Category Archives: Blogging Evangel

Untitled-11

Some Thoughts On The Recently Concluded BlogCon In Charlotte (From Someone Who Wasn’t There)

Sometime back in the ’70s, I read an issue of Guitar Player magazine with Carlos Santana as the cover story. This was back in his Devadip Carlos Santana days when he followed guru Sri Chinmoy, his picture always next to Santana’s monitors during live performances. Anyway, Santana told the story of attending an Elvin Bishop show and how his mix of good times blues and rock made him realize that the highest form (or level, or some such) of spirituality is joy. Santana concluded the observation by noting if he couldn’t have joy, then he didn’t care much for spirituality.

This came to mind earlier today when contemplating two seemingly disconnected events, one being the now concluded BlogCon in Charlotte and the other a blog post by Jennifer Dailing Waite detailing her frustration with, and anger toward, God over the daily sorrows she bears. She has very legitimate beefs: a father who passed away far too soon, her husband’s difficult and genuinely dangerous job others sneer at because he’s a government employee, a house that stubbornly refuses to sell leaving her and her family’s living arrangements in limbo, and a son mentally and emotionally kept away from her and everyone else as he’s locked up in autism’s mocking prison. It’s the latter that is sapping her strength and faith the most.

I call the two things disconnected because despite BlogCon being, at least in theory, all about promoting blogging and the blogging community while educating bloggers on how to do things better, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Based on tweets from those present, it was in fact an extended session of tongue baths, mutual admiration society sessions and as much partying as could be crammed into three nights and two days. Oh, and a lot of people claiming affiliation with Andrew Breitbart’s legacy.

Really?

As I mentioned the other day, although I never met nor spoke with Breitbart, based on numerous reports from those who did I have no doubt that had we ever met and actually conversed beyond a brief himynameis moment he would have taken the time to look up this modest little way station on the information superhighway and offered it, i.e. me, a hand up toward increased exposure. From his associates I’ve learned to expect no such thing. It’s a mixture of ironic and disappointing that the closest association I’ve ever had with anyone on Breitbart’s roster came when the Daily Beast linked to a post I wrote detailing Dana Loesch, in my opinion, behaving foolishly. There’s something about aggressively engaging your enemies yet not giving those on your side the time of day I’ve never quite fathomed. Perhaps it’s just me.

I’m hardly alone in this regard. There are many writers out there, truly superb writers, who deserve maximum exposure far, far more than I do yet never receive their just share. Either they don’t kiss the right ass (or don’t kiss at all), or they don’t go to the right parties… er, conferences, or what have you. Whatever the reason may be, they’re not welcome. As a result, the world to which we’re supposed to be communicating truth suffers.

Last night on Twitter, after having read one too many “look at me — SQUEE!” comments from BlogCom attendees I ranted: “I started blogging to express opinions, share information and communicate with people, not to join some eternal high school clique. Blogging’s purpose should be ‘what do you think of this idea, news, opinion or analysis.’ Not ‘look at MEEEEE!’ Blogging is supposed to be a non-hierarchical entity when people of like mind share with, and promote, each other based on common beliefs.” When I read Jennifer’s post this morning, these thoughts crystallized all the more.

There’s certainly nothing objectionable in people of like mind gathering together to share ideas and information along with enjoying one another’s company. And if some of us can’t go for financial reasons, or as in the case of Jennifer not able to leave family for a number of days, that’s life and there’s no sense in becoming angry. Hope everyone who is going has a great time; hopefully those of us not there will in time get a turn on the carousel. However, when what should be a group effort splinters into cliques making no effort to enrich the whole, there’s a problem. And no, pounding down brewskis in Stephen Kruiser’s hotel suite isn’t advancing the conservative cause or helping anyone not in attendance.

Of what use is a BlogCon, or RightOnline or what have you, to those not in attendance? Do they encourage attendees to reach out to those not there, letting them know blogging by people of like minds is an inclusive entity? Or are the fortunate hotel and convention center dwellers so busy consuming red meat and ego strokes in-between photo ops and pounding down shots they forget there is a community outside their door?

What it comes down to is that all people matter and many of them have something worthwhile to say, not just the ones who can afford a ticket to the party. When you’re feeling like mus adulteri Dei because you’re at wits and faith’s end, it’s difficult to not wonder if it’d kill people to put the drink down long enough to reach out to you. We may be rat bastards, but we still like to look at the city of lights and dream of one day being welcomed by its residents. So how about it?

