Jenny McB tagged me to share 5 reasons why I blog. My initial response is, "FIVE? I don't know that I have 5 reasons!" So I'll guess we'll find out together as I compose my answer ...
1. It's a journal that I keep for myself. Now that I've been doing this for over a year, it's interesting to look back 12 months and see who I was and what I was up to. It's easier for me to keep a journal this way -- as opposed to moving pen and ink across paper -- because I can do this almost any time. I can quickly begin a post anywhere, including at work, save it and finish it later. It's harder to do that with a bound journal. Also I can type faster than I can write, which makes the act of getting my thoughts down less frustrating. And lastly, Blogger keeps it all neat and tidy for me. If I had a journal, God only knows how I'd organize it, where I'd leave it, and if I'd ever find it again!
2. I like the window it gives me into other people's lives. I always thought that it would be fun to be a mail carrier because I'd know what magazines my neighbors read and I'd learn from the postcards where their friends went on vacation. Blogging gives me a harmless way to indulge in voyeurism.
3. Getting it off my chest. Sometimes things weigh on me, or delight me, that my day-to-day acquaintances aren't interested in. Writing it here, watching the words go from brain to fingertips to the white screen, seeing it in front of me, helps me deal with it and get past it. Or, if it's something happy, it helps me appreciate it more.
4. Communication. I didn't expect this -- it's a delightful bonus. I knew when I started blogging that there was a possibility that people would read this thing. I never considered how it would feel. I like it. I enjoy knowing people are listening. It's a good experiment in self-exploration because I can say things here without concern for the impact it would have on my family, friends or coworkers. Here I'm just another anonymous gal.
5. It's kind of a "bus man's holiday" for me. I'm a writer by trade. I work for an advertising agency and I get assignments from clients. "Write a brochure about this or that by eod Friday." Consequently I'm never at a loss for words; they're my job. But I never get to choose the subject! Thanks to this blog, I have rediscovered how pleasurable writing for writing's sake can be.
So I could come up with 5 after all! Why not circle back and check Jenny's response to this same questions so you can compare, contrast, and think about your own 5 reasons. If you'd like, leave word in the comments that you've posted your response.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Highly uncomfortable
My beloved future Hall of Famer Greg Maddux is pitching against my guys. Within the beautiful confines. I'm almost in pain.
Of course I want Derek Lee to have a spectacular day after what happened yesterday. Of course I want Jacque Jones to snap out of his slump. But why, oh why, do they have to do it against my beloved? How could fate be this cruel?
In my heart of hearts, I'm pulling for Maddog. I will not have many more opportunities like this to luxuriate in his performance. Besides, it's Father's Day! Last I heard, Rich Hill was engaged but as of yet childless, and Greg Maddux is the father of Amanda and Chase.
Handicapping the field
Like many of us, I've got the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominees on my mind. On balance, I like my choices. Certainly any one of the Top Tier Dems would be a refreshing change from the current administration and offer me far more positive, inclusive options than the Republicans.
It's important to note that I was a proud Clintonista in 1992 and 1996. I worked even harder and was more dedicated to John Kerry's campaign. I believed in the Senator so much that his defeat didn't even seem like a possibility to me, and the outcome of that election quite literally broke my heart. I was so dispirited that while I want to back another candidate with all I have, it could just be that my heart is a bit more impenetrable this time. That could explain why I see as many weaknesses as strengths in the current field.
Hillary Clinton. On the plus side, she is a much better debater than I expected her to be. She's strong, she's certain and she's smart. She appears to be in control and highly competent, instead of inflexible or shrill. But when she talks about health care, when she talks about her husband's administration, she reminds us that she's the Establishment. While the Clinton years were very good for many of us, it's days gone by, pre-9/11. Will Clinton policies work in today's world, without Bill at the helm? Also, the Clinton years were scandal-ridden, and while the Lewinsky affair was indeed just that, and easy for the public to grasp, the murkier, financial issues were all hers. While I believe that Whitewater never should have been examined the way it was, I also doubt that Hillary's financial dealings were altogether honest and legal. Perhaps spending her entire adult life with the original Hakuna Matata Kid necessarily made her someone who believes that the ends justify the means. Maybe as far as venal sins go, I understand lust (Bill) more than greed (Hillary). But her past behavior is a constant little annoyance to me, like a pebble in my shoe.
Barack Obama. I'm a proud Chicagoan, so I'd love to see him go all the way and land in the White House. I get such a kick out of watching the enthusiastic crowds he draws. It would be terrific if we had someone in the White House who made us feel like we could be more and better than we are and who, as Dallek said of JFK, appealed to our better angels. But his performance gets a bit worrisome when it comes to policy and details. And, as a Chicagoan, I know Obama's political background and while there's nothing there that I think should disqualify him as President, there's a lot that may make him mighty uncomfortable when the national press grabs onto it. (Remember these names: Alexi Giannoulias, Tony Rezko, Dorothy Tillman and Todd Stroger.) Cook County politics can sound much more tawdry when discussed by Tim Russert or George Stephanopolous, and I worry that Obama may have a glass jaw. He's gotten very far without ever having seriously been challenged and I'm not sure he can take it with grace.
