Just throwin' it out there
Is blogging the pet rock of our generation?
 
A blog by an American expatriate living in the heart of New Europe |
 "It's a lateral transfer" -- George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States |
my feed
|
 |
|
A blog by an American expatriate living in the heart of New Europe |
"It's a lateral transfer" -- George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States |
|
|
1 Comments:
I hope you're right wafflestomper.
I enjoy blogging because I like checking in on folks whose blogs I like to read, and those with whom I've even built relationships blogging. I like conversing with them, exchanging ideas, etc. I also like --per your argument-- having my own soapbox.
I'm glad though, that bloggers like you and I seem to realize that blogging "provid[es] the most suitable outlet for us lesser mortals to opine", and not much more. Blogging has proven to be a helpful tool in keeping both the government and the media in check -- but just how powerful a tool is another matter. Over the past few weeks I've had to explain blogging to folks, some of whom had seen blogs and come to the conclusion that blogging is generally for hacks who want to express their opinions but aren't talented or articulate enough to get paid for it.
I can't say I disagree. (Some texans, charginghawks and stompers excluded)
Earlier in the week there was a USA Today/CNN poll which found that nearly three-quarters of the public -- 74 percent -- is "not too" or "not at all" familiar with blogs.
Funny that there are some out there who seem to feel that bloggers have grasped some sort of cosmic power simply by finding an efficient way to express their opinions.
I finally broke down and told some of these folks: "Look, blogging is a hobby, like stamp collecting. I don't understand stamp collecting, and YOU don't have to understand blogging."
And there will always be some who feel that way. Just take a surf through the blogosphere with the "Next Blog" button at the top right of the page, and you'll see why. All of the crap there is truly disheartening.
Which is probably what many would say about this blog. Fine. I like communicating with my tiny readership, arguing with them, discussing with them, and every once in a while telling them something about Poland that they didn't know.
CoW Counter: If you neo-cons weren't keeping such close track of the Cost of War Counter, I don't know what I'd do! RT said virtually the same thing earlier when it had another blip. There are other counters out there, and they're very easy to post here. Maybe I should keep them all up and we can compare? Since having only one counter up seems to give you conservatives the impression that it is proclaiming the final truth, I can post several up there so we'll have a range with which we can estimate.
The point (which I can't believe is lost on you) is that whether it's 154 billion or 158, it's far too expensive. Follow the link and see that we could have fully funded global anti-hunger measures for 6 years for the same sum -- bitterly depressing.
Post a Comment
< Main