WRT playing the "hater" card

If anyone cared about being factual at all, he or she wouldn't assume that I hate Rod Dreher. There's evidence enough to convince me: positive comments on his blog posts with which I agree and private emails back and forth. If my readers are decent types, they will take this at face value, and I won't have to sift through old internet conversations because unlike some people, I don't have time to do that, providing a play-by-play of who said what.

Thinking someone has some mistaken, stupid ideas or that they are acting badly and then subsequently being vocal about it is not equivalent to hating that person. If this were so, it could be said that I hated all my kids and my mother, for starters. Likewise my mother could be said to hate me; she's the most vocal person about my conversion to Catholicism. But to my point: people who possess any kind of vocabulary should really reconsider before they descend to this juvenile accusation of hatred. Even referring to an argument as a fight amounts to "inflationary language".

So let's all cool off with Victor Borge, shall we?

"Three-faced triple-crosser!", lol

The Anarchist Pope

It's Friday; time for a nice little laugh o' the week. Over at Vox Nova, David Wheeler-Reed asks his readers to finish the sentence “If I were elected Pope the first thing I would do is...”. Then he asks us to keep our answers short. Michael Iafrate obliges David's first request, but not his second by posting a laundry list of, shall we say, rather progressive items:

1) Give Fathers Jon Sobrino and Roy Bourgeois a phone call.
2) Ordain some women.
3) Tell gay people that they are not “intrinsically disordered.”
4) Abolish every “military diocese.”
5) Issue an apostolic letter on collegiality/ecclesial subsidiarity.
6) Canonize Oscar Romero and Dorothy Day.
7) Appoint a lay theologian as head of the CDF.
8) Go “get in the way” of some wars with the Christian Peacemaker Teams.

Their are some things wrong within this list which I have to point out. First of all, using a telephone would show an obscene disregard for indigenous peoples who don't possess a phone, especially by the first American pope who would then be seen as beholden to the evil telecom giants. Why not send smoke signals to them? Or have it delivered by vegetarian carrier pigeon?

Secondly, I hope that when he goes to ordain "some women" that he would have a woman choose which ones to ordain. Because as a male, he'd probably be tempted to just ordain the ones he considered to be hotties. We all know that's just how men are.

Finally, he left off number nine which should really be to pass the papacy on to someone else. He is, after all, an anarchist and as such should not even be participating in such a blatant celebration of patriarchal white male power in the first place. Of course if he can ordain women, I suppose he could just make a papal declaration that he himself is female and a person of color. That would solve the dilemma handily.

Oh, and this was funny

A blogger named John Savage writes about being disgusted by Rod Dreher's link to a porno picture. There was also a related post on which I commented briefly, but didn't stick around to read his brilliant retort. A commenter named Jamie recorded it:

In another post called “Pa Cyrus: Cynically brilliant?” Rod Dreher explains his real reasons for running the pornographic pictures after taunting a commentator called Pauli.

Pauli says “The short month of April is nearly over and the numbers must need some padding.”

And then Rod Dreher says “How many page views you got at your blog, Pauli?”

This seems to me to be the filthiest reasons of all, to show the pictures over and over just to get people to click on them while pretending to be disgusted and laughing at the fools who fall for it.

Welcome to Beliefnet, Jamie, and the upsidedown world of the Workin' Boy. I guess he wants to whip out his big weblog at me now for purposes of intimidation.

Am I wrong? Am I wrong??

OK, then.

Blogging Up the Arteries

Kudos to Kathleen for pointing out this amazing article to me. I'm glad blogging is basically just a hobby for me.

I could make comments about every part of this piece which I found myself laughing at, even when it talked about people developing severe health issues from excessive blogging. What are they thinking? People working themselves to death in the office isn't really anything new, although blogging is. You weren't designed to be on your ass for days on end.

But this part caught my eye:

Mr. Lam said he has worried his blogging staff might be burning out, and he urges them to take breaks, even vacations. But he said they face tremendous pressure — external, internal and financial. He said the evolution of the “pay-per-click” economy has put the emphasis on reader traffic and financial return, not journalism.