John Edwards. First of all, I think he's completely delicious, and I may be holding that against him. I never imagined I'd have a crush on a candidate, and it kinda gives me the willies. I love that Edwards doesn't allow Iraq to dominate every conversation about 2008. I love that he so forcefully discusses Katrina and poverty and the environment in moral terms -- I'm so sick of the other side pretending to be "better" or "more Christian" because of their narrow views on reproductive freedom and gay rights. The Edwards approach gives us moral leadership without beating us over the head with his internal relationship with his God. So far this century, I have felt as though my Christian faith has been hijacked and our proud American tradition of the separation between church and state has been assailed. John Edwards gives us a sound, decent, spiritual alternative and I think for that reason his candidacy is very important. But as with Hillary, when it comes to John Edwards I feel like there's a pebble in my shoe. It bothers me that The Boys from Boston (Senators Kerry and Kennedy) aren't supporting him. These are the two legislators who know him best, and yet when it comes to endorsing Edwards, they're both mute. If John Kerry believed he was qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency in 2004, what's going on now?
Al Gore. I'm not crazy about his little striptease about running. It's an honor to hold the office of President, and we shouldn't have to BEG him to go for it. But he is knowledgeable about world affairs and highly regarded internationally and even though he's the Establishment, too, his passionate involvement with the global climate crisis makes him seem equally as much about the future as the past. I don't think, though, that he's going to run.
Whew! I am long-winded, aren't I?
So I guess that right now, I'd be comfortable voting for any of these four candidates. But I want to be passionately FOR one of them. I want to be comfortable nagging my friends for money, I want to be comfortable working the phones and writing letters. And while I'm hopeful that one of them will woo me and win my heart, we aren't there yet.
It's important to note that I was a proud Clintonista in 1992 and 1996. I worked even harder and was more dedicated to John Kerry's campaign. I believed in the Senator so much that his defeat didn't even seem like a possibility to me, and the outcome of that election quite literally broke my heart. I was so dispirited that while I want to back another candidate with all I have, it could just be that my heart is a bit more impenetrable this time. That could explain why I see as many weaknesses as strengths in the current field.
Hillary Clinton. On the plus side, she is a much better debater than I expected her to be. She's strong, she's certain and she's smart. She appears to be in control and highly competent, instead of inflexible or shrill. But when she talks about health care, when she talks about her husband's administration, she reminds us that she's the Establishment. While the Clinton years were very good for many of us, it's days gone by, pre-9/11. Will Clinton policies work in today's world, without Bill at the helm? Also, the Clinton years were scandal-ridden, and while the Lewinsky affair was indeed just that, and easy for the public to grasp, the murkier, financial issues were all hers. While I believe that Whitewater never should have been examined the way it was, I also doubt that Hillary's financial dealings were altogether honest and legal. Perhaps spending her entire adult life with the original Hakuna Matata Kid necessarily made her someone who believes that the ends justify the means. Maybe as far as venal sins go, I understand lust (Bill) more than greed (Hillary). But her past behavior is a constant little annoyance to me, like a pebble in my shoe.
Barack Obama. I'm a proud Chicagoan, so I'd love to see him go all the way and land in the White House. I get such a kick out of watching the enthusiastic crowds he draws. It would be terrific if we had someone in the White House who made us feel like we could be more and better than we are and who, as Dallek said of JFK, appealed to our better angels. But his performance gets a bit worrisome when it comes to policy and details. And, as a Chicagoan, I know Obama's political background and while there's nothing there that I think should disqualify him as President, there's a lot that may make him mighty uncomfortable when the national press grabs onto it. (Remember these names: Alexi Giannoulias, Tony Rezko, Dorothy Tillman and Todd Stroger.) Cook County politics can sound much more tawdry when discussed by Tim Russert or George Stephanopolous, and I worry that Obama may have a glass jaw. He's gotten very far without ever having seriously been challenged and I'm not sure he can take it with grace.
John Edwards. First of all, I think he's completely delicious, and I may be holding that against him. I never imagined I'd have a crush on a candidate, and it kinda gives me the willies. I love that Edwards doesn't allow Iraq to dominate every conversation about 2008. I love that he so forcefully discusses Katrina and poverty and the environment in moral terms -- I'm so sick of the other side pretending to be "better" or "more Christian" because of their narrow views on reproductive freedom and gay rights. The Edwards approach gives us moral leadership without beating us over the head with his internal relationship with his God. So far this century, I have felt as though my Christian faith has been hijacked and our proud American tradition of the separation between church and state has been assailed. John Edwards gives us a sound, decent, spiritual alternative and I think for that reason his candidacy is very important. But as with Hillary, when it comes to John Edwards I feel like there's a pebble in my shoe. It bothers me that The Boys from Boston (Senators Kerry and Kennedy) aren't supporting him. These are the two legislators who know him best, and yet when it comes to endorsing Edwards, they're both mute. If John Kerry believed he was qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency in 2004, what's going on now?
Al Gore. I'm not crazy about his little striptease about running. It's an honor to hold the office of President, and we shouldn't have to BEG him to go for it. But he is knowledgeable about world affairs and highly regarded internationally and even though he's the Establishment, too, his passionate involvement with the global climate crisis makes him seem equally as much about the future as the past. I don't think, though, that he's going to run.
Whew! I am long-winded, aren't I?
So I guess that right now, I'd be comfortable voting for any of these four candidates. But I want to be passionately FOR one of them. I want to be comfortable nagging my friends for money, I want to be comfortable working the phones and writing letters. And while I'm hopeful that one of them will woo me and win my heart, we aren't there yet.