Throwback Thursday: On civility

Im still impressed--if that's the word--by the way in which the Internet facilitates idiocy. Or, in the words of an unknown commenter quoted in Daniel J. Solove's forthcoming book The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet, 'The Internet makes fools into stars and stars into fools.' "

- Terry Teachout 

Originally published August 21, 2007

Seeing red over RedState, or why Erick Erickson isn't welcome here anymore

You might have noticed in the past that I've linked to quotes from a conservative website called RedState, run by conservative activist Erick Erickson (as a matter of fact, I think I did one in the last week or so).  I'm not going to link to them here, but if you haven't read them, you might want to take a chance now, because you ain't gonna see anymore quotes from RedState at this site.

In the circular firing squads that now comprise both the Republicans and the conservatives, Erickson got off a shot last Friday night, when he disinvited Donald Trump to his RedState bash over the weekend, because of comments Trump made about Fox news host and self-shill Megyn Kelly, who did such an execrable job in her part as host of the GOP "debate" on Thursday night.  Erickson was offended by Trump's post-debate comments, thinking them to be in bad taste.   I'm not going to go into a whole lot of detail on this because it's all kind of distasteful, plus I have more important things to write about right, things that have nothing to do with either this blog or the TV one.*  However, if you want to read about it from the best possible source, I'll steer you to this wonderful column from Mark Steyn.

*However, dear readers, I'll never desert you entirely.  No matter how busy I am, I'll always have time for a post or two.  Just not too many long ones like this one.  For the time being, at least.

Let me make it clear at the outset: I'm not a supporter of Donald Trump, although I think he's absolutely tapped into the discontent seething inside the Republican Party these days.  (As was well-put by Rush here.)  I'm not really for anyone at the moment, although if I was forced to pick someone, I'd go with fellow Texan Ted Cruz.  My suspicion is that it doesn't matter who anyone votes for at this point; both parties are going to job you.  The Democrats are in full leftist mode, with no room for conservatives and increasingly no room for moderates or even classical liberals.  The Republicans, the party of capitulation, seems far more concerned with maintaining their own position in the status quo than affecting any real change.  Both parties hold the average person in contempt, both parties are run by elitist monied interests, and the only difference in how they want to spend your money is on which of their pet projects and crony capitalist enterprises they favor.  In other words, they both want to spend all your money; they just differ on the specifics.

With that all out of the way, let's get to brass tacks, as it were.*  What is it specifically that set me off on Erick Erickson?

*And what is it about brass tacks, anyway?  Wiktionary says it dates back to the 1860's specifically from Texas (no surprise there)., and may refer to "the brass tacks in the counter of a hardware store or draper’s shop used to measure cloth in precise units (rather than holding one end to the nose and stretching out the arm to approximately one yard)."  In other words, let's deal with facts, not estimates.

Even when I read RedState regularly, there was something vaguely unsettling about it.  Perhaps it was the crudity with which some of their writers addressed the issues of the day, not to mention the fact that many of them simply aren't very good writers.  But there was something more to it as well, an edge of nastiness that didn't really accomplish anything if your goal was to get people to respect, if not agree with, your viewpoint.  I began to suspect that the "Red" in RedState stood more for red meat than red-state politics.

Then there was their habit of banning comments from people who disagreed with them.  This didn't happen across the board, but it most frequently occurred with people who chose to respond to RedState using the same rhetorical flourishes that RedState itself used.  In other words, Pot - meet Kettle.*  I understand the idea that a blog is private property, and that the blog owner is free to do whatever he or she likes with it.  Nonetheless, I've often wondered about people who block critical comments.  Yes, there are times when it's necessary - in the case of organized campaigns by people trying to bring down a blog, for example.  However, in the case of a site as large as RedState, I doubt this is the case.

*Certainly, they're not the only bloggers who are hypersensitive to seeing themselves in the faces of others.  See also: Shea, Mark.

So even when I was a regular reader, there was something that bothered me about the site.  Maybe it was Erickson's increasing habit of using religious, indeed Biblical, allusions in his writing.  Now, I do this myself at times, but I hope when I do, it appears organic and natural, and not as Erickson did, in what seemed to be an attempt to attach legitimacy to his point of view.  You know, when all else fails: use God as a crutch.  There was something unnatural, and not to his benefit, in the way he did this.

It wasn't until this kerfuffle that I finally found out what it was, though, and for that I suppose I should be grateful to Erickson.  You can see a lot of it in this exchange Erickson had with Neil Cavuto on Fox today, when Cavuto chose to read some of Erickson's own tweets on-air - many of them, in fact, coming across as, well, sexist.  Which, as I recall, is what he'd accused Donald Trump of.  Cavuto was joined by fellow Fox commentator Greta Van Susteren, who said that Erickson "has said the worst things about women."  I told you that Erickson was a Fox contributor, didn't I?  Apparently the revolution really is consuming its own.

Then there was this story on why Erickson didn't invite Dr. Ben Carson to the RedState gathering this past weekend (the same event for which he'd disinvited Trump).  In the body of the story is a line from Erickson in which he describes himself not as a journalist, but an "activist."  And there's nothing wrong with being an activist.  But the problem, not only with Fox but with CNN, MSNBC and all the rest, is that all they do is employ activists, whom they pass off as either experts or representatives of a particular point of view, in hopes of setting off some kind of manufactured shout-fest that just serves to turn off even more voters.  In fact, whatever happened to the idea of becoming an activist in order to make things better?  If Erickson was interested in this, he wouldn't be quite so inflammatory; instead, he might actually try and convince people of his positions.  As Van Susteren says, "No one should pay any attention to them – they are not persuasive, they are noise, and in some instances boorish and obnoxious.  I suspect this guy [Erickson] feels that he makes himself relevant or even important if he says or tweets like this. I just roll my eyes and wonder what is going on in his head!"

As if all this wasn't enough, there was this comment Erickson made regarding the Virgin Mary, whom he said, "My wife tells me Mary had PMS on the way to Bethlehem.  Says the Bible says Mary rode Joseph's ass all the way there."

OK, so I'm going to put my religion hat on for a minute, and I hope it doesn't come across the way I accused Erickson's of sounding when I wrote about it a few paragraphs ago.  But as someone who has a particular devotion to both Mary and Joseph, I find that comment not only not funny, it's insulting and offensive.  It borders on blasphemous, as much as "Piss Christ" in some ways.  And it just isn't the kind of comment someone ought to be proud of making in public.  As I've often said, there are some people who just shouldn't be on Twitter.

In case you haven't figured it out by now, I'm not a fan of Erick Erickson's.  I think he's done much to lower the level of discourse in the public arena.  (I'm not a fan of Megyn Kelly's either, but one attack per day is about my limit.)  I will give him credit for one thing, though.  He points out that his blog is private property, which means he can do what he wants with it.  That's true of my blog as well, which means I can do whatever I want.  Including not linking to RedState, or Erick Erickson, again.

