I do this with a great deal of pain and disappointment, but I have concluded that it is time to stop deceiving myself into thinking that I am making a difference. Theoretically, I am distributing to over 500 people, but how many of those actual read my analysis is anybody’s guess. I suspect not many.
We live in an age when very few are interested in hearing anything that does not fit their predilections and worse their prejudices. An increasing number of people in the age of Obama find themselves most satisfied with the rantings of Fox, or to a lesser extent are happy to listen MSNBC, because it fits their particular predisposition. Fewer and fewer are interested in a balanced view or in the facts, as can be seen from the constant drop in the ratings in the less ideological CNN. I was dismayed a while ago, when a good friend said he no longer listens to the Newshour because he finds it “boring” and other friends who used to read the New York Times from cover to cover are now content to glance over the headlines and move on.
Nor was I encouraged when a number of readers removed themselves from my subscription and/or distribution lists, because I expressed views on the policies of the government of Israel at variance with their own. Rather than take the opportunity to make their own views heard across my megaphone, such as it is, they choose to cover their ears and run away from views that are not in keeping with their own.
I have also become painfully aware that many of the people who used to contribute their insight years, or even months ago, have disappeared from my radar screen, and some claiming to read my commentary have expressed agreement with my views, only to express, in their next breath, contrary views.
Nor was I encouraged when a friend, and a long time contributor, wrote a comment on my commentary entitled, Texas & Identity Politics that seemed to assume that my commentary related to the Texas school board curriculum, when it spoke strictly to the issue of identity politics.
Even people who assure me that they read my commentaries faithfully and wholeheartedly agree with my views, are not encouraging me, for as I said in commenting on an exchange with a Right wing ideologue, in the The Politics of the Big Lie:
“Let me say to my readers that I write these commentaries not so much to express opinions, though that is certainly one purpose, but more important to set the record straight as to facts, which I spend a great deal of time and effort documenting. I often get comments from readers that they agree with my opinions. I hope that they don't just get views they can agree with, for if that is all I accomplish, then my efforts are in vain. It is the underlying facts that are important and there are too many myths, too many misconceptions out there that need to be corrected. I aim to do that.
“During the Bush Administration there seemed to be a tendency to start with an ideological conclusion, and if the facts didn't fit, to change them. Whatever opinions people have the facts should come first. If I can contribute to destroying myths, to set the record straight, then I believe I will have made a valuable contribution.”
And yet I look in vain for comments that indicate that I have provided a fact that they had not known and they find helpful, or even someone adding facts I had overlooked, or had misstated one.
But strangely, in this overly ideological purity I find no passion on my side. We have neglected our problems for half a century, and have the first President during that span of time who is actually is trying to address them, who has saved the country from the looming chasm of a ’29 depression, who has successfully, if not fully, addressed our health care crisis, who has partially alleviated the pain of our gay community, while recognizing that one must move within the framework of what is politically possible, and who has brought this nation back into the world esteem it once enjoyed, to mention only a few of his achievements, but who faces vicious criticism not only from those who are his and my ideological enemies, but from those who supposedly are his and my political soul mates, who instead of directing their fire against those who tell countless lies, are the architects of the economic dilemma that the President has already prevented, direct their fire against the President and his party because they have not achieved all that one might wish in a little over a year.
I said I find no passion on my side. Contrast that with the passion of the Tea Party movement. Where are the angry voices in opposition to them? They are mostly silent, except maybe against the President because there are still many unemployed.
When I published an excerpt from The ”Best and the Brightest” to show how even then people expected miracles from a new President which could not be delivered, I expected many to find that striking and enlightening. Only one person expressed this as being interesting, and that was in an oral conversation, though it was appreciated.
In bidding adieu, I must say that there were a few bright spots recently that I must acknowledge. Patricia Burns of Edgewater, NJ gave me a great deal of encouragement when she let me know how much she appreciated my efforts. Someone on the Right agreed that he wanted to hear contrary views and appreciated my wanting to share a platform with him.
But most have fallen silent, and I find their silence and their self-absorption deafening. I cannot make my voice heard over that deafening silence and I am no longer willing to try.
Posts
30 comments:
I write for myself, not for others (excluding professional writing, of course). Of course I appreciate being read, and I appreciate any constructive dialogue my writing engenders. But it's first and foremost about getting stuff out of my head and on to a screen, and I find if I don't write (in some form -- here professional writing is included),
my brain feels constipated. I wonder if you adhere to your retirement from commentary-making whether you'll start getting those feelings, too.