The beautiful people, all send their excuses:
(Real estate and sex lives, livestock and ex-wives)

But the poor are coming, the lame are running
In their sleazy clothes and orthopedic shoes
There’s a harelip spokesman shouting out the news

“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”

There’s a string ensemble, and the King’s court jester
Telling parables and big jokes, to mongoloids and old folks

The blind are seeing, the dead are breathing
And the mummies dance in geriatric style
The amputees are rolling down the aisles

“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”

Candlelight and party hats, duck and pheasant under glass
Aluminum walkers, thin white canes, caviar and pink champagne
The bride and the groom waltz on
Club foot lane at the banquet at the world’s end
The banquet at the world’s end
The banquet at the world’s end

Say the beautiful people (the poor are coming)
“We’ll live with the lights out (the lame are running)
Leave us alone now because (the blind are seeing)
Hell feels like home now” (the dead are breathing)

Meanwhile…

But the poor are coming, the lame are running
In their sleazy clothes and orthopedic shoes
There’s a harelip spokesman shouting out the news

“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”
“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”
“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”

Bit Of A Pet Peeve

First, a quick reminder of the four tenets of the blogging evangel:

  1. The ability to broadcast ones opinion neither elevates nor validates said opinion.
  2. Blog from and for the heart, not the bank account.
  3. Answer your e-mail every time all the time.
  4. Never become what you profess to oppose. Never.

Now…

One surefire way to set me off is be the other person in this conversation:

Me: I’m not happy with Person A.

Other: Why not?

Me: I’ve written them several times and they’ve never written me back.

Other: Well, they’re busy.

And I’m not?

And my time is less valuable than theirs?

And I’m not deserving of a reply because… what, they’re better than me or anyone else?

No, they’re not.

So answer your e-mail.

And don’t make excuses for people who don’t.

Period.

Gettin’ Riehl

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

One of the great myths perpetrated by blogging aficionados is the notion of our avocation being a self-policing realm. Really?

Sure, you can easily call someone on whatever they say should it be less than truthful. However, the one accused can with equal ease either ignore the charge or fire back with the defense popularized by the late Johnny Cochrane: always, always attack. It can be a very effective method of diverting attention even as it conveniently sidesteps the fundamental issue. Is what was said right?

And was it right to say it?

We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

It’s very easy to pop off online. Chances are good to excellent you’ll have some rush to your defense no matter what while others will attack and accuse no matter what. In the political realm, the dividing line is almost always left and right. Which, despite what people on both sides of the debate often insist, has nothing to do with right and wrong.

This is especially true for the believer. The rules of behavior laid down by Jesus do not make exceptions based on whether one is Democrat or Republican. Nor is allowance given for the schoolyard cry of “they started it” and/or “they do it too.” So what? Other people get drunk, pop pills, sleep around, lie, cheat, steal and commit every other sin under the sun. Does that mean it’s okey-dokey for those of us who claim faith in Christ to sin with abandon? No.

So why is it acceptable to say whatever we want to in any manner we wish online when it comes to politics?

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts.

Dan Riehl is a conservative political blogger who’s mid-tier in popularity. By mid-tier I mean he gets as many visitors to his blog every five seconds as I get here per month, this as opposed to the top level people who get that many per second. Hey, he works a lot harder at it than I do. And, judging by the number of posts he writes per day, obviously has a lot more time to write.

The other day, the wife and daughter of Senator majority leader Harry Reid were injured in a car accident. Most people online, including conservatives who have exactly nothing nice to say about Reid politically and in more than a few cases personally, expressed sympathy and support.

Most.

Riehl came out shooting and never stopped. Dripping with sarcasm, he argued that Mrs. Reid, who is in her late sixties, wasn’t worth the expense of her medical treatment. After all, wasn’t that at the core of the Democratic platform for health care reform? Spend the money on those deserving? And why should anyone care about an old woman’s life when the Democrats considered abortion to be a perfectly acceptable method of reducing medical costs? If the lives of the unborn aren’t worth anything…

Naturally, the post drew heat from both sides. And not a little attention to Riehl.

Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

As far as the general public is concerned, blogger wars hold close to the same level of interest as a three hour video seminar on proper lint trap cleaning technique. This duly noted, unlike the former there is some genuine value to the latter in that it’ll increase efficiency of drying your clothes after the wash cycle has completed.

