Flashback Friday: Here come da judge

SAMMY DAVIS JR. IN ONE OF HIS CLASSIC COMEDY ROLES

I realize we're constantly being admonished nowadays to be non-judgmental; "who am I to judge?" should strike a familiar tone. But what exactly does that mean, and how does it fit in to our modern culture and lifestyles

You could write a book on that question alone, and probably more than one person has by now, but I'll simply remark that I've always understood the Biblical injunction against judging to be aimed more at one's soul than at their actions. "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." (Matthew 7:1-2)

In other parts of the Bible, we're told not to worry about what others think of us as long as we act in righteousness for the Kingdom of God.* The suggestion behind it all is that the only opinion that really counts is God's, and He will judge each and every one of us based on what is inside us and how that has manifested itself in our thoughts, words and actions. As humans lack the ability of divination when it comes to reading a man's soul (with the exception of some extraordinary saints), I read this as telling us we should not judge one's character, one's soul, one's state of sin.

*Though we're also reminded not to engage in scandalous behavior which can cast aspersions upon our sincerity, or that of Christians in general. We may see this come into play in the next few paragraphs.

At the same time, however, we're also told to admonish our brothers and sisters who have fallen into sin (first making sure, of course, that we are not guilty of the same thing). For that to happen, it follows that we have some authority to draw conclusions about what a person does, based on that person's external behavior. We don't know for sure whether or not a person is in a state of grace, for example, or if they're possessed by truly evil thoughts and desires, but if they go around acting like a jerk, being impolite, doing nasty things to people, I think we could quite rightly infer from that behavior that this person, regardless of the condition of their soul, has some problems. And if we're that jerk, behaving that way with other people, we should expect that those kinds of conclusions are drawn. If we're a professing Christian, then this becomes cause for scandal, because by our own faults we encourage people to draw such conclusions. Again, being a jerk doesn't mean you're going straight to Hell (do not pass Purgatory, do not collect 500 indulgences). We don't know that.

But when we say someone is loathsome, when we deplore their actions and call into question the sincerity of their expressed values, what we're most often speaking of is this process of making a conclusion based on observed behavior. I think most of us are aware of that, and we aren't literally pronouncing judgment on someone's soul by saying something like that. "I find him grotesque, repulsive, etc." may be an inelegant use of language, it may be intemperate, but most reasonable people know what they mean when they say it, and most reasonable people know (or used to, anyway) what it means when they hear it. It means, "I find this person's actions to be [insert adjective of your choice]."

What I'm getting at with all this is that there's a lot of nasty behavior going on in social media, and in the circles which I frequent much of it is coming from the internecine conflict which our beloved Holy Father seems to have instigated, or at least brought to a head. Austin Ruse wrote about this very well in a recent article with reference to several Catholic bloggers who like to make grand pronouncements about people with whom they disagree. The question arises: how should one behave when finding themselves faced with such a person? Well, perhaps the best thing is not to find yourself in that position in the first place, which is why long ago I deserted the Catholic blogosphere in favor of the much more civilized world of classic television. I still run across these people, though; one can hardly keep up-to-date with current Church events without doing so. The political blogosphere is even worse. And as far as Catholics talking about politics - don't get me started.

It is not an exaggeration for me to say that I do, indeed, find the behavior of such people to be loathsome. In doing so, they transform themselves into loathsome individuals, and to draw such a conclusion based on what they've said is, in many cases, fairly temperate when compared to what these people themselves say and do. But am I judging them? Am I consigning them to the nether regions, where it's very hot even in wintertime? Of course not, and when they use the typical rhetorical tactic of attempting to turn the tables on anyone who disagrees with them by saying, in effect, "So's your old man!" they should be resisted.

What do I mean by that? Well, in fact, there often is no moral equivalence involved; calling someone loathsome is not the same as saying they're going to Hell. These people often are passing judgment on others, accusing them outright of sin, of not being true Catholics or even Christians. If they want to call someone names, then that's their right, and I'm not going to stress over it - except, as I suggested earlier, to advise them to by a thesaurus or something else that can help them expand their vocabulary. Their behavior certainly can be described as scandalous, and to the extent that they provoke intemperate responses in others, they deserve the lion's share of the blame. If one voices a negative opinion of this person's behavior - well, what other conclusion can you draw?

In the end, I don't know if I've accomplished anything with this. I vowed to write a certain number of words at this site this month, and this is part of it. I haven't engaged in any of these verbal fisticuffs, nor do I intend to, but I get highly put out when I read it, and I do think the people who do this are - here's that word again - loathsome. Am I judging them? No, and I'd thank you not to accuse me of that if you're tempted to. Am I drawing conclusions based on what I've seen, heard or read? You bet I have - and as long as such people continue to act that way, I'm going to continue to draw those kinds of conclusions.

For those of you out there who are like these people - don't you have anything better to do? For all that we moan about social justice warriors and how everyone's too sensitive and the world is filled with rage, it really is difficult to drive most people to anger. Mainly, they want to be happy and to be left alone. If these people worked half as hard at doing something good (or at least something benign), they might find their own world to be a much nicer place.

