DIY eBay, sort of 

Blogs of piece 

And if you're born under all these stars? 

Bonjour? 

Good Fortune 

We're all between this together 

PACking heat 

Is the canary looking sick? 

40F4 

Who am we? 

Meanwhile 

And with that I've said my peace 

It's not more complicated than that.  

Used authority is good authority 

Coolest melting stars off Earth 

The biggest model rockets on Earth 

discuss

discuss

But then. I'm a born optimist.

discuss

It's not the only thing we talk about, but we're speaking our minds. Peace doesn't change every day, in the way that the war scene changes. A warbloggers gets a new atrocity to talk about every few days, but our message doesn't vary: you don't buy peace at the cost of killing more of your sisters and brothers.

discuss

j.

discuss

In favor of "seeing the other side," it would help me if jeneane or someone else who feels that way would kindly explain the side that believes that bombing the WTC and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 was a Good Thing. I haven't heard a persuasive argument for that point of view, but I don't deny that there might be one in some parallel universe. Factually, even people who have a hard-on against Western Civilization admit that the attack created backlash and didn't help their cause.

In favor of "pro-war is pro-death" we have the fact that war is seen by its proponents as appropriate in some circumstances and inappropriate in others, where the ultimate goal is bringing peace and protecting life. Being pro-war because you think the just war brings peace and security is certainly no more contradictory than selling a magazine promoting free software; it's a means to an end. And don't talk to me about Gandhi, because he was very clear about the fact that his tactics only worked because the British were fundamentally moral and decent. You can't shame somebody who has no conscience.

Since I've been logging my thoughts on the Web since 1994, I've enjoyed seeing the work of newbie bloggers who've come online in the last 5 years; but let's not get too arrogant about our points of view or pedigrees, OK?

discuss

So, if you lived in Afghanistan right now you might be pretty happy that the attacks happened.

The guy who told me this, though, admitted that 9/11 was a very sad day for humanity, though. But, he did help me see that there's a perspective I might not consider given that I'm a white guy living in America.

discuss

discuss

My friend's take on it is that if those planes hadn't been flown in the WTC 20 million people would still be living under the Taliban.

I was just trying to use that as an example of different views of the same event. Here in the US we don't see any good coming out of 9/11. That view is not shared around the world.

discuss

discuss

I said, "I believe that war bloggers (along with bloggers in general) get a bum rap. But it's a plain fact that to advocate war is to advocate killing and death. Goes with the territory." I'm speaking literally, here Richard. We can rationalize the killing any way we want. It's still killing.

In favor of "seeing the other side," it would help me if jeneane or someone else who feels that way would kindly explain the side that believes that bombing the WTC and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 was a Good Thing. I haven't heard a persuasive argument for that point of view, but I don't deny that there might be one in some parallel universe. Factually, even people who have a hard-on against Western Civilization admit that the attack created backlash and didn't help their cause.

Advocating peace isn't a matter of taking sides. If anything, it 's a matter of taking sides against sides. One of the unintended consequences of the "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" statement President Bush made shortly after 9/11 was that many who heard it were not listening closely. He carefully referred to countries,not individuals. But some of us who urged care and restraint after 9/11 were subjected to some very creepy emails. I was privately (and, it seemed to me at the time, threateningly) told that my highly qualified pacifism gave solace to Palestinian terrorists, making me personally responsible for killing Israelis. I'm not that brave a guy, so I shut up. And I know I'm not the only one.

In favor of "pro-war is pro-death" we have the fact that war is seen by its proponents as appropriate in some circumstances and inappropriate in others, where the ultimate goal is bringing peace and protecting life. Being pro-war because you think the just war brings peace and security is certainly no more contradictory than selling a magazine promoting free software; it's a means to an end. And don't talk to me about Gandhi, because he was very clear about the fact that his tactics only worked because the British were fundamentally moral and decent. You can't shame somebody who has no conscience.

I didn't say anything was simple here. I'm full of ambivalence about the War on Terrorism, and about the conflicts in Middle east. I wonder how it's possible for the few of us who advocate peace to say anything and not also come off as pulpitizers preaching at too safe a distance from where people are being killed. So I avoid the subject. After writing on line for many years, and in print for decades more, I have a pretty good sense of when I'm having some kind of positive effect. On this subject my effect has been small at best. On others I've had much better luck. Better to spend my precious time on those.

Since I've been logging my thoughts on the Web since 1994, I've enjoyed seeing the work of newbie bloggers who've come online in the last 5 years...

You've got me beat by a year.

...but let's not get too arrogant about our points of view or pedigrees, OK?

I have no pedigrees. As for arrogance, I have no idea how I could be more humble in what I say, without saying nothing at all.

Is that what you want?

discuss

discuss

What I am interested in is people expressing their ideas clearly and plainly, dropping the hypocrisy that says you're either pro-war or pro-peace, and discussing the history of web logging with some degree of accuracy, if at all. You've made the allegation on several occasions now that you're reluctant to express your pacifist views because you get hostile (possibly threatening) e-mail when you do. You've also attempted to create a large myth that a majority of the weblogging public is pacifist, but reluctant to say so because they fear retribution for such a noble and heroic stance.

With all due respect, I know, as I suspect you do as well, that this is a load of crap. The only retribution that you or your pacifist buddies need to fear, genuinely, is ridicule. If you're going to say the things you say above - "[advocating peace is] a matter of taking sides against sides" and "it's a plain fact that to advocate war is to advocate killing and death," you open yourself up to criticism as either a hypocrite or a moron. People who advocate a military response in a particular situation do so in the interest of peace, not in the interest of permanent war; think World War II.

People who advocate pacifism are simply willing to sit back and tolerate killing and brutality in the interest of maintaining their self-concept as morally superior beings. War stops brutality in its tracks; pacifism tolerates it, and in many cases, stimulates or provokes it. Bin Laden himself said he felt comfortable attacking the US because he believed we were too weak to fight back. Weakness begets violence, and pacifism in the face of brutality is moral weakness.

Finally, I'd like for you and others who've been blogging for a while to drop the false claims that the Original Bloggers are all pacifist or lefty. I've been doing this longer than any of you, and I'm a card-carrying warblogger. I spent too much time with Gandhimen in India during the 70s and 80s to think there is any way out of the terrorist dilemma except through a strong, principled, and effective military response.

discuss

As for this mythmaking stuff, here's what I actually wrote:

James Wolcott in Biz2.0 seems to think blogs sort into the same handy left/right compartments that convenienced print journalism for the last X decades. I'm not so sure. At SXSW a few weeks back I asked the audience to tell me with a show of hands how many were left of center politically. Most hands went up. When I asked how many were putting their politics on the line in their blogs, most hands went down.

 I believe the truth is not anywhere between old extrmes, but within the personal dynamisms (thank you, Virginia Postrel) that impel us to write stuff in public.

Maybe I should have made it clear that SXSW is an artisan / webdesigner / film industry kind of show, which is bound to have a preponderance of left-of-center types. I'll own that as a simple oversight. But there was no mythmaking intended, much less achieved. For what it's worth, I don't believe, much less claim, that pacifists are in the majority anywhere. Least of all in blogs, "original" (whatever that is) or otherwise.

discuss