Harry Potter Gets Naked

Reaching for new horizons -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
To steal a line from Friends: Oh... My ...God! Harry Potter, aka the 17 year-old actor Daniel Radcliffe, is appearing nude in the London play Equus. He plays a stable hand, obsessed with horses. The topic was discussed on NBC's Today Show this morning. Matt Lauer aptly pointed out that people who object do not have to see the play. Others of a more Puritanical bent (mostly passerbies interviewed on the street), thought that the whole Potter series including an upcoming movie should be boycotted.

What to say? Daniel is the captain of his own ship -- maybe he didn't want to be typecast as a pimply teen wizard. Imagine if Kirk Cameron or Debbie Gibson had done something meatier and more daring early in their careers. Maybe they wouldn't be footnotes on Where Are They Now? Maybe they wouldn't have been trapped in roles that are unreal and unrelenting in their wholesomeness. Liz Taylor began her long career playing a wholesome teen. We can thank our lucky stars that she turned it all around vamping in roles like Maggie the Cat in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

Who among us has not imagined how our career might be advanced by taking off our clothes? OK, well to be honest I haven't. As a programmer, there are no situations that call for nudity. And even if there were, nudity would probably get me a demotion. I have to say double standards are at work; a man who gets naked is testing his acting chops -- a woman doing so is more likely to be seen as a naughty girl. If the nude work is artsy (think Looking for Mr. Goodbar or for that matter Equus) the actor or actress has more of a naked leg to stand on. If it's characterized as soft core pornography, it can be career-ending -- there is a thin line to walk. It's not so much that the thespian looks immoral, but rather he looks like he's desperate for a role. "What? You couldn't get a bit part on Boston Legal? A cameo on Desperate Housewives?"

I haven't read any Potter books nor have I seen any of the movies. I wouldn't know a Voldemort from a finger wart. Daniel Radcliffe has stayed squarely on the artsy side of the line, and his move should free him from the bondage of kiddy flicks -- maybe to other forms of bondage. We should be hearing more from the lad in coming years -- at 17 he has many more films to make and we know already that he has a wide acting range.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Return to Walden Pond

Site of Thoreau's cabin -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
My grandmother died at 93, about three years ago. She had a long, wonderful life -- spent most of her childhood in towns like Lorena and Bruceville, near Waco, Texas. She grew up on a farm, with three sisters and two brothers. I asked her how she remembered her early life -- did she enjoy it? Without hesitation she said it was a fantastic childhood. She remembers brushing her teeth with baking soda and salt, and making fruit preserves with her mother. She and her siblings rode to school on a hay wagon. Cars had been around a while, but only county judges and doctors could afford them -- the 'common folk' still used horses and buggies. Her older sister Doris was the first in the family to drive or get a driver's license. It was all so new-fangled at the time. Grandma Thedford had nary a bad memory about the whole experience: "I probably ate better than I do now, and had a beautiful childhood".

I decided to go back even further in time. Thought to myself, "If I, Robert, had been born in 1807 instead of 19?7, how would I have faired?” I'm not a strong man (then or now) so I wouldn't be nailing railroad ties or hauling bags of grain. Envision that I'd live on an eastern seaboard city with gentle breezes and cool summers. Air conditioning wouldn't come along for 100+ years, so you need the cool summers. Probably I'd live somewhere like Washington, Boston, maybe Charleston if it didn't get too hot. I probably would've had at least some high school education (cipherin' as they say on Beverly Hillbillies) and maybe some business training -- would probably work as a clerk or book keeper for a bank.

They didn't have sprawling apartment complexes back then, and a bank clerk probably couldn't afford a house. I probably would've had a room at a rooming house where a "house mother" might provide meals and even do laundry for a fee. I'd have a simple room w/ bed, desk, chair and maybe a wardrobe closet for my meager clothing. There would be a "chamber pot" and commode basin -- let's not go into that. I'd have oil lamps for lighting, and maybe a Franklin stove for winter warmth. In place of widescreen TV, iPod and stereo I would have a bookshelf with classics of the time. That would be my 'home entertainment system'. Options if I wanted to listen to music: A piano in the rooming house common area, a weekly visit to church, and of course -- dance halls and saloons. (Some things never change).

