If anyone took my previous blog on Ganske's post as criticizing his material or approach, then they are not reading carefully.
I actually took the pretext of his most excellent post to blow off some steam on how I myself fear blogs are being changed (i.e., becoming more professionalized). I really think that process is good, by and large. I'm just not looking for it here, and so sometimes my blog output gets interpreted a bit too seriously, like a press release or something, when I consider it pretty much open mike.
I don't deny I'm a calculating fellow, it's just that sometime I calculate to cut loose and accept what results. That's what I like about the blog.
I admire the Russia Blog a lot, want it added to my roll, and hope Ganske writes more of the same. I just wanted to take advantage of his blog to make my larger point. I find it's better to make generalized condemnations when combined with a specific point of praise--better form, nicer tone, etc. If I do it when somebody really pisses me off, then I'm likely to make the matter worse. Better to do it when I can combine with some specific praise, because then I can counter with the good example and not just be negative.
I really think there's a variety of blogs possible, and I don't have a problem with mental masturbation whatsoever. I imagine it keeps your imagination healthy in the same way that real masturbation supposedly staves off prostate cancer (yes Virginia, there are web sites to this effect). I mean, use it or lose it. And God knows there are so many ways in life today to let parts of your intellect atrophy, so I see blogs as inherently good in developing expressiveness and thinking and new ideas.
It's just that one man's unfiltered post easily becomes another's cause celebre, so I worry that, as my profile rises, I'll be denied the venue because too many readers will start taking everything too seriously, to include harshly criticizing me everytime I don't give every side to every subject I raise or don't give every expected qualifying argument (go on TV sometime, and tell me exactly how easy that is, and if you can pull it off, then you might have a future as a talkinghead who covers all arguments without every making a coherent point--one magnificently crowded field, I must say).
Anyway, enough said.
| Permalink |
Comments (1)
Truely Dr barnett,i think you are a very well intended and unracist
(blond man is going to save the world) person.you always seem to
talk about militery & all its functions, you talk about win the war,
win the peace deal. at least you aknowledge that we are not ready
to win the peace(you make a honest oberversion)90% of the time
you talk about the war&very little about the peace which seems to
be the goal disired.if we are not ready to bring peace in the area
you call gap,why should we start the war(big bang).wouldn't it look
like british empire then who attack north america,austrelia & killed
all the locals,or perhaps during the civil war (like neocon now in iraq)
thanks to president Lincoln who stood independence of the national
industreis & with north fought the south & the british (it wasn't about
slavory) it was formost about independnce.
Aren't all these govs that we supposdly want to overthrow militerly
and bring peace and democracy are put there by nobodyelse but
british;wasn't it Lawrence of Arabia (stubent of Edward Brown) who
after 1st world war & the concour of attaman brought Mohammad
abdul wahab(wahabist) & the saudi family together in saudi arabia.
sharif hossien brothers,one in iraq and one in gordan.who created
Ben laden.who was it that overthrow Dr Nagib in Afganistan & brought Taliban.if it wasn't for the coup of 1953 of mosadegh,we
wouldn't have Komanie,who came after the Guantalop confrence,
which was decided the Shah has to go,by the help of yazdi in conection with Richard Cotton.who brought Shah's father Reza, or
attatork in turky.of course the story of Israel & Churchill is a long one
Posted by farhad | June 25, 2007 2:30 PM