On substance, I have two nit picks. One is that, while obviously an enormous improvement over his predecessor, Obama is still in many ways disappointing. He's stepped away from campaign pledges from Guantanamo to the Public Option. There was zero leadership on the health bill, which resulted in a much weaker law than should have been permitted. There has not been a commitment to step back from the executive overreaching of the Bush years.
The other is the Obama is the first president in over half a century to try to address fundamental problems in the nation. Lyndon Johnson did that with the War on Poverty and the other Great Society programs, and tried to do it with the problem of hegemonic Communism in Vietnam, though the latter was misguided and a failure. But he did try very hard. (I could also make a good argument that Ronald Reagan tried very hard to address the problems he perceived, though in many cases I disagree both with his perception and his forms of address. But I suspect your point would be that what Reagan perceived as problematic was wrong and ignored the actual problems.) But I still think that at most you can say that Obama is the first president since Johnson to try to tackle fundamental problems facing the nation.
I too write for myself. In fact I wrote a 500 page memoir which has too many personal things in it to be read by others, though I satisfied my ego by having it printed and bound.
But when I write for others my ego gets in the way. In that case I need to know not only that it is being read but that it is useful.
Frankly, your failure to contribute in recent month, after for a long time preceding that having been a frequent voice, contributed, along with many others in the same category, to my discouragement, and finally my decision to throw in the towel. I recognized that with a new wife and son and a new law practice your time would be well spoken for, but that was not true for many others,
and the cumulative effect was one of demoralization.
Another frequent and intelligent voice had disappeared because he had lost his job and was more focused on finding a new one
than on carrying on a political dialogue. Understandable, but to me a great loss, because I needed the stimulation of an exchange of views.
But most voices disappeared without explanation and I took that to mean they had lost interest.
But I was also discouraged by the general political atmosphere. Maybe I felt a bit like Congressman David R. Obey or Sen. Evan Bayh that I was knocking my head against a stone wall.
And there your comments represent that which contributes to my dismay. You and many others have complained that Obama is still in many ways disappointing. Or to quote you: "He's stepped away from campaign pledges from Guantanamo to the Public Option. There was zero
leadership on the health bill, which resulted in a much weaker law than should have been permitted. There has not been a commitment to step back from the executive overreaching of the Bush years."
Allow me to answer that though I tried answering it in many articles over the past few months. On the Public Option he did not step away from it, though the pundits and the Left wing organizations made that claim, completely erroneously I thought. If you analyze the fact that Republicans to a man (or woman) were going to oppose it and there were a few or even one Democrat who would not go along with it, it became obvious that pushing for the public option would doom the whole bill, and I don't believe that this was an outcome that could or should have been accepted.
On Guantanomo, he signed an exec. order almost on day one, that he would close Guantanomo within a year and Congress blocked him, decreeing that the Guantanamo detainees could not be brought to the US for trial. If he can't bring them to the US for trial he can't close Guantanamo. That is just the way it is. Our President is not a dictator, even if Bush and Co. tried to create one with their expansive unitary executive theory. Would you want Obama to claim that Congress has no authority and he can do as he pleases.
You say, as others have, that he displayed "zero leadership on the health bill". Should he have done what Clinton did which was to draft a bill in the White House and present it to Congress. He would have had the same result Clinton had. Zilch!!! He let Congress take the initiative and then put his hand in when and if the situation demanded it. The result the bill passed. We have reform. Does it solve all the problems of our system? No! More will have to be done incrementally but Republican victories will most certainly not advance reform, and that is what
the carping helps achieve.
(Cont. in next post)
You say: "There has not been a commitment to step back from the executive overreaching of the Bush years."
That is a too general statement to lend itself to a detailed response. It doesn't even say what it is based on and if you will be specific I will try to
respond point by point. In some cases the Obama Administration has had to defend acts of Congress as the attorney charged with that duty
whether it likes those statutes or not. In others it may have considered it dangerous politically to deviate from what has overwhelming support either in the Congress or among the general public. Each situation is different and such a sweeping statement can neither be supported nor rebutted. But we live in a real world, not a theoretical one.
But most important, to say he has only tried, is to overlook the enormous achievements of his first year in the face of a determined opposition party committed to obstruct and obstruct by any means possible. See my post: "The Achievements of Barack Obama" and that was before he got the Health Reform Bill through Congress and before he signed a nuclear arms control treaty with Russia. He has done much more than tried and if the American people gave him real support instead of endless complaints, he would accomplish more.
