I just read your article in AmCon. I'm not sure I agree with you concerning "elites", Bloomberg and partisanship. Bloomberg wasn't flirting with a presidential run because he perceived a lack of partisanship in the Republican candidates. I think he wants to be the Republican version of Howard Dean and become the chairman of Republican party. Dean became chairman of the DNC as a result of a rebellion by the grassroot dems who fought the Clinton/Shrum wing of the party and won. I think Bloomberg wants to drag the Republican party into the 21st century, the same way Dean did. He tried to stir up the Republican "elites" to accomplish the same revolution and got a big "huh?" for his effort.He may still become chairman, especially after McCain is roundly defeated in November. But the presidency? Even Bloomberg he knows he'd never survive the hyper-partisan of the presidential primaries.
That should be "hyper-partisanship"...duh.
I should be grateful that you both read the article and came here to comment on it, breaking the previously deafening silence, but still I must complain.When someone interprets a simple thesis as its opposite ("...because he percieved a lack of partisanship..."), confusing even the subject personality's loudly stated intentions (Bloomberg's campaign against "partisanship") it does make me wonder why I even put out this paltry effort. Then it returns to me.I have no life. We appreciate your reading and hope you will return sometime.
"..many of those arguing for the necessity of a vigorous chief executive reassured us that the office envisioned by the Constitution would not become the imperial presidency we have made of it." Forgive me if I've said this here before, but your Founding Fathers made one Separation of Powers too few. They didn't separate the office of CEO (elsewhere, Prime Minister) from Chairman (elsewhere Constitutional Monarch). If your electorate didn't treat a mere politician as an elected monarch, your presidency would have found it hard to be quite so imperial.
Enough Dale self pity. Consider an alternative. Perhaps people are not equipped to comment on your writings. Perhaps we cannot communicate at your level. That does not mean you aren't read. For me, your writing twists my head around, gets me out of my mental groove and gets me thinking in new directions. I would like to contribute to your comments. However, my facility with English is limited more to hyperbolic prose. I cannot express anything that would offer a nice counterpoint, clarification, or amplification of what you've written. I thought you might be interested in reading a long essay by a man with an IQ of 190 who describes his experiences growing up, relating to his parents and other folks with lower IQs. You might find it good fodder for your writing:http://www.worlddreambank.org/P/PRODODD.HTM
Enough Dale self pityYou're right. From now on I will eschew self-pity entirely. Of course that means the blog will have to be shut down, having lost its purpose. If it wasn't for self-pity I would have no pity at all.Seriously, I know I'm a horrible hypocrite, rarely commenting on the blogs I read (and among these are friends, many who've been very generous toward this effort) even when I see the dreaded zeros languishing out there for days. I refrain for the same reasons you give above.Still, ours is the proper attitude. A short, coherent list of relevant comments is far preferable to a long one (that no one will want to read through anyway) puffed up with glib off-the-cuffs, pointless observation and tangential minutiae (damn you, Wikipedia!).But nothing irks more than someone not getting it. Check out the oblivious inanity that reigns in the comments section of the Stuff White People Like blog, for instance. And still, we look at those triple-digit comment counts like they're super-models trailing behind a rock star. Cue Homer Simpson's covetous tone, "comments..."
I neglected to point out also that Bloomberg coveting the Republican Party Chairmanship is unlikely due to the fact that he has far better things to do, and absurd because he is no longer a Republican but an independent.The only thing Bloomberg wants to drag the Republican Party into is a fetid lake. On this, at least, we agree.
Congrats on your article. I figured it was only a matter of time until you broke out beyond the blogosphere.As for the issue of comments (numbers, etc.) sometimes one would rather savor and ruminate than comment. The blogs that generate the most comments sometimes consist of posts that amount to, "Hey guys, what do you make of THIS?"Then 67 people reiterate, in mostly unimaginative ways, two or perhaps three opinions about "THIS."IT's not really the best way to judge.
ThanksI publish something in the AmCon once a year. They've run versions of "Live Blogging the Apocalypse" and "In the Bunker with Barney...", which you can find on my sidebar under "History of Futility."I don't know if they're unique in this regard, but one thing I like about AmCon is they'll run things from people outside of the writing profession, like Gregory Cochran for instance. I will confess to taking inordinate pride in seeing my name in print. "Gonna buy five copies for my mother" is a lyric from an old song "On the Cover of the Rolling Stone", for our younger viewers."Wanna see my picture on the covergonna buy five copies for my mother"
Post a Comment