Will the War on Guns Drive Gun Owners to War?

We citizens of the United States are more divided than ever.  Well, since 1860 anyway.  We seem to disagree about everything political.  And these days, almost everything is political.  I increasingly read that we are headed for a second civil war.

Our constitution is definitely under attack.  Especially free speech.  But I think most people quite reasonably conclude that we should keep the relentless assault on free speech at bay with the ballot box.

In fact, as I look at the political landscape, I don't really see any issues that people would actually be willing to die for.  Abortion, taxes, immigration, healthcare, education, climate change and other environmental issues, government regulation, sure, all very divisive issues.  But are you willing to die for any of these?  And the only somewhat more difficult question:  Are you willing to die for all of these issues collectively?

No, I just don't believe it.  These are bitter election issues to be sure, but are they go to war issues?  Are they, shoot your neighbor issues?  Are they really?  Okay sure, we might look down our noses at our politically-reprobate neighbors, we might take wayward family members off the Christmas card list, but we are not likely to shoot them.

Yes, I have noticed that Americans are increasingly judging others based on their political leanings.  We are definitely falling into two distinct and isolated camps.  I see it with my clients, colleagues, and friends.  I do it myself.  And it is true, there is genuine contempt.  But violence is something else entirely.

In passing, sure, I recognize that there are some people who would go to war over abortion.  But contrary to what the extremists on both sides would have you believe, most Americans are middle-of-the road moderates on this issue.  Quite reasonable and sick-to-death of the extremists alone framing the debate.

But there is one issue that could lead to war:  The Left's war on guns.

I say could because even this is not clear to me.  How will gun owners react to state-mandated gun registration and later to gun confiscation?  For now, some loudly proclaim bold resistance.  But my guess is that most gun owners will grudgingly comply; so much easier than the risk of becoming an unemployable criminal with a record.  And I suspect some, if they can, will move to less hostile states.

One’s attitude on guns is directly related to one’s attitude on government; let me summarize the two basic positions.  If you believe that government and the individuals running it are a force for good and can be trusted, then you will be willing to grant it a monopoly on firearms.  If you believe that government is a necessary evil, must be constantly monitored, and certainly not trusted, then you will be unwilling to grant it a monopoly on firearms.  In the United States today, this is a clear Left/Right divide.

But it is not simply a difference of political philosophy.  If we grant government a monopoly on firearms, the disarmed citizens will be much easier to control and less likely to threaten the governmental power structure.  Just ask the Chinese.  This would be true for any government, Left or Right.  But in this country, it is only the Left that wants to disarm the public.  Why?  I submit that they care less about liberal values, and more about power and control.

And you can be sure that leftist elites will continue to move about freely with a multitude of firearms.  Guns for me, but not for thee.  Their hypocrisy alone could spark a war.

As for mass shootings, the Left is delighted to turn this mental health issue into an excuse to disarm the public.  Do not allow this shameful subterfuge to distract us from their real agenda.

It is worth remembering why the second amendment exists in the first place.  It is not to protect hunting rights.  It is not to protect an individual's right to self-defense.  No, our founders added it to the Bill of Rights immediately after the armed citizenry of this country overthrew a tyrannical government.  Today we can quibble over whether our government is moving towards tyranny, or not, but surely the options afforded by the second amendment must be retained.

I would posit that one sign of a tyrannical government is gun confiscation.  So it comes down to how many gun owners will resist?  How organized will they be?  And how far will they take their resistance?

If the Left wants to grant government a monopoly on firearms, they should legally and legitimately repeal the second amendment.  Or risk war.
𓐵

Fauda on Netflix

If you have not seen the Israeli series Fauda, on Netflix, you are missing some of the best television of the last few years.  It is mesmerizing and difficult to watch at the same time.
𓐵

On Those Ridiculous Beards

The time has come for something to be said about the beards.

