New posting activity in my various blogs

I had a few comments on my recent posting that were collectively a bit weightier than doing an italics or anything like that, although there is not yet a very good way to do this in my opinion. For now I thought I would try to make a separate note even though it doesn't really work as a time-sensitive post.

I am still less than a month into writing for public consumption. And it seems to me that there is a process involved when I publish something officially that makes the typos all of a sudden start glaring at me. Before I hit 'publish post,' mistakes are unimportant enough that they blend into the background. I think I remember that phenomenon from watching something print out on those old dot matrix printers!

Also, there is another wave a few weeks after I write something and I have totally forgotten what I wrote about that helps me revise further. So it turns out that I also do quite a bit of cleaning up of my longer documents a while after writing them.
Hence any of you who are reading my posts, first congratulations, and second you may want to wait a while. They do get better. I am generally a very good editor of others' writing, and I can even do it to my own after a while. I may have made this comment before but it bears repeating.

Also, a note about my two Huckabee posts. At first I thought I wasn't at all into the sad state of GOP primaries. That is probably the case because the nags they put out each time are so utterly depressing. A few of the issues, however, about Huckabee and Romney have interested me because of the obvious personal connection above just choosing a primary candidate, so I started writing about it. At first I assumed that I didn't have much to say as per usual. Then the length of the short blurb of a post I planned to do surprised me, but at first I hoped to keep it within one post.

Now I have no idea how much I will write about it, but my thoughts have currently evolved into two separate posts which make two fairly different though related statements, which I will state now in case actual them reading fails to communicate my intentions:

1. The GOP has a reason to want to crack down on evangelical hostility to Mormons rather than indulge it for any temporary peace they hope to keep within the party. Letting a group with specific standards for religious ideological uniformity anywhere in politics have their way on this one (Romney being automatically out)is IMO feeding an insatiable monster to which we will have to offer the sacrifice of more and more potential conservative candidates of various religions down the road, and wider public fear of that monster will scare more and more moderate voters away from the party.

2. Why the excuses for not doing #1 (from perspectives of those who don't want it to be done) are all washed up.

I would be interested in whether any of you who read the posts end up getting those general ideas out of them. If not, I have more work to do. If you do get where I am coming from, I would also be interested in what you think also. And if you are only going to read them once you might want to wait a while still!