Why some good writers are bad bloggers (and other things that bother me)

Source: luislondon.com

If you'll indulge me for the moment, there are times when I simply can't resist quoting myself quoting someone else. And so I'll hearken back to a situation from a few years ago, during which I quoted Tom Wolfe from The Right Stuff - it was a situation "that would have made the Fool Killer lower his club and shake his head and walk away, frustrated by the magnitude of the opportunity.”  Then, as now, I write about the blogosphere; then, as now, it's the Catholic blogosphere.

I could simply direct you to that link and leave it at that; there's not a lot more that can be added to what I wrote back then, and I did a pretty good job then, if I do say so myself.  But there are a couple new things that I think should be pointed out; besides, this way I get to add another piece to the blog.

Today's immediate inspiration comes from a a piece I read last week at LifeSiteNews, and a follow-up at the blog of the chairman of the Latin Mass Society.  I won't go into any details aside from these links, because I think they tell the story pretty well (at least from the point of view I want to discuss today); that way, if you're not interested in the particulars, you can stick around for the generalities.  And if that don't suit you, I'm sure you'll find something else here in a day or two that's more interesting.  I'll do my best.

There are three points to be had from the above, and I'll try to keep them short:

1. There are some people who just shouldn't blog.  They're too thin-skinned, too snarky, or simply unable to converse in what used to be called polite society.  It doesn't really take too much effort to remember that every word written on the Internet is available forever, and if you want to be taken seriously as an advocate for a particular position, you might want to keep that in mind.  Otherwise, you not only discredit your own abilities, you undermine the credibility of your intellect by antagonizing readers who might otherwise profit from your writing.*
   
   *Now, I'm not saying I haven't made mistakes in the past, said or written intemperate words, or in general made a fool of myself.  Of course I have, as I suspect all of you out there have.  But I'd like to think that I've matured since then, that I've improved my writing style, and that I've learned the valuable lesson of thinking before writing.
   
   
2. You may well be wondering if this discussion really matters.  Isn't this just a local fight, one that attracts the attention of maybe one-tenth of one-quarter of one percent of Catholics?  My friend Terry, who blogs at the excellent site Abbey-Roads, is one of the most gifted bloggers out there; his ability to cut to the deep is profound.  Anyway, Terry points out often that most Catholics aren't even aware of the issues that have aroused such venom, and therefore aren't we giving it a bit too much attention?
   
   He may well be right, but I'd suggest in response that history is written by the winners.  It is true that most Catholics don't follow such things, but in this sense the Church is more like a political party than anything else.  Look at the GOP primary in Virginia last week - Eric Cantor, the U.S. House Majority Leader, was defeated by a sizeable margin, partly because primary turnouts are low, and partly because those who do vote are the ones who are most invested in what's going on.  At the end of the day, the country is ruled to a great extent not by the wishes of the masses, but by the convictions of those who cared enough to get involved, and were rewarded by getting the chance to set policy.
   
   It's much the same in the Church.  Ultimately, it will be a small number of people who determine policy, not only at the highest level, but at the lowest - the parishes, the dioceses, the schools.  They are the ones who get involved, who understand the issues, who read (and write) the blogs and say their pieces.  They may be disproportionate to the larger body of the Church, but in the end their influence, rightly or wrongly, will be far greater.
   
   And that's why this internal struggle matters, because it's being conducted among the people who reach a lot of people and have a lot to say about how the future shapes up.  If I'm wrong, I trust Terry will be able to provide a more than adequate rebuttal, but I don't think I am.


3. Which brings me to the part that may disappoint me the most: these bloggers who can't resist acting up - whether on their blogs or through other social media - are capable of better than that.  If there's one thing that I pride myself on with my blogs, it's that I generally put out a polished product.  Without sounding too conceded, I like to think I have a way with words, one that I put on display every time I put pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard.  With rare exceptions, what I've written both here and at It's About TV is, I think, as good as about 95% of what you read anywhere else online.  I could be overestimating that a bit, and I hasten to add that percentage doesn't apply to the content or thought displayed therein, just the style employed.
   
   But there are few things that irritate me more than wasted potential.  Whether I'm writing on Facebook, or commenting on someone else's blog, or doing anything that can be seen and read by more than just me - I always try to keep in mind the old adage about asking yourself whether or not you'd be comfortable seeing what you'd just written on the front page of The New York Times.*  Hell, I even proof emails three or four times before I'm comfortable with them.  Once I marked up a letter a friend of mine sent me; I didn't send it back to her, because that would have ended the friendship, but I did correct a couple of things so I wouldn't notice them if I read the letter again.
   
   *Not a particularly high standard to live up to nowadays, I realize, but remember - I said it was an old adage.

What all three of these things amount to, and I realize I might be a bit redundant here, is to ask the question what it means to be a writer.  Are you a craftsman of your art, a wordsmith who works with the language the way other artists deal in clay or oils?  Are you proud of your craft, even when it's a one- or two-sentence product on Facebook?  Or are you just a hack?

Assuming you're not a hack, but instead a professional writer, one who perhaps even makes a living from what you write, then why would you ever put out something less than that?  And if you're what I'd call a "professional blogger"; that is, someone with a far higher readership than what I'm used to, one whose site features advertising, is seen as a source of information for others of a similar interest, perhaps even someone recognized as an expert and appearing from time to time in other media - then why would you cheapen that reputation by producing hack writing in public?  Why?

The fact is, there are some good writers out there who are bad bloggers, and I don't think that's a secret to anyone who spends any time in the blogosphere.  They're capable of writing with exceptional wit, clarity and grace, but too often they use their talents in a manner which could be described as malignant - as if they had Pulitzer-level writing ability, but wasted it by writing porn novels.  Their idea of evangelization too often consists of encouraging dissent in the same way that one would by poking a stick in a tiger's cage.  They are the Skip Bayless of Catholic writing.*  In their haste to be first with a story, they print first, source later; and they spend a fair amount of time either retracting what they've written, or apologizing for it.

*Particularly the part of Bayless that's described as hyperbolic, boring and excessive.

Unfortunately, it's for all these people that the adage "act in haste, repent in leisure" was written.  Do they remember, or were they ever taught, about how when one writes an angry letter, they should sleep on it before mailing it?  I know that the digital era makes instant responses far too easy, and it's never been so easy to press "send" before teaching the mind to "think first."  Do they really get a charge out of antagonizing others, to the extent that they do more harm than good?  Are they in this to support a cause, to teach others, or simply to draw attention to themselves?  Which wunna dese?