I first noticed the millennial lads sporting beards as a sort of avant-garde fashion statement.  Or so it appeared.  Then later I thought:  This is a fad and will soon enough pass.  But there was a time when I thought the same about Starbucks and its bitter coffee.  And yet the beards continued to multiply, spreading like a contagion to anyone under forty.  Today the trend seems more prevalent than ever.  It's an epidemic of pogonotrophy.  So what are we to make of it?

Let's start with a few simple questions.  Is it laziness?  I don't think so; some of these things must be a bear to groom (pardon the pun).  But for the ungroomed which we sometimes see, maybe it is just that, laziness.  Is it peer pressure?  Surely, there must be some of that as well.  Deteriorating societal standards of personal presentation?  Oh yeah, that too.

But I have a darker question:  Are these guys hiding an extreme lack of self-confidence behind a mask of facial hair?  Wait...what?  Surely that is reading way too much into a mere fashion statement, right?  Besides:  All of them?  Really?  But just for fun, let's push the question to the end:  Are these beards emblematic of a growing lack of confidence in the West?  Or at least for an ever-increasing number of its male participants?  And what does that mean for our future?  Over the top?  Read on.

I suppose younger men have it tough.  I mean current academic and other bien pensant attitudes towards masculinity are rather unsympathetic, and sometimes even hostile.  I have read that a beard is the last acceptable method for a man to demonstrate his masculinity.  Have these young men been so emasculated by academia and political correctness that they feel like they have to grow a Taliban-style beard to prove to themselves and to others that they are in fact male?  That's a sad thought; pathetic if true.  But when thinking about this trend, that is the word that most often comes to mind:  Pathetic.

And I do question the new beard's effectiveness as a symbol of masculinity.  A beard alone just cannot make an unmanly man look manly, much less be manly.  Rather it just makes him look ridiculous.  And fraudulent.  The problem is that these are not rugged, outdoorsy men, working in the elements, growing beards as a matter of course.  These are not lumberjacks, oilfield roughnecks, merchant seamen, or deep sea fishermen.  Men with constant traces of dirt and grease under their fingernails.  No, no, these are baristas and shoe salesmen and various liberal arts graduates who want to look like roughnecks.  And of course, we all see through that. 

Now no doubt these guys would argue:  "Hey, I know that no one will confuse me with a lumberjack.  But it's a look.  An edgy fashionable look.  And I'm an edgy fashionable sort of fellow."  And there is no arguing with that.  I mean Heidi Klum just married the Geico caveman. 

And that is part of the problem, ladies.  You are tolerating and perhaps even encouraging this absurd pretense.  Stop it.  Tell the men in your life just how ridiculous they look.

Will that arrest declining confidence in the West?  Absolutely not.  But at least it's something.
𓐵

A la Carte Cable Television Pricing in Three Steps

Working Theory

What follows is a thought experiment based on the theory that if you do not charge cable customers for any channels that they do not want, they will in turn be willing and able to pay more for the channels they do want.

Step One

Make ESPN a premium channel.  To make this explanation a bit easier, let's just say, it's $10 per month (for all the ESPN channels as a bundle).  But I think it could easily be less.

No, this would not increase your monthly bill under this plan (keep reading).

Step Two

Offer a required Basic Tier with any five non-premium channels, selected by the customer, for $20 per month.  This tier would also include all local and public-access channels.

Step Three

Offer each additional non-premium channel for $1.00 per month.  Channels can be added and dropped online with, say, 30 days notice.

Examples

ESPN Customers

So the minimum cable bill would be $20 per month.  If you are an ESPN junkie, and let's take the extreme case - you watch little else - then your bill would be $30 per month.  And with that you get five extra channels, plus all the local stuff.

What about those folks who just love having 100 channels?

Well, not that they watch all of them, right?  But let's say that's what you need; your bill would be $115 per month.  That is before any premium channels including ESPN.  If you need ESPN in addition, your bill would be $125.  Plus you would get all the local stuff.

