Halloween

Halloween is a complicated holiday.

In a future post I will write about my affection for MOST holidays, including Halloween.

I suppose most holidays have related controversies. Since I have no objection to the observance of Halloween, I cannot accurately state what makes Halloween controversial, but it seems to be related to the idea that Halloween, at least in its present-day form, deals with ghosts and witches and monsters, and possibly violence or at least mischief.

As I was growing up in the American Midwest, one of our pre-Halloween customs was to sneak around in the evenings preceding Halloween and throw handfuls of shelled field corn at our neighbors' windows. This custom has largely died out in this community, though I do not know why. Even while I was still participating in the custom in the 1960s, there was talk that the corn left on the ground might draw rodents and especially rats, but I never viewed that as a legitimate concern. In slightly earlier days, children made a device that my father called a "tic-tac", though I have just found on the web referred to as a "tic-tac-toe" (this link seems a little iffy, but there is a thorough reference to tic-tacs at http://books.google.com/books?id=TKBGvbp7TEYC&pg=PA147). The tic-tac made a similar sound to corn hitting the window, but more dramatic, and required the mischief-maker to actually stand beside the window, so more courage was necessary, and there was more danger of being caught by those inside the house -- which is perhaps why they were rarely used in my childhood. With both the corn and the tic-tac, the objective was to startle those inside the house, which would possibly cause them to give chase. No other damage was intended.

Another prominent pre-Halloween activity in my youth was "soaping windows". Like a tic-tac, this required the mischief-maker to step right up to the window, and smear a bar of soap on it, possibly writing something or making a design. I can honestly say that I never soaped a single window. Though there was no permanent damage, the practice seemed a bit malicious rather than fun.

A custom that persists to this day is the smashing of Halloween carved pumpkins, or "jack-o'-lanterns". This was not common in my youth. I find it highly objectionable, partly because the pumpkin-carver is often a younger child, and the pumpkin-smasher is often an older child who gets some thrill out of destroying an object of happiness belonging to a young stranger. Whether the pumpkin-carver was young or old, the act of carving the pumpkin had no particular "purpose" other than to bring pleasure, perhaps both to the carver and those who would see it later, and the act of smashing it is just senseless and mean, giving no benefit to the smasher other than the pleasure of depriving other people of happiness and the destruction of the product of some one's labor, not to mention their property. Pumpkin-smashing is abhorrent.

I know that there are people who object to the observance of Halloween on religious grounds. I see no particular basis for their objections, but perhaps this is just the product of my own lack of understanding of their objections.

One of the things that I enjoy about Halloween is that I feel that I am carrying on a centuries-old tradition -- a product of simpler, possibly more mysterious times -- and in some way showing respect for the past. I do NOT feel I am showing respect or disrespect for any particular religion or belief system. I also feel that I am sharing fun with my neighbors.

I have not even mentioned "Trick-or-treating". This custom has also evolved over time and since my youth, but it persists in various forms, and I am happy it persists, though I am mostly happy for the sake of the children.

As for me, I will carve my jack-o'-lantern, and put a few decorations in the windows, and wish everyone a Happy Halloween. Happy Halloween to YOU!

Blogger "User Profile"

The "blogger" service offers a way to generate a "User Profile" using the blogspot template. Perhaps if I was wiser and more experienced, I could figure out a way to bypass or at least modify their template, but for now, their template is what I have available.

When you click on "Edit Profile" it brings up eight sections: Privacy, Identity, Photograph, Audio Clip, General, Location, Work, and Extended Info.

Under "Privacy", there are checkboxes for "Share my profile", "Show my real name", "Show my email address", "Show my blogs", and "Show sites I follow". The entire "Share my profile" question would seem to depend partly on what information my profile contains. For now, I have decided to keep my identity at least somewhat private, for a variety of complicated reasons -- so I won't be showing my real name, however I will show an e-mail address, though e-mail inboxes can quickly fill with spam. My first blogs were pretty much "practice" blogs, so there doesn't seem to be any point in showing them. At the moment, I don't particularly "follow" any sites; if I DID, I'm not sure I would want to share that info.

