Hiatus

If not readily apparent, this blog is presently on hiatus. The blog is absolutely not discontinued. Unfortunately, for reasons that I choose not to discuss at the present time, I'm just not able to post my thoughts on the blog. When circumstances change, I intend to begin blogging again and there is the possibility that I may recommence writing on some subjects while avoiding others. We'll just have to wait and see. But I'm still around, still reviewing and responding to substantive comments (though most of the comments these days are spam), and still keenly interested in the topics on which I focused over the years.

So until later…

Happy New Year & What I've Been Working On

I haven’t posted since early December. Oops. But the lack of visible output doesn’t mean that I haven’t been writing or working on this blog. I have. In fact, I’ve been working on two “deep dive” posts and a larger project.

Similar to my deep dive into RFRA last spring, I’ve been working on an analysis of the amendment to the Indiana civil rights laws to add protection for sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill needs a deep dive because it is fatally flawed. Rather than helping to end discrimination, the bill provides a license and roadmap for those who want to discriminate with a poison pill to stop those who dislike parts of the bill from challenging it in the courts.

I’ve also been working on a post about the newest fight in terms of LGBT equality issues: Transgender equality. I plan to discuss both the “bathroom issue” as well as the “man in a dress” stalking horse so prevalent among those who are afraid of transgender individuals. And I plan to talk about some of the other difficulties faced by the transgender community.

Finally, I’ve been going back through all of my old posts with the plan to try to clean up typos (I’m not the best proofreader of my own material at the time I write it) and, to the extent possible, fix broken links. But that’s a long-term project that I’ll work on here and there when I get to it.

Oh, and just to add to the fun of things, the application that I use to write my blogs (Microsoft Live Writer) suddenly stopped working with Blogger. So I need to either find a workaround (two things I've tried haven't worked) or find an alternate application.

I’m here. I’m busy. I'm annoyed.

In the meantime, is there anything that you’d like to hear my thoughts on?

Yes, I Know I’ve Been Quiet

I’m still here. Really. And, yes, I know that I’ve been a bit quiet lately. That doesn’t mean I haven’t been writing; I have. But I’ll also admit that I’ve been a bit down, too, and posting to this blog just hasn’t been at the top of my agenda.

As some of you may know, my dog died a few weeks ago. He was the best dog I’ve ever had and saying goodbye was very difficult. In the days leading up to the fateful day and in the days that followed, I just found my level of interest in … well, most things, lacking. So this blog suffered.

And I must also admit that the lack of response that I get to my posts is disheartening. I know I’ve bemoaned that fact before, but still… On Twitter, I can toss off a quick thought and often generate instant reaction that can turn into extensive conversations (or arguments). Here, where I try to offer much more careful, nuanced thoughts … crickets. I know that some pundits say that blogs are dead. Maybe they’re right.

But, as I said above, I have been writing. Unfortunately, I’ve found that a number of the posts that I’ve started haven’t turned out the way that I want them too. Either I lose interest in the subject or the subject becomes less timely or whatever.

I spent two lunch hours writing about Ferguson and the relationship between police, civilians, suspects, protesters, and the media. Then I spent two more lunch hours revising and rewriting. And I still don’t like what I’ve got.

I’ve also spent some time writing about proposed “hate crimes” legislation following a community discussion several weeks ago. It’s an issue that I struggle with and the act of working through some of my concerns via this blog and “thinking out loud” has been helpful. But the post isn’t in a publishable form … at least not yet. I anticipate having some more discussions on the subject next week, so maybe that will give me the impetus to finish that post. Who knows.

I also started putting together a post collecting some of the most interesting articles, quotations, and images related to the conflict between Israel and Hamas, but that just got a bit unwieldy.

Are there any subjects you’d like to hear me opine on?

Anybody?

Sigh.

I’m Still Here; Are You?

