Alas, I’ve recently displayed little of that amazing, heroic consistency I hymned in recent posts.
Again, it’s the perfect storm (have you noticed how many people misuse that book and movie allusion?) formed from too much paying work, always a mixed blessing, and too much time spent on my hobby-cum-second-life as an actor. Just completed my sixth play (which ran about three shows too long, if you ask me) and am now beginning rehearsals on a seventh in which, slightly diverting from type, I play a Catholic priest. Gloria patri.
So I’ll hope to be a better blogger as the Solstice looms and the short days bend, unlike the health-care cost curve, toward 2010.
By the way, long-time readers who have not seen their blog-reading time absorbed by Facebook may have seen my numerous posts about the dilemmas of meat-eating and my recent review of Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals. For those who want more to chew on, here’s a dialogue between Foer and Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. I especially like the part in which Foer explains that, duh, a concern for animal welfare does not at all imply 1) a monomaniacal focus on this one problem to the exclusion of others, which may be more pressing, or 2) positing some rigid moral equivalence between animals and humans.
Many times, the people who say, “How can you care about X when Y and Z are happening?” are not doing much if anything about X, Y, or Z.