[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 31°F  
High: 59°F ~ Low: 43°F
Saturday, Nov. 1, 2014

Good Bye ... For Now

Posted Saturday, May 14, 2011, at 2:44 PM

I'm done. My life at this time is just too full for me to maintain my blog the way I would like and to put out, what I consider, quality work.

So, for the time being, I am logging off my blog. To those that supported me thank you and keep the good fight going. To those who did not, thank you for always giving me good fodder.

Whether this lasts for a couple of days or for a few months, or if I never return to this site ...

Good bye, for now.

On a final note: It has been asked why, exactly, have I made this decision. Outside of trying to raise two families, mine and my stepdaughter's, going to school full time, and working it does go a little deeper. I was writing a new blog a few days ago and got into the second paragraph when I realized I no longer have the passion for blogging. That is why I said above it could be just a couple of days a few months, or never before I return. If I do not have a passion for something I find it best to step away, do other things, and discover if that passion returns. After a few days of being away from this blog I can tell you that the passion has definitely not returned and I am in fact enjoying my time away from it.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

if you never return to this site will anyone miss you?

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, May 14, 2011, at 7:36 PM

I for one will miss your blog, hope things go well with you and your family. We all could use a brake from politics once in awhile for our mental psyche. I didn't always agree with you but at the same time, didn't always agree with your opposition and there diametrical points of view. Things will be plain vanilla around here.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Sat, May 14, 2011, at 9:43 PM

Why does a blogger quit blogging?

Because he has run out of things to say?

Because he doesn't get the satisfaction he desires?

I am curious.

Another question could be "Why does a blogger blog"?

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 2:25 PM

I am one conservative that will miss Michaels blog. I like to read them to see what lunacy the liberals come up with next.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 10:09 AM

Looks like I'll have to wait even longer for an apology :(

TTFN

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM

mike

I haven't done the math on the responses, but i will be positive and say whenever you decide to come back

game on! More want to read your opinions and offer theirs back, me included.

better than the comics

-- Posted by boojum666 on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 6:31 PM

Mike,

I have always enjoyed your blog and hope to see you back soon.

Take care of yourself.

Best Regards

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 6:42 PM

Sorry to see you go, Michael, but it will save me time, too.

It was interesting to read your blog. Sorta like lifting the hood and getting to see how a real, live liberal thinks. Still curious at how people reach their individual perception of life, and how they believe it should be.

Take care now.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 2:45 PM

Mike

Thank you for presenting a differing view from what one generally finds in the Gazette. Can understand how the feedback from posters would get tiring, especially considering the "one view point of the world,one soluton to our problems, and one cause of all our problems" from most of the posters. Have personally enjoyed give and take in conversaions, relationships, and life, that's why I left Red Willow County.

-- Posted by ontheleftcoast on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 6:25 PM

Michael, ontheleftcoast, dawg and the other liberals who post here: its not your left leaning that bothers me, its the "perceived" constant "putdown" of the conservative viewpoint that rankles me. yes, conservatives do it too. does that make it right? No. anything any liberal or conservative posts here can be turned around to the other side and it is just as valid. I see very few respectful discussions here. Most posters seem to prefer to attack the messenger rather than the message. I have been guilty as well but I sincerely attempt to respect the poster.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 9:25 AM

Michael, you always presented your point of view in a thoughtful and well researched manner. I was always hoping that those who disagreed with you would do the same. I do not understand why there can be no civil discussions about important issues. If someone disagrees with me, I am very interested in learning how they arrived at their opinion. However, I think unsubstantiated arguments and name calling is a waste of time. Best wishes to you and your family.

-- Posted by Grandma B on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 10:23 AM

I tend to agree with Grandma B on this one and hence why it has taken me more than a year and a half of following these blogs to even post on them. When "ed burke" or "senior frog" (I know I got the names wrong, obviously they didn't stick with me well) or others who's names I cannot recall but were obviously blocked, were posting, the posts were boiled down to a bunch of "you're dumb" or "you're dumberer". All they could do was find $5 words to say the same thing. It was a bunch of name calling that typically went off-topic, referred to previous blogs, or never made a point anyway. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to retract my statement if I am, but this particular blog has never really been much more than a rocking chair: a lot of fun, but it never gets you anywhere. I'll give Michael credit for persevering and putting his name clearly behind his opinions.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 3:45 PM

Grandma B: I certainly agree with you when you said," I think unsubstantiated arguments and name calling is a waste of time.' An englishman named (John Heywood) once said "There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know. The problem with most political bloggers is they are sure its the other side that is blind. They get so worked up over there own political believes that they lower themselves to name calling and other personal attacks.

Sometimes my brain gets a little numb from reading the petty and trivial arguing back and forth, but I've found that a few shots of Crown Royal helps numb it even more.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 4:04 PM

Obama budget was voted on in Senate yesterday.

0 for.

97 against.

I guess now we know why Mike is gone. He was proven wrong over and over and over again.

Kudo's for taking your ball and leaving.

If you really are "raising your family" it will not take you long to realize that you earned your money - you should keep it. Not pay higher and higher taxes which is what your buddies in the last Congress wanted to do.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, May 26, 2011, at 5:50 AM

walismarsh - Perhaps you should check your facts before spouting how wrong someone else is. It was the Republican budget bill that was defeated, and the score was not 97 - 0 but rather 57 against - 40 for. It seems some Republican senators voted against it.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Thu, May 26, 2011, at 7:59 AM

In the theme of checking our facts:

Obama budget went down 0-97;

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_c...

It was Rep. Paul Ryan's bill that was defeated 57-40;

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_c...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, May 26, 2011, at 4:11 PM

Brian,

I wouldn't have posted what I did if I didn't know for sure I was correct.

I tend to verify or have facts behind my opinion.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, May 26, 2011, at 8:48 PM

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/25/...

Ryan's defeat was the headline but buried in the story was the Obama budget defeated 0 for and 97 against.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, May 26, 2011, at 8:54 PM

Fair enough CBP... In the interest of checking facts, lets not forget that the bill (Obama budget) was not actually voted on... the Ryan bill was actually defeated in the Senate.

The 97 - 0 vote you and Wallis refer to was a vote to consider Obama's budget, and not a vote on the bill at all.

The Senate voted on 3 resolutions to consider at the time the vote in question was made... Obama's budget, Paul Ryans, and Rand Paul's. Ryan's bill had already passed in Congress so it made no sense to start moving forward with other bills from the Senate side.

I'll go back to my room now.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Thu, May 26, 2011, at 9:20 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)