ceramic mug. They all have them available per request only. If you plan on taking your coffee to go, then bring your own reusable canister or coffee tumbler.

When it comes to protecting the Earth, don't let the lure of convenience haze your moral compass.

Sarko? Segolène? U.S. Media Missing Out On Dynamic Presidential Election

It seems like we just rang in the New Year and already the battle for presidential contender is well underway. Obama? Clinton? Edwards? Giuliani? How much do we really care? As a registered voter and once-upon-a-time college activist, I used to wear my politics on my shirt. But now, I’m just not that interested anymore. Besides, there’s a much more interesting presidential election just around the corner in France. What you don’t know? I’m not surprised. However abundant coverage of the 2008 U.S. presidential election is locally, reporting on the French election has proved embarrassingly non-existent. If Katie Couric can’t be bothered to mention a G8 presidential election then she should just pack up, go back to NBC, and introduce party planning tips on the Today Show.

If I weren’t in Paris this past winter, I would have been in the dark myself. Let me fill you in. Chirac is on his way out. The two forerunners are Segolène Royale and Nicolas Sarkozy. Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French version of Pat Buchanan, is also in the race. Le Pen may be campaigning hard, but I think the French take him as seriously as we did Buchanan.

The favorite to win is Sarkozy, and I’m thrilled. He is a self-described Gaulist with a young energy and strong presence who wants to shake things up in the government. He reminds me of Tony Blair. Of course not everyone is as excited about him as I am. A French friend of mine in his sixties doesn’t see the appeal. “He doesn’t have the charisma of Chirac”, he tells me. I was puzzled. I didn’t realize Chirac had charisma. Truth be told, I never paid a good deal of attention to French politics until I was caught swimming in it. In Paris, it couldn’t be ignored. It was on the radio, in print, in conversation, and of course, on TV. TV - That’s what did it for me.

I caught Sarkozy on a French television special one night after dinner. The show was called “Un Question A Vous Poser” or literally “A Question to Ask You”. Despite my less than perfect French and jaded penchant for all things political, I was hooked. I was enthralled. Charisma? Sarkozy has it oozing out his suit and tie.

The format was Q & A with roughly 50 voters in amphitheatre-style seating while Sarkozy stood squarely on stage behind a podium. It was as if he faced a tiered firing squad. There was a host somewhere in the background. The show started at 8PM and lasted for nearly 3 hours. And this was primetime television.

The program was a great demonstration of how the French do democracy – with honesty, pride, and passion. There were questioners from the city as well as the country. Young and old. Married and single. Classy and classless. But that didn’t matter. They each had a question to ask their potential president.

Questions ranged from social security and retirement, to the extended workweek and racism against French-Arabs. Questioners, for the most part, had complete free reign over the microphone. Sure, they had chosen their topics beforehand and provided this information, along with their demographics, to the producers. The host called on questioners accordingly. But this was it as far as organization goes. Things did tend to get out of hand.

Case in point. France does not approve of gay adoption. Neither does Sarkozy. Three passion-filled gentlemen openly disagreed with him. One asked how he could champion equal rights for all French people, and blatantly deny those same rights for homosexuals. They put him on the spot. They interrupted him when he spoke. Consistently. It was great. The host didn’t interject, and there was no Sarkozy PR wizard ready to pull the plug. Lack of censorship on French TV isn’t just naked women on commercials. It is true democracy in action.

Such occasions also provide the ultimate opportunity for great political contenders to shine. And shine Sarkozy did. He asked to defend himself. He didn’t squirm at a touchy issue like gay adoption. He held on to his convictions. Pandering was nil. What an honest politician.

That episode wasn’t the only one where Sarkozy seemed to face a firing squad. But for nearly three hours, he really held his own. It didn’t only make for good democracy, it made for good television.


One of the most salient lessons I learned in college was to question authority. You may think this is the framework for anarchy, but it’s not. It’s the framework for democracy. It’s the framework for cooperative government. France has come a long way since the French Revolution. Now instead of using a guillotine to question their leaders, they use their words. Bravo! Now this makes for politics I can get interested in. I just hope U.S. media gets in gear before it’s all over.