Yes, it’s been quiet around here recently. There are several reasons for that. First, I’ve had several other things going on that have taken up some of the time that I might have been putting into writing posts for this blog. Second, I have to really want to write about a particular issue, and lately, there just haven’t been that many things that have really stoked the proverbial fires. Plus, of those issues that I have wanted to write about, many of them have been somewhat involved and required a fair amount of research. I like to provide links where appropriate and be sure that what I’m writing is accurate. And, at least of late, I just haven’t felt like taking the time to do the necessary research.

Which brings me to reason number three: Lack of motivation. I work hard on these posts. I know that I’m a very, very tiny blip in the online world, but I do get some hits and attention. But for all of the page hits that I get, I receive very, very few comments or interaction with readers. Even just a simple “I agree!” tells me that someone read and appreciated what I wrote. A “hey, jerk, you’re wrong” provides me an opportunity to further discuss an issue. But silence? Well, that’s a bit disconcerting.

But if I can’t even get my wife to read these posts, then I can’t very well be too upset if others don’t read what I write.

Over the years, a few people have told me that they’ve had difficulty leaving comments, apparently because of the CAPTCHA system Blogger uses. So I reluctantly removed the CAPTCHA. The good news is that I now receive 10-15 comments each day; the bad news is that every single one of them is spam. Seriously. And in the time since I disabled the CAPTCHA, I have yet to receive even a single substantive comment from a reader.

That’s depressing.

Look, I don’t want to be one of those whiny bloggers crying out for attention. After all, I started this blog as a place for me to vent. But if you like something you’ve read here, please let me know. Even better: Share my post with your social network.

Don’t worry. I’m not closing this blog. But until I feel a bit more motivated (or perhaps angry at a news story), posts may continue to be a bit sporadic. Now, with that being said, I do have something really cool that I hope to post yet this week.

So please do keep checking back. And let me know that you stopped by.

Yeah, I Know It’s Been a Bit Quiet Around Here

Sorry for the lack of recent posts. Don’t worry, I haven’t abandoned this blog. Work, family obligations, and the High Holidays interfered. Plus, I find myself working on several possible posts all at once, none of which have I managed to get to a point at which I’m satisfied enough to post.

But if you’re interested, please follow me on Twitter; I tend to post a lot of my thoughts there (and at 140 characters maximum, I’m forced to be much more concise…).

Also, several people have reported issues with posting comments. If you’ve had any problems, please let me know. It will help me to troubleshoot if you tell me the platform and operating system you’re using (i.e., Windows or Mac, iPhone or Android) and whether you tried to leave the comment anonymously or via one of the accounts supported by Blogger’s commenting system.

New Posts & Preliminary Queries: An Interesting Follow-Up Discussion

Earlier this week I posted about my desire to examine the definition of the word “terrorism” (New Posts and Preliminary Queries) and I invited readers to chime in and offer their thoughts. In response to that post, a friend offered some thoughts on my Facebook page, another friend joined in, and an interesting discussion developed.

Because those comments were left on my Facebook page and not on this public blog, I’m not going to use the names of the friends who posted comments. I’ll simply refer to them as “Felix” and “Oscar”. I’ve also cleaned up typos and made some fixes for readability.

Felix:

My definition of terrorism = the use of violence by a state-independent agent (but which may act on behalf of a state) directed at a group of civilians, with the intent of forcing a political agenda or “pain” on the larger society.

Me:

So by that definition, a suicide bomber that attacks a military base has not committed terrorism.

Felix:

Perhaps not. More likely, a freedom fighter, revolutionary, or enemy combatant. The crime might be treason or an act of rebellion.

Me:

Is a mass murder, think Columbine or Aurora, a terrorist act? What about Maj. Nidal Hassan’s attack at Fort Hood?

Oscar:

How would define a KKK cross burning in someone’s yard? Is not the KKK a group of domestic terrorists? The FBI lists them as such…

Felix:

The acts of the Klan fits my definition.

Cross burning is an act of psychological violence

Me:

The problem there is that many crimes, in particular “hate crimes” would also qualify.

