Not now honey…I’m trying to blog.

Many distractions lately so apologies to you readers for lack of quality posting, non response in the comments section, blah blah blah. All of you who stop by from time to time to have a look or occasionally comment truly make my day, but unfortunately life never seems to take a day off.

This blogging thing is a trap you know. You start out reading other blogs, maybe leaving a comment or two, then on a lark one day you sign up with a hosting service and start sending your own thoughts out into the ether hoping, but never expecting anyone will ever read the crap.

It looks like I might get 10,000 page views this month. Not much when compared to others, but humbling none the less. Sitting down at my desk to read the thoughts of others and then hammering out my own observations on the keyboard has become as much a part of my daily routine as getting the boys off to school in the morning. It has become another responsibility in a life of responsibilities, but a joyful one. 

I would never have imagined a year ago that anyone could possibly be interested in the rants and ramblings of a guy raising a family and living his dream on the Westsound shore. If you are like me, most of the people who share your lives don’t have a clue as to what this Blogiverse thing is all about and why we spend time from our already busy days sitting at a computer and jabbering with those whom they regard as strangers.

Thanks to all of you who stop by to visit. I’ve never met any of you, but I consider you all friends and kindred spirits.

Advertisements

19 responses to “Not now honey…I’m trying to blog.

  1. Imaginary internet friends is what my in-laws call you all. 🙂 Congrats on your milestone. 🙂

  2. Hey Mark–

    Fountain has an occasional meet-the-readers night at a local watering hole. Is your readership sufficiently geographically concentrated that you could do the same? There’s this guilty pleasure here in Liberalland when we discover that rare soul whose political bent is similar to yours, and ours. How about a coming-not-very-far-out party?

    • I’m not sure of the location of any of my readers other than the few who comment and they are pretty spread out over the country. We are constantly having beach parties of one kind or another over here at my place in the summer so it might be fun to have a crazed right wing themed function! I could post fliers on Bainbridge and we might even make it into the local paper. “Extremist, Tea-Bagging, Racist, Constitutional Fundamentalists Making Their Presence Felt In Kitsap County!” It would drive my wife batty as she is your typical Seattle lib so I would be more than up for it! Hell, if I could get you, Gerard, Andy, Buckskins and maybe a couple others out here to smoke cigars and drink fine whiskey it would be a blast.

      I’ll work on it and keep you posted.

      Mark

  3. I’m in. Let me know where and when.

    Google Analytics should give you a good sense of where your readers are hitting your site from. Maybe more nearby people love you than you know– after all, most of us don’t admit it in public.

  4. I think it’s hilarious that, as you say: “Extremist, Racist, Constitutional Fundamentalists” call themselves “Teabaggers”. That is priceless.

    Nut-job right-wingers don’t usually strike me as the type that like to have hairy ball sacks plopped down on their face; but oh well, to each his own…. Us “Seattle libs” are pretty tolerant when it comes to alternative lifestyles though. And does your wife know about your Teabagging leanings? heh, heh.

    But I can tell you one thing: If I dismissed my wife’s opinions as a “typical Seattle lib” she would be coming at me with a meat cleaver, not a skillet.

    And, from what I understand, the only reason you live in your nice comfy house on the water and you are able to sit at your nice comfy desk and write your bloggy thing, is that she works like a farm animal to make it all possible. Just like a typical Liberal I guess…..

    I don’t think anyone could have come up with a better name for those Teabaggers if they were forced to.

    Regards,

    Joe

    Joe

  5. You seem to think you know quite a bit about me “Joe”. Why not ‘fess up and let me know who I am dealing with here. Your call I suppose. It’s much easier after all to throw childish insults from behind a wall of annonymity.

    Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, tolerant of pretty much anyone who grants me the same. Perhaps you don’t know me and those “teabagger’s” as well as you think you do. Maybe you should get out a little more and practice that tolerance you progressives seem to reserve for only those whose views align with your own.