Unless you live online and are hyperpolitical, not only do you not know who or what Riehl, Media Matters and/or Tabitha Hale are, you don’t care. Why should you? They have no impact on your life. They live in their own world, one where what one says for the benefit of their audience is of paramount importance. You live in yours. You have your own concerns. As it should be.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

Cycle back to what was said earlier about the myth of a self-policing blogosphere. Aside from the occasional mild scolding, where were the voices telling Riehl he was completely out of line? Certainly there is just cause in pointing out the indefensible hypocrisy of treating health care as a political football, foolishly preaching that massive government involvement is a solution to the very real problems we all currently face. Definitely mention in the strongest possible terms that life begins at conception and is sacred every step along the way, from conception to birth to all the stages of life to death. But like this? No.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

If the unborn mean that much to you, do something about it. Look up your local unwed pregnant girl — you won’t have to look far — and offer to adopt her child. Or, turn off your computer and go on a date. Fall in love with someone other than yourself. Get married. Have a kid or two or more. Simply put, do the megaforce. Deeds not words.

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.

What really matters here? Getting your point across? Or getting your name out there? If it’s the former, speak clearly and forcibly. But not like a brat whining about who started it. If your only defense is “they’re punks too,” skip it. You have nothing to say, no matter how many sycophants you attract.

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

Speaking online in a Christ-like manner will not make you popular. It means you tell the truth always. It means you discipline your own. It means you discipline yourself. It means you extend an open hand to your enemies. If they choose to slap it away, let it be on them. Not on you because you played the punk.

That is getting real.

Which apparently has little in common with gettin’ Riehl.

Who Says Who’s On First?


We have many running jokes in the San Francisco Bay Area. Most of them involve most of our professional sports teams… well, teams consisting of people who get paid. Calling them professional is a bit of a stretch. But I digress. Anyway, given how most of the running with said teams consists of watching the other team while it’s running up the score, a line comes to mind: “Yeah, they’re incompetent stumblebums. But they’re MY incompetent stumblebums! And don’t you forget it!”

Jokes about how it’s necessary for fans to defend the local teams since none of them have any defense of their own aside, it’s interesting to note whose colors we choose to wear. More than a little of our identity is rooted in those, or what, with whom or which we choose to be identified. Even if we prefer to be considered solely on our individual merits, quick references by others for the purpose of categorization are unavoidable. This is the nature of things.

Taking this from the abstract to the concrete, lately it’s become apparent that in political matters there is a disconnect within the discourse. Be it Nancy Pelosi or variations thereof dismissing the electorate’s will with a sniff and insistence they know best, or citizen pundits shouting in outrage when politicians they normally favor refuse to in every matter bow to their will, the words being written and spoken have scant connection between the perceived power of the communicator and their genuine level of control.

Man has long paid lip service to God while in fact saying “look at me!” Nothing new here. That duly noted, it’s alarming and more than a tad disheartening to see how this mindset is manifesting itself among those who are seemingly rather enraptured with themselves and the illusion of wielding power because they have a blog.

Examples… sure. Consider the outrage, commented on earlier this month, over Sarah Palin skipping CPAC. Which, when boiled down, constitutes a self-centered, self-important temper tantrum. “But… but I’M going to be there!” Oh how lovely for you; hope it’s a valuable, enriching experience. But if someone isn’t, not only are they not eligible for membership in the Kool Kidz Klub it’s a personal diss? Yeahright.

And who are we again? Or perhaps better said, what are we?

Oh, wait, that’s right.

Dust.

And we are not being mindful of the difference between gain and value.

Value is educating others and working together for a common cause. Value is winning over hearts and minds. Value comes not from seeking the approval and applause of others, but rather from giving, caring and sharing without concern for who gets the credit.

Value comes not from allegiance but rather identification. Consider the example of Christ:

“Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

The apostles attitude was since the man wasn’t one of them, he had no place claiming any form of identification with Christ. He begged to differ.

He knew the value of this man.

And what is gain?

Gain is the promotion of self, choosing to be surrounded with those who promote you even as you similarly promote them in a mutual admiration society dance. To seek gain is to long for power, prestige and position. By any means necessary, gain works toward not the common good but rather personal glory.

It’s a luxury we cannot afford.

Remember the four tenets of the blogging evangel:

  1. The ability to broadcast ones opinion neither elevates nor validates said opinion.
  2. Blog from and for the heart, not the bank account.
  3. Answer your e-mail every time all the time.
  4. Never become what you profess to oppose. Never.

We could use some healthy doses of One and Four right about now.

Who Cares If This Will Play In Peoria

Still running short of material, alas. Thus, for your dining and dancing pleasure here is yesterday’s column from the Examiner.

This one took a long time to write. I felt the need to constantly examine (no pun intended) the whys of its content. Was I writing what I believed, and was I willing to accept the instant ostracization that would come with it should any of the Kool Kidz currently ruling the politically conservative blogosphere’s roost come across it? In the end, I decided it was indeed what I believe. And how would being ostracized differ in the least from where I am now? Better to tell the truth and be a pariah than play along for the sake of popularity.