Under "Identity" we have "Username" (required), "Email Address", "Display Name" (required), "First Name", and "Last Name". Most of this is covered in the "Privacy" section.

Under "Photograph" there is only "Photo URL", but then you are given a choice between a photo "From your computer" or "From the web". This is a tricky one, but I suppose that if I am interested in privacy, I should either leave this blank or post something vague, amusing, or thought-provoking.

For "Audio Clip" there is only "Audio Clip URL". This is even more puzzling, and I will probably leave it blank for the forseeable future.

General includes "Gender" (with boxes for male, female, and "not specified"), "Birthday" (with an option to leave the YEAR blank, and a checkbox for "Show astrological signs"), "Homepage URL", "Wishlist URL" (with an option to "Create a wishlist"), and "IM username" (with a pull-down list of different IM services). Privacy concerns one again come into play, and there is also the question of relevance. For now, I guess I will admit that I am male. I have a couple different web sites, but none that are specifically about ME, and posting those would also raise privacy concerns. I might decide to post my astrological sign, but posting your astrological sign leads not-necessarily-correct assumptions about how I feel about astrological signs.

Then there is "Location" with "City/Town", "Region/State", and a pull-down list for "Country". I live in a small city in the midwestern USA -- beyond that, questions of privacy and relevance kick in.

"Work" includes a pull-down list for "Industry" and a blank to fill in for "Occupation". Personally, I consider this to be among the most complicated issues -- the entire issue of to what extent our "occupation" is relevant to who we are. I suppose I will deal with this in blog postings, but it's too complicated for a pull-down list and a filled-in blank.

Finally there is "Extended Info". This area provides larger blank boxes, and instructions to separate things by commas for the categories of "Interests", "Favorite Movies", "Favorite Music", and "Favorite Books". Actually, between the "Interests" and "Favorite Movies" is the "About Me" section, with a note that you may write as little or as much as you'd like, up to 1200 characters. The section concludes with the mysterious "Random Question" -- at this point, I can only assume Blogger generates a question. The big problem with these boxes is that without a detailed, complicated discussion, its easy for someone glancing at the lists to come up with wrong assumptions. Once in college I identified the works of Shakespeare as among my favorites, and a suspicious instructor asked WHY I like Shakespeare. When I mentioned that I found Shakespeare to be funny, the instructor replied that "Yes, his comedies are funny," and I quickly clarified that I thought the Shakespeare's TRAGEDIES were funny, much to the instructor's consternation.

Still, I will try and include some info about this stuff: Amongst my interests, in no particular order, are history and travel and animals and music, to name a few. I rarely attend movies in theaters any more, and, as a general rule, prefer somewhat older movies to more recent. This applies especially to horror movies -- if I get a chance to watch a Boris Karloff movie, I will, and will definitely choose it over any more recent "slasher" flick. This brings up the fact that since I do not rent or attend movies, I am pretty much limited to what they show on television, and they tend to no longer show many of my favorites, including comedies like WC Fields or the Marx Brothers -- neither of which I have seen in decades. I like old war movies, especially the stereotypical ones from WWII where a squad of soldiers is on some particular mission, like blowing up an ammo dump. I have a special fondness for the early Clint Eastwood "spaghetti westerns", which are among the most recent movies on my "favorites" list. I like James Bond movies but I have not seen the most recent ones. It is perhaps relevant to admit that I have not seen many of the most popular movies of the last forty years -- I have never seen any of the Godfather movies, and though I saw the original Star Wars I have not seen the sequals, and I have never seen "Apocalypse Now" though I like "Heart of Darkness".

I guess that moves us into the "favorite books" area (I will return to "favorite music"). I do not read nearly as much as I would like. In recent years I suppose I have read more books on dog training than any other topic. In general, I prefer non-fiction. I possess an extensive library of books about polar exploration -- "Scott of the Antarctic" is one of my heroes -- and also like books about adventures like mountain climbing and exotic travel. As with movies, I tend to favor older over newer books. In my younger days, book sales where libraries unloaded their older books made me giddy, and I have a LOT of books.