On the whole, it doesn’t sound that terrible. In fact my grandmother may be on to something. Here are three ways in which days of yore were better:

Organic Diet
In 1856, they didn't have monosodium glutinate or dipotassium phosphate. Maybe a chemist at Harvard had that, but not Nestles or General Foods. For that matter, there probably weren't many packaged food companies, and few to which 'common folk' had access. You would be stuck with roast chicken, fresh vegetables, homemade bread, fresh eggs and milk. Maybe an apple pie here and there. It wasn't necessarily a skinny diet, but it was comparatively organic and healthy.

Low Stress
Up until the mid-1980's, I didn't have to take my job home with me. Then we added pagers where I could be beeped at anytime. Now we have iPaqs, Blackberries and notebook computers with universal wireless access. Your office follows you like a shadow. You could be at the South Pole, and still expected to dial in and check emails. There is no moment, no matter how sacred or sacrosanct that some type of beeper can't interrupt. I like quiet contemplation. To me, the office-in-your-backpack is life ending in its awful implications. We used to laugh at the concept of "company man" -- a man who lives his whole life for his company. Nothing ensnares us more than all this connective technology. We're company men now more than we ever were. The technology that was supposed to free us has turned us into workaholic 'bots.

Human Companionship
There's a flip side to affluence. Now, we can all afford spacious, private homes. If anyone such as a spouse annoys us, we can divorce them or at least bannish them to another room. So here we sit in our lonely, expansive 2000 square foot domiciles. We have iPod, iPhone, plasma TV, 500 channel cable, PS2, etc. We have every toy imaginable. We can stay preoccupied for hours with a joy stick or a remote control. The Robert of 1857 would have to have dinner with other rooming house tenants. The Robert of 2007 eats Le Menu alone, while talking to a calico cat and watching CNN on a big screen TV. The Robert of 1857 would gather with others to listen to "Turkey in the Straw" or church hymns. The Robert of 2007 gets deaf listening to iPods ad infinitum. Even in pairs, we isolate -- me in the computer room and you on the headphones. Again, technology gives us a Midas curse -- a terrible consequence from something that started out with such good intentions.

Yeah -- those olden days were terrible. All that low-stress, good diet, human companionship would've gotten me down. I'm not yet Amish or Luddite -- I'm not forsaking the convenience we've acquired over the years. But maybe with some perspective, the Robert of 2007 can go back to Walden Pond now and again. David Thoreau sought isolation at Walden Pond from what he thought was intrusive modernity. Mr. Thoreau -- just give me back some of your 1850's modernity. The olden days weren't so terribly bad after all.

© 2007 blogSpotter

King George

Time for a coronation? -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

Today's blog is authored by one of my coworkers. Be sure to check out Kelly and Craig's blog for other timely topics: http://governanceimperative.blogspot.com/

by Kelly
Not only has the administration decided that they don't need the moral high-ground, they have shown that they don't care to even maintain a thin veneer of fairness. All it takes to be denied your rights is for one person, holding supreme power, to label you as an "unlawful enemy combatant", no due process, no appeal, and no reprieve.

Do I want the country to be attacked by terrorists? Absolutely not! But when there is a greater chance of dying in a traffic-accident than a terrorist attack, it seems foolish to spend billions on expensive toys and promises to protect us from the boogie-man when tens of thousands of people die every year in preventable deaths, for the lack of money.

Let's examine our forefathers complaints against the English King. From the Declaration of Independence we have:

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." and "He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers." Signing statements anyone?

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:", the Attorney General of the United States has the audacity to argue in front of a Congressional hearing that the 'Habeas Corpus' clause doesn't really apply to the President.

"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:" extraordinary Renditions were just rumors but have become frighteningly real.

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:" Read more about this at Slate.

"He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us." How better to describe our own Congress passing a bill that allows the President to declare a U.S. citizen to be beyond the protection of the Constitution? If you think this is just the ranting of a madman and could never happen here, just ask Jose Pedilla.

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Whenever criticism is raised, the answer is, 'I'm doing it for your own good' or 'Do you want the Terrorists to win?" He has become blind to injustice and deaf to reason. His logic is starkly, to protect America it is necessary to use any means, at any cost. I say to you, at what cost to our credibility? At what cost to our principles?