With all that, I present…

Michelle Malkin’s professional culture of corruption

A quick glance at the top selling book list on Amazon and elsewhere shows that when it comes to choice of reading material, at the moment politics and religion are king. Currently conservative tomes are riding high, this being the inverse of what was prevalent during the previous administration. Apparently if you’re not running things at the moment, might as well read someone ripping on those who are.

At or near the top of the sales charts, depending on which one you’re looking at, is Culture Of Corruption by Michelle Malkin. Ms. Malkin is a leading light in the conservative journalism realm, particularly online where between her own site and HotAir, which she owns, there is an average of close to a million visitors per day.

Ms. Malkin’s presentation is in the same mold as most every political commentator regardless of their leanings: I am the champion of truth, justice and the American way; if you disagree with me you’re a babbling moron. This in and of itself is fine, as one should have the courage of their convictions. However, in Ms. Malkin’s case her professional actions belie her spoken intent.

A preface as to why this is so is in order. The debate over what should be a Christian’s approach to politics has been ongoing since the days when Christ was walking the earth. His own comments on the matter were sparse and succinct: give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Other than that He had very little to say on the matter. Apparently it wasn’t a priority to Him. There’s a lesson in that.

Jesus’ message was repentance of sins, salvation through faith in Him and take care of each other — feed the hungry, help the poor. He didn’t make political speeches above and beyond the aforementioned give whatever government you’re under its due while you do what you’re supposed to do. Whether the political aspect, if any, of your reaching that point leads you to be a flag-waving conservative or socially minded liberal is your call. It’s also a secondary issue. Getting there by doing the things He commands in taking care of one another is the primary focus.

While Scripture unfailingly condemns isolation from the world, i.e. other people who do not share the faith, it unfailingly speaks of separation from the world. Why? The fallen nature of the world has nothing in common with the spiritual nature of life in a risen Savior. While a believer is called to reach out to people where they are, the believer is also commanded neither to leave them there nor themselves live in the same fashion. A prime example of this is how Jesus first spared the life of a woman who had committed adultery by telling the crowd, which had gathered nominally to stone her but in fact were there in an attempt to catch Him in His own words, that whoever among them was sinless was more than welcome to condemn the woman for her sin. After the people had dispersed, He told the woman to leave her life of sin. Christ lived among those considered the dregs of society; people such as tax collectors, who by working for the Roman invaders were traitors to their own people, and prostitutes. However, his message to them was never it’s all good. He offered unconditional love, not blanket acceptance. His message was clear: believe, repent, change.

After His ascent into heaven, as the church was created and developed this concept was carried over into its fundamentals. If you’re going to be about the Lord’s work, you need to do so in association with other believers, not non-believers. While maintaining the teaching of Christ about actively sharing His love and following His example of genuinely participating in society, if you’re going to be putting Jesus’ name on it directly or indirectly you’d better be sure you have fellowship by your side and at your back. Don’t throw whatever you run across that coincides with your agenda out there regardless of the source. The devil is a lousy wingman.

If you’re going to say your way is the right way, the Godly way, the Christ-like way, how you bolster your argument and who you work with in promulgating your message matters. Someone who does not share your faith agrees with you? Bully for them. However, this does not negate the fact this person has a critical flaw that threatens to turn fatal at any moment. Namely, they don’t know Jesus. There is a divide between you and them only their accepting Christ can bridge. Walking down the same path politically is never the same as walking together down the narrow path that leads to heaven. The Prince of Peace trumps politics every time. Choose your associates accordingly.

Which leads back to Ms. Malkin’s professional associations.

A central theme running throughout much of the conservative school of thought is the dictum that the movement’s principles and practices are rooted in Christian beliefs. Be that as it may, most of the movement’s leaders, including Ms. Malkin, freely identify themselves as followers of Christ and their political activities being not only correct philosophically and logically, but also spiritually. Therefore, if one extends the tenets noted above about doing the Lord’s work into all aspects of life, a professional exercise rooted in the notion of it being in His service ought to have the same level of commitment to separation as an overtly Christian outreach.

So why doesn’t it?

The main blogger employed by Ms. Malkin at HotAir writes under the pseudonym Allahpundit. Allahpundit is a rabid atheist, frequently making mention of same in assorted blog posts and messages on Twitter. He is openly contemptuous of believers and routinely blasphemous. A quaint word, perhaps, but an accurate description of the man.

