If you are looking for viral blogging or business blogging, check out http://www.converstations.com/

I think there is some equivalence to red-shift in the acceleration towards Singularity – as technology makes the world smaller, our respective niches seem to expand in importance in order to drive out that which we perceive is nonsense (or less-sense). When the American public had 3 channels on TV, statistically 1/3 of the TV-viewing audience was on a particular show – some shows captured significantly more ‘mindshare’ than others. We have hundreds of channels dedicated to such specific interests that we probably ignore more than we observe. The variance in popularity of any one topic is indistinguishable (or immeasurable) from chaos. I think there is also a dampening effect that diminishes the import of a great splash on one side of our culture to a mere ripple across the pond. ex: The anti-censorship “riot” on Digg that swirled around a coworker of mine (Chester Millisock) was very exciting for a few hours while digg+ rates were driving his story to the front page. His own blog was crushed under the traffic searching for his multi-hundred comment archive after Digg killed his story (and account) Within 12 hours the event was effectively over. Mainstream media was calling him 3-4 days afterwards trying to figure out what happened. By that point, the only real answer was, “You had to be there” There was so much context in the 2 hours around his account deletion, that it was impossible to explain to people who don’t even know what Digg is about, much less try to explain the emergent rally of a physically distributed but idealistically united anonymous mob.

Sorry if my example turned into a story that lead away from the point I was trying to make. If it isn’t clear enough, I doubt I will help by adding more confusion.

Well, maybe I should clarify — I am not entirely immune to politics as entertainment, and I don’t think that the substantive issues can or should be ignored. What I find tiresome is the constant rehashing and reinforcing of the same ideas over and over again. As I’m typing this, I notice that one of the Google ads at the bottom of my screen is for the book Why Mommy is a Democrat. A book like that doesn’t really provide any information, although I’m sure it’s quite entertaining and satisfying for those who read it and share its biases, while infuriating (although still, interestingly, very entertaining) to those who disagree. The same can be said for the often forced and trite one-liners that lead to huge rounds of applause on the Bill Mahr show, or just about anything that Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or any of those other guys say.

But you’re right — it’s largely a matter of personal taste, which is an interesting thing to say about preferences in political discourse. Ideally, we would want those preferences driven by reason and values, not aesthetics. (Not that aesthetics isn’t a value, but you see what I mean.)

Covering technology provides the advantage of fresh information — not just talking points from the headlines that allow us to reiterate the same points over and over. I agree that Glenn doesn’t fall into the trap that many political blogs do, partly because he is very concise. But it’s also interesting to note that he spends more time on tech issues than most “political” blogs.

See Lakoff- Framing the Debate. Or Luntz- Words That Work.

It’s not just a dumbing down to the lowest common denominator- it’s sensationalizing to the most easily manipulated and prodded hot button.

It’s why Brittany Spears’s naked vagina gets headlines and buzz. If there is a way to spin that buzz so your preferred partisan affiliation benefits- all the better.

Sometimes simply referred to as “gotcha” politics, it’s part of the lunacy that all votes are and should be equal.

That said- I agree enthusiastically with Michael A. and think it begs the critcally important question about how we educate (or not) kids.