It's not that all the madness just outside my window — a demagogue plutocrat running for president, knee-jerk reactionary behavior to terror, all the rest of it — has clubbed me into silence. Whenever times get crazy, I don't tend to do a lot of outwards flame-throwing, if only because so many other people do the job far better than me, I've found. I am not best suited to being the man on the soapbox when it comes to such issues. That doesn't mean I don't care about them.
A lot of people seem to think the only, or best, way to show you really care about things is to make a big fat stink about them. I trust most of my friends are not like this; they know that if I'm quiet about something, it doesn't mean I'm indifferent to that particular issue. I'm just not fond of wasting energy on what to me amounts to huffing and puffing.
It's also a matter, I think, of going where your talents already lie. Other people like John Scalzi or my good friend Rob Hansen are far better at talking about nuanced, day-to-day political issues than I am, so I leave that discussion to them and pass the word on. With all the other things I already have to put my foot in my mouth over, it makes sense to leave them to the domain experts.
None of that means I remain studiedly ignorant of those issues, though — just that I trust other people better than myself to communicate about them and raise some hell over them.
I used to think I was more of a soapboxer than I really was, and I found after a while that the role was a tiring one. It left me feeling enervated, not energized. It required a degree of precision of thought I still don't have, a level of worldliness that still escapes me, and under it all a kind of mindset I just don't possess. But there's no crime in admitting other people are better suited to the job.
Just my way of saying, you won't see much political commentary here, but not because I don't give a darn. In a way, I give too much of a darn to mess up some highly important issues with my gabbling.