The Founding Fathers believed so strongly in their cause that they put it in writing, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

What has our President pledged? Invasion of privacy? Protection of the Constitution on his whim?

It can not be stated any simpler than, would you trade your liberty for safety? Despots can do a great job of keeping you safe. There was no crime under Stalin, Hitler; or more currently Kim Jung Il. What they can not do is make you free. They stoke the patriotic blaze by feeding your fears with tales of untold crime and violence and then assuage those fears with soothing words and pretty baubles. They desire your trust, willingly given in trade for the offer of safety from shadows, the calm complacency that comes from letting others do the dirty work. Secrecy is their watch-word, for theirs is a bargain of illusions, cooks willing to make sausage as long as you don't ask from whence comes the meat.

The Republican party has been duplicitous in setting up an American Monarch, while the Democrats have stood silent as our rights were sent to the gallows. When there is no one left in Congress to defend our rights when the President comes for them, who will defend you when His men come for you?

All hail King George.

You can also see the latest edit of this particular article at http://governanceimperative.blogspot.com/2007/01/king-george.html

© 2007 blogSpotter

What is Oscar Telling Us?

How does the Academy feel about you? -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I was looking at yesterday's Oscar nominations, noting how few of the nominated films (Babel, Little Miss Sunshine) I've actually seen. Then Dreamgirls, everyone's shoo-in favorite, the one that I saw, was shut out of the Best Film category -- bummer. In my old age, I only go see two movies a year at the theater. Also, the movies I do see blur together unless there is something really unique happening in the plot line.

Must say that the Oscars have never made much sense to me; comparisons in any category are inherently apples-to-oranges. You would need to compare two actors doing the exact same role, with same director and costars to figure who is genuinely best. You have anomalies where one-hit-wonders snag an Oscar never to be heard from again. It's called the "Oscar Curse". You have venerable careerists like Paul Newman who go most of a career without one; (he was finally given an honorary award in 1985, and actually won Best Actor in 1988 for Color of Money). You have the purist like George C Scott, who upon his 1971 nomination for Patton, called the Oscars a "meat parade" and maybe he was right. You also have the political opportunist who uses his acceptance speech as a chance to bash Bush or make a plea for Native Americans.

What does Oscar really measure? Let me explain that. Sally Field said it best when she won for Places in the Heart in 1985 and blurted out, "You like me!" for her acceptance speech. The Oscar award says who is the schmooziest, most popular person, the person with the greatest "cool" factor. The only time this isn't the case is when nobody cool is nominated (technical categories) or the Academy is less familiar with the choices (foreign films). In these cases, originality and talent come into play. TV Emmys follow much the same logic as Oscars. Roseanne Barr was excellent in her role as the wife and mother on Roseanne in the 90's. She would've been a multi-Emmy shoo-in but is said to have pissed off half of the Hollywood elite with impolitic remarks. She was probably on target with her remarks, but you don't speak truth to power in Hollywood. The same rule applies be it TV or movies.

So, as you go thru Oscar lore and see that The Sting won Best Picture in 1973 -- keep in mind the schmooze factor. Who blew the most smoke and who campaigned the hardest for an award? Oscars are still valuable as cultural milestones, telling us where we were at a point in time. But don't ever fool yourself that they tell you who was best in any particular category. The "Roger Ebert Within" will have to tell you that, the frustrated movie critic that lives inside all of us.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Enough Already

How about neither? -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia and Newsweek Magazine

by blogSpotter
OK. I've had it up to here with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They've been blasted across every magazine cover and headline as the Democratic Darlings of the 2008 election. The handsome black Illinois senator almost has the following of a rock star -- Obama groupies. Hillary likewise has a steadfast fan base who would feel 'the Rapture' if this woman were elected. There are primarily two groups that get all gooey over these two -- starry eyed liberals and sneaky Republicans.

I had starry eyes myself back in 1972, when I supported Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern. I saw his nice nature and idealism; I was only 15 at the time. I didn't pick up on his stammering wishy washiness, or inability to pick and stand by a veep candidate. (Thomas Eagleton had to step aside when it was disclosed that he'd underdone shock therapy for depression). It wasn't that the practical gave way to the whimsical -- my practical side was undeveloped at that immature point. McGovern was a nice guy, and still preferable over Nixon, but an older-and-wiser me probably would have favored somebody else in the primaries.