  6. OK, you got me; I have been throwing childish insults from behind a wall of anonymity. My sir name is in fact not America (even though I usually write it with a lower case a (because I’m a flaming liberal, of course) Oh yeah, and my first name isn’t Joe either (too close to Mr McCarthy for my likes)

    All I can say for now is that you have met me before; but I can’t give my identity away just yet, as I need to retain my anonymity for the time being, to serve as an ad hoc fact checker and bull-shit caller.

    By the way, anonymity is spelled with just one N not two. See, you need me……

    However, I do take exception to you calling me intolerant of views that differ from my own. The only thing I can’t tolerate is hypocrisy and fear mongering. One thing that the Far Right seems to excel in – even though I admit, they don’t hold exclusive rights to it.

    I guess that’s why you called me a Progressive, instead of a poo flinging leftist monkey. Thanks for the compliment, I guess…

    I do apologise for calling you a Teabagger – in the gay-way at least. Totally uncalled for. Other than calling US Senators the “N” word or a faggot, on the steps of congress…. I’m sure they’re totally reasonable people.

    Regards,

    Joe (not my real name)

  7. I have my suspicions on your true identity but for now, your secret is safe with me. You can continue your anonymous fight for Truth, Justice, and the “Joe american” way.

    Fear mongering and hypocrisy…kind of like spreading rumors of Tea Partier’s shouting faggot and the “N” word when there is absolutely no proof in any of the multiple recordings taken of the “incident” of any such thing happening. If you do possess this proof, head on over to Andrew Breitbarts Big Government site. He is offering a 100K reward to anyone who can provide it. Although if my suspicions of your secret identity are correct, 100K would barely cover the cost of a set of wheels and tires for your ride, so I wouldn’t expect you to go out of your way.

    I hope you cash in! I expect a cut if you do, evil lay about wanna be capitalist that I am.

    Cheers!

    Mark (my real name)

  8. Westsound,

    It really doesn’t matter who we are; the debate is really much better in an abstract form. But, I guess all politics are local – and personal at times.

    Regards,

    Joe

  9. And, I’m sure you’re right: theSenators are probably just making it all up; another fine example of the falsely accused and much misunderstood middle class white male getting fingered for something they didn’t do. We sure don’t have it very easy in this country any more….

    Regards,

    Joe

  10. Abstract it is then.

    Politician’s lying to further an agenda? I can’t imagine. Why do you suppose they waded into an obviously hostile crowd rather than use the tunnel as is customary? Sounds like a baiting operation to me. When the expected racial epithets didn’t materialize, they simply made some up which were parroted by a sympathetic media. Create the perception of a mob of rednecks and they become rednecks. If you’ve read your Alinski you know just what is going on here Joe so don’t play dumb, it’s beneath you.

  11. Yeah, they were probably baited into it; then the same old left-sympathetic “liberal media” parroted the lies of angry rednecks acting like angry rednecks in a mob. I guess all Senators should just use the tunnel from now on. Yeah, Im sure it didn’t happen like that at all. – Prove it; if you can’t, then it didn’t happen.

    Then, every time I almost give up hope…. Just that you mention Saul Alinsky proves that you have at least read a true champion for the working person. I guess his worst fear has been realized in America and the middle class has in fact been driven to a right-leaning viewpoint “making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished varities of yesterday”

    If he is the poster boy for the Teabaggers (or are they Now called “tea partiers” – sounds kind of Alice in Wonderland-ish to me) if he is the poster boy for them, then maybe I don’t understand those tea-lovers after all.

    Joe

  12. So, I can summarize your “liberal” viewpoint thusly:

    When making an acusation, no proof is necessary. The acusation is all that is required to establish guilt.

    Dissent is patriotic unless I disagree with you. In this case the protesters are to be treated as an angry mob to be silenced by any means necessary.

