Complaints about blogs

I do not read a lot of blogs, not even a lot of columns, but of what little I have read, the following things bother me.

Note that BA refers to Blog Author.

The obsessive need to be relevant and comment, often in an obvious way, on something which is inane and of little importance. And the commenters to such blogs follow suit. Instead of saying "big deal" they join the BA in a rant about how "fascinating" something is. We get it, Obama and McCain said something "awful." "Awful" these days is can mean just about anything. Hyperbole is not dead.

Blogs that look like fancy link dumps. If I want to go to TPM or TownHall, I will. I can find them, and find it tiring if a blog mainly exists to highlight posts from these sites, with a sentence or two about them from the BA.

Yes, other's work can be interesting, but if a blog mainly exists to post their work verbatim, why call it a blog? If the blog format is more convenient, I understand, but a disclaimer would be nice. The BA could just title his "blog" "Articles I Like."

BAs that encourage activity but give little respect to their readers. So I read your blog and you ignore me? Yes, because I am so interesting, and you are lucky if I don't uninvite you to read my blog, you little worm! Of course. But that goes to a bigger issue and a long held belief of mine: BAs should never give people false impressions about the amount of attention they're committed to giving them.

Thank goodness for women this wasn’t a scientific survey.

Thank goodness for women this wasn’t a scientific survey.

“Others tend to have a definable niche. Here’s a look at comics whose readership spikes for a particular demographic:

“Rhymes with Orange”: women.”

Now, ladies, so you all know, I believe in you way too much to think you can stand, let alone like, Rhymes with Orange.

The favorites list includes Rose is Rose and Family Circus, and that’s “funny” favorites, too.

My state has such poor taste.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-news_comicssurvey_0915sep15,0,1939835.story?page=1

Regarding the claim that George W. Bush ruined our relations with the world

While it's hard to argue, so it seems, that he didn't worsen it in some ways, albeit some relations might have been improved under his Presidency, Libya comes to mind, from my limited interactions before 9/11 with the peoples of the world, my impression is America's status within has not been highly ranked in a long time, if ever. The main thing I remember about these pre 9/11 discussions is the commonly stated belief that America, being as powerful as it was then, has no right to defend itself because it's the " most powerful;" sort of "might makes right" turned backwards: might makes wrong.

To me, the notion that the world thought highly of us on a personal level, belies my own experiences. Yes, that's anecdotal and therefore proof of nothing, but sometimes anecdotes are all we have to go on, and not easy to disbelieve. But there might be ample evidence to show we have long been thought highly of. Too bad it doesn't feel as if that's ever been the case.

Let me make this simple and to the point.

There is no reasonable basis; no pertinent, let alone incontrovertible, evidence to support the asinine assertion that Obama was calling Palin a pig, nor even referring to her as lipstick. Believing otherwise demonstrates a belief that the intestines of, well, a pig can divine the future.

Meandering post

I’ve been struggling for some time to think of something new to say; to not re edit old posts and present them as something new. I’ve decided that I need to take a break from what is, I admit, half-heartedness at being profound. Looking over old posts, I see the depth of learning disabilities, weaknesses of mine which still bother me. Truth is, I’ve never been very healthy. Long existing chronic problems and bad life choices have contributed to my capabilities being highly diminished. What’s perhaps dichomatic in my own view of myself is that I both crave and loathe respect I receive for my intelligence. I don’t know if that’s an inferiority or superiority complex, but I think both ultimately lead to the same conclusion: the person with it wants to believe he is better than he is, not withstanding comparison to others. Sometimes I think myself smarter than the better educated, other times I envy them, and the latter is much more the truth. Moments of arrogance happen when I have that rare moment when I know my knowledge, more often my reasoning and understanding, to be superior to that person, whom I unjustly find weaker, even if only on one thing, than myself. An aside, I’m not sure what I’ve put down here so far, so this might make less sense than usual. One thing that’s changed about myself is the need to be original, unique, however possible either is, but still relevant. Referring to my blog posts, I’ve almost always commented from a self-developed, but not concrete, system of reasoning. Truth is, I have virtually no idea what I am talking about, but I like to believe that people who read my arguments, if they forgive the dyslexic, verbose styles of them, will come away impressed. They will think that, despite his misuse of terms, his complicated, usually bad, grammar, he has an understanding of abstract logical concepts that is well above average. But, returning to originality, and the rest of the aforementioned terms, it bothers me also when others seem unconcerned and post what seems generic. Still, I respect that as well. I think it’s more a case of envy. I could never make a post of relevance to most people, if the subject is Obama’s foreign policy, Palin’s tenure as governor of Alaska. Some of that is because of personal limitations, and some of it has to do with what comes to me when I observe something and actually remember it, the rest is covered by whatever. People think about oil, I wonder about the ethics of Europe as concerns Obama. People argue statistically for or against guns. I think about the hypothetical of a given necessity to possess a firearm, and the principles of self defense. I want to be original, or at least comfortable with being prolific, even if what I post is incessant, in a sense, but I really can’t be either. I’m reactive, that’s what I am. I don’t start trends, I don’t pick fights, I don’t even get that political. I simply let something trigger me to respond, and I do when the synapses are firing well enough, then I either joke, talk aloud to myself, or go and do other things, until curiousity pulls me back in. Well, that’s it. Have fun, if possible, deciphering that bit of neurosis.