Wouldn't it make more sense to direct more fire against these enablers of Bush, nay those who opposed Bush when he in his last year became more pragmatic, and who if they are returned to power would reinstate the Bush policies and then some, very likely the Cheney policies.
What does it profit a man (or a woman) to oppose the good, because theoretically, and only theoretically, somewhere there is something called the "best" or even something called "better".
Even though I am withdrawing from political analysis and political debate, I will be happy to explore this with you at greater length.
As to your remarks about Ronald Reagan, I opposed the Reagan policies and was outraged by them because I fundamentally disagreed with his mantra, "Government is not the solution, Government is the problem" and his hostility to the environment. But compared to Bush and the present Republican establishment he was a paragon of virtue.
Where today the Republican mantra is "always cut taxes and never, never raise them", Reagan after cutting taxes substantially, put through what is even to today the largest tax increase in American history, which is not generally known and vigorously denied by his successors.
Where Bush and the Republican establishment tried and continue to try to do away with SS, Reagan accepted the recommendation of the
Greenspan commission, and took steps that placed SS on a much more secure footing.
Where today the idea of détente with anyone is denounced by his successors, Reagan successfully reached important arms control agreements with the Soviets; whereas his successors destroyed any hope of good relations with Russia, and are denouncing the goals of a nuclear threat free world, which Reagan aspired to.
For all of Reagan's faults, he was a paragon of virtue and pragmatism compared to todays Republican party, which is far worse than even anything Bush stood for.
Well I'm sorry to hear it, but not so much for me as a reader as for you to feel pain and disappointment. I thought that you
wrote because you enjoyed doing the research and the writing and that you felt compelled to speak up, to set the record straight as you say. I hope that you will find other outlets for your energy.
I find that I don't watch the news much anymore and I skim the NY Times, looking for an article that interests me. In a sense, I am a victim of my own impatience and lack of discipline. I admire you for your enormous capacity to seek out the facts and to express them in a consistent impassioned way over the many months, years even, that you have written your commentaries, not to mention all the letters to the editors. I just don't care enough about politics to speak up, yet I feel secure to know that people like you do care and speak up.
The previous post saddens me.
I have known you the person who made those comments for many years now and I have known him to be a caring person. There were few people whose friendship he did not welcome, and about whom he didn't care. I am therefor somewhat taken aback that he should be so uncaring
about people all around him. And his lack of interest in events suggests that he either cannot grasp how decisions in the public sphere effect people or just dosn't care, and I find it hard to believe that it is the latter. I guess it is easier to care about people one knows than about the millions who one doesn't or in Stalin's words, "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.
While I never made friends as easily as anonymous did, I always cared about people. Early on at Schering I showed that interest and
for sometime thereafter people turned to me when in trouble. It started before anonymous joined the company, when one of our lawyers,
was fired by his supervisor, who I always thought had a sadistic streak, and actually enjoyed firing people. As soon as word got out that he had been fired he was shunned by other members of the law department and was seen in the cafeteria eating by himself . I went out of my way to eat with him. It probably didn't make any friends for me with the powers that be, and
particularly not with his supervisor, who already had a grudge against me for events that preceded my joining Schering. Then when this lawyer told me that he had sent his resume to Richardson-Merrell, which was my previous place of employment, but had not been invited for an interview, I phoned my former boss there and told him that this lawyer was an outstanding one and he was making a mistake to pass him up. The result was that he got his interview though he ended up with another company.
But word got around, and for some time thereafter, people who got fired made a beeline for my office. I particularly remember, the man who been president of the International division of Plough prior to the merger, and who was fired without notice. He immediately repaired to my office and asked if I could help him. I made phone calls to people I knew in marketing from previous employment to try to find him another position.
(Cont. in next post)
(Cont. from previous post)
Even after I retired I received a phone call from (X) asking me if I could come to the office and meet with her. (I am sure that anonymous remembers how pretty she was. She had aged badly and had become obese.) She and her family had had extensive health problems and she had exhausted the lifetime limits on her Schering health plan. She asked me what she should do. I had no answers for her. But when the health reform plan passed and one of the things it did away with were such limits I couldn't help thinking of her. It was too late to do her any good, but how many others would be spared the pain and desperation she suffered.
I care about that and I would have hoped that anonymous would too.