Felix:

I think there are fuzzy-linguistic laymanish definitions and strict legal definitions.

Mass murder with an ideological motivation directed at civilians would be terrorism, but not all mass murders are terrorism.

Oscar:

In my book, terrorism is a near meaningless term as it’s the umbrella under which too many things may be categorized.

Last year there was that crazy Amish guy who ordered his kin and a few others to go after other Amish and forcibly cut their beards off. He said it was a personal matter. The government called it a hate crime. Why isn’t he a terrorist?

Me:

But that’s what I’m trying to work out: A definition that excludes acts that ought to be excluded but includes those that should, even if not currently included in the default definitions.

Felix:

One may also want to ask … who is using the term and why are they using the term. What’s the purpose of the label?

Me:

Good questions. It goes back both to the “one man's terrorist…” and to the reason for certain governmental action (or inaction).

Felix:

Islam is the new Communism. Some segments of society have an interest in feeding fear. Conservatives went all ape-shit because the believed Obama didn’t label the Benghazi attacks as terrorism (when in fact he did.)

Fuzzy logic (classifying or categorizing the degree to which something belongs to a set) is helpful for building a definition for studying phenomenon but difficult when dealing with our legal system.

Similar to fuzzy logic is a index or scale. Instead of arriving at a binary yes/no decision, the incident is given a score … 90% on index (pretty much safe in saying its terrorism), 50% (marginal), 20% (not likely but some might say it is). The point is one can arbitrarily say 70% is a cut off between calling an incident an act of terror or not, but since this is a continuum, an incident that is rated 71% is pretty similar to an incident that is rated 69%. To construct an index, a set of criteria would be chosen and each characteristic would be given a value. The values are then fed into some formula, and out pops out a rating. The art of classification depends on the person or people who constructed the index to begin with. Once some rating exists … one can decide what to do with the information. It might be useful to have an index, if taking action on the numbers correlates well to some desired outcome.

Me:

Interesting concept. I’ve thought of the issue in terms of a continuum, bit not a scored ranking. Hmm.

Felix:

When you construct one, you can name it the Wallack Index.

---

In addition, knowing that most readers probably don’t bother reading the comments to my posts, I thought I’d post the one comment that New Posts & Preliminary Queries did receive here on the blog from erk:

I’ve certainly not thought through all of the implications, but my brief definition of terrorism is “violence, or the threat of violence, employed to achieve political change.” I wonder whether revolutions like ours, or others we’d regard as legitimate, fall under such a definition. As I said, this is just a rule of thumb.

Murder of an abortion doctor? That would count, as it’s almost certainly a statement on the legality of abortion.

Cyberattack on a business? Maybe, if the attack is to change behavior based on the business’s actions. If it’s to put them out of business for financial reasons, it wouldn’t fit “terrorism.” On a government entity, unless it was for theft or some other reason, it would.

Drone strikes? Probably not, unless they’re being used to cow the civilian population.

Anyway, I thought that this was a thought-provoking discussion (and comment) and is just the sort of discussion that I was hoping to have on the issue. Please join in the discussion!

(Of course, it’s also the sort of discussion that I’ve hoped to have in the comments section on many of my posts… Sigh.)

New Posts & Preliminary Queries

I’ve begun work on a two separate posts that I hope to publish sooner rather than later (but who knows…). Both posts focus on how we define two common words. Unfortunately, those definitions are often murky and both over-and under-inclusive. I want to try to examine those definitions and “tease out” what should and shouldn’t be included. And I want to get your input.

One of these posts is an attempt to find a working definition of “terrorism”. There are quite a few definitions available, but none really seem to cover everything that we think of as terrorism and, perhaps, include some things that maybe shouldn’t fall within that definition. Relying on the pornography formulation (“I know it when I see it”) doesn’t seem to me to be an acceptable way to determine what is and is not terrorism.

