It was January of last year that I lamented the lack of readership of this blog. Since that time, I’ve partnered with Professor Barry Fagin, regular editorialist from the Colorade Springs Gazette (who were early enough adoptes of the Internet to register Gazette.Com) . I’ve also included a few “wild card” articles written by Jim Shanor and have been courting a few others to join in.
But the best part of all is that (in spite of several wise but unheeded pleas to add images to break up the articles) traffic is “good” with typically over a thousand unique visitors a month. Many spend more than a half hour slogging through my lugubrious literary machinations. Or maybe they’re reading everyone else’s articles and ignoring mine. I can live with that, too.
As a personal confession, I must admit it has been hard for me to churn out something every week. I admit pre-dating a few Thursday entries on a Friday or later. I also admit for the first year or so I had it easy, republishing existing articles and essays from over the years — but that has dried up a while ago, and now I resort to rehashed Facebook discussions and inspiration from current events. That’s not so bad though, as it’s given me a test audience of sorts. It’s always easier to write when the readers are more real to you.
Then there’s the issue of beating dead horses, albeit usually in new ways. It seems that Barry and myself attack the same issues over time, such as the exposing of fraud science (Creationism and its ilk in particular). My own pet peeves show through, with standard topics being Capitalism, cults, and political and religious intolerance — Islam in particular, as in my opinion, it’s the most widespread fear du jour.
So what’s in the future? Images would be nice, and the traffic might justify the extra work. Additional writers would be great — and nothing would make me happier than having ones that can pose intelligent counter-views to my own posts. I don’t want this to become stagnant with any one side of a story, although presently it could be described as economic and political conservatism mixed with social liberalism. And just because I often elocute what I see as the ignored underdog position does not mean I don’t want an equally forceful counter-argument present. After all, there can be no intellectual Hegelian progression if you stick to one perspective.
But being balanced is an uphill battle, and perhaps socially awkward given that we would be working together both in common and at odds. That’s where a certain maturity is required. The question is if such a thing might be less common than “common sense”. But hey, if anyone out there is interested, we’ll review every application and get back to you.