Does anyone truly think that in old-fashioned journalism there was no emphasis on financial returns? I'm sure the pace is more insane now. Furthermore, due to hit-counters, it's no longer a likelihoood but a provable fact that no one read your well-researched animal psychology piece which you posted a minute after the Paris Hilton perp walk photos came out. However I think it's absurd to suggest that for this reason blogging is ruining "quality journalism". Journalism is already ruined and "if it bleeds, it leads" is a concept predating the roller mouse. Who is actually reading what is simply more accurate to gauge now, and I prefer the animal psych piece. You just have to find a creative way to fit the words "paris" and "hilton" in there and maybe a picture of animals doing it. Or something.

Whoopsy...

Here's one for the "heh" file. When I read this post, I thought, "Well just because something is not a "Michael Moore propaganda piece" doesn't mean it isn't a propaganda piece.

Jeremy Lott demonstrates that the film mentioned, "No End in Sight", at least contains some propaganda by linking to a good article he wrote back in 2004 about the so-called museum lootings.

Religion Writing and Me

Someone asked me recently if I ever thought about doing this writing thingy as a career. I was flattered. But I'm really not sure it's a good idea, especially since I write on religious topics so much. Let me try to explain.

If I started getting paid for giving out my opinion on religion there's a good chance that I would start viewing religion in instrumentalist terms. Think about it; if you took away my writing about religion from this site what would be left? Not so much. A few links to jokes I found and some political commentary. Maybe a few laughs worth a buck a month from Google Ads. Best go back to being a jitney driver.

And if I was getting paid or accepting donations to do this blog then I would be receiving utility from my faith? That would make me basically be a faith-based utilitarian, an FBU for short. Kind of a "whatever works" type.

I could see if I was actually really knowledgeable or was a priest or had a theology degree; if I had something to say about this whole religion thing. Naturally I teach my children about religion and I talk to friends about it when the opportunity is presented. But I don't get paid to do that.

It is so darn easy to talk about religion. Look at Madonna, for instance. She's talking about religion now that she's 96 in female pop-star years and she's not as fresh, young and perky and no one cares as much about her as the newer models coming out. If she blogged for some online magazine the editors would probably advise her to convert from Kabala to Yoga or astrology just to beef up the hit count for advertising. "Pimp yo conversion!" Madonna's probably not that hard up for cash though, so we'll most likely be spared from anything of that sort.

But we have enough writers out there who "manipulate God for their own ends"; they are the loudest about their own religions and even more so about that of others are often the least qualified to say anything and are nothing short of offensive in their pronouncements. Andrew Sullivan is ostensibly a Catholic who sees barbarous hordes of what he calls "Christianists" around every corner. He speaks of these politically conservative Christians with wild-eyed paranoia reminiscent of nativist Know-nothing hysteria. Best I can tell they are closest to Islamist suicide bombers, only they are worse because they never actually kill anyone. Damn these wily Christianists! They exploit religious faith and they don't have the decency to blow themselves up. But he has been dining out on this intriguing concept for quite some time, he even wrote a book on the topic. By his own wobbly definition, this makes Sullivan a fundy and an exploiter of a different stripe.

If that is paid religion writing, the hell with it. So say I. There's a reason why Jesus warns about the Pharisees who "strain a gnat and swallow a camel."

I apologize if there are people who really want me to do this more and make a career out of it. Sorry to disappoint you. I just really can't see the point of selling out my religious identity for material success, to "gain the world and lose my soul". If I obsessed wrote about the Catholic Church for a living, I might start taking notes on how Father X does the Consecration, roughing in an outline for my next blog post during my thanksgiving for Holy Communion. I'd ruminate on how Deacon Y said something that I'm not exactly sure I agreed with instead of meditating on the Five Wounds. I'd start noting the banal architecture in the suburbs and motes in the eyes of bishops. Worst of all, I would see all of life in business transaction-like terms: salvation, the end-product; the Sacraments, a service performed; bishops as salesmen....

You know, I think I'm getting really good at the detection of projection, and that's all I'm going to say about that. For now.

(By the way, there are people pimping Lou Reed's new meditation album from a religious perspective, belief it or not. Read it if you want the Rock 'n Roll Animal to teach you about cool stuff like tai chi and alpha states. You can't make this up.)