So, I’m curious: How would you define terrorism. Leave me a comment with your definition. But be sure to think through the permutations of your definition and any omissions or overbroad inclusions. The suicide bomber on the airplane is easy. I’m more interested in the harder questions. For example: Does the murder of an abortion doctor count as terrorism? Does a cyberattack on a business or governmental entity count as terrorism? Do drone strikes that kill civilians count as terrorism? Think about those scenarios.

I’m also working on a new post (well, maybe a series of posts) about modern anti-Semitism. I see this as a growing (rapidly, I’m afraid) problem. However, all too often, the charge of anti-Semitism is deflected by arguments about what is and is not anti-Semitism rather than by an examination of the conduct giving rise to the charge. Thus, my interest in how anti-Semitism is defined. (For example, a common, though idiotic, defense to a charge of Arab anti-Semitism is that Arabs are Semites and therefore cannot be anti-Semitic.)

The European Forum on Antisemitism came up with its own “working definition” several years ago:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Unfortunately, very few people are aware of this working definition and I’m not sure that the working definition really gets to the core of the controversy over what is and isn’t anti-Semitism (though some of the additional commentary for the working definition helps).

Anyway, as part of my discussion of the rise in anti-Semitism, I want to look at the definition itself. So, once again, I’m asking you how you would define anti-Semitism. Leave me a comment with your thoughts.

One final point with regard to anti-Semitism that I want to make perfectly clear: Criticism of Israel is not automatically anti-Semitic. I criticize Israel all the time. However, when criticism is leveled against Israel but not against other countries engaged in similar (or worse) conduct, when Israel is held to a different standard than other countries, or when Israel is reduced from being a multi-ethnic, religiously diverse country to just “the Jews”, then one cannot but wonder if the criticism or treatment of Israel is something more than just a good faith policy difference and is, instead, anti-Semitic.

One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Commenting on a Comment

Every now and then, I like to highlight some of the comments that I receive on this blog. Today, I’d like to look at a comment that I received this morning to last week’s post One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Powerful Gun Control PSAs from Moms Demand Action. The comment was posted anonymously (gee, I wonder why?):

Typical libtard bullcrap. Giving a child a gun to hold and not even teaching them proper trigger discipline. You can all go choke on a dick, asswipes.

Now it’s always a smart move, I think, to begin your comment with not just an insult, but a double insult: “libtard bullcrap”. This way, those reading your comment well recognize immediately that you are a serious person interested in an intellectual discussion of important issues. (By the way, what precisely is the “bullcrap” in my post?)

Then, of course, it’s important to move on to the totally trivial and completely irrelevant without any sort of notion of what you’re actually looking at or reading. As in, do you really think that Moms Demand Action gave those children loaded guns to hold in the PSAs? For that matter, what is the likelihood that these children will be exposed to guns such that they need to learn “proper trigger discipline”? And, of course, might it just be possible that the children were asked to put their fingers on the triggers for effect? You know, to make people even more nervous? But apparently Mr. Anonymous can’t get past the notion of poor “trigger discipline” to even contemplate the issue of reasonable gun control legislation.

Finally, it’s important to finish your comment with additional insults and, when possible, the use of either threats or a desire for something bad to happen to the author of the post upon which you are commenting. If you can make the insult racist or homophobic, all the better. I haven’t quite determined why the insults suggesting death by homosexual act are so frequent, but there you have it.

Most important, though, when posting a comment, is to be sure never to discuss the actual content of the post or the issues raised therein. Why bother with discussion of substance when you can just hurl insults? I mean, what fun is that? If you actually take on the substance, the author just might engage you or try to get you to elucidate on your ideas. It’s so much better to represent your side of an issue by framing the position as one of insult, avoidance, and more insult. That way the world can see just how that particular viewpoint is represented.