I readily admit I don't have the answers to these questions.  Most of the time, it's a waste of energy to even consider them.  But every once in a while it gets to me - not just the content, not just the stand that someone takes on an issue, but the abrogation of the responsibility that someone has to use their talent in the right manner and for the maximum benefit.  And while I could let off with a rip job of my own - and, believe me, I'm fully capable of it, sinner that I am - I figure, why bother?  Why name names?  Why pick fights that aren't my own?  Why, above all, give them more importance than they merit?

I'd rather keep it general.  If you're reading this, if you're an aficionado of writing, or if you just like to see things kept civil, then I hope you'll agree with me, and keep holding others - me included - to that standard.

Wish I'd Written That

Jim Geraghty on the crass reactions by many liberals to Andrew Breitbart's death:

"Really, holding one’s tongue, offering even disingenuous expressions of sympathy, typing the letters “RIP,” when did that get so hard? When did that bar become too high? We have these cultural traditions for a reason. (A quite conservative sentiment, I suppose.) We have them for many reasons, high among them, avoiding mourners’ registering their objections across the noses of the snide and obnoxious. (It’s one of the reasons I strongly suspect that if some grieving parent were to machine-gun a whole flock of the Fred Phelps funeral protesters, every witness would suddenly get struck blind and every jury would remain stubbornly unconvinced.) We shouldn’t suggest that mocking the dead in front of those mourning a loved one is an invitation to violent retribution; the American people are a kind and patient people. But even the most kind and patient people have their limits.

"I had observed, yesterday, that there were not merely a handful of folks on the left sneering about how happy they were that Breitbart had suddenly died. There were gobs and gobs of them, all over Twitter and the web at large.

[...]

"You can call this whatever you like — the Daily-Kos-ification of the Left, perhaps — but it confirms what many of us suspected and/or feared. I didn’t want to believe it, really. I personally know too many people I’d identify as Democrats, if not liberals, who are too decent to ever express such raw hate and cruelty. But a large chunk of the rank and file of the Left — way more than a small percentage — really don’t believe that their opponents deserve anything resembling basic human dignity or respect.

"We’re not really people to them. It’s not an accident that a New York Times columnist referred to his critics on Twitter as 'right-wing lice.' They’re not good, decent Americans who just have some different ideas about how to make the world a better place. They run on hate. It appears their entire sense of self-worth is driven by demonizing those who disagree with them and celebrating their political viewpoints as the cardinal measurements of virtue and good character. They are positively energized by the thought of lashing out at those of us who have the audacity to think differently than they. They really do project and accuse the opposition of all their worst traits: rage, closed-mindedness, cruelty, intolerance, bigotry, and an inability to empathize with others. And they completely lack self-awareness. They are blind to the irony of their actions. As someone said on Twitter today (I can’t find the comment now), 'How many of the people celebrating Andrew’s death have a ‘NO H8′ icon on their avatar?'

"If, in their minds, we’re not deserving of that respect they clamor for endlessly — if their instinct, upon seeing us mourn is to “get in our faces” (a phrase that our president once strangely used) — they really cannot be entrusted with any power. They really would do away with us if given the chance.Does our side have jerks? Sure. Someday, some prominent liberal will unexpectedly pass away, and someone will make some horrid, snide comment. I doubt it will be in the same volume, though I’m sure much of this is in the eye of the beholder. But I do think that if some righty says some variation of 'Hooray, that lefty died suddenly! I’m so glad his wife’s now a widow and his children are fatherless,' you will see other righties denouncing that. Even if the liberal you detest most keels over tomorrow, that’s not right. No liberal voice in America deserves to have his death celebrated the way we righteously celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden. Don’t take pleasure in others’ grieving.

"We want them to grieve the political loss of the presidency, not the loss of their loved ones." ◙

Wish I'd Written That

I realize I’m a partisan, and getting worse, I’m afraid. I’ve long wanted to be a nice, above-the-fray neutralist. But life has not allowed that."

- Jay Nordlinger, National Review Online

I know just what he means, and how it's getting worse. I've always been fond of saying that I've no longer the stomach for these political debates; I'm like a cannon that doesn't have the inclination to move. The only way you're going to get blasted by me is if you stand right in front of the barrel waving your arms and saying, "Here I am!"

But every time I'm ready to say that I'm not going to get involved, that I'm just going to take it easy, along comes the left doing precisely that, waving their arms and standing right in the line of fire. In their manner and their choice of rhetoric, they're never able to leave well-enough alone. One wonders what they might have been able to accomplish in enacting their agenda over the years if only they'd learned the lesson of keeping their mouths shut at the right time. It must be genetic.  ◙

How much of my youth is gone in just eleven years?

We don't need books. We just need Twitter. Shakespeare in one tweet or not at all. It's like Ray Bradbury said it would be in Fahrenheit 451. Only moving pictures on the walls and little radios in your ear. He was a prophet." -- Ingrid Schleuter

The End of An Era. The death of brick and mortar bookstores continues, and Albert Mohler warned about and now a big one has been claimed. Borders Group, which owned the only local bookstore in town from the mid-1990's (when they bought a chain that Kmart had owned), announced it was doing a Chapter 7 (liquidation), effectively making the prophecy that bookstores are truly declining, as are music stores (as I learned with the demise of the music store I used to purchase my music for Dr. LaRoche). Now the clear winners are Barnes & Noble and Books-a-Million, with the new #2 being a paltry nineteen states. As for what happened when Boarders left town in 2008, we were without a bookstore, devoid of anything for local kids at Prep (Governness' Haley's Hail the Red and Grey) or OCA (the school where Bill Connor is Chairman of the Board) to buy their literature without driving an hour, until the new independent Swift Books came to town.

My Youth Continues To Close. I am only 36, but in the past eleven years, I have seen entire facets of my growth fall by the wayside with this announcement. First it was the school I attended after first arriving in the Palmetto State (shut down in 2000), then the church I grew up attending (shut down in 2001), then the brand of car that I drove for the majority of my driving years at the time (2004), and now the bookstore group where I would frequent many times and we had readers' cards for me to read many books. Progress, yes, but at what cost? Mementos of my own youth -- my green #8 baseball jersey for the Crusaders, my late aunt's minivan (a Voyager), my cars in college (a Cutlass Supreme and a Calais), the bowing alley I remembered (All-Star), and now the local bookstore I frequented are all things that no longer exist.

And Speaking This Sad Thought. National Review lost another of their core members last week. Oh for the times I would drive to that bookstore to buy a National Review.

Laura Ingraham on Civility. Now what are people thinking when they dress like trash to church? Time to put up the old sign at the paddock in church. No shorts, tank tops, or open toe shoes allowed. But the church sign should say No Jeans, No Sneakers, Gentlemen, Jackets Are Required, Ladies, if not wearing a dress, then jackets are required, Business Dress (No Casual) . . .