"Favorite Music" is an especially complicated topic for me. Though my music tastes vary from moment to moment, I like to think I have a certain appreciation for MOST music, with the general category of "rap" being a notable exception. One of the problems with discussing music is that you need to possess a certain basic knowledge to even know what you DON'T like. For example, I am not sure that I have much appreciation for "heavy metal", but I am also not sure that I know enough about what constitutes "heavy metal" to say that I don't like it. I am not a big fan of opera, especially Italian Opera. With time, I have developed a certain begrudging acceptance for some of the less melodic 20th century classical music, though I still have my doubts about whether all of it should be called "music".

There is so much music that I LIKE that it is overwhelming to try and list it. I like pop, rock (though my tastes now tend toward "oldies" rock), country (though I have not listened much to the country music produced over the last decade or two), classical, jazz (favoring dixieland and 1920s Chicago style over more recent varieties), and folk (I enjoy things like Irish music and Peruvian folk bands, but don't have much expertise in these areas). I rarely attend Broadway-style shows, and do not consider myself much of a fan, but I attended an amazing "Phantom of the Opera" performance and now have at least a partial appreciation for the genre.

My listening tastes seem to be influenced by the music that I can actually perform myself. I play various instruments, and sing for myself (I rarely sing publicly), and I find that I tend to listen to music that I can in some way perform. In my earlier days I played in a rock band, and I still play in brass bands and orchestras and a variety of smaller groups. One interesting result is that I more often listen to male vocalists, such as James Taylor or Gordon Lightfoot, than female vocalists, such as Joni Mitchell or Anne Murray, since it works better for ME to try and duplicate their songs. Some of my favorite recording artists are slightly obscure folksy types like John Prine and Steve Goodman and David Bromberg.

This leaves the "About Me" section, with its 1200 character limit. Though I am sure you can come up with a lot of thought-provoking discussions by trying to briefly describe yourself, I am not sure it results in anything approaching truth or accuracy. Since one of my most basic beliefs is that words are inherently unclear, and leave room for misinterpretation, I tend to use a LOT of words in an attempt to be clear. I find it very difficult to be comfortable with limiting my "About Me" section to 1200 characters, but I suppose that is the ONE area of the template I will attempt to fill in.

Truth is complicated.

"You lie!"

Thirteen months ago, as the President of the United States was making a speech to a joint session of Congress, one of the Congressmen shouted out "You lie!" I am deliberately not mentioning the name of the President, or of the Congressman, or the subject or context. I believe all those things distract from what is truly interesting about this incident.

The moment was replayed over and over again on countless newscasts. Since it was a Presidential speech to a joint session of Congress, the camera was focused on the President, with the Speaker of the House (who happened to be from the same party as the President) seated behind the President, visible in the same camera shot. Perhaps the most commented-on aspect of the video replay was the look on the face of the Speaker of the House -- more dramatic than the look on the face of the President.

The incident generated a sort of frenzy in the media, with much discussion. It was reported that there was a significant increase in donations to both the involved Congressman and his opponent in the next election. Eventually there were official congressional proceedings against the Congressman, and he received some sort of official reprimand.

The entire issue was very emotional, though there is room for debate about how much was genuine emotion and how much was contrived. The Congressman who shouted out "You lie!" MAY have been overcome with emotion at that moment, or he may have been planning his outburst for weeks. All that followed MAY have been motivated by genuine outrage, or it may have been the product of cold political calculation.

For me, the biggest revelation of the entire incident was that Congress has specific rules against saying "You lie!" to the President, as well as against making various similar statements. This raises a number of obvious questions regarding the subject of what, if anything, a Congressman is allowed to say or do if a President lies. Perhaps the rules are meant to acknowledge that the President of the United States is somehow incapable of lying.