Originally published on August 10, 2016

Flashback Friday: Here comes de judge

SAMMY DAVIS JR. IN ONE OF HIS CLASSIC COMEDY ROLES

I realize we're constantly being admonished nowadays to be non-judgmental; "who am I to judge?" should strike a familiar tone. But what exactly does that mean, and how does it fit in to our modern culture and lifestyles

You could write a book on that question alone, and probably more than one person has by now, but I'll simply remark that I've always understood the Biblical injunction against judging to be aimed more at one's soul than at their actions. "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." (Matthew 7:1-2)

In other parts of the Bible, we're told not to worry about what others think of us as long as we act in righteousness for the Kingdom of God.* The suggestion behind it all is that the only opinion that really counts is God's, and He will judge each and every one of us based on what is inside us and how that has manifested itself in our thoughts, words and actions. As humans lack the ability of divination when it comes to reading a man's soul (with the exception of some extraordinary saints), I read this as telling us we should not judge one's character, one's soul, one's state of sin.

*Though we're also reminded not to engage in scandalous behavior which can cast aspersions upon our sincerity, or that of Christians in general. We may see this come into play in the next few paragraphs.

At the same time, however, we're also told to admonish our brothers and sisters who have fallen into sin (first making sure, of course, that we are not guilty of the same thing). For that to happen, it follows that we have some authority to draw conclusions about what a person does, based on that person's external behavior. We don't know for sure whether or not a person is in a state of grace, for example, or if they're possessed by truly evil thoughts and desires, but if they go around acting like a jerk, being impolite, doing nasty things to people, I think we could quite rightly infer from that behavior that this person, regardless of the condition of their soul, has some problems. And if we're that jerk, behaving that way with other people, we should expect that those kinds of conclusions are drawn. If we're a professing Christian, then this becomes cause for scandal, because by our own faults we encourage people to draw such conclusions. Again, being a jerk doesn't mean you're going straight to Hell (do not pass Purgatory, do not collect 500 indulgences). We don't know that.

But when we say someone is loathsome, when we deplore their actions and call into question the sincerity of their expressed values, what we're most often speaking of is this process of making a conclusion based on observed behavior. I think most of us are aware of that, and we aren't literally pronouncing judgment on someone's soul by saying something like that. "I find him grotesque, repulsive, etc." may be an inelegant use of language, it may be intemperate, but most reasonable people know what they mean when they say it, and most reasonable people know (or used to, anyway) what it means when they hear it. It means, "I find this person's actions to be [insert adjective of your choice]."

What I'm getting at with all this is that there's a lot of nasty behavior going on in social media, and in the circles which I frequent much of it is coming from the internecine conflict which our beloved Holy Father seems to have instigated, or at least brought to a head. Austin Ruse wrote about this very well in a recent article with reference to several Catholic bloggers who like to make grand pronouncements about people with whom they disagree. The question arises: how should one behave when finding themselves faced with such a person? Well, perhaps the best thing is not to find yourself in that position in the first place, which is why long ago I deserted the Catholic blogosphere in favor of the much more civilized world of classic television. I still run across these people, though; one can hardly keep up-to-date with current Church events without doing so. The political blogosphere is even worse. And as far as Catholics talking about politics - don't get me started.

It is not an exaggeration for me to say that I do, indeed, find the behavior of such people to be loathsome. In doing so, they transform themselves into loathsome individuals, and to draw such a conclusion based on what they've said is, in many cases, fairly temperate when compared to what these people themselves say and do. But am I judging them? Am I consigning them to the nether regions, where it's very hot even in wintertime? Of course not, and when they use the typical rhetorical tactic of attempting to turn the tables on anyone who disagrees with them by saying, in effect, "So's your old man!" they should be resisted.

What do I mean by that? Well, in fact, there often is no moral equivalence involved; calling someone loathsome is not the same as saying they're going to Hell. These people often are passing judgment on others, accusing them outright of sin, of not being true Catholics or even Christians. If they want to call someone names, then that's their right, and I'm not going to stress over it - except, as I suggested earlier, to advise them to by a thesaurus or something else that can help them expand their vocabulary. Their behavior certainly can be described as scandalous, and to the extent that they provoke intemperate responses in others, they deserve the lion's share of the blame. If one voices a negative opinion of this person's behavior - well, what other conclusion can you draw?

In the end, I don't know if I've accomplished anything with this. I vowed to write a certain number of words at this site this month, and this is part of it. I haven't engaged in any of these verbal fisticuffs, nor do I intend to, but I get highly put out when I read it, and I do think the people who do this are - here's that word again - loathsome. Am I judging them? No, and I'd thank you not to accuse me of that if you're tempted to. Am I drawing conclusions based on what I've seen, heard or read? You bet I have - and as long as such people continue to act that way, I'm going to continue to draw those kinds of conclusions.

For those of you out there who are like these people - don't you have anything better to do? For all that we moan about social justice warriors and how everyone's too sensitive and the world is filled with rage, it really is difficult to drive most people to anger. Mainly, they want to be happy and to be left alone. If these people worked half as hard at doing something good (or at least something benign), they might find their own world to be a much nicer place.