    The modern Democratic Party seems determined to dismantle our current form of republican government and replace it with a true democracy. I’ll close here Joe with a quote attributed to an obscure Scotsman named Alexander Tytler nearly 200 years ago regarding his historic observation of democracies.

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
    Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”

    If we decend again as a people into an autoritarian form of government, said dictatorship will not be the result of conservative intellectual thought I assure you.

    I have a challenge for you Joe as your understanding of conservative thought seems to have been formed less by actual study than by whatever you have absorbed through our current popular culture. I will suggest three books that I think best explain the differences in individualist vs. collectivist philosophies and you do the same.

    “The Vision of the Annointed” by Thomas Sowell.

    “Liberal Facsism” by Jonah Goldberg.

    “Explaining Postmodernism”. “Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault” by Stephen R.C. Hicks.

    If you are truly commited to your ideals, it would be best to know the mind of your adversary wouldn’t you agree? Perhaps we’ll both learn something.

  13. Dang, where do you find the time?

    I’ll have to think about it over-night and respond from the office as we don’t have Internet at the house. If I respond on my iPhone I’ll get carpal tunnel – would that make you happy?

    I thought that’s why we live in a democracy; So we can elect people to represent us and depate the opposition in our stead… I can’t imagine doing this for a living. Exhausting. Tomorrow is another day I guess…..

    Regards,

    Joe

  14. The time? I lay about while my wife works like a farm animal, remember? Heh heh.

    I actually can’t blame the Dem’s for pushing through their agenda against popular opinion, they are in power and elections have consequences as they say. When Bush went ahead with the surge in Iraq as polling suggested a majority were against it, Republican’s lauded it as a principled stand for what was right so the R’s thrashing about now regarding going against the will of the people seems a bit disingenuous. Power does have it’s priveledges after all. We’ll see how it works out this November I suppose.

    By the way, there is no “p” in debate.

  15. Against bobular obinion? Rememper what that debressing Scottsman said: beoble vote in their own self interest, then convieniently forget they voted at all the minute a boller asks them if they are satisfied with how their elected official is doing his/her jop. They comblain even louder if the rebresentitive does anything of real meaning while in office. I guess that’s why they voted for a self-assured “decider” like GW Bush…. Does it really have pe either a democracy of uninformed short-sighted fools, or a one way road leading to Bol Bot? How debressing….

    Ow, this iBhone is giving me a bain in my carbal tunnel. heh

    Joe

  16. Your’re a funny guy Joe, I’ll give you that.
    To be continued.

    Best,

    Mark

  17. Mark,

    You wrote: If we decend again as a people into an autoritarian form of government, said dictatorship will not be the result of conservative intellectual thought I assure you.

    First off it’s spelled descend, not decend. And it’s authoritarian, not autoritarian. heh heh OK, no more of that; I’m a terrible speller, even with spell check I couldn’t spell my way out of a wet paper bag.

    If we descend again as a people into an autoritarian form of government, I can also assure you that it won’t be the result of a Libertarian – like I believe you are – but it will be at the hand of a true “Conservative” like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or the next Bush family member waiting in the wings; Barbara?, Jenna?….Maybe Jeb? no way, much too smart…

    You said Conservative “intelllectual” thought, not what most people consider “Conservatives” From everything I have read of yours, you are a true Libertarian, not a Conservative. And in my opinion, you really shouldn’t identify yourself with conservatives unless you want to be lumped in with the likes of Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, Mark Foley, Pat Robertson, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. That is what most Americans (at least on the left) hold out as true “conservatives”. Conservative = Hypocrite. Do yourself a favor and call yourself what you are; a Libertarian, not a conservative. Calling yourself a Conservative is beneath you.