In all seriousness, I look forward to engaging in discussions of the issues that I raise, whether via comments, email, or even in person. That is part of why I write this blog. Yes, I want to influence people, but I also want to hear opposing viewpoints and to commence dialogue to see where we might find common ground, maybe even to tease out the strengths and weaknesses of my position (and of those who disagree with me). And I want to learn. I’ve been known to (occasionally…) change my mind or alter my perspective on an issue. Present me with a valid, well-reasoned argument, and who knows what might happen. If I make a mistake, show me (with some evidence, preferably…). But this sort of comment, to quote a current Internet meme, shows us “why we can’t have nice things”.

And it suggests that the commenter has no legitimate argument to make.

One other odd thing worth noting: The comment appears to have been posted by someone in Zurich, Switzerland.

Apparently, I Have Enemies

Other than spam, scam emails have become a bane of online activity. We’ve all received emails from people in Nigeria or Hong Kong or wherever looking for our help in accessing their funds, for which we’ll be paid a handsome reward. And as an attorney, I frequently receive bogus requests to help chase spouses or debtors “in my jurisdiction”. But this weekend, I received a completely new sort of scam email:

From: Ramzi Abdul

Subject: I was sent to kill you

To your attention

I want you to read this message very carefully and that you keep the secret until further notice. You do not need to know or who I am or where I come from. I was paid an advance of $60,000 to kill you. My sponsors one of which is what we can call a friend gave me the reasons I noted. I am more than 5 days on the mission and i have known your house and every of your moves both day and night and your loved ones and there is no way of you escaping from me because i am good at the job i was paid for.I am a killer and mafia and now I know that you are innocent of what you are accused. Do not try to warn or send this message to the FBI or the police or any of your relatives or friends because i am watching you every minute and secs of the day because I know that I'll have to do the job for which I was paid. Note that this is the first time that I am going to betray my employer.

Look, I will do everything I can so that we can meet but I need you to pay me $4,000 dollars.You have nothing to be afraid of me, I can come and see you in your office or home once you have complied and paid me the $4,000 dollars i need from you now so i can explain everything to you, it is up to you to decide. Never attempt recording or filming our upcoming meeting. If you do, It will cost your life.Once payment is made, I will give you the file that contains the names and queries of the sponsors. This is a good evidence that can be used to sue him if you wish. The balance of the payment is $7,000 which will be settled later when we meet. For the moment this is not the trouble I give you my phone number because you will cooperate.I have your picture and other important information about you and your loved ones. I was involved with my team in the Yemen Arab Republic. You must not ask me any questions.

Quickly confirm for your good.

Well, at least I’m presuming that this is a scam. If you’ve taken out a contract to kill me, give me call. Let’s do lunch, instead.

I did speak to a local FBI representative just to be sure that this was, in fact, just another Internet scam. She said that it was and that she’s seen it before. For what it’s worth, I did report this to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).

Breaking My Own Rules … Kinda

One of the basic rules that I’ve set for myself with this blog is that I want to respect other people’s opinions (even when they’re clearly wrong) and encourage discussion and debate via comments to my posts. Thus, comments to this blog are not moderated. For those who don’t know what that means, on many blogs, a comment is not actually displayed until the blog’s author approves the comment. I don’t want to do that and I haven’t done that.

Some of the comments that I’ve received have not been flattering. Usually, when a commenter tells me I’m wrong, I will try to push that person to back up their statement (which they very, very rarely make any attempt to do). When a commenter calls me a name, I usually respond with a discussion on discourse or ask them how calling me a name helps to make their point. And I usually remind them that it is my blog, after all.

But what I have not done is to delete comments. My preference is for my readers to be able to see just what others have thought of the opinions I’ve expressed (and hopefully chime in with their own opinion), even if those comments are critical of my posts. I’m a big boy. I can take it. And, for that matter, note that I don’t post my thoughts anonymously. Moreover, when I make a mistake, I try to acknowledge that mistake and make the appropriate correction.

