Month: April 2008

Posted on
by

They say that what you do for work is going to kill you, so could that be true with blogging? The New York Times thinks so.

Apparently their reasoning is because some prominent bloggers have ended up with medical conditions that have killed them:

Two weeks ago in North Lauderdale, Fla., funeral services were held for Russell Shaw, a prolific blogger on technology subjects who died at 60 of a heart attack. In December, another tech blogger, Marc Orchant, died at 50 of a massive coronary. A third, Om Malik, 41, survived a heart attack in December.

Other bloggers complain of weight loss or gain, sleep disorders, exhaustion and other maladies born of the nonstop strain of producing for a news and information cycle that is as always-on as the Internet.

I agree with Michael over at Poligazette. He’s only a couple years older than me, but is still a university student, so he understands what college life can be like. He also blogs a lot more than I do. Several posts a day, and if you read his bio on Poligazette’s about page, he does a lot of other work, too. I’ll let him speak for himself:

I know what it’s like to suffer from insomnia due to blogging but the cure is very simple: blog less. You shouldn’t be thinking about your blog non-stop. If you do, you’ve got to change your pattern of blogging.

and

My grades fell flat due to blogging, so I decided to spend more time studying and less time blogging. I started to sleep less well, so I decided to blog less still. You may not have noticed much of a difference when it comes to total amount of posts, but nowadays I spend, say, 5 or tops 10 minutes per post and I write most posts early and put them on the timer, so that they’re published throughout the day. That way, I don’t have to think about the blog for the biggest part of the day.

That makes sense. It’s like that old saying: “everything in moderation”. If blogging is wearing you out, do less of it!

I have thought about doing more blogging in the past, perhaps even trying to go semi-professional, but then found that I don’t have the time. Perhaps once I’m out of school and have started working (not blogging about work of course!), but I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future right now, so that’ll be a decision I make once that time comes.

Still, I understand that it could be wearisome. God knows I’ve been worn down at times doing what I love best, television production. There are times when I’d rather not see the inside of a control room or a studio, so I try and take a break. Guess what: it works!

For now, though, I don’t blog thinking I’ll make money off it. If my life someday leads in that direction, then great! I’d love the idea of doing this for some cash in my pocket. But, for now, I do it for me. It provides me an outlet to get out my ideas, so that I’m not constantly dwelling on them.  Michelle Malkin blog contributor see-dubya says it better than I can:

Actually, blogging is kind of therapeutic. Especially when you’re a red-state person living in a blue, blue state, and your neighbors would burn a peace symbol in your yard at midnight if they knew how you really felt about things. Some people do yoga; I pound the keyboard. The blood pressure goes down either way.

See-dubya is right. Many of my entries here have been my way of not taking out my anger by yelling at somebody. It works for me, just as doing some other activity may help someone else.

I’ll end with a comment on another piece of the NY Times article:

Speed can be of the essence. If a blogger is beaten by a millisecond, someone else’s post on the subject will bring in the audience, the links and the bigger share of the ad revenue.

I disagree. The lines between the mainstream media and blogging may have become blurred over the last year or two, but blogging is different in some ways. Unlike the media, bloggers don’t have to worry about ratings. Media producers worry all the time about getting that exclusive. To some extent bloggers might also worry about this, if they’re looking to break a story that the media isn’t. For instance, bloggers were key in the since debunked President Bush military records story.

But mostly, the bloggers who get the largest followings are the ones who have unique outlooks on happenings in the world. Yes, they are also the ones who make contacts with other people (I could do with more of that), but once people have found those blogs, the unique perspective is what’s going to keep people reading.

All that said, I’m off to see what to write next. And hopefully I won’t die doing it!

Posted on
by

The LA Times has reported that actress and former anti-Vietnam war activist Jane Fonda has endorsed Barack Obama.

This endorsement is not surprising in itself, nor is it the first time a liberal like Fonda has given their nod to Obama.  However, some people, such as Michael van der Galien over at Poligazette, have a warning for Obama:

My advise for Obama, then: don’t appear publicly with Fonda. It can only hurt you; you’ve already got the support of the far-left of the Democratic Party, you don’t need her to in order to get the radicals to support you.