For me, the most interesting aspect of all that followed the incident was that there was little public discussion of the question of whether or not the President had been lying just prior to the moment when the Congressman shouted the words. Certainly it can be argued that since Congress has rules against a Congressman shouting "You lie!" at the President, and the Congressman shouted "You lie!" at the President, he broke the rules, and any discussion of whether or not the President was lying is irrelevant. Still, I would have thought that if there is any sort of objectivity or intellectual curiosity in our society, the question would have been debated in the media.

I must acknowledge that I DID hear the question raised ONCE on a news program. A person defending the President stated that at the moment in question, the President was speaking purely hypothetically, about something that existed only in his own mind, and therefore the Congressman could not absolutely state that he was lying, since the President was not speaking about anything real. This defense is interesting, but problematic on various levels given the specifics of what he was saying, and also the follow-up actions on the part of his supporters.

I would also have enjoyed hearing some debate about whether Congress should continue to have rules against saying "You lie!" to the President. The question MUST have come up, but I never heard it raised. Most of the debate that I heard was with regard to what actions should be taken following the statement -- how much apologizing should be done, and to whom, and how much punishment should be meted out. Perhaps these questions were necessary, but I could not help viewing them as simply deliberate distractions from the questions that should have been addressed.

Television scheduling

Television is a complicated topic. While it is easy to attack “television” and its effect on society, there are many positive aspects to television -- but that’s not what I intend to write about.

Good or bad, television is currently a part of our society. It would be wise to acknowledge the importance of television in our society, and also to examine aspects such as scheduling, the importance of which I believe is largely overlooked. (I acknowledge that “importance” is a complicated topic, and to a certain extent in the eye of the beholder.)

For one thing, I suspect the differences television scheduling in different time zones have some marked effects on peoples day-to-day lives. Growing up in the Midwest, “prime-time” television was from seven to ten in the evening, and at ten came the local news. On the east coast, prime time is from eight to eleven, with the local news at eleven. It is difficult for me to believe this does not have a significant effect, causing people in the different regions to live according to a different schedule. Even people who never watch a moment of television are affected by the fact that OTHER people watch television, and watch it according to the networks’ schedule.

This is the time of year when programming executives most often feel compelled to change their schedules. The most fanfare is given to brand-new programs, but it is also a time when older programs are canceled or shifted to different time slots, often on different days. All of this has an effect on daily life, especially when dealing with exceptionally popular programs. Again, even people who never watch a moment of television are affected when millions of people who have been watching a program on one night of the week abruptly shift to watching it on another night of the week.

While many scheduling changes are made at the national network level, local programming executives also make life-altering changes, though these changes are even harder to document and study. I believe that when a local channel that has been broadcasting something like “Seinfeld” or “MASH” every weeknight at a certain time suddenly switches to broadcasting “Friends” or “Everybody Loves Raymond”, this also has appreciable effects on the day-to-day lives of people in the broadcasting area -- though without studying this phenomenon, I cannot say what these effects might be.

I am not ashamed to admit that I enjoy television. Among other things, I enjoy using television as a sort of clock or calendar, to mark distinct points in the day or week. My elderly mother is losing many of her cognitive abilities, but she still knows that at four o’clock on weekdays she will watch “Jeopardy”, but NOT on weekends.

Although I watch less television now than sometimes in the past, I continue to watch television late at night as I end my day and prepare for sleep. Most of the channels I favor late at night show the same programs every weeknight, so I can strive to finish my daily activities in time to watch “Star Trek” or “Jay Leno” or whatever. I am disappointed, sometimes severely, if I sit down to watch one of these “usual” late-night shows and find that for some reason it is not being broadcast (in particular, one channel often changes their regular late-night schedule to show sporting activities). And, just as my mother is disappointed by the lack of “Jeopardy” on weekends, I am disappointed by the absence of my “usual” late-night shows on weekends.

