I have been in a (blog related?) existential conundrum for the last few weeks brought on by the election and financial crisis and amplified by some reading/viewing/thinking I have been doing. I never intended this blog to be (or become) a personal historical zeitgeist. I have been troubled since beginning my blog that it had no editorial vision, as my twitter feed clearly does.

The trouble is that I currently am not, and do not wish to become, a pundit, commentator, or advisor on political, economic, or similar issues. I do not have the degree of education (formal or informal) on any of these subjects that I feel is necessary to be a responsible writer on the subjects. This isn’t to say I have no thoughts on the subjects as they stand, or that it takes a degree and a “mainstream” opinion to make a valuable contribution, far from it.

The question I pose to myself every time I attempt and fail to write a coherent post about a topic like the presidential “debates” is “What the hell am I doing?” As a cynic, it goes without saying that I doubt my tiny, paranoid rants will be effective in making a difference. I’m not writing for kudos or to change the world, I’m writing because I’m a frustrated, overly-critical cynic and if I don’t vent that steam somewhere: kaboom. If I can make a difference in the thinking of a few readers, great.

But that still leaves my question unanswered. I could write this all in a obscenely titled text file found only after my death as my children sort through my affects trying to make sense of my life, but that isn’t what i am doing. So why?

I don’t have an answer to that question yet. I am a little closer to an answer to the how/what questions for this blog, which is the opposite of how I like to work, but at least it’s something.

Aside: For those of you interested in a post on the “debate,” it is coming.