Welcome to DC Reade’s Iconoclasms.
Welcome to Iconoclasms.
iconoclasm: The act of attacking cherished beliefs or traditional institutions regarded as based on error or superstition: the doctrine or spirit of one who so attacks.
(Definition 3, from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.)
A couple of you have already subscribed to this page, originally entitled American Drug War Journal. Fret not; I will not neglect that topic in my musings. I’ve created a separate subhead for that one. I just need to broaden my scope some, because so much of the iconography of popular thought deserves to be challenged, and there are so many false idols in need of toppling.
Also, my views on a good many questions don’t conform with any one hackneyed ideological “side”. But I’ve noticed that many of my fellow Americans have fallen into the habit of making unwarranted inferences from one or two statements of position on a given topic by someone; they seem to think that they automatically have an accurate scan of a person’s views on an entire range of subjects just from reading one of their comments. Sometimes, just based on their use of a single word.
No one is that omniscient.
Anyway, part of this exercise in Journalism will focus on outlining my range of views on a wide array of subjects, more or less one topic heading at a time. Hopefully, over time this will save readers the trouble of guessing on the basis of their mental ruts, and drawing false conclusions.
I’ve tried this Blog (“blog”- so 2002!) Journalism thing before, and I’ve always flagged out. That will not happen this time around. I’m too fed up.
I will probably be experimenting with formats, and like that. Please be patient. This one seems like it will work for now, though. As for subscriptions: for now, they’re free. If I can turn pro at this game eventually, so much the better.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE, Apr 02, 2023: if I’m going to get anything done on this Substack page, it’s going to involve a lot of rough drafting. That’s just the way I work, and I have to own it. Perfectionism only induces procrastination, for me. What this means for readers- especially those who subscribe- is that you’re due to get a lot of preliminary outlines, half-finished posts, posts consisting entirely of excerpts from my reference sources, etc. It’s going to look messy at the outset, particularly as history. Bear with me. As I’ve previously noted, I’m going to be doing a lot of addition and correction to entries already posted. Some of it is probably going to involve shifting my digressions from one page to another where the context is more appropriate.
I presently have a half-dozen posts that are too incomplete to present even as first drafts. I have NOT abandoned this mission.
As long as this place is disorganized, messy, fragmented, and incomplete, it’s free to look at in its entirety. If/when I ever pull it together into a semblance of coherence and begin putting out posts on a regular schedule, then I’ll consider charging money for it. I’m nowhere near being satisfied enough with my work to do that at present.
Finally, I feel strange about the whole phenomenon of “subscriptions”, at least as far as I’m able to figure them out on Substack; as far as I can tell, every time I publish a new post, it has to be sent to my subscribers, first. I’ve never voluntarily e-subscribed to a page in my life; I have enough clutter on my computer without volunteering for it. That same reticence leads me to be hesitant about cluttering up the Inboxes of my subscribers with my undercooked output. But, I’ve just told you what you’re in for…I hope you like what I have on offer.
5/26/2023: I have to express my dismay at what my dashboard tells me about the reading habits of many of the readers- not in regard to opening or reading my posts, but in the low rate of clicks registered for my linked references. I don’t view my witty opinions and tendentious narrative style as the main appeal of this page: I’m here to supply factual knowledge, supported by an ample supply of references. If you don’t click any of my links, how are you going to know I’m not getting the facts wrong?
The readiest explanation I can posit for this disinclination to dig is The Cellphone. At some point, I’m counting on some measurable percentage of people to understand the limits of the smartphone, as a medium for gathering and checking information on matters of serious adult concern. The phone isn’t a medium that provides the basic requirements of adult engagement with political issues- such as multiple open windows, reading on the basis of the page instead of the paragraph, fact checking, and independently chosen keyword searches.
More and more people computer owners are opting for having two of them- a “work” computer, and a “play” computer. You’re better off reserving the phone for fun stuff. The phone can be one of your “play” computers. Because that’s about all it’s capable of giving you, in comparison to the information access enabled by a full-fledged computer.