Ashamed To Be An American. It's time to take down the American flag and trample on it. Raise the Northern Ireland flag on golf courses, and football pitches need to have the Hinomaru raised. ◙

Opinion Digest

Tthe opinions behind this week's headlines:

Michelle Malkin: So Much for Civility.

Oliver North: Obama Inspired Chaos.

Jeff Stier: Celebrities should stick to their song and dance.

Kelly Boggs: America's "religion" -- Pop Culture.

Two columns by Albert Mohler on President Obama's betrayal of the Defence of Marriage Act as part of his continuing push for the agenda of sexual deviants: A Milestone in the Betrayal of Marriage and How Did This Happen?

Corning Leader: Lewis Hamilton for an Exxon Mobil promotion at The Glen, where many British F1 stars of the 1960's kept winning? ◙

Everything in Moderation

By Cathy of Alex

Recently, I was in an online chat room with a couple of friends. For one of my friends, it was her first time in an online chat room. The chat room had about 16 people.

Later, via Google chat, the “newbie” asked if her experience in the chat room was typical. “Are people always “chatting” (typing) over one another?” “Are there always multiple conversations (threads) at once?”

I answered: “Yes” to both questions.

Online conversations have a potential for the same lacks of etiquette we may experience in any good “old fashioned” verbal conversation with a group: interruptions, rudeness, erroneous assumptions, lack of listening.

I don’t know if its that people are ruder online than they are in person, but I think the anonymity of much online dialogue gives people a greater license to act uncharitably towards others. We have aliases, we are in different states, different countries, we’ve never met in person, and unless we have a webcam, we don’t get the verbal clues that are sometimes necessary to understanding the position of the speaker.

In online world of blogs and chat, I’ve noticed that people don’t always address the question or comment on the post. It’s almost that they don’t read the post. Maybe they didn’t. It seems that people just want to “hear” themselves speak and air an opinion-even if it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Are people lonely? Maybe. But, there is a new freedom along with the new community provided to us by life online.

Modern office life requires a lot of online NetMeetings or WebEx meetings; more workers telecommute. Online meetings are organized and I’ve never been in one that involved people talking over each other, or interrupting rudely, or failing to answer the question. Yet, these lapses of etiquette often happen online among strangers.

Perhaps the answer is moderation. Office online meetings are moderated. Even if they weren’t, there’s the powerful necessity of saving ones career that forces manners in situations where you may feel like breaking free of etiquette if you could.

Some chat forums are moderated too, but moderation may not be enforced.

In any case, moderation is what is needed; it’s what we all need. We need moderation in ourselves even if there is no external moderator. As a Christian, I accept that I have the moderator that is God. Unfortunately, it seems that at many online forums, CHRISTIAN forums at that, people forget that God is, and should be, the moderator even when there is no human in the moderator role present.

Thug Life

By Cathy of Alex

Recent days have seen an increase in public examples of bad behavior and unwarented outbursts.

We have Rep. Joe Wilson venting his concern during the President’s address to Congress . We have Kanye West grabbing the mic from winner, Taylor Swift, during the VMA’s and sharing with everyone that, basically, he felt someone else, not Ms Swift, should’ve won what she was just awarded. Serena Williams uses profanity toward a line judge at Center Court and it costs her a possible U.S. Open. Roger Federer publicly, profanly claims , also on the tennis court, that he can speak whenever he wants to and if you don’t like it….. Even the President gets caught expressing his opinion towards Kanye West in a non-polite way.

What’s wrong with any of this?

It used to be that people were taught that when someone else is speaking you listen quietly until they are done. No interrupting. You wait for your turn to speak. I know in some cultures what I just said is crazy; in some places its common and acceptable for multiple people to talk at once and loudly. I’ll clarify by saying; in the U.S.A. , it used to be a truth, and well-taught, that when someone “has the floor” it’s their turn to speak. You have the right to shut up and wait your turn.

There is little to no respect for authority anymore. We cheer when authority gets the middle fingered salute. Apparently, even interrupting the President on national television on the floor of a Joint Legislative Session is acceptable. Once that happened, why should Kanye West feel any qualms about interrupting a performance artist on national T.V. during an awards ceremony?

Center Court in tennis (basketball gave up the ghost years ago) is one of the few sport arenas left where civility rules are about as strictly enforced as possible. You don’t talk back on Center Court. If the Ref doesn’t penalize you the crowd will with boos and hisses (Until the Ref calls them to silence too. The crowd is forced to obey, otherwise the match will not continue.). That two of the top ranked players in tennis think they are beyond that is curious but not shocking.

Even threats or actual punishment don’t seem to stop people anymore. Some of us have so much money that financial penalties are sneered at. Others have so much talent that they figure they can regain any points gain lost to a penalty without too much damage done to their careers or sports rankings.

Why do we even need punishments as deterrant? It seems to me it used to be enough to tell people “Hey, don’t do that!” and they listened. There was enough critical mass behind the request that kept people in line. Now, it seems the majority side with the thugs. The voice of civility is the lone voice in the wilderness.

Sure, people with bad manners have always been with us. The days of teachers stopping kids from passing notes in class almost seems quaint these days. Nowadays the odds of kids even carrying paper to class is slim; it’s all laptops and cells phones. Teachers spend a lot of time confiscating electronic devices and/or reminding people that taking a phone call and sending texts during class is not acceptable. I’m curious with all the time teachers spend on discipline; how much is left for actual education?

Remember how funny Spicoli ordering a pizza delivered to class was in Fast Times at Ridgemont High? It was funny because it was so audacious. Who ever heard of such a thing in the early 1980s? It was hilarious because Mr. Hand turned the tables on Spicoli and made him share the pizza with the whole class. As a result, he didn’t get any of his own pizza. Today, not only does Spicoli’s stunt seem possible but you can bet his parents would show up at the Principal’s office in outrage because their son didn’t even get to eat the pizza he paid for.

Is thuggish behavior unacceptable only when it’s perpetrated by people we don’t love or are not related to? Do people that agree with Rep. Wilson think what he did was great? Recently, Republicans were yelling about President Obama addressing school kids on the first day of school. Anyone remember the Democrats yelling when President Bush addressed schoolkids back in 1991? Who’s outraged this time?

Is the breakdown of the family to blame? Is the decline in morality to blame? Is the lack of quantifiable educational standards to blame? Is a lack of education to blame? I don’t know. Maybe some or all of the above. However, the people whose names I listed toward the beginning to this post are smart and well-educated. I respectfully disagree with former President Carter’s assertion that Rep. Wilson outburst was rascist. I don’t think race has anything to do with any of this. Incivility is an equal opportunity.

