Tannishblog

To honor the anniversary of the blog moving to it’s own domain, I present to all three of my readers an honest-to-goodness 100% Tannish Design-ed blog template. Maybe this one will stay around for a while. I’ve build quite a few templates in the past few months, when I feel they’re as perfect as this, I’ll share them with the Wordpress community. Not this one, though; it’s my favorite.

The image is by the same people who did the the last one (the guy looking out over the foggy city.) and there’s a few variations out there by them of melted people. This image is so true to my personality: the music, the jeans, the leather chair and the black guitar - perfect.

And can’t we all relate to the emotional content in the image? We’ve all had days like that. Haven’t we, at one time or another, slumped into a favorite chair at the end of the day and *felt* like we were melting… Hence the name: Meltdown.

Yeah. You know the feeling.

Okay. Here’s another new blog skin (template) for Tb. As I continue experiments in the art, science and nit-picky details of web design, I discover a preference for dark backgrounds. Some argue that the look is unprofessional. I find it easier on the eyes, but then I tend to live in dimly lit rooms. Think of me as part wolf, part cave troll - or something.

This design uses the technique for creating those neat rounded corners that are so fashionable on blogs. Soon, I predict, the ubiquity of rounded-corner designs will become as passe as the big rollover buttons circa 1999, so I tried out a variation. The paw prints are more accurate than those I used previously - less cartoon-y. The colors came directly out of the photo thanks to a nifty little app called ColorPic, which lets me capture pixel colors.

Let me know if you like it. Feedback is encouraged. Who knows how long this one will remain until the next mad experiment. If you would like me to re-skin your blog, leave a comment.

Okay - not really; I quit that stuff years ago. But I did space out on this blog’s two-year anniversary. It was Wednesday. On May 7th, 2005, I began an experiment in writing, hosted on Blogger, which is surprisingly still ongoing.

I don’t have many readers, but I would like to thank you all for your silent encouragement, your occasional commentary and especially your patience. Having a hundred or so visits a week is enough to fool myself into believing I’m not wasting energy here. Blogging is often akin to screaming into a vacuum, but any kind of writing is like that. Thanks to the miracle of web site tracking, I can rest assured some few visit every day. That’s good enough for me. Besides, I have no vision of being the next Kos…

Thanks, all.

As I read this lengthy piece at Washington Post, I ponder the wisdom of imbuing the "Web Roots" with political clout. I’m concerned over the direction is will lead us.

Here’s the gist of the article: a moderate House Democrat, Ellen Tauscher of California, is under fire from a few prominent liberal bloggers. Daily Kos and Moveon.org are alleging she has worked too closely with the Bush Administration during the previous congress. The crux of the dispute seems to be summed up in the following paragraphs:

Tauscher’s liberal critics say she has undermined the party during the Bush years, making a fetish of bipartisanship at a time when Republicans had no interest in real compromise, demonizing the far left at a time when Democrats needed to unify against the far right. And they’re still seething about her "left cliff" quote, which echoed GOP talking points before Election Day.

"She reinforces the idea that lefties are out-of-control children," said Brian Leubitz, who runs a liberal California blog called Calitics. "She provides cover for Republican extremists."

Tauscher says it’s obvious that Democrats will alienate independent voters if they tack to the hard left and she won’t apologize for stating the obvious. "The speaker has been indefatigable about saying she’s going to govern from the center," she said. "I guess if you’re looking to be offended, that’s what’s going to offend you."

Kos promises a "vicious fight for her seat." He doesn’t seem to be concerned about the fragility of the Democratic majority. I question the wisdom of handing first-tier bloggers undue power to influence and attack politicians. Are we leaning leftward into anarchy? Kos, of course, thinks not.

"We’re creating real democracy," he said.

Regardless of facts, we are seeing a disparity between the blogosphere, whose forerunners are essentially  influential local businessmen, and a member of congress. Before the Internet such disharmony could only be expressed through letters, withholding campaign contributions and by voting. Now, one man’s grudge can have sweeping ramifications.

I see a emerging habit of news media to give legitimacy to bloggers through news coverage. Internet grass roots activism is new, unpredictable and important, true, but an interesting feedback loop is occurring. Perhaps it is symbiosis.

In theory, the idea of handing government accountability to the masses seems a Good Thing, yet with a caveat: The masses tend to exhibit a mob mentality. Dangerously so. Can they learn to behave with the decorum necessary for affective political debate?

Media history has proved that a few can influence many with the power of broadcasting. The Internet upends the equation. The many have the power of broadcasting and the few must react. The mob now has better weapons. Are they wise enough to use them, or will they cave to the very human tendency toward personal satisfaction and grudge politics? With the peanut gallery newly empowered, Americans find themselves with more masters to appease.