What about most of us?

Let's see, most of us like sports, so sure, we want ESPN.  And we want all the local stuff.  And we love CNN and Fox News and the Weather Channel, and a handful of other cable channels.  So for this example, let's say we watch as many as 30 different non-premium cable channels from time to time.
Basic Tier:         $20
25 Extra channels:  $25
ESPN:               $10
Total:              $55

And I think 30 channels is a lot.  I bet if you really think about it, you watch fewer than that.  For non-sports-fanatics, such as myself, this is a $45 plan.  And the truth is, I could probably get by with, say, 15 channels.  That would be a $30 plan.  10 cable channels?  $25 per month.

And there is room to be creative here.  For example, buy the ESPN premium channel, get Lifetime and Hallmark for free (so take those two out of your selected five).  Something for him, something for her.

Local-Only & Single Premium Packages

Finally I see no reason why the providers cannot continue to offer a local-only package, without any cable channels, for say, $10 per month.  I also see no reason why the providers cannot offer premium channels without either the local package or basic tier.  So that ESPN customer above, could pay just $10 per month for that one channel or bundle.  Or ESPN plus local for $20 per month.  When compared to the existing system, that is an incredible bargain for the sports fanatic.  Same with HBO and other premium channels.

Goals

Of course we want to lower monthly bills for most customers.  But we also want a plan acceptable to the providers.  The networks would almost definitely need to give up the bundles they now foist on the providers (if you want X channel, you must also carry the Y and Z channels).  For this plan to work, the providers would only pay networks based on the current subscriber count for each individual channel.  And so under this scheme, some of the least watched cable channels would necessarily go out of business.  But as currently constructed, we are subsidizing them anyway.
𓐵

Notes on The Smallest Minority

Excerpts and Observations

In regard to politics, I have always considered myself a member of a tiny minority.  A minority of exactly one.  For all of the political parties in the United States, the two dominant parties as well as the smaller ones, there are aspects of their respective platforms that simply preclude my membership.  They all have some ideal or ideals that I cannot endorse and often find loathsome.

Further, I have found that political independents are not able to look to other independents for similar ideals or community.  To borrow from Tolstoy, political party members are all alike; every political independent is independent in his own way.  Every nonconformist is nonconformist in his own way.

So it is with this background that I come to Kevin Williamson's The Smallest Minority.  By title alone, it seems, finally, someone has written a book for me.  And perhaps for you, if you are a member of, as Williamson puts it, "the smallest minority - the only one who matters:  the individual."

Williamson defines individual as, "one who can stand at least partly away from the demands of his tribe and class and try to see things as they are, and shout back over his shoulder what he sees."  Yeah okay, sure.  But I don't think that Williamson is an independent in my sense above.  He says that he is not a Republican, but he seems to be a Christian conservative.  He is certainly independent in the sense that he works in the overwhelmingly left-leaning media.  But a more honest subtitle for this book might have been:  Conservative Survival in the Age of the Left-Wing Digital Mob.  Sure, I might still have picked it up, but no doubt he wanted to appeal to the broadest possible book-buying public.

So whether or not Williamson considers himself an independent, he certainly considers himself an independent thinker - It's right there in the subtitle.  But then, doesn't everyone.  There is this nugget:  "People who dedicate their lives to finding idols before which they may abase themselves—the cult of inter-sectionality, identity politics, the Make America Great Again jihad, race and/or sex and other demographic features, nationalism, socialism, the Democratic party, the Republican party, organized homosexuality, the Bernie Sanders movement, animal rights, veganism, Crossfit, whatever —cannot abide the presence of those who decline to abase themselves before that idol or, short of that, any idol."  As for religious types, Williamson adds, "True believers believe truly, and what they hold in common isn’t that which they believe but that they believe."