What?

More obsessing about obsession from the obviously obsessed. In response to the post here, Mark Shea responds:

Rod:

This is not fair. Now that ConCrunchy is gone you don't have anybody to freak out and call you an America hater for suggesting that God might even be sovereign over *us*.

When I speculate on this stuff (and that's all it ever can be since I do not know the mind of the Almighty on such matters), I have the Rapid Response Team over at We Really Really Despise Mark Shea.com there to assure the world that my guesses and pondering are the mark of an fevered, lying, and quite possible sick or evil mind. When you do exactly the same thing, it's crickets.

I think you need to lobby some of your readers to set up an obsessostalker site devoted to you again. It's not fair that I should be the only one with obsessostalkers! Or maybe you could just ask the folks at WRRDMS.com to expand their horizons a bit to attacking you for pointing out that profound sickness of our culture and remarking on it.

Mark P. Shea Homepage 02.15.07 - 9:49 pm #

When some people are trying to be funny, they really are funny. That's why I keep reading these comboxes. It's like a reality show comedy. Or something.

Dudes!! it's such a downer, you know, 'cause like we can't freak out anymore over at the Contra Crunchy site, man, about, like, how other people hate America because they believe God punishes evil-doers.

I must have shed the brain cells containing the memory of the posts anyone did doubting God's sovereignty. I think there were a few swear words over there....

I've always been irritated that Falwell and Robertson never mention sacrificing domesticated cats in the woods even once in their numerous diatribes about the sins of America.

BTW, my wife is always singing that "Awwwwww FREAK OUT!" song and now, thanks to Mark Shea, it's stuck in my head once again.

Blogs Don't Kill People....

Shooting one's self in the foot literally would probably have to be accomplished with a firearm. Accidentally doing so with a bow and arrow is harder to imagine, aside from maybe during a scene in a slap-stick movie. The action of a bow is simply too painstaking and deliberate. Likewise composing, writing and mailing an angry letter which scars you for life requires an disproportionate amount of deliberation compared to, say, writing a quick email which is then forwarded to thousands of people instantly. This could be compared to an semi-automatic, to stretch my shot foot analogy.

That would make an Internet Weblog analogous to an AK-47. Excepting that they are available to the general public. For free.

I've never fired a fully automatic weapon, but I suppose you don't have to aim very much. Say there's a Hummer to the left of the guy you want to kill and an Escalade on his right. You just notice which SUV you're shooting and move your left arm accordingly.

Before this hijacked and strained analogy breaks down further, let me hot wire another one. You've heard many times the slogan Guns don't kill people, people kill people. There is truth in that, but the saying shouldn't be used carelessly. The availability of a weapon can obviously facilitate a disastrous event. An acquaintance of mine who had trouble holding down a job had been going through a difficult time in his life. He had an offer for a security guard position and he had the experience. But it would have required him to possess and carry a sidearm. In a discussion, he leveled with me, "I just can't have a gun in my house right now."

That's somewhat like a danger I've noticed with some bloggers. They might do better without a blog in their possession. My experience is that it occurs especially to those who write what I call a "kitchen sink blog". You have a blog which gives your opinion on everything that enters your thoughts, no matter how, well..... questionable is the word I'll use, and pretty soon you're doing nothing more than reacting spasmodically. You hear the story of the rape of a teenager and it involves her "My Space" page so you scribble off something like "THE INTERNET MUST BE SHUT DOWN!". On your internet blog. Missing the irony completely.

That's a manufactured example, to be sure, and maybe not the best. So here's another example. A blogger throws an temper tantrum in multiple blogposts about someone who disagreed with his friend, Dave, by saying something like, "Dave must have been having a severely blond moment not to have thought through the implications of his ridiculous idea." In the midst of the blogger's written fit, a theory is advanced by him or a third-party comboxer that goes something like this: "Wow, it's pretty clear that Dave really, really touched a nerve with this monkey-headed-ass-brain."

I would suggest that is clear that someones nerve has been really, really touched. Really. And it's fairly clear whose.

My conclusions? First: if you criticize a critic for criticizing you should prepare for some criticism. Second: at the very least, please develop a better sense of irony whether or not you have a decent sense of humor.