On the other hand I never understood his attachment to (Y), a man who not only didn't care about people he didn't know personally, but couldn't bring himself to even care about his wife and children. All he ever cared about was money, but he never knew what purpose it was to serve.
I care and I want others to care.
I may stop writing, but I will never stop doing the little things that I believe, if only other people do similar things, will make a difference.
I will never stop writing Letters to the Editor when I have a sense of outrage. I will never stop writing to my Congressman and Senators in support of, or in opposition to, bills pending before the Congress. I will never strop giving to non-profits. At present I give over $3,000 every year to non profits divided among about 100 organizations, which entails not only substantial sums of money, but time and energy in keeping records so I don't give more to those who ask more often.
We live in a Democracy and that means our government is only as good as we make it. It means if we are to govern ourselves we must not only vote - and the American people are a disgrace in their low voting records - but we must take the time and effort to be informed so we can't be swayed to those who have other interests than the common weal. People in other countries, whether it is in Thailand, or in Iran, or in
Iraq, risk and give their lives to effect how they should be governed, and here in the US it is too much trouble to keep informed and to vote.
Why do I feel so strongly about these things? I don't know! Maybe it is my past under the Nazis where I saw what happens when people don't care. Maybe it is my climb out of poverty, because I could go to a tuition free college, something we no longer have.
Anonymous says, "yet I feel secure to know that people like you do care and speak up" but that isn't good enough. I can't make a difference alone. It is only through the efforts of the many who rouse themselves and decide they care, that anything good will ever happen.
Anonymous makes himself sound emotionally and intellectually dead. He must rouse himself. There is more to life than playing tennis. He has too much ability and decency to waste it being uninterested and uninvolved.
I am sorry to hear of this. I have only been on your mailing list for a few weeks and have thoroughly enjoyed how well-researched your articles have been. Of course, I have agreed with you and felt no reason to comment back. I have forwarded your postings to my extreme right-wing family members in the hopes that they would take the time to read and appreciate factual articles, instead of only taking Fox News for the "truth".
Farewell - but if you ever reconsider and start posting again, please include me in your future mailings.
I do hope you will reconsider your "retirement" - you are such a experienced and well-educated man. You have 30 more years on this earth than me and have been able to connect many more of the dots than I have at this point. Your writings provide me a factual platform (with references I can go read) and put it in the context of our political era.
It is sad for me that you are giving up.
I will now have to look further for balance in the perspectives that stimulate, inform, arouse my agreement and outrage me. You were one of those. I congratulate you on your success in those endeavors for me.
I would comment, supporting the silence of your other friends, that it is hard to keep up the commitment you are asking for without a George Bush to mobilize against.
Bob Aten's point about having Bush to rail against is well taken, but as far as I am concerned the party of which he was the head is worse than the head ever was, particularly in his last year. I would have hoped that the Republican Party, a Party that has made lies part of its official policy, along with obstruction to a degree unparalleled in American history would have been at least as much incentive as Bush. But instead it is the Right that has mobilized. Sad!
But we are in charge nationally. As a result, it is easy for our friends to avoid focusing as life is so busy. This is especially true for me as I get older, and there are so many chores to do to make it through the day.
I am upset with the Republicans too but less so than you are.
I can understand your discouragement in not receiving much direct response to your commentary. But a few points to consider:
Many readers of commentaries of all sorts will never overtly respond. It doesn't mean that they are not reading and considering the commentary, simply that they are passive in their consideration. I think the way we get much news--through TV and certain internet sources--has conditioned many people to being an audience: they listen (or read), comment to those within earshot, and go on to the next bit of information. But that doesn't mean that their thinking is not affected; it is simply not recorded.
When people agree with something they tend to think it unnecessary to respond; when they disagree, they may not respond simply out of spite or because they have no good rebuttal. Either way, the majority of people will tend not to respond and those who do frequently are not interested in an
actual exchange of ideas, but in simply being heard themselves (while not really listening to others).
From my point of view, writing anything (including a running commentary) is done as much for the writer as for anyone who may read or hear him.
It's a way of thinking aloud and using the written word to impose a discipline on how we think. The reason to do that in a public forum, such as a blog, is that while the benefit to the writer is never diminished no matter how many or few people listen or read the commentary, there is always the potential for current and future readers to have access to the writing too.
Whether or not it is worth the effort to continue your commentary is, of course, something only you can decide; but it has value to yourself for sure and potentially to others. My credo is write first for yourself; maybe others will benefit.