Originally published August 10, 2016

Throwback Thursday: Where have all the bloggers gone?

As I've been known to say from time to time, I get my ideas from unusual places.  This time it's from World Soccer Talk, one of the places I frequent for my soccer fix, where an interesting article notes that 55% of the 100 best soccer blogs, as chosen in 2011 by the English newspaper The Guardian, are now gone.  For those of you who are mathematically-challenged, that means 55 blogs that have either disappeared altogether or have ceased to exist for all intents and purposes,* and another 12 are considered endangered.

*The definition used in the article is that no new articles have been published since March, a period of time that would have included the recent World Cup.

As for why so many highly-regarded blogs have disappeared, the author suggests a number of reasons ranging from social media (many of them are still alive via Twitter feed) to media consolidation (the best bloggers leave the independent blog field to take up with larger sites such as Grantland).  The 30+ sites that continue have carved out their own unique niche, filling the need with content that remains unique and valuable.  It's an analysis that makes a great deal of sense.

Blogging does seem to ebb and flow.  I don't think there's much question that there aren't nearly as many blogs around today as there used to be; I know a good many that I've had to remove from the sidebar over the years, many of which were around long before either of mine started.  For many, it's a case of real life intruding - if you want a good blog, you have to devote some time to it, and that isn't always the easiest thing to continue, especially when you're doing it for little or no money.  Others have said what they have to say, and have nothing more to add.  Still others probably get bored a few months after the novelty wears off, and leave the site deserted.

My ideal writing forum always has been, and remains, the novel.  I've written two so far, and I'm at work on a third.  The latest one is probably going to be the first one published; I'm about a third of the way through it, and the subject matter is time-sensitive enough that I'd like to see it in print sometime next year, probably through my own publishing efforts.  My second book was almost self-published a few years ago, before I started changing jobs and moving across country; it needs no little revision, but it has good bones and might make it next year as well.  The first book I finished likely will never see the light of day, at least not without major changes.  It served its purpose, though - it taught me that I could write a story from beginning to end, and fill all the pages in between.  Add to this a couple of non-fiction books I hope to get from It's About TV, and you can see how the blogs can be something of a challenge.

In fact, I probably could get a great deal more writing done if it weren't for these two blogs.  I don't get paid for them, and every word I type for free takes away from one I could get paid for.  So why do I continue?

With It's About TV, there's really no secret.  I get a great deal of pleasure writing about television, and I think the blogging has helped me not only to refine my writing style, but organize my ideas for the inevitable books that will grow out of the blog.  It may take away some of the time I'd spend on my novels, but in now way do I think it is a waste.  It is, as I've said before, one of life's simpler pleasures.

As for this site, honesty commands me to disclose that I've seriously considered closing shop at least twice.  The first ending was averted when I rebooted the site from one with a focus on religion to that of a general cultural awareness, which included religion but also politics, television, movies, books, and sports.  When I spun the TV portion off into its own blog, I considered wrapping this one up again, but then I looked at the outstanding contributors that keep it running - Bobby, Steve and Drew - and there were so many pieces that each one had written that I loved, I couldn't see the sense in letting them fade away.  Even when It's About TV became the primary blog and I could have abandoned this one, I decided instead to give it a face lift, a new name, and redouble my efforts to keep the content coming.  Indeed, I don't know if you've noticed, but we've already surpassed last year's number of posts, with over four months still remaining.  The two blogs have, in fact, an equal number of posts, though this one can make that claim only because there are four of us working on it.

Eventually the time will come when this blog stops being a useful form of communication, when Bobby and Steve and Drew decide they've got other things to do, and when that happens I might pull the plug, or keep it going on a much more limited basis.  Likewise, there may be a point when I fell It's About TV has run its course, when it's completed its mission of demonstrating the link between television and American culture and it becomes time to move the discussion to the book format.  But until then, I enjoy the challenge of succeeding where others have given up, and as we come up on the tenth anniversary of In Other Words (!), it's my goal to continue writing here for as long as I can.  Every time another blog fades away, I become more determined than ever to keep this alive.   Besides, we'll never stop having opinions, and as long as that's the case, we'll keep expressing them here.

Originally published August 19, 2014

Here come da judge

SAMMY DAVIS JR. IN ONE OF HIS CLASSIC COMEDY ROLES

I realize we're constantly being admonished nowadays to be non-judgmental; "who am I to judge?" should strike a familiar tone. But what exactly does that mean, and how does it fit in to our modern culture and lifestyles

You could write a book on that question alone, and probably more than one person has by now, but I'll simply remark that I've always understood the Biblical injunction against judging to be aimed more at one's soul than at their actions. "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." (Matthew 7:1-2)

In other parts of the Bible, we're told not to worry about what others think of us as long as we act in righteousness for the Kingdom of God.* The suggestion behind it all is that the only opinion that really counts is God's, and He will judge each and every one of us based on what is inside us and how that has manifested itself in our thoughts, words and actions. As humans lack the ability of divination when it comes to reading a man's soul (with the exception of some extraordinary saints), I read this as telling us we should not judge one's character, one's soul, one's state of sin.