To be honest, I suppose I would prefer that the channels that show the same programming FIVE days a week would show it SEVEN days a week, but I realize that in general, they are not going to DO that. However, I remain puzzled by the fact that these channels consider late night Friday, and the early AM hours of Saturday, to be “weeknight”, while late night Sunday (and the early AM hours of Monday) are considered “weekend”. For most Americans, Friday night is part of “the weekend”. To be fair, Sunday night may also be considered part of “the weekend”, but the later part of Sunday is spent preparing for a weekday, as is the later part of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, while the later part of Friday is spent preparing for ... more of the weekend. As far as I am concerned, it makes much more sense, and would be much better, to have the “weeknight” programming late Sunday night and early Monday morning, and show the “weekend” programs late Friday and into Saturday morning. Perhaps the most controversial thing I have to say regarding this topic is that I truly believe that if the television programming executives were to make this change, we would live in a better, happier, more productive world.

I admit that various technical developments, such as the increase in the number of television “channels” from three to hundreds, recording capabilities such as VCRs and DVRs, and the ability to watch things “on-demand”, make these scheduling issues decrease in importance -- though they raise an entirely NEW set of issues for society, to be addressed in a future posting.

Truth is complicated.

Trisomy 21

In an earlier post, I mentioned the problem of attempting to communicate using terminology that, while ostensibly clear, is so potentially offensive or inflammatory that it interferes with communication. This problem is difficult to even discuss, because of the need to reference terminology that is potentially offensive or inflammatory. Still, I view it as an important problem. I apologize in advance to those I may be about to offend, and I suggest you might want to just skip this posting.

This problem is perhaps most often encountered when dealing with matters of race, ethnicity, or anything else concerning broad groups of people. For me, the very best example comes from dealing with the subject of the human genetic abnormality most commonly caused by being born with three rather than two twenty-first chromosomes, technically referred to as “Trisomy 21”. (I have NO expertise on this condition. I am simply using it as an example of a subject that can raise difficulties with communication.)

When I was a child, I learned that people with a certain genetic abnormality were referred to as “mongoloid”. I was taught that people with this genetic abnormality faced varying degrees of mental and physical challenges, but were normal people who lived normal lives.*

Years later, I was told that the term “mongoloid” was offensive and demeaning, and should never be used, and should be basically replaced with the term “Down’s Syndrome”. When I asked WHAT was so offensive and demeaning about the term “mongoloid”, I was told that, among other things, the full term was “mongolian idiot” or “mongolian idiocy”. (Curiously, though I have heard the term “mongoloid” dozens or even hundreds of times used by a wide variety of people, the ONLY people I have ever heard use the term “mongolian idiot” are those advocating the use of the term “Down’s Syndrome” ... that is, the ONLY people who I have heard USE the term are the ones who say it is deeply offensive.)

For several years, this created a difficult situation. If I used the term “Down’s Syndrome”, most of the people I encountered had no idea what I was talking about, and I would have to say something to the effect of, “You know, mongoloid.” I struggled with this issue, as my choices seemed to be limited to either being misunderstood, or using an offensive, demeaning term. One of my coping strategies during this period was to use the scientific term for the genetic disorder, “Trisomy 21”, but that term was understood by even fewer people than the term “Down’s Syndrome”.

Over the years, this particular problem seemed to resolve itself as the term “Down’s Syndrome” became widely used and understood, though as I was writing this I did some online research and apparently there has been a movement to replace “Down’s Syndrome” with “Down Syndrome”.

I still struggle with the underlying philosophical problem of how to communicate clearly when some of the best-understood terms are considered offensive or inflammatory. I continue to believe that clear communication should be the priority -- but offensive terms, even if easily understood, can sometimes stand in the way of clear communication. There is more to clear communication than being correct, and sometimes there is even more than being clear.

Truth is complicated.

* As I was typing, I automatically placed the word "normal" in quotation marks, to acknowledge that the entire concept of "normal" is always a bit dubious and open to interpretation. Later, I realized my quotation marks might be viewed as expressing reservations about the "normalcy" of those with Down Syndrome, so I have removed them.

Correctness versus Communication

The discussion of the debate over whether to call certain guitar chords “barre” or “bar” has pushed me to contemplate the idea that sometimes “correctness” conflicts with “communication”.

These days, any mention of “correctness” with regard to “communication” brings up the idea of “politically correct” -- which is actually not my focus here, but I guess I need to briefly address it.

