In all my blog writing so far, every time I've written "I", I have been speaking for myself. I've also been very careful in what I've written, to be as honest and truthful and accurate as possible -- stating what I do know and don't know.

I'm getting tired to writing in just this way.

So how can I write a poem or a story or a blob of text or drop in a drawing in this space without the "I" literary being "me"? Should I depend on context? Should I use some type of typographic or graphical convention? Should I mark it "story" or "fiction". I hope that if I'm writing a parody (say a parody of myself), that I wouldn't have to explicitly mark it with "Warning: self-parody".

How do others do this? There are probably examples in my own blogging community of such doings -- forgive me for not paying closer attention and missing out. Something I think that Laura might have something in her blog of this nature. Maybe Chris or Lloyd or Catherine. I thought tonight that textism might be what I wanted to study -- but my initial look did not yield what I wanted. Actually, maybe it's Ray Davis who has blogs that address this issue.

Both Lloyd and I wrote about Kenneth Pollack's Threatening Storm some time ago in our blogs as a must-read book in assessing the case for an invasion of Iraq. Pollack's book made me think, "hey maybe there is a sound case to be made for war given how Iraq might become an even more terrible menace to the world". So as I mull the current post-Iraq war situation, as I wonder whether the Bush administration misled the American public about how much it knew about weapons of mass destruction -- indeed wonder what is really true and who I can really believe in such a complex morass of spin -- I've been wondering how Pollack now stands.

Salon.com | Joe Conason's Journal points to a recent NPR interview with Kenneth Pollack. Now is Pollack back-peddling or was he duped or did we misinterpret Pollack? He seemed to one of the more credible analysts on the scene, but I don't know what to think right now.