I have found this to absolutely true.  Presbyterians may well understand and tolerate the Methodists, the Catholics, and even the Muslims, but they have an exceedingly hard time with the atheists.  If you cannot be in our corner, at least be in some easily-discernible corner.  

Williamson describes his subject as, "mob politics, on social media and in what passes for real life, which increasingly is patterned on social media—and its effects on our political discourse and our culture...We think in language. We signal in memes.  Language is the instrument of discourse.  Memes are the instrument of antidiscourse, i.e., communication designed and deployed to prevent the exchange of information and perspectives rather than to enable it, a weapon of mass intellectual destruction"...The function of discourse is to know other minds and to have them known to you; the function of antidiscourse is to lower the status of rivals and enemies."

Government Rubbish or Rubbish Government

I live in Cary, North Carolina.  Cary is widely regarded as a well-run small city.  The city bills for water use and trash collection monthly.

This month, when I received my water bill, I could not help but notice a steep jump in the amount billed for trash collection ("Solid Waste Disposal").  From $17.00 in June to $19.50 in July.  That is a whopping 14.7% increase.

Now I guess one could argue that governments are slow at making these moves, and maybe, the increase was overdue.  And therefore, somehow justified.  But of course, the city raised the rate from $16.00 to $17.00 just one year earlier.

Okay, part of a multi-year pricing correction, you might ask?  Let's see.

I don't happen to have water bills back to when I first moved to Cary in the year 2000.  But I do have them back to June 2003.  My fee for "Solid Waste Disposal" for that month was $7.67.

This is a 154% increase from 2003 to 2019.  Meanwhile, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for that period has risen around 39%.  Meaning that the price of garbage collection in our well-run city has increased at roughly four times the inflation rate, during this period.

Yes, this is a very small example of government inefficiency.  But I would argue, this is a very good example of government, period.  This is government.

And we all know this is true.  It's just that some of us are more accepting than others.  But many people argue that government is the answer for all societal needs and ills, large and small.  Or more government is the answer, or more money for government is the answer.  I think we should seriously question the motivations of people making these arguments.  For these people, is it about service or services?  Is it really?

Or is it about power?
𓐵

The Job of the Intellectual

Christopher Hitchens discusses George Orwell with Russ Roberts.  Best part, near the end:

The job of the intellectual, the so-called public intellectual, as we are now for some reason doomed to call it, is or ought to be, to say something along the following lines:  It's more complicated than that.  You mustn't simplify this; there's more complexity to this subject.  That's what an intellectual should be doing for public discourse.  One thinks.

But then there are occasions when, it seems to me, that the reverse is the case.  That actually, what the really thoughtful person should be saying is, It's simple; do not make complexity here, where none is required.  I was trying to imagine what Barack Obama would say if he was asked about Salman Rushdie.  Would he say, Of course, I'm for free expression over religious sensibilities, every time?  He wouldn't be able to do this, I suddenly realized.  He's never been asked.  But in his campaign to remake our relationship with the Muslim world, no one's ever asked him the fatwa question.  Could he just give a straight reply?  And no dancing around.  I bet you he could not.  Whereas the most boring thing I've ever said about Salman Rushdie was the only thing I wanted to say.  Which was, you have to be on his side; there's no other side you can possibly be on.

I understand what complexities that people want to introduce, but I'm here to repudiate them and say no-no, keep it simple.  Orwell is very good in that way.  It's very hard to tell what the truth is and some people even say that you can't quite do that; that there may not even be such a thing as objective truth.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't try for it.

Recorded on August 7, 2009.
𓐵

Two on Literature in the Academy

Patrick Gillespie:  Let Poetry Die:

The best thing that could happen to poetry is to drive it out of the universities with burning pitch forks.  Starve the lavish grants.  Strangle them all in a barrel of water.  Cast them out.  The current culture, in which poetry is written for and supported by poets has created a kind of state-sanctioned poetry that resists innovation.  When and if poetry is ever made to answer to the broader public, then we may begin to see some great poetry again – the greatness that is the collaboration between audience and artist.