As Kanye West was already scheduled to be on Leno on Monday night and even Letitia Baldridge was quoted as saying that she hoped Beyonce yielding the floor to Taylor Swift at the VMA’s was not a publicity stunt, you have to wonder why more of us don’t act like thugs; you get such great publicity from it. Look how much mileage the contrition videos on You Tube have given these people? I wonder how well Kanye’s next album will sell? How many tickets will sell for the next Serena Williams match? If Rep. Wilson will gain or lose his seat? If President Obama’s healthcare plan will pass because he’s faced such thuggish audiences and now he may be compelled to admit, thanks to his name calling of West, he’s a Kanye West fan? Nothing sells better than public contrition and reformation.

We may not be a nation of thugs but we are definitely a nation that rewards them. If we quit rewarding them, will they quit doing it?

Watkins Glen Wants Fans to Donate Instruments to Schools: Takes Shot at Wild Thing's Guitar Shot

By Bobby

In light of Kyle Busch's impersonation of a rock musician (right) while winning the Federated Auto Parts 300 NASCAR Nationwide Series race at Lebanon, TN June 6 (which should have been worth a $25,000 fine and 25 points) by smashing his trophy (traditionally in the Nashville market, feature race winners win guitars; when the Indy Racing League ran at the track, drivers talked about wanting the Gibson guitar), Watkins Glen International announced discount tickets for the August 9 Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips 350-kilometre race at the circuit for the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series.

Any fan who brings in a new or used musical instrument (pianos, winds, symphony instruments, et al, probably) to the track's ticket office will have the right to purchase at discount tickets to the Watkins Glen event. All instruments collected through the drive will be donated to local music organizations and local schools for use in their music departments.

Now that's a smart move to take a shot at the silly rock musicians (and professional wrestlers, plus the cartoon "Quick Draw McGraw") that taught us smashing a guitar is the right way to have it.

Galatians 6:3

By Cathy of Alex

Gentle Reader: I don't, honestly, know what is in the blogosphere water these days but has everyone gone crazy? Among my Catholic blogger buddies, I think there may have been toxic waste in the palms that were burned into ashes for Ash Wednesday and when the ashes were applied at the Mass this past Wednesday the toxin seeped into everyone's brains. Or, perhaps, it's because everyone gave up being charitable for Lent?

The absence of charity and civility in every day conversation is a topic I've dealt with on my blog before and I know Our Word has.

How many times, must we endure ad hominem attacks on commentors who are brave enough to come and comment on a blog that may espouse beliefs that are the opposite of theirs? How many times do hosts of blogs seem to forget that a duty of a host is to, if not make sure your guests are comfortable, to at least make sure they are treated decently?

Have we, as bloggers, all come to believe that because we can bang out a few sentences and navigate a social media tool that we are better than anyone else? Do we think we are more than we are?

Lately, I've also had several bloggers express concern to me that they are not on so-and-so's blogroll, or they were removed, or they wonder why they were removed, or they feel slighted because they are not on a blogroll...etc. etc.

Is that why people blog? Is all social media a high school popularity contest? If you have 2,000 Facebook friends does that make you really popular? You probably have only actually met about 20 of those "friends" anyway. Conversely, if you have "only" 100 readers on your blog/day does that mean you must be stupid or not "in"? Is this worth getting angry and depressed over?

We are a media nation of hunter gatherers and peacocks. Hunt and gather as many strangers as you can, show off your lists to your circle, preen madly. Pride is supposed to be enough to amaze and dazzle everyone. (Proverbs 16:18)

Does all the "popularity" in the world matter if we are not civil and charitable do the networks we do have: whether that's 20 people or 2,000 people? (1 Corinthians 13:1)

I thought about titling this post: Ecclesiastes 1:2.

The Artlessness of Snark

By Mitchell

Terry Teachout has a terrific piece on snark. Read the whole thing here, but I particularly liked this quote:

I just don't like snarkiness. It's a cultural trend, I think, driven by the Web, where snarkiness is considered a virtue. It's legitimate to be funny in a review, but there's a certain kind of nastiness that I don't like. Sneering about the serious efforts of a serious artist is not, in my opinion, an appropriate way to respond to things.

Now, I'd extend the definition of "art" to cover serious writing (which, sadly enough, is also a commodity in short supply on the Web). And in doing so, it is clear from some sites out there (many sites) that tolerance for opposite viewpoints is fleeting.

There are a few things about this that bother me. One, of course, is the lack of civility that snarkiness has bred. But just as disturbing is the intellectual shallowness which arises from snark, where namecalling is taken as a substitute for serious discussion.

There's one blogger out there whom I've commented on before, who uses the tag line, "So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!" who then goes on to prove it. What saddens me about this blogger (whose name I will not mention; follow the link if you're interested, and I'll only add that his last name is the same as that of the former home of the New York Mets) is that much of his writing is quite good. He has a profound sense of God, and his prayers are often very well done.

However (and I'll bet you knew that was coming), all this good that he might do he proceeds to undo via snark. He might think of it as humor, but there's no small amout of meanness to it as well (for which, to his credit, he has several times aplogized). He's just one of those guys with whom it is very difficult to conduct a serious conversation, because he makes you so angry, you lose respect for his opinion. And while it's up to us to not let ourselves be provoked in this manner, I think he also has a responsibility to try and avoid acting in that manner in the first place. Through his actions he becomes, quite possibly, the worst advocate possible for his beliefs. And this is a shame; as I mentioned, there's much good in what he writes. But it's hard to get past that because of the tone he uses. I fear he's turning away people who might be helped by what he has to say, but are disgusted by his manner. I might be persuaded by some of his arguments, if they were made by someone else. He could argue, of course, that you don't have to listen to him - you can get the same information from others. But if he is turning people away, how likely are they to pursue further investigation? From an advocacy point, this is somewhat counterproductive, to say the least. Sometimes I think he ought to consider changing his last name to Sneer.

(On a side note, I have to add that bloggers like him are what prompted us to turn this site away from being a full-time religion blog and toward a more general culture blog. Frankly, the tenor in the Catholic blogosphere can be quite, what should we say, un-Catholic. And again, in helping to create this atmosphere, a blogger - no matter how good his intentions, no matter how strong or orthodox the faith - becomes a poor ambassador for his beliefs.)

Oh well. It's not as if we haven't been guilty of this in the past ourselves, and I suspect we will again in the future. But there just has to be some sense of responsibility that goes hand-in-hand with the keyboard, doesn't there?

Doesn't there?

The Body Politic

By Drew

So Jesse Ventura has apparently decided against a run for the U.S. Senate, which spares taxpayers the burden of having to fumigate the Senate chamber after every session, in much the same way it was necessary to fumigate Minnesota after the conclusion of Ventura’s term as governor.

We don’t generally launch into ad hominem attacks on this site, but in the case of Ventura it is almost impossible to seriously discuss his place in politics without engaging in an “argument against the man.” For Jesse Ventura has probably done more than anyone in the last fifty years, excluding perhaps David Duke, to demean and degrade the profession of politics in this country. And that says a lot, considering the base level to which politics has fallen. It has little to do with Ventura’s own politics – I’m not sure I can actually recall any – and everything to do with Ventura the man.