It should be noted Ms. Malkin is not alone in the distinction of promoting an individual who at their core rejects the faith professed by the one doing the promoting. Radio talk show host and author Hugh Hewitt, who often writes about his evangelical faith, frequently has atheist political observer Christopher Hitchens as a guest on his show.

How exactly does this work? An individual thinks another individual is an idiot due to their beliefs. Yet because they speak the same language politically, the one considered to be an idiot publicly support the one who considers them an idiot. By what stretch of logic and reason does this make sense? Are politics more important than Christ? Is the number of site visits and/or listeners to a radio show stemming from including these people a greater priority than Jesus? If so, something is seriously wrong.

Not every word out of a Christian’s mouth is going to be “Jesus Jesus Jesus.” There is no justification for isolating oneself from non-believers, associating only with those who share ones faith. That said, if someone is doing what they believe is God’s calling for them, something firmly grounded in Christ, yet in the course of doing so works with those who mock Christ “for the sake of the cause,” they are in serious error. Neither popularity in the public eye and/or among your peers, nor politics, are worth the price incurred by embracing a personal culture of corruption stating Jesus is your Lord and Savior… but isn’t important enough to honor.

Only 526,775 Places Behind (And Proud Of It, Sort Of)

As I write this, God’s Not Dead (And Neither Are We) is the five hundred and twenty-sixth thousandth, seven hundred and seventy-sixth best selling book on Amazon. Culture Of Corruption by Michelle Malkin is first, joining the most recent tomes by Glenn Beck and Mark Levin in the top ten. Which if nothing else proves we conservatives love reassurance. But I digress.

Back to Malkin. This week she’s been dashing to and fro around the country on her publisher’s marketing dime making the rounds of promotional appearances on assorted television programs: Sean Hannity earlier this weekend, the Today Show… well, today. Me? I’m waiting until payday so I can buy a copy of my book and send it to the fine folk at Down the Line. Look ‘em up; it’s good stuff. But again I digress.

I don’t begrudge Malkin her success. I’m not going to suck up to her either in hopes of either riding her coattails or catching some crumbs falling from the master’s table. This is anything but a recommended course of action for one seeking to see their star be so much as visible in the blogosphere and book writing sky with anything less powerful than the Hubble space telescope (when it’s working), let alone rise. But it’s the only way to go for a believer.

Something you’re best advised to learn very early in the process if success if your goal, measured in terms of site visits or book sales, is to spare no efforts at telling everyone you’re a believer while spending as little time as possible actually mentioning said beliefs. The problem with being openly Christian — well, not really a problem; more a fact — is if you actually and actively follow the teachings of Christ, making mention not of your following them in some form of modern-day Pharisaical “ain’t I the holy one who’s oh so proud of his humility” fashion but the actual teachings themselves, is if you’re doing it right sooner or later you’re going to wind up in your own stumbling fumbling and bumbling way imitating Christ in how you conduct yourself.

Which is guaranteed to tick everyone off.

Jesus was an equal opportunity offender. He called out the Pharisees for their hypocrisy even as He chastised His followers for their shortsightedness. His message was demanding and unyielding: take care of each other regardless, love always, follow My commandments. Which when one considers Christ died on the cross so we could have eternal life with Him doesn’t seem like too much to ask.

This leads to moments where you’re going to say, “Hey.” Hey, don’t use cheesecake to promote your blog. Hey, don’t be making “look at me — SQUEE!” your mantra. Hey, don’t be a CWC (Christian when convenient). Hey, don’t be an elitist.

Hey, never become what you profess to oppose.

Bear in mind none of the above will guarantee you a million hits on your blog. One one-millionth of a million hits is more like it. But here’s the catch. It’s okay. If you’re doing the right things for the right reasons, it’s always okay. It’s always more important to do the right thing no matter what. What, God isn’t big enough to get the people who should be reading your stuff connected with same? Better one soul reached for Christ than one hundred thousand sheeples hanging on every word of your latest sermon to the choir while accepting a generous love offering from the congregation.

Would I like hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of daily readers. Of course. But not at the cost of not being true to the Gospel. Not that I don’t work the system to my advanatge when available. A good example of this is my post yesterday for the Examiner. Yes, it occurred to me that putting Erin Andrews’ name in the title would probably generate a certain amount of site visits. However, when those arriving at the post get there, any hoping for either hot pictures or a link to the detestable video of her are going to be a tad disappointed at seeing the only photo being a very nice head shot along with a story decrying what has been done to her while outlining the proper behavior for Christian men against such mind-rapes. They’ll live.

