I know I just promised to write fewer throwaway pieces, but this is a must see--I was catching up on Talking Points Memo and got referred to this article in the Washington Post--the gist of it being that there is new intelligence suggesting Al Qaeda is planning new hijackings and attacks similar to 9-11.  AND, in the article, there is a chunk about how the Department of Homeland Security is cutting back on screeners and air marshals, because they don't have the resources. 

"Don't have the resources"?  I thought we were trying to stop terrorism.  Can we just pony up for more screeners, please?  Maybe less tax cuts, more screeners?

And can someone justify DOHS going after Texas lawmakers, but not having the money to even sustain current levels of air security?

Shameful.

5:31:39 PM    comment []

This is Low-Quality Crap!

Melissa asked me a really interesting question the other night that I’ve been thinking about for a couple days. She was catching up on Hyperbole reading, and she asked whether or not I was happy with how this blog had progressed. I said yes, of course, but she clarified that the structure and writing on the site has changed from its original intent, and was curious about whether it was intentional. Interesting.

Back history: Last fall, Doug Hennessee and I, in e-mail discussions, went from “We should write more” to “Maybe someday we could do a website together” to “I’ve paid for blogspace” to “Let’s call it Hootenanny” in the course of about 24 hours. Our intention was to have this space where we could publicly post some “serious” writing. By “serious” I do not mean “unfunny”, but rather writing of as high a quality that we could muster, with each of us editing the others’ work before posting. We had a backlog of stuff we’d written and it was, I must say, pretty solid stuff.

But after only a few days of Hootenanny, it was becoming clear that we wanted to do more; to write daily, to write casually, to not have to edit each other’s work, and, for Doug, to be able to post without sending it to me first. So he suggested that we split up. Now, this split may not have had the earth-shattering impact of the breakup of the Beatles, or of the cast of M*A*S*H, or of J-Lo and P. Diddy, but it was a hard decision, because we enjoy working together and have been writing together--mostly incredibly stupid and vile idiocies that we still enjoyed immensely--for many years. Thus Pipeline was born, and I rechristened this site Hyperbole.

I write almost every day, and the majority of the content on this site is unedited, first draft, off the cuff, meandering silliness. I work hard on editing a few things, and trying to periodically put up something that is genuinely high quality. I like what’s on here most of the time, and I enjoy the hell out of the exchanges that my writing sometimes creates in the comment section. But there’s no denying what can’t be denied; the goal of putting up New Yorker-quality work has changed.

Melissa had noticed that the Pulitzer-quality of the site hasn’t really been extant for a couple of months, and her question cut to the quick. Have I slid too far? Is my writing no longer any good?

I think I can attribute some of the sloppiness of the site to a lack of routine, for one thing. Many times since we left Tunisia, I’ve haphazardly written things just to have something to post. We’ve been in transit and having visitors, and staying in unfamiliar territory and dealing with the impact of all of that on the girls, and so I just haven’t written as well as I’d like.

Nevertheless, it’s clear that the format has changed the goals. I see this site as a place to offer thoughts, to exchange ideas and arguments, to try and be funny and provocative, and just to write whatever the hell I feel like, of any quality. And in that sense, it works. Even if I had no readership, I’d probably still write because I enjoy it. I wouldn’t enjoy it as much, of course, but I would still enjoy it.

As a good spouse will do, though, Melissa has prompted me (perhaps unintentionally) to push a little harder. And I will.

4:16:52 PM    comment []