*Though we're also reminded not to engage in scandalous behavior which can cast aspersions upon our sincerity, or that of Christians in general. We may see this come into play in the next few paragraphs.

At the same time, however, we're also told to admonish our brothers and sisters who have fallen into sin (first making sure, of course, that we are not guilty of the same thing). For that to happen, it follows that we have some authority to draw conclusions about what a person does, based on that person's external behavior. We don't know for sure whether or not a person is in a state of grace, for example, or if they're possessed by truly evil thoughts and desires, but if they go around acting like a jerk, being impolite, doing nasty things to people, I think we could quite rightly infer from that behavior that this person, regardless of the condition of their soul, has some problems. And if we're that jerk, behaving that way with other people, we should expect that those kinds of conclusions are drawn. If we're a professing Christian, then this becomes cause for scandal, because by our own faults we encourage people to draw such conclusions. Again, being a jerk doesn't mean you're going straight to Hell (do not pass Purgatory, do not collect 500 indulgences). We don't know that.

But when we say someone is loathsome, when we deplore their actions and call into question the sincerity of their expressed values, what we're most often speaking of is this process of making a conclusion based on observed behavior. I think most of us are aware of that, and we aren't literally pronouncing judgment on someone's soul by saying something like that. "I find him grotesque, repulsive, etc." may be an inelegant use of language, it may be intemperate, but most reasonable people know what they mean when they say it, and most reasonable people know (or used to, anyway) what it means when they hear it. It means, "I find this person's actions to be [insert adjective of your choice]."

What I'm getting at with all this is that there's a lot of nasty behavior going on in social media, and in the circles which I frequent much of it is coming from the internecine conflict which our beloved Holy Father seems to have instigated, or at least brought to a head. Austin Ruse wrote about this very well in a recent article with reference to several Catholic bloggers who like to make grand pronouncements about people with whom they disagree. The question arises: how should one behave when finding themselves faced with such a person? Well, perhaps the best thing is not to find yourself in that position in the first place, which is why long ago I deserted the Catholic blogosphere in favor of the much more civilized world of classic television. I still run across these people, though; one can hardly keep up-to-date with current Church events without doing so. The political blogosphere is even worse. And as far as Catholics talking about politics - don't get me started.

It is not an exaggeration for me to say that I do, indeed, find the behavior of such people to be loathsome. In doing so, they transform themselves into loathsome individuals, and to draw such a conclusion based on what they've said is, in many cases, fairly temperate when compared to what these people themselves say and do. But am I judging them? Am I consigning them to the nether regions, where it's very hot even in wintertime? Of course not, and when they use the typical rhetorical tactic of attempting to turn the tables on anyone who disagrees with them by saying, in effect, "So's your old man!" they should be resisted.

What do I mean by that? Well, in fact, there often is no moral equivalence involved; calling someone loathsome is not the same as saying they're going to Hell. These people often are passing judgment on others, accusing them outright of sin, of not being true Catholics or even Christians. If they want to call someone names, then that's their right, and I'm not going to stress over it - except, as I suggested earlier, to advise them to by a thesaurus or something else that can help them expand their vocabulary. Their behavior certainly can be described as scandalous, and to the extent that they provoke intemperate responses in others, they deserve the lion's share of the blame. If one voices a negative opinion of this person's behavior - well, what other conclusion can you draw?

In the end, I don't know if I've accomplished anything with this. I vowed to write a certain number of words at this site this month, and this is part of it. I haven't engaged in any of these verbal fisticuffs, nor do I intend to, but I get highly put out when I read it, and I do think the people who do this are - here's that word again - loathsome. Am I judging them? No, and I'd thank you not to accuse me of that if you're tempted to. Am I drawing conclusions based on what I've seen, heard or read? You bet I have - and as long as such people continue to act that way, I'm going to continue to draw those kinds of conclusions.

For those of you out there who are like these people - don't you have anything better to do? For all that we moan about social justice warriors and how everyone's too sensitive and the world is filled with rage, it really is difficult to drive most people to anger. Mainly, they want to be happy and to be left alone. If these people worked half as hard at doing something good (or at least something benign), they might find their own world to be a much nicer place.

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

Where have all the bloggers gone?

As I've been known to say from time to time, I get my ideas from unusual places.  This time it's from World Soccer Talk, one of the places I frequent for my soccer fix, where an interesting article notes that 55% of the 100 best soccer blogs, as chosen in 2011 by the English newspaper The Guardian, are now gone.  For those of you who are mathematically-challenged, that means 55 blogs that have either disappeared altogether or have ceased to exist for all intents and purposes,* and another 12 are considered endangered.

*The definition used in the article is that no new articles have been published since March, a period of time that would have included the recent World Cup.

As for why so many highly-regarded blogs have disappeared, the author suggests a number of reasons ranging from social media (many of them are still alive via Twitter feed) to media consolidation (the best bloggers leave the independent blog field to take up with larger sites such as Grantland).  The 30+ sites that continue have carved out their own unique niche, filling the need with content that remains unique and valuable.  It's an analysis that makes a great deal of sense.