It’s not that every word out of our mouths is going to be or even supposed to be “Jesus Jesus Jesus.” However, all of our words should be rooted in Him. That immediately eliminates throwing whatever out there for the sake of generating heat in order to generate ad revenue. If conflict is created by what you say, let it be because you were preaching Christ, not being a contrarian for the sake of being one as an attention-getter for employment’s sake (*coughallahpunditcough*).

Yeah, I’d like to be better known. But it’s far better that Christ be better known. The goal is hearing Him say “well done, my good and faithful servant.” As opposed to Him smacking me upside the head while saying “what are you doing?!!”

Be The Better

Yesterday, I briefly ruminated about why the now-infamous Playboy article from earlier this week discussing assorted conservative women in decidedly less than genteel terms wasn’t that big of a deal to me.  Apparently I am alone in feeling this way.

No, I don’t consider myself to be either insensitive or a misogynist.  I love women.  I’ve been married to one for over twenty-five years.  She’d make my life not worth living if she thought I looked down on women.  (She’s not all that keen on me looking at them either.  But I digress.)  Rather, to me it’s a case of it a) being the Internet and b) considering the source.  Find yourself swimming upstream in a sewage spill of lewd, crude and rude?  Congratulations, you’re online.  Find yourself one of the named names swirling inside this swill?  Hey, you’ve made it!  You’re nobody until somebody trashes you in a blog or comment.  Both if you’re able to get in on the two for one sale.

Yes, I read the article.  It was vile.  Stunningly so.  The nastiest of hardcore left-wing sites would have suffered pangs of conscience before printing it… maybe.  Letting the commenters riff on the topic, not so much of a difficulty.  But again I digress; back to the article in question.

I have genuine sympathy for the women in it.  No one should have to put up with such garbage.  However, if you haven’t learned by now “should” has no bearing on “does” the Pollyanna Home for the Terminally Naïve is holding a room for you.  First month’s rent is on them.

There are a grand total of three ways one can respond to an attack like this that have genuine value.  The first is directly and profusely thanking the attacker for the free publicity.  Let’s be real: no matter how much we of the blogosphere and variants thereof believe our own hype about being new media’s mack daddy 99 44/100% of us are complete unknowns to one hundred and ten out of one hundred people in the world.  The remaining 56/100% are doing much better.  They’re unknown to one hundred and nine out of one hundred people.  Playboy doesn’t have that problem.  It’s more than a little probable some overhormoned children dressed in adult bodies who before reading the article didn’t have the slightest notion any of the ten women in the article existed will now seek out their work on television or online for the purpose of… need I spell it out?  That said, isn’t this what you want?  The opportunity to be Miss Sarah Brown presented with a captive audience of one dozen genuine sinners?  Playboy is playing the role of Sky Masterson for you.  Hone your message and present it well.  Perhaps you will persuade some to see it your way.

Second, don’t get mad.  Get even.  Take the offending item in question and demolish it, word by word.  Write a parody demonstrating how ludicrous the original is.  Go through it line by line, adding “commentary” accomplishing the same purpose.  If sarcasm was good enough for Jesus and later on Paul, it’s good enough for you.

Finally, as mentioned yesterday there is the option of going Limbaugh on the offender in the same manner he took on Wanda Sykes following her wishing he’d either die or be tortured, preferably both… oh, wait, that’s right.  He’s never so much as acknowledged her.  We’ve all heard how being gracious toward our enemies drives them bonkers.  Treating them as persona non persona when the fuel for their fire against you is getting a reaction?  Sends them over the edge most every time.

Playboy has done the conservative cause a tremendous favor which it is furiously frittering away by being furious.  Temper tantrums?  Demands for an apology?  Men “gallantly” rising to defend the affronted ladies’ honor?  Useless.  It plays right into the hands of those now saying, “See?  Told you those weaklings would lose it the moment someone looked at them cross-eyed.”  Yes, the Playboy article went so far beyond the pale you need a telescope to see it.  But what do you really expect?  It’s Playboy.  It’s the flippin’ Internet.  This stuff and worse hits the Web millions of times each day and every day.  Quit whining and crying.  Do something about it.

Be the better.

Left and right have been throwing bombs at each other online for years, emboldened by perceived anonymity and separation from the ones they target.  Neither side can claim they stand on high moral ground.  Don’t talk to me about who started it or who’s worse.  Both sides are guilty.  Period.

Be the better.

Forget who started it.  Forget the last thing “they” said.  “They,” just like you, are sinners in need of God’s grace.  He loves them too.  Even the ones who reject, despise and mock Him.  Even the ones who cloak themselves in His name yet live lives dedicated to self-glorification or whatever pet sin they fancy.

Be the better.