Ted Genoways:  The Death of Fiction?:

[T]he less commercially viable fiction became, the less it seemed to concern itself with its audience, which in turn made it less commercial, until, like a dying star, it seems on the verge of implosion.  Indeed, most American writers seem to have forgotten how to write about big issues—as if giving two shits about the world has gotten crushed under the boot sole of postmodernism.

Most fledgling writers and poets require another source of income.  And teaching is clearly a legitimate route.  However, the insular world of the academy provides university-affiliated writers and poets with long term income and publication, with or without readership.  The academic-publishing-complex produces an almost infinite supply which is totally indifferent to demand.  To make this possible, this excess supply is funded by someone else, i.e. the tax and tuition payers.  I can think of no other field where we see so great an imbalance in supply and demand.  This situation is finally receiving the attention it deserves.

To writers I would ask, which is preferable:  Publication in an obscure literary journal (readership, maybe, a few thousand) or on a Google-searchable website?  I suppose it's a question of prestige versus availability.  Make that incestuous prestige versus the risk that no one will want to read your easily-available work.

To readers:  If you want to be intellectually stimulated, or God forbid, entertained, look for poetry and fiction produced by writers who are not part of the academy's infrastructure.
𓐵

Attention Writers: Plot Trumps All

In a follow-up to Fiction Need Not Be Boring, it is interesting to note all the pompous criticism of popular fiction.

Look, this highbrow distaste for plot produces a never-ending series of novels that:  A.  Don't live up to the authors' literary aspirations, and B.  No one wants to read.  Sure, you can legitimately criticize Dan Brown's writing.  But I choose to criticize the lack of plot in modern literature.

The lesson here is that great writing is a distant second to having a great story to tell.

And, let's take it a step further:  Writing is a teachable skill.  There are creative writing classes on every college campus.  They may not make you a great writer, but they certainly inculcate an academic sense of what is great writing.

Personally, I'm not at all convinced this is a good thing.  These classes surely can't give you an imagination.  The best writer I know, by far, has a comfort with the English language which I envy, but more important, she has a story to tell. Truly great writers always have a story to tell.  Pretenders write lyrically about the wallpaper.  And endlessly develop psychologically complex characters who never get around to doing too much.

Bottom line:  Having something to say is infinitely more important than how you say it.
𓐵

Fiction Need Not Be Boring

I remember an old Lev Grossman piece in The Wall Street Journal which was headlined:  Good Books Don't Have to Be Hard.  But his somewhat condescending article should have been entitled:  Fiction Need Not Be Boring. Here's Grossman:

If there's a key to what the 21st-century novel is going to look like, this is it:  The ongoing exoneration and rehabilitation of plot. 

[The Modernists] trained us, Pavlovianly, to associate a crisp, dynamic, exciting plot with supermarket fiction, and cheap thrills, and embarrassment.  Plot was the coward's way out, for people who can't deal with the real world.  If you're having too much fun, you're doing it wrong.  

The novel is finally waking up from its 100-year carbonite nap. Lyricism is on the wane, and suspense and humor and pacing are shedding their stigmas and taking their place as the core literary technologies of the 21st century. 

These books require a different set of tools, and a basic belief that plot and literary intelligence aren't mutually exclusive.

Emphasis mine.  I would agree that it's not so much that modern literary fiction is difficult.  It's just boring.  One reason Grossman left out is the modern affiliation of literary writers with academic institutions which, in their own self-interest, value pretentious "literary" obfuscation.
𓐵

The Graceless

I have a friend and colleague who occasionally reminds me that, with other people, we have to take the good with the bad.  We have to make allowances and accept that people, no matter how much we may like them, will have some traits that we do not like.  And we all know this is true.