Blogging does seem to ebb and flow.  I don't think there's much question that there aren't nearly as many blogs around today as there used to be; I know a good many that I've had to remove from the sidebar over the years, many of which were around long before either of mine started.  For many, it's a case of real life intruding - if you want a good blog, you have to devote some time to it, and that isn't always the easiest thing to continue, especially when you're doing it for little or no money.  Others have said what they have to say, and have nothing more to add.  Still others probably get bored a few months after the novelty wears off, and leave the site deserted.

My ideal writing forum always has been, and remains, the novel.  I've written two so far, and I'm at work on a third.  The latest one is probably going to be the first one published; I'm about a third of the way through it, and the subject matter is time-sensitive enough that I'd like to see it in print sometime next year, probably through my own publishing efforts.  My second book was almost self-published a few years ago, before I started changing jobs and moving across country; it needs no little revision, but it has good bones and might make it next year as well.  The first book I finished likely will never see the light of day, at least not without major changes.  It served its purpose, though - it taught me that I could write a story from beginning to end, and fill all the pages in between.  Add to this a couple of non-fiction books I hope to get from It's About TV, and you can see how the blogs can be something of a challenge.

In fact, I probably could get a great deal more writing done if it weren't for these two blogs.  I don't get paid for them, and every word I type for free takes away from one I could get paid for.  So why do I continue?

With It's About TV, there's really no secret.  I get a great deal of pleasure writing about television, and I think the blogging has helped me not only to refine my writing style, but organize my ideas for the inevitable books that will grow out of the blog.  It may take away some of the time I'd spend on my novels, but in now way do I think it is a waste.  It is, as I've said before, one of life's simpler pleasures.

As for this site, honesty commands me to disclose that I've seriously considered closing shop at least twice.  The first ending was averted when I rebooted the site from one with a focus on religion to that of a general cultural awareness, which included religion but also politics, television, movies, books, and sports.  When I spun the TV portion off into its own blog, I considered wrapping this one up again, but then I looked at the outstanding contributors that keep it running - Bobby, Steve and Drew - and there were so many pieces that each one had written that I loved, I couldn't see the sense in letting them fade away.  Even when It's About TV became the primary blog and I could have abandoned this one, I decided instead to give it a face lift, a new name, and redouble my efforts to keep the content coming.  Indeed, I don't know if you've noticed, but we've already surpassed last year's number of posts, with over four months still remaining.  The two blogs have, in fact, an equal number of posts, though this one can make that claim only because there are four of us working on it.

Eventually the time will come when this blog stops being a useful form of communication, when Bobby and Steve and Drew decide they've got other things to do, and when that happens I might pull the plug, or keep it going on a much more limited basis.  Likewise, there may be a point when I fell It's About TV has run its course, when it's completed its mission of demonstrating the link between television and American culture and it becomes time to move the discussion to the book format.  But until then, I enjoy the challenge of succeeding where others have given up, and as we come up on the tenth anniversary of In Other Words (!), it's my goal to continue writing here for as long as I can.  Every time another blog fades away, I become more determined than ever to keep this alive.   Besides, we'll never stop having opinions, and as long as that's the case, we'll keep expressing them here.

Wish I'd written that

Apropos of what I wrote yesterday, this quote seems to fit.  (H/T Teachout)

“Words realize nothing, vivify nothing to you, unless you have suffered in your own person the thing which the words try to describe.”

- Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court

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.

A welcoming place

Our faithful and esteemed colleage Steve has had an article published at a real and legitimate site, as opposed to this somewhat unreal one - check it out here. It's another example of why we admire his talent and abilities. ◙

Opera for Dummies (on Thursday)

Mitchell has been pestering me for over a year to contribute to the Our Word blog but I couldn’t think of anything that would come up to the high standards of the accomplished bloggers here. I have a blog, Stella Borealis, but it’s a Catholic news blog and while it has some worth, it doesn’t require that I bare my soul on a daily or weekly basis or expose my unorthodox lifestyle and idiosyncrasies to the world at large. Most of my soul baring and pontificating happens on other people’s blogs, internet news forums, and letters to the editor pages.

Mostly, I’m a dabbler. I’ve done lots of things, few of them really well. I have a long list of things that I should do at least once (getting my ticket punched before I depart this vale of tears), and now and then I do something about shortening the list. Going to an opera is one of those things

I used to listen to the Texaco radio broadcasts of the Met, not really understanding, but appreciating the marvelous sounds that came through the plastic speakers of my cheap radio. My best friend in high school was somewhat knowledgeable about opera because his dad, a firemen for the city and a regular guy, was a real opera fan and owned many vinyl disks. I thought to self, “Self, you too should go to an opera some day. They’re not just for rich people anymore.”

Back when I was at the U of MN I would note with approval when a dozen or so semis pulled up behind Northrup Auditorium, chock full of scenery, costumes and instruments for the annual springtime appearance of the Met, bringing a half dozen works of their just closed season to the upper midwest. People from hundreds of miles around would plan their annual vacations for those always sold out performances. The closest I ever got to attending one was peeking through a crack in one of the double doors, though. Actually, the closest I actually did get to any high culture was attending a movie showing of a performance by Nureyev and Fonteyn of the ballet, Les Corsaire, in a small town in Massachusetts when I was stationed there when I was in the Army.

