My secret? I love my blog.

There are certain standards of polite society regarding what you can tell on a first date, and what you maybe should hold back.  When someone tells you about their mental instability and/or depression on a first date, it’s a dealbreaker, no matter how good the fit.  The same thing goes for certain diseases, physical disorders, family or relationship problems, and emotional outbursts.  Most of us have some of these at one time or another, but for a first date, it’s really too much to handle.

At the same time, there comes a certain point in the dating environment when trust becomes at issue if you don’t tell your questionable secrets.  Eventually, all those not-so-nice parts of our lives that we cope with are going to come out.  The question is when to bring them out.  After a few dates?  Once some sort of compatibility has been established?

My own secret is a little more obvious.  In the world of online dating, networking, and generally hanging out, having a blog is something of a risk.  What if potential (or current) employers stumble upon and see something (gasp!) unprofessional?  What if potential dates stumble upon it, especially if you happen to talk about them?  At the same time, my blog tells a great deal about who I am.  It shows many of those aspects of my personality that are not evident on the first, second, or nth date.  And that’s a plus.  It gives something that just a chat over coffee won’t ever show.

At the same time, I’m not quite sure I’m ready to put myself out there so much.  Sure, I’m already ‘out there’, purging myself to the world wide web, but most of the people who come here are either complete strangers or already know me pretty well.  There’s not much local-area viewing of this blog (at least that I’ve been able to determine thus far).  But do i bare my innermost soul to those I am dating, in the hopes that something good will come of it?  Or do I refrain, at least for a time, from giving that more intimate perspective of me?

Anger and Politics.

There has been a recent surge of indignation against the NYT by McCain supporters.  Why?  Because the op-ed piece he submitted didn’t get accepted, but Obama’s did.  More correctly, McCain’s op-ed was not accepted in its current form, but the Times said they would look for ward to a second draft.  A McCain spokesman said he would not change his piece based on ‘the demands of the New York Times’.  Personally, I find that a little bit harsh.

Sure, if you’re in a political race, getting publicity in a recognized newspaper like the Times is great.  Especially if it’s positive publicity.  Especially if it’s really getting across your views to the voters.  It’s understandable that McCain wants to have the same treatment as Obama, and the same access to the media as a resource.  It’s also understandable that McCain would want to have a fair shot at addressing his disagreement with Obama on policy in Iraq.  While it is not necessarily the paper’s responsibility to publish both sides of politics (freedom of the press, after all), it’s generally considered good form, and I think the Times will suffer some criticism because of it.

But the editor of the Times also has a point.  McCain is only responding to Obama in his op-ed.  He’s not laying out his own policy in a clear manner, other than saying he would be sure to consult with those ‘on the ground’ in Iraq.  He’s not giving up a good sense of what his policy might be in the future, other than the fact that he doesn’t want to rely on timetables.  I think that’s a loss for him.  It’s a mistake not to give the reading and voting public a clear sense of your policy views, and what your reaction might be to a given situation.  In my mind, when the response to the time editor should’ve been ‘oops’, it was anger instead.  Why not take the criticism as constructive, and give us something with a little more detail and a little fuller perspective, since you have the opportunity?  If you truly believe your positions are the will of the American people, that alone should sway us.