The answer to my "what will I choose" question from yesterday turned out to be (1) taking a nap; (2) writing out bills; and (3) a small amount of straightening up. Yes, I did some surfing - as always it is hard to make generalizations about such a huge population, especially without scientific design, but something has continually nagged at me since I discovered the world of blogging; that not only is it often another forum of ignorance, it is also extremely "cliquey," in a tunnel vision, incestuous kind of way. Add one more group to the tired jocks-greasers-freaks-geeks-whatevers. And, of course, only our erudite clique of knows all, sees all, reports all first bloggers, wink wink, has the truth on [fill in the blank: most commonly something to do with media, the US president, another politician, corporations, law enforcement, constitutional issues, international affairs, religion, the Internet]. Anyone who disagrees with us, is [pick one: clueless, pathetic, ignorant, deluded, evil].

My favorite posts tend to be personal; what some would call "banal." I make no apologies for disliking the fake journalism, the political, the rants on various subjects. To me, the profound is the stuff of daily living; the important questions have more to do with the way one lives life, the way one treats others, the beauty in the joy, the pain, the ordinary and extraordinary experiences, and what this moment in time, and space, means in the scheme of things. I don't want to be bombarded with a written version of cable news, that is even more one sided and narrow minded. I don't see much good in disliking an individual, or a group, over something as insignificant and petty as their party affiliation. It strikes me as immature and silly.

However, on occasion I stumble across something irritating enough that it forces me to not ignore it. At the moment, lots of folks are pretty worked up over a letter to the editor, critical of the US, written by someone self-described as a Canadian. I'm not bothering to link to it, because I don't feel like promoting such hostile stuff. The clique members are obsessed with various methods for tracking links and hits in search engines and that sort of thing, and that's a party I am not going to join. [email me if you must have the link.] My experience is that anything that is labeled an "Open Letter to..." is generally very self-important and only worth reading for comic purposes. The writer could use many hours on the couch, to deal with "issues." And maybe envy might be one?

Naturally, some of the responding commentary is very defensive; there is a big struggle to be a card carrying member of the group "I hate the US even more than you do, I'm not responsible for corporate and government actions, I am an American citizen, I try to be an activist, don't blame me for all the cited things about my culture that are true, but are not my fault and are not to my liking." A significant, and often pretty loud, segment in this land of cliques has little historical context, and so, at this millennium, the sky is falling! "A decade does not an era make," a history professor, wiser than the writer, once said in class.

A bunch of random, but connected, thoughts come to me as I follow the debate. I know it is in fashion, in comtemporary times, to bash the USA, from both within and without. But I usually don't care for what's in fashion. I'm not seeking to join the "I hate the US more, but I am personally offended by the letter writer" group; I don't support the letter, either, and at the same time, I am not a "rah rah" defender of a plastic-sitcom/reality television-fast food lifestyle. Some promoters (often also not Americans) of the letter are gentler, but claim that detractors (from both the "I hate the USA too" club and the "rah-rah" club) haven't articulated good rebuttals to the points in the letter. I say, why bother? Bluster is best met with a smile.

I'm proud to be American, a native New Yorker, and from a rural area. So there. I have just short of 41 years of experience in this role. My lack of shame isn't an insult to others, its a compliment to my family, my friends, my teachers, and my heritage. Roots are important to me, and mine are deep. Some of my ancestors came here from the Palatine in 1710, from Ireland in the mid-1800s, and from Italy in 1912; a few were already here. I am thrilled that this assorted collection made my life possible. I refuse to let someone else define me, or my experience of my home, my nation, my community, and my culture.

A few weeks ago, I could barely breathe for several days, from smoke that drifted over the Catskills, created by a fire that was burning in Canada. The tortured Premarin foals are in Canada. And, one cause of the pollution cloud in the news recently is the Eastern practice of burning dung as fuel for outdoor cooking pots. Yes, Virginia, we are interconnected, and the relationship is a complicated one. Should I write nasty attack letters to the editor? Well, I could, I suppose, but I believe that anything that decreases civility (road rage, lawsuits, bad attitudes) does nothing to advance leading a healthy life.

I always wonder, when I read this sort of thing, how the writer actually lives on a day-to-day basis, that is, when not spewing with a poison pen. I mean, it is pretty lame, I think, to get so self righteous about the big picture when your little picture is all screwed up. Does s/he consume? Use electricity? How about water? Are organics composted, or thrown in a landfill? Does s/he drive a gasoline powered car? Alone? What's for supper tonight? Is that an air conditioner? A heating system? What kind of person are you, as a neighbor, co-worker, family member? Here's a news flash. What the author labels with frustration as blind ignorance might really be self-actualization. There's wisdom in that placid demeanor, baby. Or are you too busy crafting fighting words to understand?

A closing note on this subject, regarding the common practice of using lengthy excerpts of other's works in ejournals. I see song lyrics, poetry, prose quoted everywhere. Not plagiarized, but also not paid for. Is there no "fair use" rule? Or is that another facet of the various fights about "control" in this wild, wild west of the Internet? Hmmm. Another example of the electronic world's troublesome nature for a writer; it is good, and it is bad. I mention this because the sentiments in "Open Letter" called to mind Fire and Ice by Robert Frost. Now, I know that's from 1920, but I still think you should go and consult the printed volume on your shelf. (Here's a Frost site if you can't do that.)

Something more interesting than any of the above is the American Library Association's Banned Books Week, which will be held September 21-28, 2002. Groups and individuals on the fringe, both left and right, and neither left nor right, mount challenges to books in schools and libraries. In my class this summer, I had a few individuals who supported parental involvement in curriculum to a fault. I don't believe in stifling unpopular views in class, because my status as instructor makes the relationship unequal, so I let the students debate this one. My intervention was only in providing a list of the 100 most frequently challenged books, so that all the extremists could see their favorite works are often the ones targeted, right along with whatever book they feel should be removed. Anyway, my message here is simply this: Reading is Good.