Over time I have attended lots of theater performances and even some modern dance. I actually surprised myself by joining a Gregorian Chant schola a few years ago (They haven’t thrown me out). But I had never been to an opera. Then I read that the Met was recording their performances digitally and showing them live around the country on movie screens And during the Summer, they have encore performances of their more popular events.

I didn’t bite until a few weeks ago.

I Know I Shouldn't Indulge Myself, But...

By Mitchell Hadley

Mike Potemra at NRO offers the following commentary on a "blogger" which is simply too good to pass up.

After noting the blogger's jeremiad (which is what people of our age used to call what people today refer to as screeds) against "frenzies" about the president's bow to the Japanese emperor, Potemra goes on to say this:

The blogger who wrote this is himself, actually, among those especially highly prone to frenzies. (Look at the tone of the rest of his post — not the substance, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t — but the tone. You’ll see what I mean.) I point this out not to “gotcha” him with a hypocrisy charge, but to praise him for upholding the principle. It’s well known that we dislike most in others the faults we ourselves share, and this fault — the cultivation of rage in our hearts — is one I’m sure most of us know, only too well. He deserves as much slack on this as any of the rest of us.

And to that, I can only say "ditto, ditto."

Oh, and the blogger to which Potemra refers? That would be none other than the man formerly known here as the "Blogger Who Shall Remain Unnamed," the number two man on my Enemies List, Mark Shea.

Potemra's remarks underline the main gripe I've had with Shea for years, i.e. his tone, which I find incredibly off-putting, not to say malicious. Shea may make excellent points from time to time - in fact, I know he does - but he's so annoying, so condesending, so snarky the rest of the time, it makes me want to disagree with him just on principle. I'm just glad I converted to Catholicism before I started reading him; otherwise, I might still be a Protestant today. I've finally acknowledged that on some issues, I find myself agreeing with him in spite of what he says, rather than because of what he says.

Often Shea conducts his discussions as if he were a child on a playground. And I'd expect more from an adult - wouldn't you?

The List, Part 2

By the way, the next time you run across one of the people mentioned here, be sure and tell them you saw them on the Our Word Enemies List. I'm sure they'll be grateful for the recognition.

And now back to the list. Mitchell launches into these people and organizations for whom he has a deep and abiding, if impersonal, contempt:

Rod Dreher – what’s that old saying about “with friends like this”? Having this crunchy con blogger on your side is like going into a gunfight armed with a butter knife. I’m sure Rod’s a nice guy, a good family man, someone you’d like to have as your next-door neighbor; but on his blog he shows a most unbecoming side. He snarks at conservative talk radio for being snarky, and honestly believes conservative bloggers have done more damage to civility than liberal ones. He wonders about Gingrich’s conversion to Catholicism, while he himself has bounced from Protestantism to Catholicism and now to Orthodoxy. He seems to want so badly to be taken seriously by those with whom he disagrees that he bends over backward to give liberals the benefit of the doubt, assuming their good intentions while questioning those of his “fellow” conservatives. (He reminds me of a boss I once had who was perfectly willing to believe every complaint he ever received about his staff, while dismissing any concerns his staff might have had in turn.) I don’t question Dreher’s sincerity; why does he seem so suspicious about that of others?

For his extremely irritating manner, Dreher lands the number one spot on my list by pure merit.

Mark Shea – his brilliant work as a Catholic apologist is frequently obscured by his frequent rants about the "unjust" war in Iraq, his unbecoming snarkiness about the Bush administration, and his unwillingness to grant that those with whom he disagrees might be acting with good faith and sincere beliefs of his own. Sarcasm and irony, when employed effectively, can be an art form - but Shea doesn't have that particular gift.

Shea is a passionate opponent of the war in Iraq. He can make a compelling, if not persuasive, case against it. Shea's overheated rhetoric may be an accurate reflection of his personality, but it does him no favors when it comes to convincing others of his argument. He can be so nasty about the whole thing, and so dismissive of others, that his arguments have the effect of making one passionately disagree with him regardless of what he's talking about. If he were to insist that the sky was blue, I'd say it was red just to oppose him. Having that effect on people is not the trademark of a particularly useful advocate.

For a long time, Shea held first place on my list, but he’s become better about apologizing for some of the things he’s said, and these mea culpas have softened his image in my eyes somewhat. I truly think he regrets much of what he says in the heat of the moment, but by the same token he continues to put himself there, in what we might consider the proximate cause of sin. Perhaps he’s just someone who should stick to writing articles and forget blogging. Or eliminate his combox, at least.

David Letterman – after what I wrote here, need I say more?

ESPN – it was a good idea to cover the story, but now they’ve become the story. And sport itself becomes secondary to its purpose of filling a spot in the network’s schedule: games with ridiculous start times, college football every night of the week, meaningless bowls created by ESPN simply as a source of cheap programming. Not to mention announcers who think it’s amateur night at the Improv, and their incessant self-promotion. Their “This Is SportsCenter” commercials are great, but not enough to make up for the rest.

