An anxious (bored?) blog reader (I didn't know there were any!) has just emailed me saying: "It has been so long since you blogged. Your public demands another blog from you! Your last one was on 12/30." True; it's been a while, and I miss public missives so. Thus, rather than do "real work," I will indulge this obviously bored reader and post the following:
First, my apologies. I've been away from things blog as I engage in the time-intensive task of drafting a law review article. I'm halfway through a first-draft, so progress is decent. To my right are stacks of paper that I have organized into general topic headings. My iPod also sits to my right, competing with the stacks for my attention. The iPod is increasingly losing the battle; a fact of which I am proud. I will leave you in breathless wonder about the topic until such time as the first draft is done, so I'm sure of what I say on paper . . . ah, the writing process!
So, rather than go any further, I point you to a couple of interesting articles that have appeared in the last two weeks. Since the world is in perfect shape, notwithstanding wars, religious fanatic riots encouraging terrorism, terrorism, the election of Hamas, genocide, starvation, global warming, Iran and North Korea with nukes, exploding federal deficits, patently illegal government surveillance, waiting for Avian flu, and, not to be forgotten in this miasma, pet fish attacking humans, I'm pleased to note that Congress has turned to the pressing need of correcting entries made to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The money quote, from the Lowell Sun Online: "But the sheer breadth of changes emanating from the House reflects an abuse of public time and equipment, said Potter, now chairman of the Ethics Resource Center." I understand the people read Wikipedia and that public relations are the lifeblood of re-election. I also get that public creation of Wikipedia is its fundamental quality. But is this really what we want Hill staffers to address? How about, at minimum, leaving this type of activity to the campaign staffers, to the extent that there is a difference, or doing this on their own time? Or using that time to think about pet fish attacking their owners, which might (upon extremely deep reflection) have a smither of public import? The simple point: any thought, and maybe some action, regarding things other than maintaining office and position would be a more valuable use of time.
Speaking of valuable use of time, back to my drafting! Those 25,000 words ain't going to write themselves! And if anyone has comments on the pet fish versus man scourge, I'd love to see them . . .