Greetings!
I am at a loss. My computer has been down since Tuesday morning. This and the previous post have been written in borrowed cyberspace. As a result of my recent binary corruptions, I am unable to post my normal essays. Nor can I post any photographs. How long this shall be the case is unknown, but I am trying to get things up and running with all diligence.
Since you're here, why not introduce yourself. Many of you come regularly without offering me the slightest hint of who you are, why you return, and what you like or dislike here. Feedback is always helpful. One critic recently described my website as "too partisan," which it may be, and that it was insufficiently "against the times" (which is what Contratimes means). This too, may be true. But the name Contratimes is not meant to address the times in general, though zeitgeist (spirit of the age) does undoubtedly imply that. The name actually was borne in opposition to that international-shaper of the zeitgeist, the New York Times. It is really that to which I stand in opposition. I may indeed be partisan, but I am not hiding that, and I think my partisanship is merely where I land on my feet: I am no party activist. Nor am I hiding my disdain for the New York Times, particularly its opinion makers. That any paper should have as much influence over America should be disturbing, particularly when its many writers are not the best and brightest among us. Not all of its staff drive me batty. But most of it does.
Also, what looks like partisanship is really my reacting to the lies and misrepresentations presented by the left: These are the ones most often heard, whether in the papers, on TV news, or at poetry readings. And, I must admit to a bit of provincialism here, as I am in a fairly liberal place, where the vast majority of bumper stickers lean left. I wonder if conservatives festoon their cars and trucks in red states with as much propaganda as leftists in blue states. Perhaps. But the leftists pretty much dominate in the northeast, and it is the northeast that has generally shaped the intellectual and political trends of the country (I said "generally").
I would love your input as to how I can make this site better for you. Of course, it is still rather new. I'd like to know what brings you back.
If you'd like to email me, try the email link in my profile. I still can access that from anywhere.
Peace to you all,
Contratimes
3 comments:
Well don't get me wrong here but last time I posted a comment on your blog you deleted it stating "it might lead some of your readers into trouble" - or wording to that effect.
People have followed a link to get to your page. I think, I think, they know how to follow another link without blowing up their computer.
As for your virus problem, no comment to your blog could have done that. Emails on the other hand are usually to blame. So... you ask your readers to post emails to you, by far the more dangerous option. Contradictory.
Now on to why I come back here despite this. What caught my attention was a post on abortion. Although I don't agree with your view on abortion that it will encourage women to have casual sex (contraception did that long before!) etc. etc. I found your post really cleverly thought out. I had to remind myself of all the reasons why I support abortion. And I respect your view because of the logic behind your arguments.
You make me think. That's why I come back.
Ditto on the above comment. What I like is the fact that you THINK!! You are writing out your opinions in a logical form. I look forward to getting to know your views and letting them inform mine. Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to keep this Blog. It's what I consider the epitome of Bloging. I will follow this Blog and browse some of your other sites.
Thank you both. It heartens me to know that you care enough to share with me your thoughts.
To Anonymous: I did not mean any harm by deleting your comment. I simply wanted to ensure that there was not something in an email link connected to anyone posting here that was corruptive. Yes, my problem began instantly in email (around an email I received from here). I have spent a considerable amount of time doing repair, and I have not made much headway. It may not have been any sort of virus, but it surely struck like one. For all I know, it's all due to poor disc maintenance.
I am glad that I make both of you think. It is the least we can do for each other.
I did not intend to suggest that abortion (or contraception) will encourage casual sex. I agree that contraception, and medical and economic advancements in general, have contributed to casual sexuality. My broader point is that both contraception and abortion have most benefited men, for the reasons I've pointed out. Men WANT women to treat sex casually. In short, they want women to have a male sense (albeit a vulgar one, I believe) of sexual behavior.
I can recall a Seinfeld episode in which Jerry and Elaine make arrangements for casual sexual relations. If you recall that show (brilliantly funny, I think), the arrangements in my opinion were ideally shaped to satisfy male proclivities. (That it all ends disasterously was refreshingly accurate.)
Also, if you recall a scene in the movie Fatal Attractionwhen, after casual sex leads to a surprise pregnancy, Michael Douglas offers to pay for Glenn Close's abortion, I think you must agree that his offer was perfectly male. It was not feminist-driven in the pure sense of feminine. Plus, I recall only a few gasps in the theater when he made the offer, but I recall many gasps and tsk-tsks when Close said that she would KEEP the baby. Who would gasp at that? I know: Men and women who have adopted a male view of sexual freedom, sex without consequences. Lastly, I recall men and women cheering when Close was killed in the end. It seemed they were cheering over the death of a woman profoundly disturbed by the discovery that sex can never be as casual as people pretend it is, (irrespective of the Madame Butterfly theme, by the way).
My deepest appreciation to both of you for sharing your thoughts. I hope that, particularly with the abortion issue, I can model (one can only hope) a gentle and civil approach, an approach that does not flinch from reality, or misrepresents viewpoints in a cheap string of straw man fallacies. I strive to be gentle even when forceful; and I hope my punches are neither cheap nor low, only proper and necessary; and as a gentle as Winnie-the-Pooh.
I strive to be logical. But I am not always without my blind spots. Please help me see when I cannot see on my own. This is a journey here, for me. Every accurate reading, every exact bearing, can only help.
Peace,
B.
Post a Comment