It is true that politics today is filled with personal invective, fringe elements spreading paranoia and conspiracy with every breath. It is the case that politicians are viewed with suspicion and are accused of dishonesty, of corruption, of waffling and distorting to please the latest special interest group. All of this is undeniable, which might lead one to ask how this wrestler could possibly make things worse. And yet he does, by his very presence in the body politic.

For in addition to the already-present traits of corruption and graft, dishonesty and deceit, selfishness and narrow-mindedness, Jesse Ventura adds the qualities of bigotry and bullying, of crudity and uncouthness, gracelessness and incivility and a host of personal charms that demean not only himself but anyone who is forced to listen to him.

If, as Ventura claims, he is more representative of “the people” than other politicians, then it is our lowest and basest instincts which he so crudely represents, the uncivilized qualities which we like to think can be overcome in a civilized society. Ventura, the man who once scorned religion as a crutch for weak people, does not appeal to our higher nature, does not encourage us to rise to the level of the angels, but instead reduces us to the base level of animals. He is the country bumpkin, the crazy uncle who embarrasses you at every family gathering, the relative for whom you’re always offering apologies. There are no brakes, no restraints, none of the refinements which human beings like to think we’ve developed in the time since the primordial slime. He is the very representation of the knuckle-dragging troglodyte that conservatives are (mistakenly) so often portrayed. His appeal is to the qualities in ourselves which we must work at the hardest to rise above, which we can do only with the very graces which the wrestler ridicules.

We can never know what resides in Ventura's heart, nor would we dare to speculate. To suggest that he is incapable of individual acts of kindness and intelligence would be absurd. We can only observe his public behavior, his words and deeds, and note them accordingly. Nor can we avoid repsonsibility for his election, for whether we voted for him or not, we all share in that responsibility. Ventura is a creature of our own making. "His blood be on us and our children," and in that way we are as responsible for what Ventura hath wrought as he is.

It could even be plausibly argued that much of his boorish behavior is no more than a clever act, bread and circuses for the masses. If so, then it’s an act that no longer entertains (if it ever did), and honors neither him nor us.

Cromwell dismissed the rump Parliament with the famous words, “In the name of God, go” and those words could apply equally to Ventura. “Go already!” we might add to the man whose cloying, “will he or won’t he” political machinations make Brett Farve look positively decisive by comparison.

If this sounds harsh it is, because Jesse Ventura has made politics an infinitely harsher game by his very presence. And we are infinitely better off without him.

The State of the Blog 2008

The Management

Last year in the annual summary, we reported on a steady rise in the volume of traffic at Our Word. That trend has not markedly continued this year; partly, perhaps, because we’ve cut back on our commentary on other blogs. In order to drive traffic you really need to make yourself visible, and that’s something we haven’t done a lot of in the last year. Maybe it’s because we spend so much time trying to figure out what to write on our own site, we don’t have time to share anything with others. However, it also has to do with the nature of the blogosphere itself.

Why blog?

It’s a simple enough question, one our colleague Terry has asked in many different ways. It would seem as if there are at least as many different answers as there are questions. But as we survey The State of the Blog for 2008, it becomes an issue worth discussing.

For our friends and fellow bloggers, we need to note that if your site is listed on our sidebar, we’re not talking about you, so we don’t want you to think that this is aimed at you. Frankly, as Terry has pointed out, there has to be a degree of ego, of self-absorption, of publicity seeking (if you will) in all of us, or else we wouldn’t think that any of our thoughts were worth the time of day. However, in surveying the blogosphere and our part in it, it helps to look back at what’s out there, and where we fit in. And this is the state of this blog as we see it.

Now, there are blogs out there that seem to detail every single aspect of the writer’s life, no matter how significant it may be. Think of it as the “Dear Diary” approach, the idea that somewhere out there is bound to be someone sitting on pins and needles waiting to hear the latest activities of the writer’s life. In previous days one might have kept these thoughts private, or at least confined them to a real diary, lock and all, but this is the 21st century, and why pass up an opportunity to share your life with everyone? We’re all entitled to our fifteen minutes of fame, after all. The best struggle to rise above the level of self-centeredness, and the worst are just plain boring.

Then there’s what you might call the “True Confessions” mode, in which not only the most insignificant but the most intimate details of the writer’s thoughts are bared for all and sundry to read. Someone from the old school might be uncomfortable about divulging such personal details to perfect (or imperfect) strangers, but, in the world of Oprah and Dr. Phil and The View, nothing is apparently too private anymore. There’s probably some Freudian principal of repression at work in it all, the thought that nothing is best left unsaid. A couple of years ago a formerly Catholic blogger discussed at length his conversion to the Orthodox church, and it was just painful to read. The temptation is to shout, “Don’t you understand? This isn’t any of our business! Don’t play it out in public!” But nowadays we do air our personal laundry in public, and then we wonder why the resulting conversations become so personal. It’s bad enough when someone invades your own private space; it’s even worse when one gets rid of their private space as well.

Running through many of these blogs is the attitude of the “Know-It-All,” the one who feels compelled to give his or her own opinion on whatever it is that’s going on out there, often making their pronouncements with a gravity that suggests some special storehouse of knowledge. You think to yourself, “Why do I care what this person thinks?” And they seem to think it’s their responsibility to comment on everything. It’s bad enough when professional pundits do this; when amateurs do it, it can set your teeth on edge. I think all of us at Our Word are sensitive to this tendency ourselves; many times I ask whether or not my writing has anything constructive or enlightening to contribute to the discussion; if, in fact, it’s something that’s even worth writing about. More often than not, if the answers are no, the piece goes on the spike – or in the trash bin, if you prefer.

In particular, there’s a blogger out there that did as much as anyone to drive us out of the Catholic blogosphere. His site proudly proclaims that “No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!” and then goes on to prove it. This isn’t meant to be a harsh assessment, but in reading his site one literally comes to the conclusion that every single thing running through his mind winds up appearing on his blog. Not only that, but his opinions are often expressed in so pugnacious a manner as to turn off anyone who might be seeking an honest dialog on an issue of disagreement. No doubt this writer has enlightened many to the wisdom of Catholicism, but at the same time how many people have been turned off by his attitude and incivility, which often devolves into name-calling? People like that, one suspects, aren’t really looking for an honest discussion; they’re really only interested in putting down the other guy. You couldn't look for a better description of this trait than the one from Michael Crichton, quoted by Mollie at Get Religion:

I grew up in the 1950s, supposedly the heyday of conformity, but there was much more freedom of opinion back then. And as a result, you knew that your neighbors might hold different views from you on politics or religion. Today, the notion that men of good will can disagree has disappeared. Can you imagine! Today, if I disagree with you, you conclude there is something wrong with me. This is a childish, parochial view. And of course stupefyingly intolerant. It’s truly anti-American.

