I hate to raise my voice. You'd hardly guess it from my run-on blathering here but I am, in person, taciturn and most inclined not to confront others over little differences. I have all the politcal instincts and training of a cabbage. But it seems even cabbages have feelings. I wanted my blog to be the me I don't usually get to be. But even then, I wanted to avoid feeling cheap when I looked back and saw a trail of angry words.
That turns out to be difficult because [a] I am reactive as much as proactive, [b] there appear to be several underexpressed personalities walking around in this skin and [c] that ADD thing I mentioned in my very first post may be evident in the numerous proposals that crop up here and there in my posts but are then accompanied by lax follow-through.
What to do? This blog wanted to not stray too far from analyses and sentiments that offered a light but steady cargo of liberal values by asking and answering on sundry social and political issues "Given the way we humans operate, what is most fair and enduring understanding and course we can adopt?" Meeting that objective at all, let alone doing so in a calm tone of voice has proven beyond my powers. I don't think shrill works. I am still going to try to avoid it. But I am going to diaper that attempt, carry it out in a different container so that the voice heard in this particular blog is more consistently the abstract, hopefully insightful me that I work for with paltry results. The more partisan and topical stuff will, if I can maintain such a deliniation, henceforth appear in the idle A Bomb A Nation blog. That was always the intent of that blog but with an important election coming up, my ongoing failure to speak softly would really begin to pollute Executioners Thong with shrillness that turns stale within a day of its posting. Success of this attempt will be for others to judge, I expect to fail, as I have all along. The difficulty is that philosophy and politics both devote a significant portion of their energies to questions of what is the "right" perspective or the "right thing to do" and in this pursuit may each tackle exactly the same question with the real distinction being the practicality of politics vs the
theoretical of philosophy and the populations of politics vs the personal in philosophy. But persons and voices may be distinct, whatever they speak of. Perhaps a sign of success would be more exclusive mention of friends in ET and more exclusive mention of the dispicable and their fans in A Bomb A Nation
This leaves a technical problem for the RSS feeds that point here. We will experiment with that a bit so nobody has to adust their reception who does not want to feed exclusively on my amateur polemics.
[and yes, the carpentry got done, the painting got done, the carpet went in on schedule this morning...but the home[improvement]work is still eating the blog]