Though phrases like “politically incorrect” or “politically correct” or even the abbreviation “P.C.” get tossed around a lot, the precise definition of these terms is not widely agreed upon. I am generally a fan of Merriam-Webster, and their online dictionary defines “politically correct” as “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated”. A similar definition is posted in the “Free Online Dictionary” -- “Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.”

Various sources cite the fact that the phrase “politically correct” is general used in a disparaging manner -- it is commonly thought to be a BAD thing to be “politically correct”. Without going into a thorough discussion, I will agree that I consider “political correctness” to, in general, be a negative thing, if for no other reason than it inhibits free-flowing communication -- but I acknowledge that political correctness is a complicated topic.

My focus here, though, is actually other forms of correctness, and the extent to which they can interfere with communication. Here are two real-life examples:

My late father was a physician, and regularly attended medical conferences where guest experts would lecture on medical topics. There was a certain lecturer who my father particularly enjoyed, and encountered various times over the years. Sadly, I do not know this lecturer’s name. My father mentioned that eventually this lecturer became totally blind, but still delivered flawless commentaries to his slide shows, from memory. At one lecture, when referring to the large intestine, or “colon”, the lecturer repeatedly pronounced “colon” in an unusual manner, placing equal accent on both syllables, and saying “ahn” rather than “in” or “en” for the second syllable. At the end of the lecture, a member of the audience criticized the lecturer for “mispronouncing” the word “colon”. As my father related the story to me, the lecturer responded that he prepared his lectures very carefully, rehearsing and fine-tuning before a variety of listeners. He had discovered that when he pronounced “colon” CORRECTLY, his listeners often had trouble understanding what word he was saying. When he MISPRONOUNCED it, they understood he was saying the word “colon”, though they believed he was mispronouncing it. So, in the interest of clearer communication, he now consciously mispronounced the word “colon”.

When I tell people the story of this deliberate mispronunciation, they often seem to find it troubling. I find it difficult to argue with the goal of clear communication.

Example number two: I knew an intelligent, well-educated, highly skilled musician, who had strong feelings about the terms used to name her primary instrument, which many people would call the “French horn”. My friend insisted that the correct term was simply “horn”, citing, among other things, the idea that there has never been anything particularly “French” about the “French horn”. I should note that I never completely understood her objections to the term “French horn”; perhaps I am misrepresenting her views. Personally, I lack the expertise to know whether it is truly incorrect to refer to the instrument as a “French horn”. I know that among orchestral musicians, the word “horn” is sometimes adequate to refer to that particular instrument. Unfortunately, to many people, in many contexts, the word “horn” refers to a wide variety of instruments, rather than just the “French horn”, including trumpets, trombones, and tubas, and sometimes even things like saxophones and clarinets. So, when people would ask my friend what instrument she played, and she would reply “horn”, they would often follow up by asking “WHICH horn?” My friend, though possibly being “correct”, was standing in the way of clear communication, refusing to use the terms which would be understood by the larger audience.

These two examples show two sides of the problem, or at least two totally different ways of dealing with it. The medical lecturer believed his top priority was to be understood, and was willing to be viewed as guilty of mispronouncing a word. The musician was more concerned about using the “correct” terminology for her instrument, and was willing to sacrifice clarity of communication and possibly necessitate follow-up questions. As with so many subjects, there are differences regarding personal priorities.

This is a complicated issue, and I do not claim to have the answers.

There is a separate but related issue regarding communication that is so potentially offensive or inflammatory that the clarity is impeded, as in matters of race and ethnicity, among other things. I had intended to go ahead and discuss that issue, but have decided to wait, so as to not risk impeding the clarity of what I have already written.

Truth is complicated.

Blog First Anniversary

This blog turns one year old today. This is of debatable importance, but it does offer a good opportunity for reflection.

One of my primary reasons for doing this blog is TO LEARN TO DO A BLOG. In the words of Michelangelo, “Still I am learning.” In some ways, I have just begun to scratch the surface of blogging. For instance, so far I have posted only text -- no audio or visual data. Only recently have I begun to post links to other URLs, and in particular to a blog at which I posted a comment.