So far, the only exception to my rule against deleting comments has come in regard to comments that are obviously spam. I’m not sure what the point of spamming the comment section of a personal blog is, but when I come across comments that are clearly spam, I delete them. Neither you nor I want to read them and they don’t add anything to the discussion I’m trying to foster. Recently, I’ve received a few comments that actually appear to be substantive but have a spam URL attached to the end of the comment. As there is no (easy?) way for me to edit comments posted by others to delete these spam links, I’ve elected to leave the comments in place, because they do seem to be at least somewhat substantive and related to the posts to which they are attached.

But a comment that I received this weekend in response to Post-Debate Depression is going to force me to break my rule against deleting comments … kinda. The comment in question is not actually a problem. It appears to be critical of me (and me, personally, not necessarily the ideas that I expressed in my post). In fact, here is the full text of the comment:

You suffer from a severe case of selective political righteousness, no need to bloviate on about your self and what you feel. You need to take a step back from that, a step outside your narrow frame of reference. Taking views into consideration that are outside of your "comfort zone" are what allows personal growth. best of luck.

“So what’s the problem?” I hear you ask. Well, the problem isn’t with the comment; rather it is with the commenter. For reasons that will become obvious in a moment, I’m not going to say who he is (and I don’t actually know his name, only the online name that was attached to the comment). After reading the comment, I decided to look at the commenter’s profile. This is something that I often do, just to get an idea of the background and maybe general political or social leanings of the person making a comment. In this case, the commenter’s profile doesn’t say anything about the commenter (other than that he is a student in the United States), but does list three blogs authored by the commenter (though one appears not to have any posts).

I can still hear you saying, “So what?”

Well, I decided to click on these blogs to try to understand the commenter’s point of view. And that’s where things went off the proverbial rails. The first post on one of the blogs (and the only post on the other) is apparently just a copy of am article by a Pakistani political commentator that is apparently a well-know conspiracy-theorist and who espouses clearly anti-Israel, if not anti-Semitic views (for example, he blames “Hindu-Zionists” for the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008). The article posted on the commenter’s blogs seems to be a sort of laundry list of the “problems” that we’ve allowed to grow in the US. But included in this list is this frightening explanation:

Tell them we come from monkeys and that Adolf Hitler killed six million jews.

Ding, ding, ding. Sorry, but when you start posting articles that lead me to think that you’re a Holocaust denier or approve of the writings of a Holocaust denier, I’m not going to be very interested in your point of view. Oh, and note how either the commenter (or original author) has kept “jews” in lower case.

But I was still a bit curious to see if this was just an isolated comment in a single post. Unfortunately, it wasn’t. The commenter only has a 5 posts on his “main” blog. In addition to the one quoted above, he also has a post blaming Jews for the slave trade, a post that seems to imply that the Germans couldn’t have committed atrocities in World War II because the orders given to soldiers essentially told them to act properly (e.g., don’t hurt civilians), a post about Jews threatening European governments in the late 19th Century, and finally a post accusing the Jews of declaring war on Germany and provoking World War II.

Seriously.

Obviously, nothing you or I say to this person is going to change his mind or dissuade him from his worldview. But I see no reason why my blog should provide a link that could lead people to these articles. Outright anti-Semitism is just something that I’m not going to tolerate, especially on my blog.

And so what I’ve decided to do is two things: First, I’ve written this post explaining the situation. Then, I’m going to delete the original comment. But I’m going to repost just the comment under my name with a link to this explanation. Thus, my goal of not editing or moderating the comments themselves will be served, but without providing a link to the anti-Semitic commenter or his blogs.

What do you think? Did I make the right decision? How would you have handled this situation?

Oh, and if the original commenter should happen to read this: Don’t bother posting any new comments. I will delete them. Absent a mea culpa and a recognition that your anti-Semitic posts are wrong, you are banned from this blog.

