Thursday, June 16, 2005
I'm a bit conflicted. One to two posts a month is really not good enough to term oneself a blogger. I admired the discipline of Duncan at My Expatriate Odyssey, who resolved to post once a day, more or less, during weekdays. And not from work at lunch time, so far as I can tell. Despite starting an amusing Podcast a month ago, he announced this week that he is giving up blogging and podcasting. If you're going to give up blogging, June is the month to do it, I guess.
On the other hand, James Lileks, which is actually a franchise, not a person, I think, has added another daily four-hundred word post, called ScreedBlog, not to be confused with his earlier "screeds", which were semi-annual posts the size of a New Yorker article.
I'll miss My Expatriate Odyssey. The topics were varied, sometimes important, sometimes personal. Some were carefully written and some were cast off hastily. But it had one overwhelming attraction: I could visit it once a day and always read a new post. Plus, Duncan himself seemed centered. He didn't hate Bush, but he didn't love him. He loved America, and missed a few things, but loved Germany and would have missed it too if he left. He didn't present false choices and then choose one.
But this is about me and my dilemma. I'd like to post more than I do, but I don't want to burn out. At two posts a month, and none of them weighty, I know I'll be here a very long time.
On the other hand, James Lileks, which is actually a franchise, not a person, I think, has added another daily four-hundred word post, called ScreedBlog, not to be confused with his earlier "screeds", which were semi-annual posts the size of a New Yorker article.
I'll miss My Expatriate Odyssey. The topics were varied, sometimes important, sometimes personal. Some were carefully written and some were cast off hastily. But it had one overwhelming attraction: I could visit it once a day and always read a new post. Plus, Duncan himself seemed centered. He didn't hate Bush, but he didn't love him. He loved America, and missed a few things, but loved Germany and would have missed it too if he left. He didn't present false choices and then choose one.
But this is about me and my dilemma. I'd like to post more than I do, but I don't want to burn out. At two posts a month, and none of them weighty, I know I'll be here a very long time.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Apparently, two things survive amnesia: Language skills and Bush hatred.
Thomas Oliphant returns to the Boston Globe after a brain aneurysm stole six
months of his life, with an article on the experience.
He also gets in a dig at the Schiavo mess at the very end
He has forgotten that the loving (possibly self-deluded) parents wanted to be in that dark place for their daughter, but were locked out under judicial orders. I guess in Oliphant's view judges aren't the government.
Thomas Oliphant returns to the Boston Globe after a brain aneurysm stole six
months of his life, with an article on the experience.
Time and place have no grounding. 2005 suddenly becomes 1953. You're talking about your childhood TV set. And you have no idea who the president is -- it really was possible to forget George Bush for a while.
...
Miraculously, I can concentrate again and finished reading a book last week. Sadly, I now know who the president is.
He also gets in a dig at the Schiavo mess at the very end
This place where I have been is a dark one. The one thing I know is who belongs there -- your family and the pros. No one else, especially not the government. You want the loving hands and the healing ones to bring you home or let you go.
He has forgotten that the loving (possibly self-deluded) parents wanted to be in that dark place for their daughter, but were locked out under judicial orders. I guess in Oliphant's view judges aren't the government.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
I've read a few days' discussion on the French popular rejection of the EU constitution, and following along in the previous theme, I think its worth adding that both the "Oui" and "Non" voters likely had as many idiosyncratic reasons for their votes as France has varieties of cheese. Jonah Goldberg makes a mistake if he takes at face value the various explanations offered up in the past few days for how the vote worked itself out. In Goldberg's analysis, the French can't win -- both votes were anti-American. I think it is more fair to say there were anti-American votes on both sides.
I personally would have voted against the constitution not because I'm against EU integration, although I fail to see how 18 countries with 18 different languages can form a political union. No, more important is the fact that the constitution is not a constitution, it is a bureaucrat's idea of a constitution, with all sorts of details hammered out and no principles. Before giving up sovereignty to a multi-cultural politic, I would want to see the principles common to all the cultures stated clearly and boldly, so we all knew what culture would ostensibly direct the future of the nascent nation. It should specify the form the government will take, and how to change that form if necessary. A constitution is not the place for hashing out the internecine details of the union -- textile quotas or whatever they larded up the 500 page constitution with would not be high on my list of points worth debate at a constitional convention.
I personally would have voted against the constitution not because I'm against EU integration, although I fail to see how 18 countries with 18 different languages can form a political union. No, more important is the fact that the constitution is not a constitution, it is a bureaucrat's idea of a constitution, with all sorts of details hammered out and no principles. Before giving up sovereignty to a multi-cultural politic, I would want to see the principles common to all the cultures stated clearly and boldly, so we all knew what culture would ostensibly direct the future of the nascent nation. It should specify the form the government will take, and how to change that form if necessary. A constitution is not the place for hashing out the internecine details of the union -- textile quotas or whatever they larded up the 500 page constitution with would not be high on my list of points worth debate at a constitional convention.