Don’t fight fire with fire.  Don’t troll for sympathy.  Don’t give in to anger.  Don’t become what you profess to oppose.

Be the better.

I fear that one day in the not-too distant future someone is going to snap.  They’re going to track down a blogger, quite possibly in their search including their family if they have one, and in either a quest for revenge or a spat of indulged rage over something someone said will physically act out their hostility.  One or more people will get hurt.  Or worse.

None of us can stop psychos.  What we can do, individually and collectively, is stem the tide of venom before it turns red.  We can put our hurt feelings aside in favor of imitating Christ by forgiving those who speak against us.  Yes, even those who write perverted obscenities against us.

Why?

Because it’s the right thing to do.  And others not doing the right thing is no excuse for our doing the right thing.

Impossible, you say?  No.  Nothing is impossible with Christ.  Nothing.

Be the better.

Please.

The Speech I Won’t Be Giving This Weekend (Part Four Of Four)

Finishing what I started in the first three posts:

Before getting to the fourth, final, and to me most important tenet of the blogging evangel, indulge me for a minute while I remind you of something I said at the beginning:

We suck.

Seriously.  We absolutely suck.

We suck, because if we didn’t suck we wouldn’t be a marginal, marginalized minority.  We suck, because if our beliefs and philosophies are properly grounded and what we tell is the truth then we should be having an impact in society far beyond the walls of our phonebooth kingdoms.  We suck, because if we didn’t suck we wouldn’t be in this room striving with all our might to convince ourselves and each other everything is all right and we will once again rock you while the Democrats parade around town singing “We Are The Champions.”

Which leads to the fourth tenet of the blogging evangel.

Never become what you profess to oppose.

Never.

When blogging as a forum for political expression first emerged, it was eagerly embraced by conservatives as a vessel with which to counter the liberal bias of traditional media.  Here was the opportunity to, via direct action, establish a model of doing the right thing the right way.  By forsaking the elitist, snobbish and exclusionary mode of traditional media, the opportunity was now available to create a new media, one in which the previously unheard and unnoticed private citizen with something to say could offer news and commentary for consideration by other private citizens without the unspoken censorship of traditional media deciding which voices would be heard and which would be silenced.  There would be a new cooperative, a sharing of ideas and promotion in which all would write and work not for their own gain but on behalf of all for the good of all.  We, you and I together, would forge a covenant with ourselves and our readers; a covenant declaring we would be the antithesis of traditional media’s bigotry toward the principles and values we held to be true.

We lied.

We say we are of and for the people, yet we heartily endorse and promote ourselves as we form cliques the like of which would embarrass the silliest of schoolchildren.  We say we are solely about the message, yet we grovel for every dollar available and whine when they don’t come our way.  We say we are of and for the people, yet we do not speak to each other unless we consider the one attempting communication part of our social strata based on popularity and adherence to the mutual admiration society honor code.  We say we are of and for the people, yet we do not serve the people.  We seek only to be served and reassured that we are who we tell ourselves we are regardless of the evidence provided by our abject failure stating we are anything but who, and what, we pretend to be while admiring ourselves in a lying mirror.

We are what we profess to oppose.

And we wonder why God doesn’t bless us.

God has other plans.

I think of a friend, so burdened with the call to evangelize he has thrown him wholeheartedly into learning the language of another people so he might go to their country and speak to them about the Good News of Jesus Christ.  I think of a friend, one who has given so much in her life she has willingly opened her home to those who had no place to go, now staring into the face of every parent’s worse nightmare as she waits to find out the diagnosis of the lump her daughter found in her breast a few weeks ago.  Yet even with this clawing at her heart, she continues to give.

These are the ones God has blessed.

Meanwhile, we praise and promote Christopher Hitchens, Allahpundit and Charles Johnson.

We behave, in every fashion, in the exact same manner as the ones about who we insist we are the upright alternative.

Therefore, we suck.

And we need to stop.

Now.

Thank you.

Hopefully, next year I won’t have to again write this speech.  But I’m not holding my breath.

The Speech I Won’t Be Giving This Weekend (Part Three Of Four)

Resuming from yesterday:

The third tenet of the blogging evangel is quite simple, really: Answer your e-mail every time all the time.

No, I am not referring to the missives we all get from some grieving relative or financial expert hired to handle the affairs of same asking us to contact their bank in Nigeria.  Although I’ve often wondered when people in Nigeria get these e-mails what country the bank is located in they’re asked to contact.  But I digress.

I’m talking about actual communication, one person to another.