Now, we have Obama who is most of all inexperienced, and Hillary who has some of the heaviest baggage a candidate could be carrying. Obama is a photogenic unknown quantity. Hillary can be used almost as a political litmus test -- people on either extreme of the Left-Right spectrum tend to revile her. The Right sees her as a scheming Lady Macbeth, and the Left sees her as a sell-out on Iraq, abortion and health care. In the 'strange bedfellows' department, she's joined forces with Newt Gingrich to promote incremental health care; she's also joined with Joe Lieberman to promote the anti-violence Family Entertainment Protection Act. One might say her moves have been 'all over the map' -- and maybe a bit opportunistic.

Some Republicans may see where I'm coming from -- John McCain has already been coronated King of the GOP by the popular press. The man has his own obnoxious quirks, and yet the halo awarded him by the television Trinity (ABC-CBS-NBC) is blinding. I get especially irate with smirky conservative editorialists who give rave reviews to Obama-Hillary but have NO intention of voting for either one (Mark Davis are you listening?) Please do not pretend to support a candidate for the opposing party. Your wily ways are transparent. And for the voting public out there, take some chill pills and look at everyone who is running. Consider their platforms carefully. You're not voting for American Idol -- you're voting for someone who has the capacity to destabilize the Middle East with a poorly thought out war. Your vote should be decided carefully and not be based on anyone's 'glam' attributes.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Double Whopper, Fries and a Livable Wage

Driving up the Prices at the Drive Thru? -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
There has recently been a lot of debate about the minimum wage, since Democrats seek to raise it in their first '100 hours'. Currently $5.15/hour, the minimum wage hasn't been raised since 1997. This topic is always good for a rumble between liberals and conservatives -- it gets to our core values. One of the conservatives in the mix is George Will -- he thinks the minimum should be $0. As conservatives go, I actually like George Will. Except for his Libertarian fiscal tendencies, he has a lot of common sense. With regard to minimum wage, the common sense runs out -- Will makes two debatable points in a recent opinion piece:

- Most of the working poor earn more than minimum wage.
- Only one in five workers getting minimum wage live in a household living below the poverty line.

George, George, George. You clearly haven't read "We're Right and They're Wrong" by James Carville. If you read his book, you'd know that employment statistics are misleading and in this case, they leave out major areas of concern. The unemployment statistics leave out workers who are underemployed, discouraged, imprisoned and or job-searching but not collecting unemployment insurance. Working full time at $5.15/hour, you'd earn $893/month putting you more than $5,000 below the poverty line. Many people on welfare become part of the ‘discouraged’ underclass because collecting welfare is an easier path to financial survival.

A low-level bill of rights for full-time employees might include these things:
- Livable wage
- Health benefits
- Training and opportunity for advancement
- Reasonable measures toward a safe work environment (especially relevant to convenience store clerks and fast food employees who can be robbed)

What of part time or temporary employment? There might be less stringency for a maid, baby sitter or lawn service, and where the employer is a private citizen. There are gray areas: “I’ll pay you $10 if you make an ‘A’”. “I’ll pay you $5 not to sing that song”. I’ll leave it to the employment lawyers to establish what qualifies as a job or a contract for employment.

More relevant questions would be: of unemployed able-bodied adults between 16 and 66 years old, how many might be contributing to our economy if they had a livable wage? The United States suffers a loss of productivity due to the depressed minimum wage. Some small businesses will say, “I can’t afford to pay the minimum.” What if these same businesses couldn’t afford to observe OSHA standards or buy the right equipment? Well then, they shouldn’t be in the business. And the business of America should be empowering its workers with jobs that build self-esteem and pay livable wages.

