Today, I would like to invite you all to go over to Flowerhead's blog for yesterday and read one of the best entries I've seen for a long time, anywhere. Every now and then, someone will have a big of a mind splurge, writing down what they're thinking and expressing it so well that it just makes sense. That's one heck of a rant-cum-brain-dump.

The question of "for whom we blog" seems to be a popular bit of navel-watching at the moment in the community. Much like the huge rise in the number of personal web pages when the Web was popularised a few years back, many bloggers are querying their motives at maintaining an online journal. Are they doing this for themselves, for visitors, for some form of acceptance in their lives or for something else?

Personally, I've never had a problem with why I do this: it's for me. It's a way to clean out the stuff in my head that all those evil voices keep saying. If no one ever read it and I was basically typing this for absolutely no other reason than the self-expression it provides, then that's just fine and dandy with me. I'm also not narcissistic enough to point people here, unless they're directly concerned. I do, however, have standards: I trust you will never find a spelling error here, that the grammar will be reasonable in a conversational style and that I will not write in some sort of pseudo-gangsta-rap bullshit fashion (nor in l33t) that deranged children think is cool. I'm an Englishman, old fruit, and jolly proud of knowing how to write correctly.

It's nice that folks visit to read the entries and express themselves: communication is at the heart of all human advancement (thanks for that great expression that I just paraphrased, Stephen Hawking!) and it's always good to hear whether people agree or disagree, even if they won't change my opinion in the end.

Self-expression is essential to the human condition and blogging is just another form: do you paint for yourself, write poetry for the heck of it, sing in the shower? Hell, I talk to the cat and I don't care if my neighbours can hear through the wall or not. Apparently, the vast majority of bloggers are teenagers, too, which makes sense: on the one hand, introspection and the belief that the entire world revolves around oneself is, after all, the global pastime at that age; on the other hand that's the age at which talent generally begins to blossom and self-expression can open a doorway to incredible possibilites.

Regular visitors are nice to have, too: that's where the feeling of 'community' comes from. One grows to understand and 'know' the blogger - actually, this is complete nonsense. None of you know me (except Scary Ross, who lived next to me for two years at University and survived to tell the tale), but you know what I mean by that: you know me better than George Bush or Winona Ryder do, unless they read my blog. And if they do see this, then "Worry about your own country first!" to the former and "Call me!" to the latter. Please don't mix those responses up.

Politics is also a popular slant for blogging: in the same vein as perma-ranting, it provides an easy solution to always being able to complain. In general, I dislike that. Yes, a rant is a great entry and can be lots of fun, particularly if it's well written, but as Ryan recently said, " it gets flat out exhausting to maintain that level of detached cool". It does indeed - being that 'angry' probably indicates that the blogger is either (a) not sincere or (b) needs serious therapy.

A smart discourse on politics, however, can make a very interesting and reassuring read: here, I have come full circle to Flowerhead's posting. I think the reason that particular post struck me, though, was because it was a reasonable rant. Here is an intelligent lady reflecting on life, on politics, on film, her mother and various other things. She's not spitting venom in a pointless attempt to be cool, hip and attract visitors; she's not trying to be dramatic and sensational to hit the number one spot on the news (yes, journalists, that was an intentional dig at your work ethic - and yes, I pointed it out because I think the general IQ of journalists these days is low enough to otherwise overlook it); she's not spewing nonsensical personal crud onto a web site in a vague therapeutic attempt at improving her self-confidence - she's quite simply expressing a lot of internal thoughts very well, making them accessible and reassuring us that there are still people out there who are more concerned with the important issues in life than whatever bullshit nonsense CNN vomits up at prime-time and insists we/you consider important.

While I'm being offensive to journalists, I'd like to say that I really do think that the majority of prime-timers (note: NOT those who are relegated to smaller local stations or the middle of the newscast) are idiots who need their brains rearranging. They are sensationalists to the core and undoubtedly the worst propaganda-spewers since Josef Goebbels: despite their constant whining to the contrary, they really do just make matters worse. Go and report on something really important and stop being politically correct, chasing ambulances or spending more time with shootings than social dysfunction.

Also on journalism, I'd like to point out this massively distorted item that I found via a reply on a blog (thanks, Jim). Read that carefully. Now, the whole article is about whether the war was started on made-up excuses (which, let's face it, everyone's pretty sure of... there's no argument about that here!). However, look at the phrase upon which the whole article gathers momentum: "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Now read the title: "WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz." Now read the part about taking troops out of Saudi Arabia, which is bizarrely a good reason for removing Saddam.

In what way, pray tell, does all that back the journalist's point of view? It doesn't: it simply states that the Pentagon considers the average American citizen too stupid to deal with more than one issue, so they picked the one they all agreed on and that was the simplest to understand. That's why I hate journalism: twist the truth, cause a stir, present on point of view, cause a sensation. Do your job properly and stop manipulating the masses, please.

Being powerless to change all these things is, of course, the current human condition. Susan expresses it and I can but agree: even the hope of being able to make a difference is gone in our time. The feeling that, even if I did write the letters to the people in power, even if I did get up and go out and demonstrate (although here in France, I'd get trampled by the huge masses of people on strike), even if I did use that vote... it would make no difference.

"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." (Douglas Adams)

Money is power. Politics is corrupt. Life sucks. Such are the eternal verities and, until someone honest gains enough money and power (and remains uncorrupted) to step into that milieu and smash some heads together, we're all pretty much condemned to live with the consequences. Personally, I think the Flowerhead entry sums it up beautifully:

"It feels like I'm living in a world of stupid."