I mentioned a short while ago a saying my late father was fond of.  I inherited many things from him, the greatest man I have ever known.  Including a few I wish I hadn’t, such as his penchant for talking back to his employer and the reason why I have this lengthy scar on my left arm as a souvenir of relieving ulnar nerve entrapment!  The former doesn’t do much for your career advancement potential and the latter is self-explanatory.  But all in all, I’m eternally grateful to him for what he passed on to me.  And I do mean eternally, for he was a man of faith.  One of those things was an affection for creating sayings.  Not in any effort to obtain pop culture fame by coming up with something that would catch on for fifteen minutes, but rather as a vessel for communicating the truth in a succinct manner.  I’m going to now share one of these sayings with you.

If you’re too busy… yes.

We can all come up with any number of reasons why we don’t answer our e-mail.  We get too much, it would take away from our blogging time, blah blah blah.

Bull.

The truth is when we establish ourselves as participants in a social medium, then fail to participate in the social aspects of said medium aside from directly speaking solely to those we deem to be of stature either equal to our own or at a level to which we aspire, we’re not “too busy.”

We’re rude, condescending jerks.

I’d like someone to explain how we can claim to be purveyors of truth when this is the truth.

Who are we to dismiss others?

Remember how earlier I referenced exchanging e-mail with Maryscott O’Connor?  Assuming you can for at least a moment set aside the “what is a conservative doing writing the likes of her” aspect, which I’ll address in a bit, what part of the reference stands out?

We exchange e-mail.

We write each other back.

So what’s your excuse for not doing so with people you are wholly or the majority in agreement with?  Or for that matter, not doing so period?

Again I say it: if you’re too busy… yes.  Yes, you are.  And you are the only one responsible for this being the case.

The conclusion tomorrow.

The Speech I Won’t Be Giving This Weekend (Part Two Of Four)

Picking up where I left off the other day:

The second tenet of the blogging evangel is this: Blog from and for the heart, not the bank account. This should be quite self-explanatory.  And yet so many among us miss it.

Blogging for the bank account isn’t always about posting for pennies.  It also takes the form of blogging not as a means of communication, but rather attempting to assert the self-created image of oneself as being someone.  In this case, the level of “someone” one wishes to be is measured not in deed, or so much as quality of word, but rather by how great is the audience for said word.  Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.”  Today we say, “I am racking ‘em up on Sitemeter, therefore I am the alpha dog.”  One barking furiously at the caravan as it passes by.

Blogging, when it first came into vogue, was a means for individuals who otherwise would have remained forever unknown to the world at large to share their thoughts, observations and feelings on any given topic.  It was to be the great equalizer; the vessel through which all could come together on a level field for consideration based neither on social rank nor traditional media’s designation of who was and wasn’t worthy.  Rather, it would be on quality alone.  There was to be a new spirit of camaraderie and cooperation fused with an active dismissal of elitism.  We would be the living embodiment of strength in diversity.

Boy, were we full of it.

My late father oft repeated a saying that as I recall went, “Where the Vanderbilts speak only to the Rockerfellers, and the Rockerfellers speak only to themselves.”  That is today’s blogosphere.  We do not cooperate.  We only compete.  We do not support each other.  We snark and snarl.  There is no communion.  Only condemnation.  We acknowledge each other only when it gets us somewhere.  And the higher up the totem pole you are, the more dismissive you are of those you believe to be beneath you.

When did the original ideal behind what we do go away?  When did we decide our hobby should be our salary?  Where did the notion come from that we should imitate those we claim to be the antithesis of by classifying, stratifying and ossifying each other based on who does the best job of pandering to the crowd?

This is especially odious for those of us who claim the status of believer.  Or at least, it ought to be.  Have we forgotten the admonition of Christ when He said, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you?”  If you are a Christian and a popular blogger, it’s almost guaranteed you’re doing something very, very wrong.  There are many ways to become a hit on the Internet.  Preaching the Gospel isn’t one of them.  Porn, yes.  Christ crucified and risen?  Not so much.

Do we keep in our minds and hearts the next thing Jesus said?  “Love your enemies.“  Loving your enemy takes two forms.  First, you love them enough and care for them enough to tell them the truth about Christ no matter how it is received.  Second, and equally as important, you treat them like you yourself would like to be treated.  You might be surprised at what happens.  For example, although I in no way consider Maryscott O’Connor an enemy, she and I have approximately seven levels lower than zero in common with each other politically.  Yet we each have a link on our blog to the other person’s blog.  Why?  Because somewhere along the road, she and I talked to each other via e-mail like human beings ought to talk to each other.  Meaning, in case you missed it, we answered each others e-mail.

Which leads to the next tenet.

More tomorrow.