© 2007 blogSpotter

The George W. Bush Library -- Bring It On

The Bush Library at A&M -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
The search committee for the George W. Bush Library has settled on SMU in Dallas for its location; SMU won the honor over finalists Baylor in Waco and University of Dallas in Irving. You might think that Dallas, a city that is attraction-challenged, would welcome the library. Dallas is most frequently associated with a defunct TV series and a notorious presidential assassination. There is nothing that would compel anyone in San Francisco or New York to hop a plane and come here. If I had to list our top attractions it would be: JFK Museum, JR's Ranch, West End, Reunion Tower, 6 Flags and North Park. Wichita Falls and Texarkana have more to offer than that. So I was shocked to see that 100 SMU Professors appeared at a hearing last week to register their opposition, thinking that the library will taint SMU academics or imprint the school with the misdeeds of George W. Bush's presidency.

What can I say? I'm a Gore-reading, Kerry-loving Democrat and see no problem with the library. The library will be a repository of Bush documents and papers, and probably stir up lots of discussion about his term in office. LBJ was hardly without controversies -- his museum at UT Austin is not a shrine nor is it an apology for the ex-President. In years since his death, the Viet Nam War exhibit has been greatly expanded. The museum has been a boon to Austin tourism and contributed to the body of knowledge about all that went on during the years from Kennedy thru Nixon.

Now as if the academicians aren't enough, the snobby neighbors of University Park are afraid a beautiful new library will cause a traffic problem. Where to begin? This affluent 'hood is one where every car sported a "W" bumper sticker or one that read "Bush - I can't wait to vote for him". This is the way these elitist hypocrites show affection to their man?? Dallas has a pretty clogged east-west thoroughfare, Mockingbird Lane. Mockingbird borders SMU on the South and the W library would probably be located there. Mockingbird is a busy commercial avenue east of Central Expressway or west of Lemon Avenue. But in between, it is a terribly choked, narrow two-lane residential street. It was hopeless way before any library, and the library wouldn't register any difference. The Bush building would most likely be right at Mockingbird and Central, so that much of the traffic is from Central. Part of the reason that Mockingbird has arteriosclerosis is that the anti-library quibblers have lobbied to keep it that way. They won't rest until Dallas is as dull and tedious as they are.

In a final analysis, we have a bunch of namby-pamby hypocritical whiners -- they can't appreciate a cultural event when it happens. I'm thinking that SMU has its legal, easement ducks in a row. A local lawyer has challenged the demolition of the University Park condos, but no telling how far that will go. The Bush presidency was marked by many tumultuous things -- 9/11 and the war in Iraq. Much to discuss with all that went on; let's have that discussion here in Dallas, at a grand new library and cultural center.

© 2007 blogSpotter

The Screenplay That Wasn't

My shattered Hollywood dreams -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
My readers may be surprised to know about my failed 'attempt' as a screenwriter. Back in 1998, I attended a home seminar given by a preeminent Hollywood screenwriter who taught at the University of Dallas. He had to be 80 then and is probably dead by now. I won't divulge his name; we'll call him Henry Powell. Mr. Powell was best known for writing screenplays for The Waltons back in the 70's. While that show was schmaltzy, and hardly an accurate reading of the 1930's, I can use helpful tips from any commercially successful writer. The friend who referred me to Mr. Powell said he was an eccentric gay old man, and that he was. He lived in a small house in a Garland suburb -- the house was totally concealed by overgrown trees and bushes. The neighbors had to love it. Mr. Powell was a chain smoker and his house was full of smoke and nicotine residue. He kept it tidy but smoke always sticks around. The house was filled with statues of naked Greeks as well as various fertility artwork and pictures of male genitalia.

I figured that the other screenwriters would be lively, interesting people. I was so wrong -- it was 5 of the saddest, most somber people I've ever met. The meeting mostly was people reading works in progress and getting professional critique. One man read the first two scenes of "Heist" which was about (what else?) a bank robbery. Another man nearly put me to sleep with a screenplay about the Mexican American war, until he included a bit of gratuitous smut at the end. There were no winks, no laughter even in the "light" spots; these people could've worked at a mortuary. I shared my "treatment" idea as an email to Mr. Powell; being a novice I didn't want to embarrass myself in front of these pros with my lame material. It's good that I did it as email, because Mr. Powell ripped my material to shreds.

