I get e-mails from the writers here discussing future articles and sharing the details of their lives with me, since we are separated by miles while joined by a common enterprise.

I get more than my share of spam.

Within this avalanche of e-mail during this past week was a missive from my friend Darryl in Pennsylvania. He shared with me, for reasons he could not fully elucidate, but mentioning that the exchange between him and The Economist reflected feelings he had about the stance of too many journalists, an e-mail exchange between himself and that publication.

I found the exchange typical of what happens when you deal with a certain level of hubris among journalists: the reader becomes less important than what the journalist has on his or her agenda.

At the same time, I found an example of how little we all know about each other, even among friends. Darryl and I have known each other for nearly seven years. I only learned that he was a Republican this week.

The question of political affiliation had never come up between us. He had once worked at City Hall in San Francisco, as have I, but his time there pre-dated my own. We know many of the same California politicians, but party affiliation had never entered into our conversations. Most often, we have talked about our love of good writing, our projects, our shared affinity for the blues, but not politics.

So finding out that my friend Darryl is a Black Republican, like J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, was unsettling. I think Watts is an intelligent guy, so I have had to wonder about his party affiliation. As one of my Irish friends has commented, "Being a Black Republican is like being a Gay Republican: why assimilate among the people who mean to see you disappear?"

In fairness, both parties suck. There is no reason to be a Republican or a Democrat if you care about yourself, your neighborhood, or your family. The whole notion that there are only two political parties in this country is another mechanism of manipulation and control. That said, isn't there something smarmy about my now having to say, "Some of my best friends are Republicans"?

By my lights, that's like having to say, I think Reggie White is an okay guy.(I don't.)

The Economist, that bastion of capitalist DoubleSpeak, ran an article on Black Republicans, then refused to publish any response to the same article, by my friend Darryl or anyone else who wrote in. Not surprising to me, but disturbing to him. One of the editors at the publication wrote back to him:

"...We did receive a couple of letters regarding the article on black Republicans. However, a great many letters are sent to us each week and space on the letters page is very limited, as you will have noticed....I hope that you are able to find an alternative publication that more fully meets your requirements...."

In other words, YOU NEED US, WE DON'T NEED YOU.

That attitude toward a reader(and, in this case, a paying subscriber) is exactly what I meant by "hubris" in the opening paragraphs.

Many of the writers here, as you are aware, have not always entirely agreed with my stance of making this a reader-driven publication. Like the editor at The Economist, those writers believe that we are guides or mentors. It is exactly that philosophical stance which devalues the readership, our constituents and the members of our community of interest.