Or, RUST IN THE DATA, OR NOT
But, he’s the media guy: he’s got a contract with a network (one that I admire, which makes a difference here) while I do not. There are a few on FOX, at least affiliated with it, that I find so extreme as to chalk them up to the Over the Rainbow Crowd that is mostly populated to my view by the left but among that are a few from the right who are not at all right.
What I’ve concluded is that you can abide by any one group or association but it doesn’t mask or make alright extremes or extreme prejudice or even extreme emotional strangeness, persons so affected by something or the other that they display that ‘ouch’ factor when and if you have the displeasure of coming into contact with them. FOX shares it’s ‘ouch’ factor but only through a few of those affiliated, but mostly they don’t and they remain safely in the non-ouchy content area with me along with them.
I’ve read on a few blogs whereby O’Reilly is dissed due to “his ego” and the fact that, as so it is written there, O’Reilly “doesn’t like blogs.”
I can’t speak for the former, not knowing Bill O’Reilly well enough or at all inorder to formulate any opinion about the individual as to his personality or problems or hangups or wonder, just cannot attempt any allegation about the man as to such carefully determined aspects as are “ego” and similar — that’s something you decide after some level of personal exchange with another human and without that, it’s all conjecture — but I can speak about the latter and that is that the blogosphere is a stream and about that stream, as with water you may drink from it, what you don’t easily see can hurt you.
I read past and dismiss blogs and blogger comments that are populated by conjecture, and I depart sites, even, that are too left behind as to extremes, one way or the other. A few of the larger, more well read blog sites to my read are not at all something I find worthy of my time on a regular basis, aren’t written by voices that I would dare to spend much of any time with on a personal level but especially a few of them are authored by people who have proven themselves to be quite imbalanced, even threateningly so, persons in e-mails about simple matters they blow entirely out of proportion, reducing a chance to solve a simple problem into an opportunity to harm someone.
It’s those people I don’t care to read, read about or visit as to sites they author. Maybe it comes with age and perspective but there are several of the more popular blogs that foster a community of hate, breed real distortion of issues and they spill out elsewhere on the internet, adversely affecting other sites and at it’s worst, affecting greater media and public opinion beyond.
Unfortunately, in my experience, it’s been bloggers who demean me through their perspectives for some failure as not being “technical” enough, while, later, I muse about them, perhaps no one ever corrected them about not being thoughtful enough. I think in the larger balance of life, thoughtfulness trumps a questionably technical wiz any day: seems like people who rely on themselves as being “technically superior” are, in fact, flailing because no one who is wastes energy with that sort of non productive strife.
It’s not like I bill myself as a technical wiz, because I don’t and have never (thus, the irreverant irrelevance of that criticism by some). I’ve completed complex tasks requiring technical expertise but I’ve never found that to be the ending point but the place to start. It’s not like I diss technical wizzes for being lesser than, because they aren’t, nor greater than, because they aren’t that, either. It’s something like this: some people fancy themselves on a strata and then throw rocks downward when they think their hill is being mounted. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but when it’s a case of technical capacity or lack thereof, there’s a certain fascination to some unstable persons that seems to go, “if I’m technically superior, then I’m superior and you’re inferior.”
Um, no, it isn’t like that, but it’s easy to observe as obnoxious those who reason that way. Unfortunately, those who do reason that way also display some “mega” ability to run down everyone else: “too egotistical,” “technically inferior,” “rightwing,” “leftwing,” “racist,” “(name your cultural origin/heritage here),” whatever. Those ouch-people launch mobs and egg them on afterward, at least until found out (them and mobs) — heroic leaders and movements surge, while ouchers and their ouchy mobs just run amok. They make others feel badly. They presume and assume and it’s one tiny furball after another until there’s a great mass of a fuzzy monster afterward and no one can quite figure out where and how it all began.
I’d love to share with readers here by way of publishing an email stream to me from such an imbalanced mega blogger, if only to feel as if I’d taken action to clear the inbox. But, what I decided is, as with countering the imbalance of others, or in attempts to do so, anywhere and everywhere and anytime, often the mass that teeters from the highest pinnacle in human campaigns based upon vanity also makes the largest splotch of ugly when it hits the ground and it’s best to step aside and avoid getting some of that splatter on oneself. The good stuff goes up, the bad stuff goes down and it’s the bad stuff that leaves a mark.
Best to not talk about it anymore than you have to, to avoid the sites you get that ouchy feeling about too often while between too many lines, and to find your own way. About O’Reilly, I think he’s found his; I like the man’s broadcasts. About a few columnists, about a few mega bloggers, they’re imbalanced and they overshadow the balance of others who may be on a steep slope, not at a pinnacle by certain measurements of quotients, quotas, commas and kinds, but yet on the way up. Sometimes the way is better, as it is also best to be on your way — the process itself is energizing unlike predetermined destinations, and how that way happens can be as creative as can be by individual choice of grips, or, by comparison, it can be rusty with technical wizardry gone broken — technically adept to some, perhaps, but still broken, which is, in fact, not technically superior if technical at all unless you think broken works.