jonathon delacour has returned from his long absence from writing. i suspect the "where is jonathon?" post i had in mind would have been typed out in the next few days, but we'll never know for sure now how many days i can tolerate an unexplained absence of jonathon. anyway, he brings up a few topics in his return on which i have something to say. and in the great tradition that started this whole webblogging craze, i now say it here. first, on drinking, he writes:
I respect the resolve of those who, around the same time, decided to quit but I was after something different: I wanted to drink less and, when I did drink, I wanted it to be from choice rather than habit. For me, quitting would simply mean replacing one type of obsessive-compulsive behavior with another.
i think the same was true for me when i swore off alcohol in the past, but i never realized it until reading this. so i thought i should look at the other popular things i don't do, but i don't think any of them fall into the same category. i don't do any drugs, but i think that's based on some pretty objective sources suggesting that drugs would be quite harmful to my health (particularly so because i'm thin and diabetic -- your mileage may vary). i don't eat meat, but i don't think i can really be non-obsessive about that. if you don't eat meat for a while, your body adjusts to treat meat as an inedible substance. eating meat causes sickness for anyone who has been vegetarian for as long as i have. i'm sure there are ways of re-introducing meat into my diet that wouldn't cause sickness, but i never much liked meat when i did eat it, so i think between that and the sickness factor, i'm pretty safely outside of obsessive-compulsive behaviour here. i don't think i have any other unflexible habits, but i trust my readership will let me know if i'm mistaken.
on to the next point of comment. this time jonathon quotes jeneane sessum on the growing perception of an elitist culture within weblogging:
Yes, I do think a divide is emerging within a medium that attracted us initially by its flatness?no one really wielding any more power than another except through the quality of their writing and ideas and the strength and power of their individual voice?
i have two comments on this. first, i think this divide has been emerging as long as weblogging has, and what's been emerging more recently is recognition of the divide. i'm reminded of being told once (i don't know if this is true, but it makes a good story either way) that the american government has only ever broken monopolies after they've destroyed themselves already. i think we might be recognizing the divide in weblogging after it would be possible to do much about it. i think the all-stars of weblogging have already left the rest of us with no reconciliation in sight. those of us further from these all-stars aren't particularly bothered by this, but the claims of impartiality are getting a bit tired.
my second comment is that this is exactly what happens with any group that is critical of another group's unfairness but offers no solution to it more substantial than "put us in charge." the communists were critical of capitalist unfairness, only to be unfair themselves as soon as they gained power. the democratic criticisms of bush's abuses of power sound an aweful lot like republican criticisms of clinton. and now the webloggers were critical of big media keeping them out only to be later accused of keeping others out. power is routinely abused, and anyone who doesn't recognize this and put systems in place to prevent it is no less likely to abuse it. they're just more likely to do so believing they are doing otherwise, which is even more troublesome.
with both alcohol and power, it seems moderation is a good idea. because both can too easily shift from means to ends.