Tuesday Too # 17

1.) What's your favorite browser? Why do you hate "the other one"?

Well - I use AOL, and have for years. It costs a fortune to keep it and a cable ISP, but I need a dial-in for the weekend house, plus I don't feel like changing my email address. I also have copies of both Internet Explorer and Netscape, and sometimes I use one or the other. I always preferred Netscape, not for any technical reason but on principle: because I detest all things Microsoft. But what can you do? For teaching, I have Lotus Notes.


2.) Are you fascinated by technology and the internet, or is it just a handy tool for you? How did you get involved in blogging?

I guess I'd have to say "both." It is fascinating, and it is a handy tool. I had no clue about blogging until I read an article in a newspaper, the Times Union, several months ago. It wasn't about weblogs per se, it focused on websites that used PayPal donations as a way of generating support. I saved the article for reference. At that time, I had left my job to write a book (Education: Reflecting Our Society?, Gale Group, MI, 2002) and had zero time for other pursuits, but when I finished the manuscript, I planned to create a website. The Gale Group project was complete at the end of 2001, I spent January revising a nonfiction book proposal (A Visit with Mimmie: Catskill Mountain Recipes) that had been requested by Black Dome Press, and in February, I started to work on the webpage logistics. I returned to the article I had tucked away. I surfed around to the sites listed, and discovered Blogger. I was intrigued, and I thought, this is a clever idea for journaling.


3.) What do you think about the alliance of conservative U.S. Christian organizations with Islamic governments (Iran, Libya, Iraq) "to halt the expansion of sexual political protections and rights of gays, women and children at United Nations conferences" (Washington Post article by Colum Lynch, June 17, 2002)?

I'm not big on posting my political views on the web, because (1) political is personal to me (in other words, I care about [for example] being a custodian of our land and the environment, so I am a recycling and organic gardening fanatic - but I don't give a d-mn about going to a rally and shouting slogans); (2) I believe most issues to be too complex for simplistic black and white analysis; and (3) my political ideologies have never been remotely "mainstream." My philosophies are a mixed bag: moderate, radical, outrageous, bland. I believe in campaign finance reform, animal rights, and stiff penalties for disobeying traffic laws. I share some views with liberals, and others with conservatives, but I find there are too many members of both groups that are far too closed minded toward, intolerant of and desiring to stifle others' perspectives, and I don't care for the polarization of those labels.

For me, that isn't what this journal exercise is about. But, to respond to this question, I will violate my usual policy a bit. On this specific article, I am very upset by the policies of the countries listed, and I don't agree with many of the ideologies of the groups listed (although I believe they have every right to hold those views), so naturally this issue bears careful watching, but I have a major problem with equating "sexual political protections" with the single issue of "reproductive rights" (which is often simply a euphemism for abortion). Why shouldn't groups that hold certain views fight for them? Do they have less right to do so because they are on the left, or the right, or (gasp) unpopular to some in another camp? Finally, about the tone: I have done some writing on this subject before (it was the subject of my first published story, Scapegoating), I have always thought the media, and many people, are strongly, overtly, and proudly anti-Catholic, poignantly demonstrated by the absolute glee the recent controversies have generated.