Paul Negri's points are well taken. But it wasn't just a lack of response. It was the loss of responses from people who had been frequent contributors before.
They were drifting away and that drip drip drip of waning interest or at least engagement was increasingly discouraging.
Yes, I was writing for myself as much as for others, but an audience does help and feed back is stimulating.
I will never stop writing, but at least for now I am tired of the frustrations that my commentary entailed.
Maybe I will attempt a novel, though I fear that in that direction I totally lack talent and when it becomes painfully obvious may attempt other outlets.
I'm sorry to have read your "swan song". I'm particularly sorry that a main reason for this decision is that you were disappointed to find that you didn't get the passionate responses you expected. I think your expectation was misplaced. You are the one with the passion and most of those of us who read your well-researched commentaries were grateful to add your comments to the many we read (yes, some of us read multiple magazines and even books), some of which caused us to take up our "pens" so to speak, and some of which didn't. I don't think you should have expected people who are not themselves doing the extensive digging for historical precedents or contrasting opinions, that you so assiduously sought, to have answered in kind. In fact, the research you did should have been a satisfaction in and of itself. You wanted a reward, namely an equally informed response. It's a good thing you didn't go into politics yourself because you would quickly have found how frustrating it is to attract people who are as engaged as you.
So, thank you for what you have done. It was not in vain. I, for one, appreciated it. I'll be curious to learn to what you will now direct your considerable energies.
I appreciate your kind and encouraging words posted by Claudia Bial. It was not simply a lack of responses. It was the loss of so many voices who had heretofore been active.
They seemed to be drifting away for whatever reason and some who should have been political soul mates actually became hostile.
You are right, I could never have been a politician. I could never say what people want to hear, or shake hands and pretend friendships with people I didn't even recognize. But unlike many others I understand that politics in the art of the possible.
As a latecomer to your blog, I am so disappointed and sorry to read of your decision to no longer publish your much needed commentary that is based on verified fact and scholarship. I share your despair that people have lost their ability to distinguish fact from opinion, or even worse, truth based in fact from deliberate distortion of truth.
I strongly suggest that you send a copy of your "Swan Song" letter to Pres. Obama. It has to be some comfort to him that sane thought prevails, and that there are still some who support him in his struggle to do the right thing for all - even for those who oppose him, and especially for those who defect because not everything they and he wanted desperately to accomplish could be achieved instantly.
Please keep your voice heard in some fashion on issues that need clarifying. PBS News Hour still holds my attention and I preach it to anyone who will listen to me. And as for the Times, it is my university of the world which I attend faithfully before any other activity of the day (and which keeps me from getting many needed projects done, but so be it!).So, for what it's worth, to use a phrase of Bill Moyers, you have a "kindred soul" in Edgewater.
I will look for your thoughts on my e-mail. Please share them with me if you have time. Take heart, keep writing and reminding us that thought, scholarship and truth will prevail in the long run.
The voice of Pat Burns is a refreshing one and I am sorry that she was a late comer. If I had heard more voices like hers with greater frequency I might have continued my labors.
Thanks for her positive input.
For my part I have always found your commentaries interesting and enlightening. Thank you! I will miss them. I too worry about the effects of apathy and complacency in the face of the corruption and lies that are called politics these days, and gave up fighting as well. It seems to me, once they take away the public's right to protest, and once every voice is a private one, when there is no longer a public forum, real politics is dead. Politics has been reduced to money versus money, and everything else is pooh-poohed as unimportant or ridiculous (the Tea Party movement being a perfect example -- ridiculous in itself, but fueled by Republican money, therefore "important"). The word 'accountability' is very rarely
spoken in politics but I believe it is what is fundamentally lacking everywhere in our society.
I will remember your commentaries. The least I could do to show my appreciation for them is to remember not to remain silent -- to write letters to congress, people, and newspapers on subjects about which I have something to say.
Yes - I remember the first(?) time they tried to kill SS in the '80s and failed. I also agree with your opinions on Obama - maybe our culture prefers autocratic leadership because it's easier to describe succinctly than collaborative leadership?
I've lately found this to be the case in more local circumstances, like our small-town chamber of commerce and board of directors of the arts center, nobody wants to do anything, they let all the work fall to a few leaders, or worse they say no to everything and the ones who care enough to act eventually get burned out.
On this note, do you know about the following 2 organizations?
"FAIR - Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, www.fair.org - they research and report on inaccuracies and lies in all the mainstream media. I am lucky enough to have their broadcast on my local public radio station.