My story is that of a pro football player who is also gifted with a great singing voice. The story is about the battle that brews between his sports agent and his talent agent, each one trying to steer the budding star away from the influence of the other agent. Mr. Powell had these many comments:

Don't make it a musical
Don't make it a period piece
Don't make it fantasy or science fiction
Don't make it about horror or monsters
Make it a contemporary setting
Write about what you know about

Am not certain to this day if these limitations were for a novice or writers in general. Surely the former and not the latter. Anyhow, he hated my idea. He picked it apart, down to the font I used (must be courier size 10 I think). We came away with the idea that I should write about someone who experiences identity theft on a computer. Oh, now THAT'S never been done before. Now who's El Lamo? Was reminded of Carol Burnett playing Eunice, and calling her acting coach (played to shrill perfection by Madeline Kahn) "Miss Cat Woman from Mars" with snarling sarcasm. How dare The Walton's writer, the man who penned "Good night John Boy" criticize this great Bard? His credibility was further eroded by his opinion that "Good Will Hunting" is one of the best screenplays ever written.

I was greatly discouraged and put away my crayons. Truth is, writing is a lot of work and my 'real' job was eating my lunch at the time. Otherwise, rest assured: the Bard of Dallas would have written his Magnum Opus.

© 2006 blogSpotter

Strange Fascination turns 2

The ezine is now in the terrible twos ... -- © 2006 blogSpotter

by blogSpotter
Strange Fascination celebrates its 2nd birthday on 1/5/2007; doesn't seem that long ago that it started. SF began as my semi-therapeutic blog session. At the outset, I thought it would be more flexible and interactive -- like an internet chat room. Unfortunately, there hasn't been that much interactivity and much more of my own selfish pontificating.

Overall, the basic format and subject matter has stayed the same but a few things have changed.

New since January 2005:
o Advertising Associates such as Google, Apple and Toshiba. In theory, I get paid by the click but my volume (@ 10 hits/day) is way too low to garner any significant income.
o Syndicated material -- Bobstake artwork, Amazine articles, Bravenet news, Cinemablend and TVNow have been added to round out the offerings.
o Once in a blue moon, I'll get a guest author's point of view.
o One navigation aid, "Select by topic" has been added so that people can sort through the many topics (none of which do I qualify as expert :-)).

Readership:
I've had readers from all time zones, all throughout the world. Don't have my sitemeter stats on hand, but it seems like I've had a number of hits from United Kingdom. I've also had hits from the Netherlands, Australia, Bahrain, Denmark and virtually anyplace the internet can reach. Unfortunately, my hit count is a pretty humble 10 hits/day. Am thinking that if I offered late-breaking celebrity news (eg, PerezHilton), a unique service (eg, sitemeter.com) or provocative material with my own copyright (eg, any number of porn sites), my count would be higher. If more sites linked to me, it would raise the priority ranking in Google, but then there's that lack of provocative material.

I myself am a committed liberal, but some of my most frequent readers are of a conservative bent. I actually try to be objective, and have been known to take fellow liberals to task (see Bill's Meltdown or Kerry Don't Run).

Topics that get Response:
They say all politics is local and it must be true. The articles that get response are: politics (local in particular), war in Iraq, sex topics and humor. I should play to my 'strengths' but my mind wanders too many other places. What could I use more of? Original material, including photographs that don't violate a copyright law. Also, articles that are more than just regurgitation of facts or numbers -- articles that have wit, humor, irony, insight or bite. Authors, don't shrink from giving opinions, however contoversial -- it makes you a more interesting person. Almanac articles and term papers don't belong here, although in retropsect I've done a few pieces that come across that way. I discuss religion in an arm's length, agnostic way but don't adovcate any particular religion. I'm a theist who found God outside of the cathedral walls, and prefer to commune with my God in that natural setting.

I've tried fiction, poetry and creative writing -- these are met with a powerful snore, followed by a thud. Also garnering zero audience are my science articles. The philosophy articles get responses from a couple of people who share my weird curiosity about certain things, and nobody else. My TV/movie reviews likewise get good responses from a handful of movie buffs but they don't get posted comments or any big response.

And in conclusion...
I enjoy writing, but there's no telling how much longevity I have here. My voice could get hoarse, my fingers could get carpel tunnel and I might run out of topics. None of that has happened yet, and I still have those 10 hits a day. The moving finger writes, and having writ, continues to write.

© 2006 blogSpotter