Catalyst II
Please read the comment by "Anonymous" (Or, "Catalyst" as I affectionately call her) on January 10, 2006; only when you're done so should you return to this post.
As long as I write this space, I'll leave Catalyst's comment where it lies. It is a monument to anger. Catalyst, I simply can't match it. I'm trying to be topical with some intelligence and some humor, but you're scaring the bejeesus out of me.
Catalyst, you will not abandon my blog - for no other reason than now learning that I leave the house at 5:55 am every day (M - F), return home around 6:00 pm, spend some time with my family, read the Globe, decide whether to write a letter or post here, watch a little TV and then go to bed to do it all over again the next day. My post of January 10, 2006 contains (according to Microsoft Word; I didn't count them) 949 words. I wrote them in less than an hour. I sit down and I start typing. One quick edit and post. Catalyst, you will return because in less than an hour on Jan. 10 I wrote a post that mentioned the "filibuster judges (my expression; no RNC talking point phrase)", the Chevron PAC, Harold Ickes, Beslan, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, no absolute right to free speech and I quoted the Second Amendment . . . and I didn't google anything (I googled the Chevron PAC thing the day I did my Sen. Feinstein post; but what great recall!). Where else are you going to find that breadth?
Catalyst, go read my December 14, 2005 post on racial profiling. That post has a little of my philosophy, a little of my logic, and, yes, the letter to the editor. It's a pretty short post, but maybe it has more of what you're looking for (please let me know). However, if you just want to trade hostilities with a conservative, I'm not your guy.
Next, from my January 10, 2006 post, I'd like the opportunity to modify just one sentence. I wrote that my shtick was "nothing more than a reply to the extremism of the Boston Globe." Well, as I think many of posts would suggest, I think this sentence should have read that my shtick "was primarily a reply . . . ."
To my other three readers, thank you for your continued support; please know that I have not forgotten you. We'll see how this three day attempt at something different goes, but then I have to get back to what is going on in the world. There was some excitement down in Washington, DC, you may have read about it, the President of the United States nominated an extremely qualified person to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court . . . and now the U.S. Senate is conducting hearings to determine if a President that was elected after campaigning on the issue of appointing a conservative judge to The Court will be denied.
Please read the comment by "Anonymous" (Or, "Catalyst" as I affectionately call her) on January 10, 2006; only when you're done so should you return to this post.
As long as I write this space, I'll leave Catalyst's comment where it lies. It is a monument to anger. Catalyst, I simply can't match it. I'm trying to be topical with some intelligence and some humor, but you're scaring the bejeesus out of me.
Catalyst, you will not abandon my blog - for no other reason than now learning that I leave the house at 5:55 am every day (M - F), return home around 6:00 pm, spend some time with my family, read the Globe, decide whether to write a letter or post here, watch a little TV and then go to bed to do it all over again the next day. My post of January 10, 2006 contains (according to Microsoft Word; I didn't count them) 949 words. I wrote them in less than an hour. I sit down and I start typing. One quick edit and post. Catalyst, you will return because in less than an hour on Jan. 10 I wrote a post that mentioned the "filibuster judges (my expression; no RNC talking point phrase)", the Chevron PAC, Harold Ickes, Beslan, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, no absolute right to free speech and I quoted the Second Amendment . . . and I didn't google anything (I googled the Chevron PAC thing the day I did my Sen. Feinstein post; but what great recall!). Where else are you going to find that breadth?
Catalyst, go read my December 14, 2005 post on racial profiling. That post has a little of my philosophy, a little of my logic, and, yes, the letter to the editor. It's a pretty short post, but maybe it has more of what you're looking for (please let me know). However, if you just want to trade hostilities with a conservative, I'm not your guy.
Next, from my January 10, 2006 post, I'd like the opportunity to modify just one sentence. I wrote that my shtick was "nothing more than a reply to the extremism of the Boston Globe." Well, as I think many of posts would suggest, I think this sentence should have read that my shtick "was primarily a reply . . . ."
To my other three readers, thank you for your continued support; please know that I have not forgotten you. We'll see how this three day attempt at something different goes, but then I have to get back to what is going on in the world. There was some excitement down in Washington, DC, you may have read about it, the President of the United States nominated an extremely qualified person to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court . . . and now the U.S. Senate is conducting hearings to determine if a President that was elected after campaigning on the issue of appointing a conservative judge to The Court will be denied.
posted by Zack at 6:56 PM
3 Comments:
Catalyst is clearly very angry. Let her go. Consider the experiment a failure.
Looking forward to the Alito stuff.
To ZacklyRight, from the writer you refer to as catalyst: I agreed with your December 14, 2005 posting on racial profiling; further, I don't think either political party will discuss race issues in any type of meaningful honest way.
I also think that the American mainstream political "spectrum," as currently constituted, prohibits meaningful discussions on immigration reform, environmental policies, tax code reform, etc. I don't just bait Republicans I bait Democrats as well, my point is that the current political climate reduces our issues debate to a political party platform discussion, that is which party is for it or against it and which party will benefit or suffer from it; which I believe is not in the best interest of our country or the future of the world. I look to open up the discussion of every issue to debate ideas both inside and outside of the political mainstream. If your blog format changes to a debate of the issues forum I will return but, frankly, I could care less where the Globe's editorial board stands on any issue or wherein the bias of the Globe writers lies, not that its unimportant its just not what I am looking to spend my time on.
Final point, the growing dilemma facing this country is what to do with a populous that is disinterested in the issues and chooses to ignore the problems facing the country, a general malaise infecting the citizens of our country. You are obviously not part of that growing body of people, so, if nothing else, I salute that.
Catalyst. You give up way too easy. There's no debate without passion!!
Post a Comment
<< Home