Wikileaks.org - I don't remember where I heard about them, but this mysterious person (or people) have been responsible for a series of huge embarrassments for the above-the-law class
I hope you change your mind before I post your Swan Song. I think more people read/appreciate these commentaries than you realize.
I am sorry to see you stop. While I have been much more absorbed in local politics I enjoyed ready your views on the national issues of our times. I never commented in part because I would not get to reading them until weeks later when I thought my responses would be dated.
I read most of your commentaries, and shared them with students in my classes at MSU and Rutgers Newark in Political Science....
Sorry to see you stop. But I understand your frustration....I share it as an adjunct professor, trying to teach the facts and truth over all the noise of Fox and the corporate media, with students txting and e mailing even during class.....its getting to be impossible to dialogue over the noise....and the silence. Thanks for all your efforts these many years.....wish you were still in Montclair. I will make one more
try for public office next year, in the Democratic primary for Essex County Freeholder....if I am denied the party line and nomination, or
defeated in challenging the organization candidate, I will also retire from politics, having tried to bring good, honest government to the County level as well as local level, but not having the resources to fight the incumbent line candidates or "buy" my way into office, as so many do! Best wishes and keep in touch.
I hope you will reconsider your decision to stop writing your blog. I find that your insights are illuminating, whether I agree with them (as I usually do) or not. I believe that most of the people you include on your mailing list read and appreciate your research and comments.
One of the reasons I don't read the NY Times as thoroughly as I once did, is because I get a lot of news and commentary from your blog.
So while I appreciate that it is frustrating to write for an invisible audience unless you get a response, I urge you to take a good look at what you have accomplished and resume your research and writing, after a brief well-deserved rest."
I have deeply appreciated reading your Commentary on Politics and will miss it. There is always so much to read and listen to and watch
about the issues that it has been extremely helpful to me to read a factual and logical presentation that is not easily found elsewhere.
I am sorry to have read your "swan song". And to hear that you are ending this phase due to disappointment and not because of fatigue or other personal reasons. Its a real pity that another voice is silenced. Maybe you'll change your mind a bit later on.
I'm sorry to hear you're hanging it up, but I understand how you feel. I've been doing Simply for Giggles for 7 years now, but in this new economy, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep it going. Part of it is the obvious economic impact on my business, but more importantly, it's that people everywhere are short tempered, quick to judge, quick to blame, and generally less likely to try to work things out. I've had horrible
experiences with employees recently who are just completely detached from reason and at times unethical. Customers who won't believe me when
I say there's a manufacturing delay. Even 'friends' who will call Justice department because they think I haven't delivered the product I said I would.
The end result is endless paperwork and hearings, and joyless days at work. I'm starting to think that I should go back to cubicle world, where at least you get a paycheck for joyless days at work.
For now, I'm trying to ride it out, but this week has been vicious, and I have to decide if I'm signing a new lease or going out of business in the next couple weeks. I wish I could say your letter didn't resonate quite so well with me.
DON'T GIVE UP THE SHIP. I MAY NOT RESPOND TO YOUR WRITINGS, BUT ENJOY YOUR THOUGHTS AND AGREE WITH YOUR OPINIONS.
I just arrived from Florida, a state that needs extra watching at this time, an hour ago and find that you will not help me understand this and other know-nothings [ut and pa] for instance.
I can't stand Fox, and my wife can't stand Rachel Meadows on MSNBC [personality-wise, not views] now with a battle over Ms. Kagan in the offing I need your blog [fair and balanced] more than ever.
I wish you only the best...
I have read your thoughts and re-considered my own, after your commentary. Yes, my response in written form has not been forthcoming.
As a very limited student of politics, I feel not as well informed as need be to truly offer my comments in an educated manner to engage in debate over complex issues.
May your next adventures and experiences bring you satisfaction and the connections you desire and deserve!
B'shalom, and toda for all your hard well thought out words and opinions.
I have always read your postings with interest, but have responded only a couple of times because all I would have said is I agree with you and that seemed pointless. Hope you find something you'll enjoy to occupy your time in the future.
May I join those who urge you to come back to the fray, after some time off if need be. I have been too buried with work to write the kind of well thought out response that you are entitled to, but do not want to not comment at all.
Pretty fine post. I just stumbled upon your blog and I'd like to tell you that I have actually enjoyed reading your articles. I'll be subscribing to your feed anyway and I hope you'll post again soon. Big thanks for the good info.
Post a Comment