Skip to main content

A question for the unaffiliated, sporadic, and even cast-off in the Delaware blogosphere

Here I am thinking about those voices currently without their own blogs, possibly because they really don't want the self-established pressure to write every day or every week, or because there have been some disagreements along the way: Rsmitty, Dana Garrett, Mike Matthews, donviti....

Or those who are plainly running a bit on fumes these days in their own blogs (because interest comes and goes, but real life intrudes without mercy): Shirley, Brian Shields....

And some of our regular commenting voices around the Delaware blogosphere who have never taken the plunge: Anonone, Perry, noman....

Not to mention other bloggers who occasionally have an idea or a perspective that just doesn't fit their regular gig....

I'm thinking of a different kind of blog, something I'd call Delaware Spectrum, that would be an ensemble of shared interest in political blogging rather than an ensemble of shared politics....

I don't actually know if something like this would have enough long-term appeal to work.

So here's my serious QOTD for those listed above and anybody else reading: If I built it, would you come?

Or at least breathe hard.

(Damn it, Waldo, I'm trying to break myself of those sexual innuendos, but it's hard. I mean it's difficult.)

Comments

It's not the context, it's the metaphor, which works the same way whether it's you or the Limbaugh.

Shame. Shame on you.
Waldo
Obviously you need to read the previous post. Or at least place the answer there. In this case you've declared for rhetorical abosolutism over an admittedly poor choice of words.

I made the poor choice of words and I said so.

Having done that (which is more than you could expect from damn near anybody else) I am not about to let you take the high and mighty position that context is immaterial. That's a crock and we both know it.
Delaware Watch said…
I would participate. I am very busy w/ teaching, so I couldn't continue my own blog w/ daily entries. But if I were a member of a team of bloggers, I might be able to manage a contribution or two a week.

Great idea.
Brian Shields said…
I had a thought along these lines a while ago, and think it is a good idea.

Would I participate? Probably. To be quite honest I think my lack of passion is because of a lack of time with work and a lack of knowledge of the healthcare debate/debacle.

I am sure I will find time once things settle and politics gets more interesting.
Anonymous said…
My writing plate is pretty full right now. Blog commentary is more of an amusing distraction for me, right now. But I'd probably submit a post now and then.

anonone
I would actually welcome this. I have a ton of things on my plate which is why my own blog has slowed but I post once a month or so and I see no reason why I couldn't contribute that often or perhaps more to a group effort. It would be kind of cool having different view points all in the same location.
Dorian Gray said…
I would read it, sure. I actually heard that DV might be pulled into another project. Full disclosure: I'm getting pulled in as well.

Somewhat different genre though. To be perfectly honest, sometimes the esoteric Dover political stuff is a snoozefest. And I hate to break the news to anyone, but I can count the people interested in Sussex county politics on one hand.
I could contribute; sounds like a good idea.
donviti said…
I'm out, it appears that I have finally been able to pull together an a list bunch of cerebral heavyweights.

I hope you can help me get the word out.
dv
But for me to help you get the word out I need a link or something. What am I supposed to be telling people?
RSmitty said…
Just saw the post. I'd participate, but lightly. I actually had an idea to bring varying points to a common site, but those I asked wouldn't bite. If you can do it, more power to ya'!

Oh, I want a regular dust up between you and Eric Dondero as part of the new digs. Gotta keep it happening!

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...