But when I turned 50, I looked around, and I was not happy with the people surrounding me.  Friends and family, colleagues and co-workers, clients and vendors, even acquaintances.  Many of these people are not chosen, certainly not family.  Others just sort of drift into our lives and, well, stay.  Somehow.

These people, I came to realize, enjoyed our relationship on their own terms.  Terms that I had long tolerated, but never accepted.  And I always knew that if I changed these terms, then the relationship would wither and likely die.

A relationship, especially a friendship, is an honor.  We should be honored to have someone as a friend.  And grateful.  But at the same time, the reverse is true.  Others should be honored to have us as a friend.  And grateful.  There should be a certain reciprocal grace to it all.

Is this really such a high bar?  Apparently so.

So I decided, enough.  I ended my relationships with two close friends.  And I had another friend who did the ending with me; which was fine.  I stopped returning calls and messages of some others.  I severely limited new relationships of any kind.  Total house cleaning.

I never really tolerated toxic people.  But I found that avoiding toxic people was not enough for me.  I needed to rid myself of the graceless.  And the noise and clutter of the graceless.  With less noise comes more clarity.  And more focus.  On who and what is important.

Now I know what you are thinking:  Be careful, you will end up a lonely old man.  Relationships are messy by nature and we should be grateful for any of them.  But surely we, all of us, can expect some minimum level of goodwill and behavior.  Surely we owe this to ourselves.
𓐵

The Catholic Church in 2019

The Catholic Church is morally bankrupt and the time has come to ask about the people who continue to support it.

In the year 2019, after seventeen years of reported abuse cases, if you are still supporting the Catholic Church, financially or otherwise, I think you should ask yourself a simple question:  Am I a good person?

You supported the church for all these years.  But, you claim, you did not know the horrors of priestly behavior.  Okay.  Okay, but now you do know.  Now that these issues, these sins, have been brought into the light, that is no longer a legitimate excuse.

Another argument seems to be:  But the church does so much good.  Why withhold support just because of a few bad apples?  Well for one thing, no one can seriously argue, any longer, that it is only a few.  And for another, this, these problems, and certainly how they have been dealt with, stretch right up to the top of the church hierarchy.

We now know that it has not only been the priests who have sinned.  But some of the good sisters as well.  The way they handled unwed mothers for a start.  And now we learn of rape in their quarters as well.

And the problem goes beyond the Catholic clergy and extends into the Catholic community at large.  Those who knew what was going on but kept quiet about it or facilitated it, or even helped cover it up.  Doctors, nurses, police, prosecutors, social workers, teachers, other influential & important members of the laity, and yes, even some of the parents.

If you are religious and if you need the support of an organized church, why not find an alternative?  If you are a priest or a nun, that is those of you who are truly good-hearted individuals, why continue to associate yourself with such behavior?  Are you not repelled by it?  Your continued support, congregant, nun, and priest alike, implies tacit approval of this behavior AND the manner in which it has been handled by the church hierarchy.  I urge you to disassociate yourself from both.

I'll leave you with this thought:  What percentage of Nazi's were actual decision makers or participants in the atrocities?  And whatever the answer to that question, what do we think about those who were not decision makers or participants?  Some knew, some suspected, some tolerated.  Some stuck their heads in the sand.  All did nothing.

What do we think of them?
𓐵

Balm and Benison

*** Click if not crisp ***

From:  Charles Spurgeon, Autobiography, 1898.

Though I first encountered this term in The Jewel That Was Ours, 1991, by Colin Dexter (Inspector Morse Series).

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
balm (noun):  6. A healing, soothing, or softly restorative, agency or influence.
benison (noun):  1. A blessing.
𓐵

Definition of Sequacious

Author's note:  The original title of this weblog was Non-Sequacious.  But as my friend, Sherry Shaw, pointed out, that title was pretentious and unspellable.

sequacious, adjective

I suppose my favorite definition is from Merriam-Webster:

2 : Intellectually servile.