Can we vote the Kos’ and Malkin’s out of power? Perhaps by not visiting their sites. A rapid decrease in page views my send a message, to the media as a reduction of influence, who will quickly run to the next big story maker. Also to the blogger as a reduction of advertising revenue. I fear the process is both too weak and too slow.

The NY Times today had an interesting "Quote of the Day:"

"This is all being made up as we go along. It is difficult to apply the old ways campaigns were run in late 20th century to this new wide-open citizen-led politics."  SIMON ROSENBERG, of the New Democrat Network, on politicians’ use of the Internet.

Referring to an article on the recent trend of hiring prominent bloggers for  presidential campaigns, this quote obstensibly covers the clash of cultures between the loose-cannon, almost-anarchistic blogosphere and the tighty-whitey stodginess of political presentations. Interesting. But that’s not what the article is really about.

John Edwards came under fire last week for hiring two feminist bloggers, Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan, aka Shakespeare’s Sister. These ladies are well loved in their communities, stellar bloggers, and - and this is the sticking point - highly opinionated. Both have said disparaging remarks about religious institutions and the political stances they own.

In some of their online writings, Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan used vulgar language to characterize religious conservatives and Roman Catholic teachings on birth control, homosexuality and the virgin birth.

On her personal blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, Ms. McEwan had referred to conservative Christians as “Christofascists.” On the Pandagon blog site, Ms. Marcotte had said that the Catholic Church’s prohibition on the use of birth control forced women to bear “more tithing Catholics.”

This week, William A. Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, had called for Mr. Edwards to dismiss the women. Stunned to learn that he did not, Mr. Donohue said in an interview Thursday, “The bloggers are no longer the issue. Edwards is the issue.”

To my jaded mind it speaks volumes about the sensitivity and fear many religious leaders have about open debate within their sphere of influence. To exemplify this fear we only need to re-read the above clip. Mr, Donohue didn’t get what he wants, so he responds with what amounts to a declaration of war. If he was more genuine, he would scowl and stamp a foot like the petulant inner-child he appears.

To appease the accompanied media frenzy, Mr. Edwards extracted a public apology from his bloggers. Unfortunately this give credence to such sinister tactics folks like Mr. Donohue love to wield.

In deciding to retain Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan, (John Edwards) extracted public apologies from them for some of their work and a promise from them to maintain a civil tone while in his employ.

Give me a break. Both women are team blogging with like-minded friends. Nothing is stopping their co-authors from ripping out. Okay, they don’t talk about work during the campaign. Any blogger worth her keyboard knows work-whine is poor subject matter. Not only are these self-renouncements hollow and desultory, they will affect no change in the actions of offended parties like Mr. Donohue. The damage has been done.

So: we have a convergence of the grass roots political blognation with old-school political aspirations. We also have a divergence of passionate free speech from a culture of stymied rigidity as exemplified by religious leaders.

What do these conflicts have in common? A palpable shift in power is accelerated by the unpredictable and (so far) uncontrollable Internet. Politicians are trying to ride the wild bull, fundamentalist leaders are trying to kill it. Both institutions fear this shift and anyone fears change. Both institutions have much to lose if they cannot make this new beast behave. Politics will attempt redirection through assimilation. Religions will do what they’ve always done: kill the infidels.

Written May 1, 2005 for my deceased blog IdiotSyncharcies. Resurrected here because I just read it again as copied on my daughter's blog , and I was (pardon me for saying so) impressed with my own writing. Somehow, it never got transfered here. Makes me wonder how much other stuff got lost in the move…

My mental tides are ebbing, and I’m feeling wonky about this blogging stuff - again. I wonder if Andrew Sullivan and his ilk ever had doubts.

This thought sets off my inner dialogue. One voice says “Of course they do. They’re just as human as you are.” The other voice just snickers. Damn him. The snickers are getting louder in my mind today. My Inner Brat is on the ascendancy:

“Here you go again,” he sneers, “parading your ignorance for the masses. Or should I say for the four people a day who stumble on your weblog. Nobody is so masochistic as to read your drivel more than once. Anyone with any sense would sprain their carpels trying to click back as fast as possible.”

“Of course,” he adds, “sensible people would not waste their time reading blogs.”

I haven’t introduced my voices yet. Inner Brat speaks my fears and insecurities, as is obvious, what isn’t apparent is he like to use the tone and the cadence of my father’s voice. My other inner voice, whom I’ve never bothered to name, is fairly young. He likes to emulate the calm reasoning tone of the Buddhist books I like to read. His voice is soft, flowing like a breeze, and is all-too-easily overcome by the Brat’s brash delivery of scorn.