This brings up the idea that I believe only a few people have actually READ anything on this blog. I do not advertise it, and I have not informed even my friends and relatives of its title or URL, so visitors are quite rare, though there are some attempts to leave spam/ad comments. The entire “comments” aspect is one of the things I am learning about blogging. For now, I enjoy the occasional comment, both for learning about the blog process, and for stimulating ideas and discussion, but I am fine with having an extremely limited audience.

Overall, I am satisfied with the first year of this blog, though in many ways it is sort of running behind schedule. It has been a busier year than I anticipated -- non-blog-wise -- and there has not been much time for writing or for learning the intricacies of blogging. Still, I AM learning.

There are three blogging problems for which I have not found any solutions:

1) Realistically, I probably do not have enough “free” time to do this blog. Free time is a complicated topic, and too complicated to discuss here (because, among other things, there is not enough TIME ...).

2) To a certain extent, everything I write in this blog builds upon what I have already written. Yet I cannot assume that someone reading one of my blog entries has read everything leading up to it. In my mind, none of my blog entries truly stand alone. As a minimum, all are dependent upon certain basic concepts, like the idea that written communication is fundamentally unclear, and the fact that I believe the rule about always placing periods inside of quotation marks is WRONG. More specifically, I sometimes realize as I am writing that I need to explore some other idea FIRST -- so I stop writing and instead write about that first idea before writing about the second idea ... but there is no guarantee that someone reading the second idea will have read the first idea.

3) I have strong opinions about politics, and would like to share them, but among my strong opinions is the idea that we have become so polarized politically that many people automatically reject any idea that they believe comes from “the opposing side”. I truly believe that if George W. Bush and Barack Obama were to give precisely the same speech, Republicans would praise Bush’s speech and condemn Obama’s, while Democrats would praise Obama’s and condemn Bush’s. Furthermore, I believe this goes way beyond politics. Once I start stating my opinions on politics, those who perceive that they are on “the other side” may not even seriously consider my opinions on music or dog-training. One of the main points of this blog is COMMUNICATION. I cannot communicate if people refuse to consider my ideas.

As I said, I have no ready solutions for any of these problems. Regarding time, I will probably just struggle along with slightly lowered expectations. I hope, on average, to post one new blog entry each week. Regarding the fact that each blog entry builds upon the previous ones, I will perhaps try to link back to some of my earlier entries. In some ways, I keep stating the same ideas over and over again, so perhaps it doesn’t matter so much whether anyone has read any earlier entries. Regarding the problem of alienating people who then decide to automatically reject my opinions, there is probably nothing I can do, so I hope to go ahead and post more on politics and other controversial topics in the coming year, especially considering that there is an important election coming up.

I also hope to post some sort of “about” or “profile” page. I have mixed emotions about this. I like the blog entries to speak for themselves, but I feel a sort of vague obligation to post SOMETHING about myself.

This brings up the fact that after a full year, what I refer to as “this blog” continues to exist as basically two twin blogs, with mostly identical postings. The two blog hosts have different formats, though, so some things will be different, including the “about” or “profile” page. In particular, one format encourages creating specific “pages” -- I may post a “quotations” page or a “basic truths” page on that blog, but I am not sure how I will go about posting that information in the blog that does not have specific “pages”.

I continue to wonder whether I will run out of things to write about. So far, I generally have much more in mind to write about than I have time to write, and I struggle with figuring out which topics to choose, and whether the order of topics makes a difference in clarity and understanding. I feel a bit ... well, I suppose the best word is “guilty” ... about the fact that I tend to write things well in advance of actually posting them online. It lacks a certain spontaneity, but it gives me a chance to reconsider my words, and especially to try and arrange my ideas in a certain logical order.

Perhaps I should focus more upon the fact that there is a very real question about whether most of my blog entries will ever be read by anyone else, so most of my concerns are totally academic.

Truth is complicated.