Who you calling 'deranged'?

Wednesday morning, I did a round-up of reaction to the Obama inauguration, which was linked several hours later by Instapundit. (Thank you, Professor Reynolds.)

Why did I do that post? Because the Obama inauguration was virtually the only thing anyone was blogging about and it occurred to me that there might be some reader interest in the reaction. Keen deductive powers.

Furthermore, the astute reader may have noticed that first item linked in that round-up was Philip Klein's American Spectator report on the inauguration. Phil writes for the Spectator. I write for the Spectator. Ergo, I was promoting a colleague's work -- and what excellent work it was!

This is consistent with what I call the Full Metal Jacket Reach-Around (FMJRA) Theory of Blogging. I write for various online publications, and when my articles are published, I generally link those articles here at the blog. And I also link articles that my friends publish. You might be surprised at how effective deployment of the FMJRA Theory can reduce, or even entirely eliminate, the cost of refreshments at the National Press Club or other fine establishments in our nation's capital. The Blogger Ethics Commission has not yet specifically condemned the FMJRA Theory and next time I'm in D.C., Phil's buying.

My little roundup post sat there in relative obscurity for 7 hours and 39 minutes, until it was linked by the perspicacious Professor Reynolds, at which time it began to generate comments, some declaring that I had maliciously distorted the meaning of Gregg Levin's Firedoglake post entitled "Worst. Inauguration. Ever."

Truth? I never read Gregg's post. I just saw the title at Memeorandum and thought, "Heh." So I linked it, with the common-sense assumption that what Gregg meant was, the inauguration sucked. Excuse the misunderstanding.

Then, last night, commenter Wayne Fontes suggested I "might be coming down with a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome." Ah . . . no. Let me see if I can clear this up.

As I once tried to explain to Rod Dreher, I write for money. Writing is a commercial enterprise, and blogging is a form of writing, and the whole point of this blog is to make money. Or, at least, as a sort of marketing venture auxilliary to, and supportive of, other forms of writing for money.

This is not to say that I don't enjoy blogging, or that I don't have meaningful insights to offer. Rather, it is to say that if someone wanted to pay me not to blog, I'd consider the offer. And if someone wanted to pay me to blog about a certain topic -- say, for example, to blog about the top-quality, low-priced consumer fireworks available at Wild Wilma's Fireworks in East Tennessee -- I'd consider that offer, too.

See, I am a capitalist writer. To me, capitalism is not merely a theory, but a daily practice. And here at The Other McCain, the theory is put into practice as I try -- brace yourselves -- to write stuff that people want to read. Because if nobody wants to read it, there's no traffic, and if there's no traffic, why bother blogging at all?

Which brings us back to the accusation of "Obama Derangement Syndrome." The guy happens to be the President of the United States -- as you may have noticed -- and is therefore a personality whom people want to read about. (Kind of like Christina Hendricks, except less attractive.) So if I blog about Obama, it's because I think people want to read about Obama.

I don't hate the guy, I have no fear and loathing of the guy -- in fact, as I said back in April, I think it's pretty cool that he's a cigarette smoker -- and I'm not deranged by him. He is a liberal Democrat, as are several of my cousins (hello, Pepper!), but since none of them are Leader of the Free World, there is neither money nor purpose in denouncing my cousins' liberal agenda.

Some of our progressive friends, who've spent the past eight years imagining that the White House had been stolen in a coup masterminded by Dick Cheney, Halliburton and the Mossad, would dearly like to believe that conservatives have been driven similarly bonkers by the Obama presidency. While I can't speak for anyone else, I'm no more bonkers than I've ever been, which isn't saying that I'm entirely sane -- no one who knows me would make that argument -- only that whatever bizarre dementia I'm suffering, Obama has nothing to do with it.
So . . . we now return you to the regularly scheduled shameless capitalist blogging. And remember, when you want low, low prices on the highest quality consumer fireworks, go to Wild Wilma's, just off I-81 at exit 44. Tell 'em I sent ya.

UPDATE: "Obama Worship: Flip Side of Bush Hatred." Hmmm. I've got my own issues with Bush, but that hasn't made me prone to Obamamania. In fact, since becoming disillusioned with Clinton circa 1994, I've been very cynical about politicians in general. The one thing you can't deny about Bush is, he drove the Left nuts, which is always good. But the wild enthusiasm for Obama reminds me of Fred Barnes's insultingly hagiographic Bush book, Rebel in Chief.