The young voice speaks: “One cannot speak for the value others will find in the most mundane things…”

“Yeah, and your voice is the most mundane…”

“…like the cherry blossoms you saw today on your walk. Although it was hailing, the trees were ripe with countless perfect blossoms.”

“Oh, shut up!” Brat starts to squirm; He hates stupid trees. And flowers…sheesh!

Continuing unperturbed, Voice holds my gaze. “You felt the beauty of the blossoms to be more striking because of the hail and the dark clouds, didn’t you? It was the juxtaposition of springtime elements - the blooms and the storms - that spoke to you.”

Brat mutters something about “talking trees,” which I try to ignore. “Yeah,” I say, “I wished I had a camera.”

Voice smiles his older-than-all-of-us smile. “The value of the moment is intrinsic in the knowledge that it cannot be captured. What worth has a flower if it remains always in bloom?”

Brat, having heard enough, shouts. “We were talking about Tannish’s crappy blogging, about his pathetic attempt at journalism.” Fists on hips, he strikes a defiant stance, awaiting my response.

“Your right,” I relent. “I’m fooling myself.” Already I begin to rehearse my official exit from the blogging world. Should I write an entry for each of my two blogs, or should I just write one and a quick link from the other? 

“Make it short, nobody loves long, pitiful good-byes,” Brat snarled as if he can read my mind - which, as a figment of my imagination, he can. Then, so can Voice. 

“Every single artist is just as human as you,” Voice gently states. “Humans doubt themselves from time to time. This is natural. Every artist has a side of them that needs to be appreciated. Your work has merit.” 

“So does toilet paper…” 

“Stick with it and you will make new friends,” Voice finishes. My scepticism showed, while Voice smiles his warmest smile and pats my hand. 

As Brat storms off, muttering in the distance, Voice fades like a Cheshire cat, and I’m left to the ebb and flow of my mental tides alone. “Patience,” I can hear as I attempt to row my metaphorical self to the safety of self-assuredness, bolstered for another week of blogging.

I’ve heard it said that bloggers should specialize to maximize readership. Something about search engine functions and results usually follow. Increased traffic is the ultimate goal, isn’t it? Every one wants to be like Kos.

Not really. While I would like a bit more people to visit regularly, I feel having hoards of readers to be a big responsibility. Soon, it would become a burden as my concern over continued edification, edutainment and enlightenment of virtual masses foreshadow my family life, work life, then life in general. I wish not to become a target for the likes of Bill O’Reilly.

Besides, I’m no specialist. I’m a well-rounded guy. If you could see me stomach these days, you’d agree. Lacking formal edu-ma-kation, I learn haphazardly of many subjects.  My father would say I possess a "smattering of ignorance," (but I’m showing off my issues again… ) Many things interest me, and I like to share them. Mostly, I like to write, to string words together about whatever comes to mind - stream of consciousness stuff. Even stupid things like this post.

If others read this I’m happy. If they return for more, I’m happier. Isn’t the point of life to pursue happiness? To anyone reading: Thank you.

"The new year is a blank slate upon which to write," or some such… That is the gist of a nice email greeting from Dailyzen.com. I awake this late morning to a slate written upon with a sloppy hand. Things like "I could get used to Jamison’s Irish Whiskey," and "Two in the morning? Most days I get up at four," vying with the perennial "Work tomorrow, playtime’s over." If it wasn’t for the familiarity of the blocky "N’s" and the rounded "E’s," I might wonder who was so callous.

Last night’s annual movie fest, a Tim Burton/ Johnny Depp affair, worked for the ladies - Daughter, Wife and a girlfriend of hers - but this lone dude kept gravitating around his PC games. The magic hour came and all three shouted the incantation "Happy New Year" and returned to the final feature, "Willy Wonka." I stood with empty shot glass in hand thinking the usual Tannish drivel.

New Years is an arbitrary demarcation. Nothing is new at all, we’ve been here before. Finally, Zen thoughts emerge from the bog: Beginnings are meaningless as all things arise and fall continually. In a world where there are no beginnings, there are no ends. Each moment gives rise to the next in an endless cycle of causation and karma. Life rides a river of time marked only by continuing changes, whether looking at a microcosm of individual existence or a macrocosm of galactic movements, no real beginnings can be found.

Thus there really was no good reason to get sauced last night.

My friend and blogging antithesis, Leucanthemum, has set me off again. In her latest column for her town newspaper, repeated here, she compares the Iraqi War with the Chicago Bears. Let that sink in a moment.

She’s referring to the media’s coverage of President Bush’s flip-flop on the status of the war; from "Absolutely, we’re winning," to "We’re not winning and we’re not losing." (As if the latter comment makes any sense. My father used to talk like that: "I may not always be right, but I’m never wrong." Say What?)