Though I don’t think that Fonda can really harm Obama that much (he weathered the Wright affair), I am inclined to agree with this statement.  We’re on the final leg of the primaries, and while Obama still needs all the liberals he can get to the win the nomination, that will soon change.

Assuming he becomes the nominee, appearing with Fonda may become a bad idea.  This is because he’ll need to start reaching out to moderates and conservatives if he wishes to become President.  Now, I can’t speak for everybody, but I’m willing to bet the old stigma Fonda has for appearing in those photos with the Vietcong still exists for perhaps all but the most liberal of people in this country.  That’s an association Obama really doesn’t need, given his already vocal denunciation of the Iraq war.

Lets face the facts.  The conservatives will start sending out their troops again if Obama does appear with Fonda, just as the liberals did with John McCain and John Hagee.  I don’t agree with the tactics employed by either side, but it is what happens.

Obama came through Wrightgate with some scratches, but also with some newfound respect by supporters and opponents alike.  Could he survive yet another pounding by the media and blogosphere?  Probably.  But why incur such wrath if you don’t need to?

My advice therefore remains largely the same.  Quietly accept the endorsement,  but stay away from Jane Fonda.

Posted on
by

Just when I thought I was getting sick of writing about the events of the primary season, a class assignment recharges my enthusiasm. So, for the first time, cross-posted from class.

Over at Firedoglake, Jane Hamsher says that Senator Joe Lieberman has stabbed Barack Obama in the back. Lieberman recently appeared on Fox News and discussed those two words that have come back to haunt John McCain, “100 years.” Says Lieberman:

If we did what Sen. Obama wanted us to do last year, Al-Qaeda in Iran would be in control of Iraq today. The whole Middle East would be in turmoil and American security and credibility would be jeopardized.

On the specific question of the 100 years, I think that’s an unfortunate example of the way Sen. Obama has used it, of playing political gotcha with a national security question.

Hamsher does not much appreciate Lieberman speaking out against a fellow Democrat, and makes it pretty clear:

This is gold for McCain, having “liberal, bipartisan Democrat Joe Lieberman” standing by his side, trashing Obama on experience and national security credentials.”

For the longest of time, I have considered McCain’s “100 years” statement to be taken out of context. So does McCain, because he’s gone back to clarify the comments. He has explained that he sees a presence in Iraq lasting long after the majority of operations have ended there.

A presence.

Like the one we have in Germany, or in Japan, or in South Korea. You know, in all those places that we have gone to fought over the last 100 years. I know the reason why we have maintained a presence there: stability. Who wouldn’t want to make sure Germany didn’t return to Nazi control after 1945, or make sure Japan didn’t continue fighting after their surrender?

Now, I would argue that a place like Germany or Japan no longer needs our presence. On one hand, I know in the case of Japan, their constitution bars the formation of a military. Yet, I think the time has been long past where these countries are a threat to the U.S.

Likewise, Iraq will need a presence after major military operations are over, if that’s ever the case. Assuming the extremists can be weeded out, and assuming the government of Iraq gets off their kiesters and starts taking control of their country (both huge assumptions), most of our people can be taken out. However, to ensure that someone like Iran is not going to immediately invade, we’ll need some kind of presence there. Whether we’ll actually need 100 years or not is the question that must be asked, but it isn’t one that can be academically debated, I think. However, once the U.S. government sees that things will remain relatively stable, then I think it will be time to fully remove our forces from the country.

So, McCain is not referring to 100 years of the continued military presence and operation we’ve been seeing for the past five years. He refers to ensuring stability, and I think it will be needed. Perhaps it will not take 100 years, but I think it will take several years.

That Obama keeps playing on the “100 years” statement is smart in some ways, and annoying in others. It’s a good way to pull in those who are sick of the war. On the other hand, it smells of the old and dirty politics that everybody hates in this election cycle. The kind of tactics the mainstream media keeps linking with the likes of Hillary Clinton or Karl Rove. Yet, because it’s Obama, he seems to get a pass on it.

Obama has shown he is better than that. It’s all right to question your opponent on something they have said, but to keep bringing it up is annoying to me.