New Year's Resolutions, and More on the Genre of Blogging

When last we chatted, I was turning over some ideas for New Year's resolutions. I don't actually do NYR's, but I do have things I'd like to accomplish in any given year, ideally pre-mortem.

So here's my short list:

1) Continue living, and (metaphorically) growing with the SO. She's been good for me, I think.

2) Get my Nash finished--aim for August 2005. By a combination of semi-competence and rare bad luck, the engine is sitting all over the basement floor in a totally different dwelling. I had it together two years ago, but had to track down a broken piston ring, which led to the re-disassembly.

3) Continue to learn new things. Since I can't be a full-time student any more, I want to take some of the community ed courses locally available. Current notions include Basic Drawing, Fencing, and a few others. The narrow life of "Go to work to get the money to buy the food to get the strength to go to work to . . ." is not for me.

4) Follow and finish "Guitar for Dummies", even when the lessons bore me. I must remember that I have a great deal to learn.

5) Refuse to give up on writing, and finish my novel. Even now, my name resonates around the globe. Or at least as far as Alberta. The Barrhead Leader has no web page--seems less than professional for a major news organ. But my interview with Santa Claus was in there.
My 3-Day Novel hasn't won the contest, but at least now I know I can write one, and in three days. Like the old, old commercial says "Could you imageine a week?".

Is that enough? Oh yeah! I forgot:

6) Continue blogging, and strive to improve some key points of this blog.

My cousin, whom I'll call Bookum, and I haven't seen each other since I was about twelve. He would have been about seventeen, at a guess, and just outgrowing setting fire to model airplanes. He has since become an aviator with the US Armed Forces. After my aunt died last Fall, I felt it was important to re-establish some communication.

As part of this, I naturally sent him my blog address. His return note pointed out that our political views are somewhat different, and that he clearly feels my blog travels a bit too far to one side.

This doesn't fit for me. I wanted this blog to be "Fair and Balanced"™ in the exact same way that Fox News isn't. But Bookum seems to feel that I wear my heart somewhat visibly on what he would consider the left sleeve.

Thinking on this, I realized a couple of things:
1) Politics in the US and Canada are related species, but totally different animals.

The wonderful tradition of free speech in America, while definitely beneficial, has led to a radicalization of discourse: The louder people yell, the crazier their ideas, the more exposure they can get. This applies to Michael Moore too, although far less so than to, say, Michael Savage. Canada's hate speech laws have traditionally kept the discourse slightly more civil, or so it seems to me.

2) I have trouble with the terms "liberal" and "conservative", likewise "left" and "right". In George Jr's America, what used to be "left" has moved so far "right" as to be without meaning, and the trend in Canada is toward a deepening rift between formerly centrist political parties.

As regards the "conservative" and "liberal" labels, the problem is that most people don't travel in straight party lines. We hold subtle, shaded, nuanced positions. I tend towards social policies that would get me labelled "liberal", but fiscal policies that are regarded as "conservative". I believe in the free marketplace and support globalization (another charged word), while pushing for "social justice". So how can any label sum up the essence of me?

But to return to Bookum's point--can I re-balance this blog? I've made some strong and heartfelt statements, usually backed up with reference and incontrovertible argument, in favour of my positions. But I sometimes don't provide access to opposing points of view. This is partly because, for example, "because God hates fags" is not a cogent argument against gay marriage. "Gay marriage will produce negative social effects" might be, but since only two nations have it on the law books, and neither of them shows any signs of collapsing (or being scoured by holy fire), I don't consider that much of an argument.

The difference is that I'd try to listen to someone who asserted the latter in a reasonable tone. But I wouldn't link to godhatesfags (a real website run by a foaming maniac--did you know that God caused the terror attacks at the World Trade Centre to punish the New York Fire Department?).

But Bookum has a point. I'd like to link to sources of thought other than my own favourites.

To start with, here's the National Review. The best I can honestly do here is reserve my judgement, since the journal is associated with Ann Coulter.

Newsmax.com. Again, I can't comment. I haven't read the whole thing, and the headline article "Enviro Whackos Rejoice over Tsunami Devastation" is difficult to read with equanimity.

I also have difficulty with any paper that includes Rush "Oxycontin" Limbaugh, Bill "loofah" O'Reilly, and discredited morals maven and 1973 nude pic subject Dr. Laura. But I'm truly trying to read it. By the way, the "nude pic" link links to (guess what?) nude pics of a serious opponent of pornography. You may wish to exercise caution if you have your hypocrisy meter turned on.

{Later. Sorry, I can't do it. It's just too crazy for me. Not so much the content as the tone.}

Day By Day. Bookum claims it's much funnier than Doonesbury.

This is a first attempt to present another side of the various arguments I present here. I don't promise I'll always do it, and it's a violation of the genre rules for blogging, but as an inclusive sort of person, I need to create room for dissent.

Oh. Rules for blogging? Uh, lemme get back to you on that. Next post, I promise.

A friend of Bookums and serving Army Officer. Interesting and direct perspective on the current war.

Bookum's own "watchblog". I'd never heard of the term before, but I like it.