Robert Scoble, who blogs for Microsoft, has been blogging about his mother recently dying from a stroke, and how that’s changed him. In addition to being a superb post, he touches on the unfortunate amount of hostility sometimes found in blog comments.

I’m glad I went through this personal time after my mom’s stroke. It helped me refocus on what’s important and what my blog means to me. This blog is mine. It is what I’m thinking about, and what I’m seeing in my life. It isn’t a news article. I am not vetted. It isn’t done by a committee. I am not being held to any standards.

On the other hand, I don’t like the lynch mob. It’s going to take a strong blogger to stand up against hundreds of blogs who are urging action one way. But, we need that kind of diversity of ideas if we are going to make this a truly strong media.

The lynch mob. Maybe it’s because I’m an antiwar organizer and more used to such things, but they’re just part of the background. You don’t have to focus on them. And don’t take it personally either.

There’s something about posting comments on blogs and boards that brings out the worst in people. They’ll say things they’d never say in person to you. That fire-breathing dragon in the comments sometimes turns out to be an introverted nebbish in person.

You can, of course, delete comments. I deleted a multitude of them recently on an immigrant rights thead. There’s no need to respond to attacks either, unless, of course, you want to or have a witty putdown for them.

At antiwar protests, some will go up to counter-demonstrators and try to convince them to change their mind. Why bother? If they’re hardcore enough to be there, you won’t change them. Work the middle instead.

Best advice: “Talk to those who want to listen.”

No Comments »

Joe Hartley emails:

“You may want to take a look at the NY Review of Books this week. It has an interesting article by Michael Massing on the controversy that has arisen as a result of the Mearshimer-Walt article challenging the Israeli lobby. Look in particular who AIPAC contributes to, and you may understand why the Dems have been so quiet on the Middle East.”

Hmmm, many of us in the antiwar movement have understood that for quite a while and know all about AIPAC!

Excerpt from the article:

The centerpiece of US policy in the Middle East has been its unwavering support for Israel, and that this has not been in America’s best interest. In their view, the “extraordinary generosity” the US showers on Israel— the nearly $3 billion in direct foreign assistance it provides every year, the access it gives Israel to “top-drawer” weapons like F-16 jets, the thirty-two UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel that it has vetoed since 1982, the “wide latitude” it has given Israel in dealing with the occupied territories—all this “might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for sustained US backing.”

In fact, they write, “neither rationale is convincing.” Israel may have had strategic value for the US during the cold war when the Soviet Union had heavy influence in Egypt and Syria, but that has long since faded. Since September 11, Israel has been cast as a crucial ally in the war on terror, but actually, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, it has been more of a liability; its close ties to America have served as a rallying point for Osama bin Laden and other anti-American extremists. Morally, Israel qualifies as a democracy, the authors write, but it’s a deeply flawed one, discriminating against its Arab citizens and oppressing the Palestinians who have lived under its occupation.

Joe continues:

“Also, a few weeks ago Willam Pfaff wrote an insightful article about American foreign policy in the Middle East. While some insist on reducing everything to economics, Pfaff has some non-economic insights that actually explain more than the reductionist economic arguments.”

The announced American ambition is to make the Arab states democracies and install a liberal order in the region. Israelis, being realists, understand that this is a fantasy. Israel’s own interests depend on the exercise of power in ways unwelcome to the Arab peoples, and this depends on a permanent American willingness - and competence - to dominate the region on Israel’s behalf. And this, as politically perceptive Israelis may grasp, could prove a profoundly unrealistic assumption.

Superpowers can afford the illusion that empires “make” the reality that suits them. Small powers cannot afford such rashness. That seems to me Israel’s dilemma.

A desire by an empire for geopolitical dominance is driven primarily by economics. The empire needs ever more markets to sell to, more cheap labor and resources to exploit. Some err by thinking the Israel tail wags the U.S. dog whereas in reality, Israel would not exist without U.S. support.

The cause of the Palestinians continues to inject itself into U.S. politics, despite the efforts of AIPAC, who clearly are weakening. There can be no peace in the Middle East until Palestinians have a homeland - that would be the land stolen from them - that they govern and can call their own.

No Comments »

No Comments »

Statement by the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) on the current violence in Timor-Leste

We have watched the unfolding situation in Timor-Leste this past week with deep concern. We do not believe that events had to escalate to this point. Like others, we do not have complete information about the current situation and its causes. Below are our initial reflections:

The intervention by foreign military and police forces is a sad event for Timor-Leste, whose hard-won political independence has had to be laid aside ­ we hope for only a short time ­ because leaders and state institutions have been unable to manage certain violent elements of the population and security forces.

Now that foreign forces are being deployed — at the request of Timor-Leste’s government, with the stated support of rebel leaders, and the welcome by most of a terrified population — we hope that they serve their intended purpose in quelling the violence and allowing negotiations and a peaceful resolution, as well as the identification and arrest of those who have committed crimes.

Outside intervention is a temporary solution at best. Timor-Leste must find ways, with respectful support from the international community, to deal with problems in a manner that will not require troops.

Statements by Australian government leaders that providing security assistance entitles them to influence over Timor-Leste’s government are undemocratic, paternalistic, and unhelpful. Who governs Timor-Leste is a decision to be made by its people within its constitution.

More

Statement on the disputed oil in the Timor Sea

No Comments »

Global warming may lead to more, and nastier, poison ivy

No Comments »