Ego Trip: How do I gauge the success of my weblog? I won't tell you that, but I'll tell you what makes my head swell in self-satisfaction: having my weblog linked to on someone else's post. Blogrolls are mighty fine and appreciated, thank you, but nothing gives me such a rush as someone else mentioning me in their day's entry. One such opportunity presented itself last Sunday at the Raven's weblog, where he tapped me not in my weblogger capactiy but in that of, as he qualified, "one of [his] favorite commenters." This, regarding an earlier posting of his where he mentioned a rule stating that "Under no circumstances should a sentence begin with a numeric character;" a rule which, I observed, hadn't heard of before, and requested some explaining. Turns out it appears in the Chicago Manual of Style, and states: "At the beginning of a sentence any number that would ordinarily be set in figures is spelled out, regardless of any inconsistency this may create."

The Chicago Manual of Style? I guess that explains it: I'm more familiar with Strunk & White's rules. Not by much, mind you.

Ego Trip, Pt. II: The self-described "annoying white angry middle aged balding man" links to me and lets me know (between parentheses, natch) that I've come before God.

Thanks. Is that a good thing? Isn't that what killed the Beatles' popularity? [No, that was saying they were "bigger than Jesus." - id]

Ego Trip, Pt. III: To fully "get" this one we'll have to travel back in time to the 9th of the month, when Andrew Bayer expressed his uneasiness towards capitalism, labeling it as economic anarchy. In his own words: "The more I think about [sic], the more I realize that capitalism really is fatally flawed." This after observing how a capitalist system only allows the richer to get richer at the expense of the poor. Andrew's prescription at this point was calling for greater policing and taxation on the rich.

In flew the Raven, cawing his own uneasiness towards such harsh medicine: "Yes, the rich have power — because they've succeeded. The danger in your viewpoint here is that it vaguely suggests that unless all are leveled out on a plain of mediocrity that there's a 'problem' that needs to be 'fixed.'" Where one man saw a chaos of cannibalism, the inky-quilled bird discerned the pattern of meritocracy: "There's absolutely no 'problem' with income disparity whatsoever... At a fundamental level, people are different. Some of us are simply innately better at some things than others, and some of us learn to do things better than others. The biggest lie ever told is that 'all men are equal' because they simply aren't."

Four days downstream, Andrew responded back, admitting that each person should afford wealth according to their own capacity, but not to the point where those in the lower stratum are barely able to get by. And he emphatically stated that a "to each according to their needs" system is not the answer. (He also seemed quite nervous about being thought of as a Marxist. What gives?) What's the answer, then? Andrew didn't know either, but offered as a first step towards it "making sense of our tax code, both for individuals and corporations, and then using it for constructive purposes," and teased his readers by asking "which decade saw the heaviest tax burden on the rich... in American history? And which decade saw the largest middle class in industrial American history?"

At this point, I finally came into the picture.

I can't answer your pop quiz, Andrew, but allow me to riff on subjects I know nothing about: I think what's missing is a better use of tax money to ensure a certain level of welfare, where anyone who can't get a job at least won't starve. Such welfare state should also provide some rehabilitation for the addicts and job training to get them off the dole as quickly as possible, and then leave them to their own devices. I believe a system similar to this wouldn't fall down the Marxist pothole, while still providing a humanitarian solution to social problems and keeping the meritocratic basis on which the US of A allows any hard worker to achieve some way of success. Charly Z • 4/13/03; 5:20:30 PM

Which finally brings us to my being mentioned in Andrew's weblog, date of April 14, 2003: "...Charly, while spending the taxes the government brings in more appropriately is necessary, exactly as you say, that's not enough: we also need to re-balance the tax burden more appropriately." But of course. I thought my agreement to that was a given, but then again, maybe not.

Oh, the answers to the pop quiz: both decades were "the 1950s."