Jimmy Carter – one of our worst presidents ever, now one of our worst former presidents ever. I know all the talk about what a great humanitarian he’s supposed to be, but he also constantly denigrates this country while giving aid and comfort to our enemies. He’s shown himself to be a bitter, vindictive, little man. Ronald Reagan deserves to be on Mt. Rushmore for no reason other than having ridded us of this meddlesome president. He's a useful idiot for America's enemies - emphasis on idiot.

Organizations with the word "Christian" in their name but not their mission - you know who you are. Shame on you.

Cathy of Alex castigates not a person, but the mindset that governs such people: mediocrity. In doing so, she ridicules those who believe in the following:

We're all the same. Congratulations! You have not won a thing. There are no winners. There is no such thing because then there would have to be losers and our fragile Western psyches can’t handle that.

Thank God I'm not like those sinners. Heaven may or may not exist but if it does you can be sure the almost perfect are in it. They’ve nominated themselves for the honor.

This is all there is. Nirvana is probably just a band.

Obamamania. Our nation’s leader, who may or may not be an American, is good for the job (not perfect) because he tells us that as a nation we are not perfect. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We have an entire weight of history that we didn’t even live to atone for. Get on that. Don’t work on improving yourself; work on apologizing.

Education. In school, over 90% is no longer the top grade and an A; now, we are graded on a scale so we can be graded with our peers who may or may not actually know anything.

For these people, there is nothing to strive for, she says in conclusion. Good enough is good enough.

And Paul Drew condemns:

The public school system – really, little more than legalized child abuse. (And this is not to besmirch those teachers in that system that do care – prisoners, I dare say, every bit as much as their students.)

Keith Olbermann – is there, honestly, anyone more wretched, angry, and nasty on television today? I’ve seen programs on Animal Planet where the wild beasts weren’t as vicious as Olbermann. (Perhaps he’ll name me Worst Person of the Day for saying that. I’d take it as a badge of honor.)

Mike Antonovich - the Los Angeles County Supervisor who wanted the L.A. Opera to drop Wagner's Ring Cycle because the composer was anti-Semitic. Earth to Antonovich: where have you been the last few years? Did you just hear about this Wagner guy and find out what he believed in? Love or hate him, the man wrote some of the most sublime music ever, and to suggest that politics pull rank over art is, in this case, rank. What a knucklehead.

Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al – why are we even listening to these fools? It only encourages them.

Sportswriters who can’t keep their politics out of their columns - don’t try this at home, boys. Leave the heavy intellectual work to the professional political pundits, boys. (P.S. I probably know more about sports than most of you, too.)

*****And there you have it - the 2009 Our Word Enemies List. Feel free to email us with your additions to the list, or suggestions for next year's. And if you don't see your name here, don't give up hopee - we all need something to which we can aspire. There's still plenty of room for more names!

Quick Takes

By Mitchell

In our best headline-grabbing way, a few bits and pieces that have come to our attention in the last couple of days:

Are You Listening, Perez Hilton?

From The Anchoress: "Appreciate my indifference to your sexuality. Yeah…that’s pretty much how I feel. I think the gay community does not really understand that most folks don’t care who they sleep with - they just resent having it all shoved in their faces, so they’re forced to react - it’s a set-up."

It sure is - they want to trigger a reaction, and then beat you over the head with it. Because it is, you know, all about them - and in today's culture, there's absolutely nothing worse than being ignored.

(By the way, why is it that whenever I hear a name like "Perez Hilton," I'm reminded of that scene in Dr. Strangelove where Peter Sellers confronts Keenan Wynn with the line, "Listen, Colonel Bat Guano, if that is your real name.")

That’s it!

Charles Krauthammer on Obama's performance at the Summit of the Americas: "Does the narcissism of this man know no bounds? This is not about him. It is about his country. This is something that occurred under John Kennedy — the Bay of Pigs is what [Nicaragua president Daniel Ortega] is referring to. And what he is saying is that it's OK that [Ortega verbally] attacked John Kennedy, as long as it wasn't me.

"Doesn't it occur to him that he ought to defend his country even if stuff happened before him? It doesn't all start with him."

For a long time, I’ve been trying to find exactly the right word to describe Obama, but as usual Krauthammer has beaten me to it – narcissist. And that goes double for so many of his followers who, in the glow from the halo they’ve positioned over the president’s head, really are admiring themselves.

But What Do You Really Think?

S.T. Karnick on Jon Stewart: "I have always considered Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) to be a thoroughly repugnant ass and his TV show a bunch of garbage for only the very stupidest of left-wing nobrains. As a result of my avoidance of the man and his works, I have seldom had occasion to write about him."

I agree with this assessment 100% - I just wish he’d been a little more blunt.

Speaking of Shooting Your Mouth Off...

A certain Catholic blogger who shall not be named uses the acronym "STFU" in a piece about Newt Gingrich. Regardless of your political opinions - shouldn't we expect perhaps a higher level of discourse from a Catholic blogger? I can appreciate that perhaps his crayon wasn't able to handle all those big words, but still...