In fact, encountering that kind of intransigence usually serves only to stiffen the opposition of those with an opposing viewpoint. Many of us share this particular Catholic blogger's reservations about the war, about the moral fiber of America, about the two political parties; but after reading him you’re tempted to come out in violent opposition to just about anything he says, purely out of spite. That’s not a good reaction for anyone to have, but you have to think he deserves at least a share of the blame for going out of his way to provoke that kind of reaction.

So where does this leave us? Our rule of thumb is if you’d be uncomfortable seeing your material appear in a nationally syndicated newspaper column, you’re probably better off forgetting about it. That’s why we shy away from the diary approach, why we leave confessions to the church confessional. We’re not averse to expressing our opinions when we have them, but we try to do it in such a way that invites civil, intelligent discussion. Frankly, it’s often a lot more fun to have a stimulating argument with someone with whom you disagree, as long as there’s mutual respect and enjoyment involved. Life’s too short, and words too precious, to waste them on preaching to the choir.

So as we enter another year at Our Word, we’ll continue to try to provide our readers with pieces we think are interesting, entertaining, or informative. Hopefully, on occasion we’ll accomplish all three. But our goal, as always, is to strive for a high level of literacy and professionalism, to write with an originality and intelligence worthy of our readers, and to display a flair and panache while doing so. Most of all, we hope to do it while maintaining a sense of dignity and civility, as a means of showing your our respect.

* * * * *
Having said all that, we’ll now ask your indulgence to allow us a personal note. As of this weekend, Mitchell will be taking the summer off from the blog in order to work on another writing project. That doesn’t mean he’s going to completely disappear, as there are some things out there so outrageous, only he can write them. But you’ll be reading him much less frequently for the next few months. (Please, hold your applause until the end.)

In his stead, Kristin has agreed to assume the role of Principal Contributing Editor, so you’ll be hearing a lot more from her in the following months. Judie will act as Principal Managing Editor, so have no fears that Our Word will grind to a halt – nothing else will change. And over the course of the summer, you may even encounter some special contributors from time to time. Stay tuned!

Washington's Rules of Life

By Drew

Speaking of Washington as we were yesterday, there was this bit from CNN on Washington's "self-help" tips. They come, of course, from Washington's Rules of Civility, a little book that everyone should have, or at least read once in their lifetime. (I'd recommend the version linked to above, with commentary by Richard Brookhiser.)

The list of 110 rules, based on a compilation from French Jesuits, was something that Washington worked on as a young man, and became the foundation on which he based his life. Some people have commented that many of them are simply common sense (don't talk with your mouth full), but common sense is something that seems to be increasingly in short supply nowadays, and at any rate it doesn't hurt to be reminded of it every once in a while.

Anyway, here are some of the rules CNN mentioned, and I think they're worth sharing in an age when civil discourse, whether in politics or the blogosphere, often seems to be lacking. Some of the language may be slightly antiquated, but the wisdom contained is timeless.

Let your countenance be pleasant but in serious matters somewhat grave.

Shew not yourself glad at the misfortune of another though he were your enemy.

To one that is your equal, or not much inferior, you are to give the chief place in your lodging, and he who 'tis offered ought at the first to refuse it, but at the second to accept though not without acknowledging his own unworthiness.

Mock not nor jest at anything of importance, break no jests that are sharp, biting, and if you deliver any thing witty and pleasant, abstain from laughing thereat yourself.

Let your conversation be without malice or envy, for 'tis a sign of tractable and commendable nature, and in all causes of passion permit reason to govern.

Speak not of doleful things in a time of mirth or at the table; speak not of melancholy things as death and wounds, and if others mention them, change if you can the discourse. Tell not your dreams, but to your intimate friend.

Be apt not to relate news if you know not the truth thereof. In discoursing of things you have heard name not your author. Always a secret discover not.

In company of those of higher quality than you, speak not till you are ask'd a question, then stand upright, put off your hat, and answer in few words.

Speak not evil of the absent for it is unjust.

How many of us can say that we strive to live by even a few of these rules? The best I can say is that I try, but often fall short. You could take many of these into the confessional with you and make a pretty good confession.

I have a feeling we'll be visiting many of these precepts again in the near future. They are wonderful food for thought - and action.

What Not to Write

By Mitchell

As read in The Corner at the end of last week, a wise person writes Jonah Goldberg as follows:

Hello [writes Jonah's correspondent] , I wonder if you could help me save my sanity. The use of periods in the middle of sentences in order to emphasize the gravity of a statement has to be absolutely the most annoying online cliche I have ever seen. [Jonah had described something as the "Most. Painful. Thing. Ever."] Everyone does it. Everyone. It was interesting maybe two years ago when whoever it was (you? I wouldnt be surprised) started this stampede, but I cannot take it anymore. Every blog, every commenter, every diarist, does it and thinks they're being clever.
Well, it isnt clever anymore. Now it's like the visual equivalent of the sound of a broken whiskey bottle being dragged across a chalk board. Please spread the word to your brethren that many of us toiling out here in Readership Land are about to snap. Much obliged!

[Jonah replies]: Noted! Actually, my pet online peeve are people who use the phrase "Just sayin'" as a cutesy way of saying something barbed. I've done it a couple times without catching myself. But I really can't stand it.

Both Jonah and his correspondent are right here. We try very hard at this site to be analytical, concise, and (on rare occasion) profound. What we don't go for is clever or cute, especially when it borders on snarky. To the items listed above I'd add, "Umm," which is almost always both cutesy and snarky. Forget about the broken whiskey bottle and the chalk board; it's a sure inducer of projectile vomiting. As anyone who reads our Rules of the Road knows, something like that'll get you booted right off this site, unless you're willing to pay an exorbident ransom to the Managing Editors.

There's nothing wrong with irony, as long as you don't allow it to become your world-view. It might have been fresh when it started, but by the time I wrote this description in my as-yet unpublished novel, the ironic lifestyle had already become a parody of itself:

In one of the front rows, I recognized Mark Westerman, the beat reporter from the Troyville Sun, Moon and Star, who’d been covering the campaign. Westerman was one of those smart-ass punks who figured that he’d do some time in journalism before writing the great American novel, wowing us all with his hip post-modern observations on the irony of life. In reality, the irony was that he didn’t get it, not at all, so busy was he trying to apply that post-modern spin of his to the political scene. He figured he was too cool, too preoccupied with being hip, to be seen talking to mere politicians; but he also knew that lowering himself to speak with them gave him the opportunity to talk down his nose to them in his articles, which would be even more ironic, and in an ironic kind of way this actually made him more diligent than most local reporters.