And from the Oxford Dictionary (no longer available online):

Of a person:  Lacking independence or originality of thought.

Finally, the definitive definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:
(Login required)

a. Of a free agent or his attributes:  Given to following another or others, especially a leader.

b. Given to slavish or unreasoning following of others (especially in matters of thought or opinion).
𓐵

Kanjana's Heart

Across a distant sea
In an ancient land of karma and fate
A wealthy man has purchased
A living work of modern art
Haunting and sensual
The Golden Heart of Peace and Joy

While she offers him her beauty
He disregards her soul
He can penetrate her surface
But not her golden core
She is mere fruit of karma
Which surely he deserves

For hidden beneath the pretense
And her carnal acquiescence
The callous indifference of destiny
So locked in a vault sealed by fate
Guarded by her confidants
Neglect and Suffering

Kanjana safely secures
Her fragile heart
𓐵

About Moore's Twilight Review

Why Twilight?

I have no familiarity with the Twilight books and movies of recent American popular culture.  Although this is magical.

Rather these are thoughts and writings from my own twilight.  And the twilight of my family.  And quite possibly, the twilight of my country and of civilization itself.

There are advantages.  By the time we reach twilight, we can draw on knowledge and experience and wisdom absent in our youth.  And kindness and grace that were inadequate in our youth.  We can find pleasure sharing all of these with others.

Hopefully by twilight, we have conquered our demons, whatever they may have been and however they were foisted upon us.

Our shadows dissolve in twilight.

About this blog

Now, what am I going to write about here?  Well, I mostly want an outlet to write about whatever is on my mind.  So I will not limit these posts to any set topic or topics.  It really is more like a journal.  The fact that it is online means that people can read along.  Or not.

I am not a natural writer, whatever that may mean.  I often write to help me determine how I should think about things.  Even sometimes, if I should think about things at all.  So if others read along, great.  It is a bonus.  But the writing you find here is primarily for myself.

This is not my first blogging effort.  And I intend to use the lessons I learned from my previous blogs here.  For instance, to maximize readability, I want a clean and uncluttered presentation.  As much as possible, I want the reader experience (even if I am the only reader) to be like reading a sheet of paper.  We are here to think about things; not to be distracted with all too common internet commotion.

Update (June 2024)

Google, in its wisdom, has decided that this blog does not merit inclusion in its index.  Even if you type a complete URL into Google's search bar, they cannot seem to find it.  Even though Google owns this platform.  So where in the beginning, this blog would receive random readers, today that number is practically zero.  I get a few, very few, from DuckDuckGo and Bing.  But the reality is that I only get readers if I send a link to someone.  And I almost never do that.  It's not that I don't want readers; it's just that the primary purpose of the writing here is for myself.  And I rarely think, Hey, I should send that to whoever or wherever.

To be sure, I am grateful to Google for providing this platform.  But I wish they were as committed to viewpoint diversity as they are to technical excellence.

I have explored other platforms, most notably Substack.  But there are two problems with this.  One, Google is just as likely to omit a Substack from their index as a blog on their own system.  And two, all Substacks look the same.  I was not able to craft a unique presentation.  And as I explained above, the presentation is important.  I have been on the Google Blogger system for over fifteen years now and the learning curve has been high.  But I am extremely happy with the results.

The only thing that would drive me away from Blogger is if Google were to take down one or more of my posts.  Given Google's politics and the tendency of the left to complain about views they disagree with, this is entirely possible.  This was the primary reason I gave Substack a test drive.  So Substack is my backup plan if necessary.  Let's hope it does not come to that.

One other recent change, I have separated certain types of posts from the main Writings timeline.  It's not that these are less important.  I just find some posts don't really mesh together well.  For instance, when I'm writing about politics, I just find a music post kind of distracting and out of place.  So I moved Music and several other categories into their own Collections.  Find these at the top of the sidebar.

In any case, if you've found this blog, somehow, welcome.

𓐵