Writing about Steve Gilliard reminded me that as a blogger, he is far more successful than I am, and will probably remain that way.

Being jealous of people who are successful in their endeavors is not my style. While I know that rich and successful people like Bill Gates are the target of much jealousy (even hatred), I've never been able to fully understand why people feel that way, because I just don't empathize.

Normally, when someone is more successful than I am (especially at something I'm also doing), I try to examine why, in the hope of learning what I am doing wrong, and what they're doing right. But that approach doesn't help me when I contrast my blog with that of Steve Gilliard. True, his blog is far more interesting to most people, but that's because it's far more inflammatory, and people like to get stirred up about things. Aside from being inflammatory, insulting, and emotional, he's reaching two large audiences: those who agree with him (and are also highly emotional) and those who disagree with him (especially those who disagree emotionally).

My problem is that I try to avoid emotion as much as I can, I try to avoid inflammatory rhetoric, and I try to avoid insulting people. While I'm a libertarian, I also tend to see problems with both "sides" on many of the common ideological disputes which tend to dominate debates.

I'm afraid that approach is, simply, boring to most people.

If only I could figure out a way to be inflammatory, insulting, and emotional without being inflammatory, insulting or emotional!

Sigh.

I'll probably never get it, as I find emotionally-charged debates between ideologues rather boring. Until I get irritated. But even then, my interest is in how illogical ideas powered by emotion become so popular, which makes me suspend even my emotion of irritation.

(Looking on the bright side, I guess I should be surprised that anyone at all would find this process interesting.)