can run, but can't hide from the hive mind!

maybe it's just me...or my changed perceptions since having joined the 'blogosphere' in my minor way...

or...

that the decline of our higher education has hit the journalistic marketplace, to which would-be hopefuls aspire and therefore imitate...

but...

these days, at this time, i'm finding it truly difficult to read [practically] any journalism!!! mostly, i skip to the comments section of most articles. through the noise and blather and asian knockoff product spam, i can usually recognize some intelligent debate and interesting personal perspectives, which i would expect the journalism to provide. metaphorically, i'm thinking of articles as we've known them as photographic stills. the wiki [comments] appendage to the article creates a more 4d-time-based medium, say, like video...

i'll boldly venture here: metaphorical photographic stills, no matter how well done---even though they may be beautiful or accurate----can't really tell us in a comprehensive way about how we live at this moment, at this time...on the face of it, it's presumptuous that a single mind can have anything even remotely accurate or interesting to say about the multitude that is---and always has been---the american experience. even a cursory flip through de tocqueville's 'democracy in america' reveals the chaos which still defines us today. love it, hate it, or love-hate it: america's main export to the world [besides treasury notes and the military] is a barely-contained game of bloody-lipped dodge-ball!

but, i thought you just said that a single author can't say anything accurate or interesting, never mind prescient, about the american experience?!! what about that singular french aristocrat you mentioned?

well....that was soooo 1835-40....

and what about you? you are a single author, aren't you?

that remains to be read....

here i'm touching upon a sentiment about which i have mixed feelings----about the only ethos i feel in common with conservatives and even tea partiers...that i'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 people out of the boston [or anywhere] telephone book, than by the ivy-league elite that has ruled us since the beginning...

and what's the connection between the previous paragraph and the ones before that?

that i think the leaders and the journalists are way out of touch with the lives of their subjects! notice that the word 'subjects' is appropriate to both...

yes, very clever! how long had you been planning that wordplay?

not very...and that the subjects are losing interest and even becoming hostile towards their subjugators!

ha! same word root: latin sub=under+jugum=yoke. is it me or has this blog entry split into a dialogue between plain and italic fonts?

no, it's me too...

and how does that make you feel?

i'm of two minds about the whole thing...

besides that? oh, i get it...you're trying to illustrate your original point of writing this entire blog entry: about the inadequacies of journalism, politics and the necessity of honest, even chaotic, dialogue in the intellectual marketplace?


ooo, good point! in trying to grasp the multitude i've splintered off into renegade sub-personalities....mmmm.....

well, isn't that the logical corollary of what you're saying? that if embracing multiplicity, one must become multiplicitous?

 mmm....that i'm suggesting a schizophrenic state is the one [or many] truest-to-reality?

sorry, i'm not taking the bait...

good. my point is proven.