My favorite blogging flower defends the whole debacle, as usual. She’s consistent. But to compare a war to a football game leaves much to ponder. First, football, as all team sports and competitions, are highly stylized battles. That’s their appeal. That such events are entertainment to the masses and by extension huge business enterprises says mush about the un-evolved nature of human tendencies (see yesterday’s posting.) In may ways we’re still approach live much like Neanderthals.

Second, her comparison of a war where, I remind her, people are being killed, to a sporting event shows a great flaw in any person still foolish enough to support this tragedy - the dehumanization and trivialization of systemized, politically sanctioned murder.

Not to flippantly compare a war  with football games, but it seems to me, our troops have a hugely loyal fan base, and a history of mostly winning, even when they’re statistical underdogs.

Oh, but you are.

It’s still midseason, not even at playoffs, yet.   Of course we’re not winning, right now.  But that doesn’t mean we won’t, as long as we don’t do something Chicago-sports-stupid,  like giving up and coming home before the season is over.

The popular eighties band the Police sang about "Too many cameras and not enough food," and that mentality is exemplified by the war-is-spectator-sport crowd. They would rather see blood and destruction than a more evolved attitude of, say, rebuilding Iraq without losing billions of earmarked dollars in the process. I remember Hockey games were more popular with blood on the ice. While the home crowd is cheering, people in Iraq are dying. While we bolster support for a lagging team whose fans are slipping away, collateral damage is leveling cities, destroying families, exacerbating a cultural hatred that needed no help, destroying the lives and future of children both in Iraq and at home when they learn their beloved parents are not coming home.

This is not a sport, people!

As I follow the Mark Foley "Innocence Lost" tour, I get curious about what the Fighting Keyboarders are typing. I try not to rail against the furious in Right Blogistan. Sometimes, though, it’s hard to resist.

My first foray led me to a site called Passionate America which took the stance that the MSM is doctoring data in the form of minor edits to published Foley emails. We’re talking punctuation, here. This pundit’s big question is - writ in red, no less - "Who Altered Foley’s Emails?" Let me be the next to say, a missing apostrophe does not a conspiracy make, fool! It seems the larger issues of congressional sexual misconduct and the attendant hypocrisy by a member of the Caucus of Missing and Exploited Children are too much for this little mind.

The good Captain, celebrating his third blogiversary, (Congrats!) goes after speaker Hastert for his hand-off approach to a hands-on situation. One for the record books: I agree with the Captain: boil ‘em in oil, those foul beastians who look askance who pretend it will go away! (Okay, so I missed pirate-talk day. Whatever.) The Captain is casting wide for expulsion of Speaker Hastert for doing nothing since last year. 

Malodorous Michele sharpens her scalpel on the whole issue. She condemns Mark Foley easily enough, but is carefully avoiding casting her net too wide. She can’t avoid altogether the possibility of a complicit GOP, but no names are offered. How adroit.

There is a time and place for attacking the Dems and the MSM. Now is not that time. Parents need assurance that their kids are safe on Capitol Hill. If Beltway GOP elites can’t understand this, they are beyond hope.

Then there’s LGF, the site you love to hate. A loud silence is heard from that quarter, as the only mention of Mark Foley is circular link to the email- altering non-question. No scathing editorial about ethics, protection of children… nothing. I guess the whole thing is okay with them. Such a little thing couldn’t distract them from their focus in terror 24/7/365.

Next, onto Freeperland followed by a careful washing of hands. A quick search of the word "Foley" small results. A blurb about how the President is "Disgusted," and a notion about how ABC News is (apparently to some) playing up the story in a possible effort to "make up with the Democrats," after taunting them with the 9/11 docudrama thingy. Next up, a scathing attack against the NY Times for - get this - running over a Republican:

For the Times’ editors, sexual perversion in political Washington is always a sideline issue. Nothing has changed at the Times; they will run with a sex scandal only if they can run over a Republican. This morning, they glance over Congressman Foley’s alleged behavior, move on to their target, and totally ignore that a watchdog group and members of the media may have let children remain at risk.

Just how free is this republic lately?

That’s about all I can stand of the polluted waters of Right Blogistan. It sometimes amazes me how quick we humans are to defile each other. While I believe Mr. Foley escaped the worst of possibilities by his quick resignation, and I believe much needs to be done in congress with a pervasive look-away attitude toward their peers (both parties), it nevertheless amazes me how quickly the carrion dogs feed.

This reminds me of an important moral lesson I learned from my cat: Don’t Shit Where You Eat. Humans, I’m reminded once again, tend to do that.