Not AWOL but Depressed

Sorry for the lack of recent posts. I’ve had various other things going on that have occupied my time and kept me from blogging. But if truth be told, I will say that I’m a bit depressed, too. You see, as I read about what’s going on in the world of politics and as the election campaign begins to take shape, I realize more and more that rationale discourse, dialogue, debate, and discussion are worth very little, if anything. Rather, all that really matters is the ability to spend outrageous sums of money. And even that wouldn’t be so bad if the money was spent in a way that actually educated voters. But far too much of the expenditures are used, at best, to do nothing more than attack a candidate and, at worst, are replete with outright lies.

And, I’d note, it seems more and more that the media seems almost complicit in allowing candidates, their surrogates, and their Super PACs lie with impunity or, in the rare cases where a lie is noted, it is contextualized with a “both sides do it” framework but without any concept of scope, scale, or meaning, or impact.

What is the point of trying to write about the issues, to point out factual inaccuracies or hypocrisy, or to explain reasoning for a position, when a handful of billionaires can anonymously spend unlimited amounts of money to drown out any sort of reasoned discussion? And when they have their own “news” network devoted to their cause…?

There have been a bunch of things that I’ve wanted to write about recently but I keep having this sinking feeling that it’s just not worth my time. Those who I really want to try to convince seem almost immune from facts, reason, or logic; if they heard it on Faux News or Limbaugh’s program (or Glenn Beck or Laura Ingraham or any of a bunch of other shows) then it must be true and nothing that I or anyone else (who actually thinks that facts matter) does seems to make any kind of dent.

Don’t worry. I’m not giving up. I’m just venting and maybe catching my breath. Because I’m sure that as the election draws nearer and the lies begin to fly even thicker and uglier then I’ll have plenty to say. And even if I’m feeling a bit (well, more than a bit) powerless in the face of millions of dollars spent to lie to people, I still recognize that our democracy is premised upon people expressing their opinions, something I’m clearly not shy about doing.

OK. End of pity party.

Advertisements Do Not Equate to Endorsements

When I looked at this blog online a few minutes ago, I noticed an advertisement for Richard Mourdock for US Senate. Gag! Please recognize that I do not control the ads that Google places on my site. I’m actually tempted to cancel the ads (after all, I’ve earned a whopping $4.89 in ad revenue since I started this blog back in December 2007). But, on the off chance that someone wants to click through and help me earn a few bucks, I’m going to leave the ads up for now. Hint. Hint.

But please, please understand, that the appearance of a candidate, issue, or product in an advertisement on this blog is not indicative of an endorsement by me of that candidate, issue, or product. Rather, it is an automated placement made by Google on the basis of the topics and keywords it finds in my posts.

If I endorse a candidate or product, I will say so directly!

Back From Vacation

So I’m back from vacation, though not quite as rested as I’d like (and the nasty head cold and hacking cough don’t help).

I have several things that I hope to start writing about in the next few days, though it’s doubtful that I’ll have anything to post until after New Year.

One article that I’m working on is a long-ish examination of Ron Paul. Too many liberals have been seduced by his anti-war position but have completely ignored (or missed) his racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, white supremacist, nativistic, survivalist, anti-government, conspiracy positions … or the fact that he appears to be a liar. So I’ve been collecting all kinds of bits and pieces of information about Paul that I’m working on bringing together into a single post that will hopefully be a sort of one-stop shopping place to go for all sorts of reasons of why Paul should be avoided.

And, I’m sure that as the primaries heat up (well, if they heat up; if Romney does well in Iowa and/or South Carolina, it could be over…) I’ll have more to say.

In the meantime, is there any subject that you’d like to see me address?

Until then, Happy New Year.

Vacation Time!

I’m going to be on vacation for a little while so there won’t be any new posts for a bit. Hopefully, by the time I’m back, my batteries will be recharged and I can gear up for a year of frequent (and meaningful) blogging (especially as the GOP primaries get going and general election looms ever nearer).

So, until then, Happy Holidays!

Sorry. Busy Again.

Once again, I apologize for the dearth of posts. I've been busy. And it seems that the things that I have tried to write about ... well, I keep getting bogged down and throwing away that bit of lunchtime work. Oh, well.