(Remember the saying: "Keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool. Open your mouth and remove all doubt." I feel as if I can say this, having proven the latter far too often. But honestly, sometimes this blogger can be the worst possible advertisement for Catholic evangelization.)

Before We Leave You

This is one of the all-time great stories from The Onion. But to be perfectly honest, I think we scooped them.

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.

Michael Dubruiel, R.I.P.

By Mitchell

Michael Dubruiel, husband of the extraordinary Catholic blogger Amy Welborn and a blogger and speaker in his own right, died suddenly today.

I did not know him, nor I suppose could it be said that I knew Amy except through her blog, and several emails we had exchanged a few years ago. That probably does not make us friends, per se, but she was always very kind and generous in our correspondence, and several times she linked to pieces I had written when we were covering local Catholic issues.

She has always seemed to me to be a good person, with a nice family and a loving husband. The brief note on her website describes her family as devastated, which I am sure is an understatement. Though they may seem modest, prayers are anything but; and so we offer them for the repose of his soul, and the consolation of his loved ones.

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 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?

The Caution That Is Humility

By Drew

At NRO, Peter Robinson offers this excerpt from Norman Podhoretz's new book, World War IV, pp. 191-192:

I repeatedly blasted [Reagan] for one betrayal after another: for reacting tepidly to the suppression (yes, by the evil empire) of the anti-Communist Solidarity movement in Poland; for permitting his ambassadors behind the Iron Curtain to distance themselves from the genuinely democratic dissidents in those countries while cultivating the "reformist" proponents of "Communism with a human face"..; for cutting and running when Hezbollah...blew up a barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 American servicemen; for trading arms for hostages with Iran; for entering into arms control agreements with the Soviet Union....

Rereading those pieces, I was amazed to discover that they were right in almost every detail even though they were dead wrong about the ultimate effect. For what these acts of Reagan's turned out to be was a series of prudential tactics within an overall strategy that in the end succeeded in attaining its great objective.

Now, there's a lot of meat in this, and you don't even have to be interested in politics (or the history of the Cold War) to appreciate it. Robinson calls Podhoretz's words those of "an honest man," for admitting that he was "dead wrong," and that's a large part of it, but there's more to it than that as well. Podhoretz' words are humbling words for us all, and provide a cautionary message, a reminder of the principle that we might not, in fact, know it all.

Too often nowadays we're so eagar to jump the gun, pull the trigger, leap to conclusions. If A, therefore, B. I'm sure I would have been one of those young conservatives who found fault with Reagan, who criticized his betrayal of conservative principles, or who at least exorciated his advisers to "let Reagan be Reagan." And yet, as Podhoretz points out, things turned out pretty well.

Nowhere is this trait of leaping more apparent than with those who have a gift for communication and (sometimes) a felicity for thought. And, of course, this speaks most strongly to the blogosphere. Someone makes a statement, and within an hour a thousand bloggers have leaped down his throat. Over the next few days the number increases exponentially. Pretty soon everyone has a different bleak scenario to describe the disaster that awaits as a result of this grave misstep. Call it what you want - instant analysis used to be a favorite way of putting it. But it often comes from people who don't have all the facts, who aren't in a position to make decisions, who don't have access to "the big picture." This applies all the way down the line, from popes and presidents to football coaches.

One of the problems with micro-managing arguments like this is that often you lose track of this larger picture. You're fired with your passion, with a righteous belief in what you're saying, and a fearlessness in saying it. How many times do we state an opinion with a total disregard for those who may disagree with us? We might even preface the statement with one of those "In my opinion" comments that is often code for "this is the way it is."

And that's why, I suppose, we try to take the high road here at Our Word, to try to keep the discussions civil, to avoid the kind of personal attacks that often seem to walk hand-in-hand with opinion nowadays.

That doesn't mean that we should stop commenting - far from it. A healthy discussion (emphasis on the word healthy, and you could add civil to it) is a great, not to say necessary, thing. And often this type of discussion will force those in charge to defend their positions, to provide the rationale that can infuse their supporters with confidence and give their critics something to chew on. That's the kind of thing great leaders do.

We probably can all think back to a time when we leapt to a conclusion that, in retrospect, appears foolish. And at the time we were probably as dogmatic and confident (not to say arrogant) as we could be in expressing that opinion. Sometimes it turns out we were right. But the rest of the time... There are a couple of writers out there - a blogger and a political commentator - who stand pretty much on the opposite sides of the Giuliani candidacy. Every time I read the commentator, who supports Guiliani, I come away more determined than ever to oppose him. When I read the blogger, who despises what Guiliani stands for, I start to think that Rudy might not be such a bad choice after all. I hope I never have that effect on people who read me.

So ultimately what do we learn from Podhoretz' words? The values of temperance, prudence, patience, humility. The need to avoid a rush to judgement, to parse our words carefully, to admit that we might not know it all and to avoid acting as if we do, to offer our criticisms in a constructive rather than destructive way. Those are wise lessons indeed, and those who heed them are made all the wiser.