Evening update

Just FYI, I don't know how much I'll be doing here tonight. Taxes done, errands run, but headache continues, as does this damned persistent cough. So all in all I'm not feeling so hot.

There certainly is stuff going on worth commenting on, plus I'm working on a couple of slightly longer pieces, but the energy level just isn't there right now.

Who knows, maybe overnight. (Those of you who notice the times of posts will likely realize how much of my stuff gets done in the wee hours.)

Traffic on the site is still low but it has picked up a fair amount in the last 10 days. I've been assuming all along that the folks who come here regularly don't do it every day but maybe 2-3 times a week to catch up. If I'm right about that, I now have something close to 50 regular readers, which certainly doesn't put me in the major leagues (hell, I'm not even playing Class A ball at those numbers) but it was my initial goal because it seems enough to make doing this worthwhile.

So thanks to every one of you who think this thing is worth reading and come back for more. I'll do my best to keep it worth your time.

And for those of you just tuning in, "hey, I'm a first time caller - megadittos on that riff about Slade Gorton," checking it all out, wondering what you're getting into, the first two posts I put up should give you a good idea.

I'll add the following bit here. No link because this is from a letter I sent in December, 1991 in response to a critique of the now-departed, much-lamented, print version of Lotus.

As for Lotus itself, it's an example of advocacy journalism, and its audience is indeed those who in a broad and general way agree with its point of view. Its aim is to rouse and inspire, to provide background and analysis intended to put a context to ethical judgments and thereby spur action. I know your remarks about it were meant kindly, and I thank you for your concern. But I must note that the words you used to describe it ("fringe" and "marginal") are words of dismissal in the American political lexicon, which defines "truth" as something invariably found in the "center." Frankly, I reject any standard which equates advocacy with irrelevancy and "objectivity" with never reaching a conclusion. As Jim Hightower is fond of saying, "the only things found in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos."

Just remember that "every movement for change started out as a minority, ignored if not repressed by the establishment of the time" (Gary Wills). Or, as Margaret Mead put it more piquantly, "never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

And if you find my style overly blunt, as I take it you do, one last quote: A Chinese proverb says "calling things by their right names is the beginning of wisdom."

I intend to keep calling things by their right names.