    I took your advise and revisited the authors you held up as the truth squad for your point of view:

    First, Thomas Sowell: I actually like Sowell. The one thing that strikes me as funny about Sowell is that if you read Tavis Smiley’s last book (the covinent in action, I think it was) he says a lot of the same things that Thomas Sowell is a big proponent of; but because he is considered “left” and he has a funny sounding name (by definition, I guess) he is dismissed by the right as too Jesse Jackson-like and much too friendly with Barak “hussein” Obama. It all boils down to personal responsibility and duty to your fellow citizen. I do like how Sowell links modern authentic black culture to a “relic of a highly dysfunctional white southern redneck culture” Classic. But in the end, he is an Economist; and economists are almost always wrong – About everything.

    Jonah Goldberg: Seriously? Just like Newt Gingrich, he is a good talker, sounds kind of reasonable and semi-rational; but just when you start to be lulled by his friendly dude-ness, you realize he is just another name-calling talking head for the neo-conservatives. I think he’s a jerk, so it’s hard to listen to what he actually says. Let that be a lesson to you….

    Steven H.C. Hicks: I have tried to read Hicks, but like most philosophers he can make a good argument for anything if he puts his mind to it, but it seems like he really says nothing. Maybe he’s just too “philosophical” for me….. It just seems like he is arguing his point just to show everyone how learned and well-read he is. He’s a philosopher; he’s just talking – and not doing anything. I read this review of his book and I couldn’t agree more:

    Einstein once said: “Things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.” This book makes things too simplistic. There are two main problems. First, the author begins with a self-described “whirlwind tour of 220 years of philosophy”. Any summary of 200+ years of philosophy in 80 large-print pages will produce oversimplifications; oversimplification to the point of caricature. Nietzsche and Heidegger? Dismissed as simply “attacking reason.” The second problem is the author’s thesis. To be fair, his argument that “postmodernism is the far Left’s epistemological strategy for responding to the crisis caused by the failures of socialism in theory and in practice” has merit. But Hicks thinks that PM is also a strategy designed to rehabilitate Marxism. His evidence for this assertion is skimpy, and ignores the fact that Lyotard and Foucault — two key postmodernists — rejected Marxism as outdated. Also, Hicks’ presentation of PM as a united front flies in the face of the reality that many of its practitioners radically disagreed with one another. This book isn’t a bad read. But it’s a dishonest book. It purports to be a disinterested, objective, fair explanation of postmodernism. It’s really a polemic by a disciple of Ayn Rand against all philosophy that postdates the Enlightenment. Not that polemics are a bad thing: they certainly have their uses. But viewing this book as a fair, unbiased attempt to explain postmodernism is like considering a Michael Moore film to be a objective documentary. It’s really a slanted perspective, and you’re just not getting the whole story.

    Mark, Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Socialist. I’m a Capitalist through and through. But I do believe – in the strongest way – that we owe the less fortunate among us at least the same chance, and the same opportunities, that we enjoy as white, middle-class, reasonably educated people. I guess I’m just not that into the oppression of the minority by the majority. And, might does not make right; it just pushes the downtrodden into a corner where they feel they have no alternative but to bite you in the ass (or shoot you in the back) the minute you let down your guard – or let up on your military occupation of their “sovereign” Nation. “Capitalism” is definitely not what we’re spreading around the world; just the latest version of nepotism, graft, imperialism and resource grabbing. Encouraging “Democracy” isn’t even on the table any more – everyone knows that line is a total joke. If anything, we’re showing them everything that is wrong with our version of capitalism – and they will decide for themselves what economic path to take; most likely not to our national liking…..

    All this talking about economic theory and waxing philosophic about Individualism vs Collectivism is, in my opinion, just a thinly disguised excuse for unchecked greed – and an institutionalized sense of American entitlement – that my friend is the true cancer eating away at our country today.

    We won the cold war; Communism is dead – in fact, it never even existed. And medical access for all Americans is not “Socialism” and it never will be.

    Don’t be scared, it’s just Progress……

    Now come on, write something I can really disagree with.

    Regards,

    Joe

  18. Sheesh. That’s a lot to chew on this early in the morning. MUST…HAVE…COFFEE…

    Be back later.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s