And besides, is anybody reading what I write?

Busy, Busy, Busy

Sorry for the lack of updates. Work has kept me very busy of late. I've got a few things in the hopper, but nothing I'm quite ready to post.

Back From Summer Vacation

Sorry for the lack of updates, but I’ve just returned from our annual summer vacation to Hilton Head. I managed to do a whole bunch of nothing (besides sitting by the pool reading). Hopefully, I’ll have some time to write something a bit later in the week (after digging out from under whatever has piled up in my inbox).

For those who were looking forward to this year’s Twitter travelogue, I’m sorry to have disappointed. In previous years, we traveled with my in-laws and, believe it or not, my mother-in-law drove allowing me to sit in the back, read my book(s), and tweet to my heart’s content. However, this year, the in-laws didn’t accompany us (my father-in-law turns 90 next month and wasn’t feeling well enough to join us). I discovered that it is difficult to tweet a funny travelogue while driving. It is even harder to read a book while driving. Oh, well.

There was one thing that I have to share. On our way home, we stopped in Newport, Tennessee, because my wife saw a sign for Sonic and she really wanted one of their shakes (she tried one on the way home from Washington last year) and the kids really liked the burgers and hot dogs. Unfortunately, we quickly realized that the restaurant wasn’t right next to the Interstate but we decided that we’d already gotten off the highway, so we’d go ahead and drive the 2 miles to the Sonic. On the way, in front of a store called … get this … “God’s Warehouse Thrift Shop and Food Pantry” was … put down any drinks that you may be holding … seriously … a drive thru convenience store. And when I say drive thru I really mean drive thru. Don’t think of a fast food restaurant or even a drive thru pharmacy. Nope. This was a small warehouse-like building that you actually drove through … as in right through the middle of the building. As we passed by, we could see coolers full of drinks and shelves with stuff of some kind or another. We tried to take a photo, but couldn’t get the right angle. I tried to get an image through Google street view, but their photo was apparently taken before the drive thru convenience store was built.

I’m looking forward to a drive thru Fresh Market or maybe a drive thru Best Buy.

Goodbye to IN Touch

Beginning in late 2008, I wrote an occasional entry for The Indianapolis Star’s IN Touch blog. A number of my entries were also published in the print edition of the newspaper. While I liked writing for IN Touch, I often found it difficult to find topics for which IN Touch was an appropriate venue and on which I could articulate my thoughts in a fairly short number of words (as readers of this blog know, brevity is not exactly my strong suit). Thus, my output was never as high as I would have liked and I hadn’t written anything at all for IN Touch since last August (wow, I didn’t realize it had been that long!).

Anyway, I discovered a week or two ago, that the IN Touch blog has apparently been completely removed from The Indianapolis Star’s website. If you go to the IN Touch page, you are greeted by the message:

This user has elected to delete their account and the content is no longer available.

I emailed my contact at the paper to see why and when the IN Touch page was deleted and why the posts were not (apparently) archived. To date, I haven’t received any response. I guess that I can understand the decision to eliminate this feature (it seems that the number of posts had declined dramatically in recent months), but I don’t understand the decision not to maintain an archive of those posts, especially as many of them were included in the print edition of the paper. Oh, well.

So, I guess that my days of writing for IN Touch are now officially over. It was fun while it lasted.

Test Post

Between Blogger’s recent crash and some of my efforts to (finally) update the format of this blog, I’ve been experiencing some odd behavior. So please ignore this test post.

Can Donald Trump Win the Republican Nomination? Should He? Will He Run? Let’s Discuss

I’m going to try something new here. Very few of my posts get any comments, so it may be that this is a pointless exercise. But let’s see if we can have a discussion about Donald Trump.

Do you think that he can win the Republican nomination if he runs? Do you think that he would be a good Republican candidate in the general election? Do you think that he’ll decide to run or is this all just a publicity stunt?

Let’s discuss.