Life is rich enough in irony without having to pose for it, but the danger is that when you see life as being too ironic, you lose sight of most of what life is all about, especially meaning. And if you're trying to advocate a particular point of view, you're almost sure to find yourself preaching to the choir and turning everyone else away. And I think most of us are capable of better than that. Aren't we?

Doing Justice to the Justice

By Mitchell

C.J. is the gossip columnist for the Star Tribune (also known as the worst major metropolitan newspaper in America). Judging by her Sunday column, she also fancies herself something of an expert on politics. Witness this, regarding CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin’s appearance in Minneapolis last week:

Toobin is author of "The Nine: The Secret World of the Supreme Court," which is getting good reviews. However, if you only have time to read something shorter from Toobin, make it "UNFORGIVEN: Why is Clarence Thomas so angry?" in the Nov. 12 New Yorker magazine.

After reading it in the company of a source, I wondered aloud if someday Americans would find out that Thomas was off his rocker the whole time he was a Supreme. "Don't we already know that?" the source said.

Funny, but we were thinking the same thing about C.J. . . .

For a more balanced (and more educated) perspective on Clarence Thomas, check out Thomas Sowell’s article at NRO. In particular, savor his comment about “the cardboard image created by the media,” since we get so much of that kind of writing courtesy of the Star Tribune.

Wish I'd Written That

By Mitchell

"I'm still impressed--if that's the word--by the way in which the Internet facilitates idiocy. Or, in the words of an unknown commenter quoted in Daniel J. Solove's forthcoming book The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet, 'The Internet makes fools into stars and stars into fools.' "

Terry Teachout at About Last Night

In Case You Missed It...

By Drew

• I don't like dogs. Sorry about that folks, but it's true. And statistics tell us that cats are more popular pets than dogs. So why is it that on shows such as HGTV's "House Hunters," almost everyone is trying to fit at least a couple of dogs into their new home? Michael at 2Blowhards doesn't answer that question, but he does prove I'm not the only one who's noticed this dog thing:

Yet many suburban types don't seem to consider all the elements of their life to be in place until a Lab or a Golden is part of it. House with two-car garage? Check. Kids? Check. Huge out-of-control dog? Check ... How did this conviction that the Good Suburban Life includes a free-ranging dog come to be?

• At Architecture and Morality, the politically conservative Relievedebtor makes a very astute observation on how important it is for leaders to actually lead. And in musing on how George Bush has performed the almost miraculous achievement of alienating both liberals and conservatives, he poses a provocative question:

And as a Christian, I am actually starting to question something I never thought I would, which is the detrimental impact Bush’s faith may have had on his presidency. Again, call me naïve, but I once considered Bush’s faith to be an asset to his leadership, but I have come to see it as more of a liability. His faith seems similarly stubborn and myopic, which comes across as more fundamentalist than faithful. And this isn’t to say he should abandon principles, but perhaps humility could have come more into play. I don’t know that he believes a war against Islamic forces is the will of God per se, but his faith has led him to a misguided optimism that Christianity doesn’t necessarily endorse.

• Speaking of politics, I had no idea that former Israeli prime minister, defense minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner (and newly elected President) Shimon Peres and Lauren Bacall are first cousins. Did you? Imagine where that six degrees of separation could take you - you've already gone from Humphrey Bogart to Yasser Arafat. From gangster to gangster, one might say.
  

• At The Recovering Dissident Catholic, Cathy (who's always been an ally of ours in the campaign for a civil blogosphere) makes a pretty shrewd comment about a site that seems to typify so much of what's wrong out there: "[T]hey spend way too much time presenting unsubstantiated allegations and being angry over the same old tired crap. Get over it." Couldn't have said it better myself.

• From the very funny (and very sharp) IMAO comes this analysis of how to explain the fact that, despite the popular notion after 9/11 that more major terrorist strikes in this country were inevitable, none have occurred. What's changed?:

* We're in numerous messy wars with no end in sight.
* We have an odd and incoherent homeland security.
* Our border situation is out of control.
* The President is hugely unpopular.

Obviously, the only conclusion is that these are the ingredients to an effective defense against terrorism

Of course, after reading these varied pieces, you might come to understand why this blog is the way it is...

"The Tawdry Culture"

By Mitchell

Last night in Indy. Tomorrow at this time I'll be somewhere between here and Minneapolis. But in the meantime, I wanted to empty my inbasket and pass along this thought. Stella Borealis Ray (formerly Hadleyblogger Ray) forwards us this terrific piece from Tony Long (The Luddite) at Wired, entitled "The Blogosphere, Where a Tawdry Culture Goes to Die."

Long makes many points similar to those you've read here in the past:

Before you can expect a bunch of utterly spoiled, self-indulgent bloggers (i.e. the kind who indulge in their online mudslinging) to practice civility, you might try restoring a bit of it to what passes for civilization these days.

Civility is all about self-restraint. It's not about being told by someone else to say "no," but finding the inner resolve to say it to yourself. Call it self-discipline. Call it having a little class. Whatever name you give it, it's almost completely absent from modern society.

And in a culture where idolatry of the crass and vulgar encourages the mantra of instant gratification and me-so-important, what the hell do you expect?

He dismisses as unlikely Tim O'Reilly's call for a code of conduct in the blogosphere. As Long says, "you can't just pass a bunch of rules to make incivility go away." Nonetheless, I think members of the blogosphere - especially the Catholic blogosphere - have an obligation to give it a try. The way some of us carry on while we're online, we should be spending most of our time in the Confessional.

One of the harsh lessons learned from almost 25 years in organized politics is that you can't change the world by passing laws. You can do it only by converting hearts, and that's the kind of think that usually happens only one at a time. It starts with your family, your friends, your loved ones; your neighbors, your co-workers, people you come in contact with. It's not only the standard to which you hold yourself, it's that which you use as an example for others. And trust me, that kind of witness does not go unnoticed.

As our friend Cathy of Alex has noted, we have leaned heavily on this issue at this blog. While we speak of it mostly in terms of the blogosphere, it is a problem that extends to society as well, for it is from that society, that culture (or lack of it) that the problem occurs in the first place. But while we may be a champion of blog civility, we by no means seek to corner the market on it.

And so that's why I want to address this to our friends in the blogosphere, again especially in the Catholic sector. We have an obligation to rise above pettiness and common cruelty, to truly serve as witnesses to our faith. Too many of us fail that obligation, especially in the blogosphere, where our failures may not only be more obvious but may affect more people. So if you agree with us on this, please speak up. You don't have to link to this article; post one of your own. But pass the message along - in your blogs, via email, to those who share your feeling. As responsible bloggers, we need to start a serious conversation on it, rather than simply complain about it. It won't change the entire blogosphere, but it may change one corner of it. Even if it's only your own corner - because trust me, it won't stop there.

And if we don't - the consequences won't stop there, either.