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.

Somehow I saw a reference to the encore presentations and decided to check the schedule. La Boheme was being shown in St. Louis Park on a night where I had no excuses. I’d heard of it, of course but knew virtually nothing about it. I read a few synopses on the internet and I liked the fact that it didn’t have very many characters. If it was going to be in Italian, I would need to be able to recognize who was who. I checked with Mitchell to see if I would need to have my tuxedo taken out a goodly number of inches. He assured me that opera and going to Mass were pretty much the same, couture-wise, these days: Come as you are.

[How many of you remember impromptu “Come as you are –right now!- parties” from the 50s? They were all the rage for a while. That was a time when all the men wore fedoras and people dressed up to go to the barber shop or the corner grocery store. It was revealing and amusing if people would dare show up at a house party wearing clothing they wore (or didn’t wear) behind locked doors. For better or worse, the beatniks and the hippies changed all that for us.]

On the appointed evening I drove out to the enormous megaplex, near Hwys 394 and 100. I suppose there were 75 or so of us there on that gorgeous Summer evening. Fortunately, the fellow sitting next to me (munching popcorn) was a real fan, of probably the same vintage as me, had been to the Met many times. He gave me a few tips and answered a few novice questions.

Well, Tuffy, it sure didn’t sound like Gregorian Chant, generally slow, low and controlled.  But with helpful subtitles and camera close-ups, it didn’t take me long before I was fully enraptured by the performances.

The 2008 Met performance (Conductor: Nicola Luisotti; Production: Franco Zeffirelli; Angela Gheorghiu, Ainhoa Arteta, Ramón Vargas, Ludovic Tézier, Quinn Kelsey, Oren Gradus, Paul Plishka) was easy to follow, very enjoyable, surprisingly (to me) amusing at times, and at other times the performances were tearfully thrilling. I had forgotten that both Shakespeare and Mozart were not above using a little slapstick humor in their theatrical works to keep the attention of the peanut gallery in the cheap seats in the back. If this is opera, I‘ll need to see some more.

One of the great things about these digital performances is that there are no “cheap seats.” With the close-up camera, everything seem to be performed as if I was the only person watching. I would love to have seen Beverly Sills in a digital performance like this. She had an incredible ability to perform and personally communicate (and enjoy herself), all at the same time.

I’m kind of a geeky guy, logistically speaking. (One of my favorite books is The Logistical History of the U.S. Army in World War II). I particularly enjoyed it when the camera would show a bit of the set changes between the acts and even of the camera that was on a rail below the performers that could follow their movements. In just a few seconds it showed how enormously complex it is to put on an opera of this size at the Met. The control room for the stage manager must be like that of a NASA shuttle launching or the NBC Nightly News. Occasional views of the audience confirmed that Mitchell is right, even there were a few casually dressed fans.

The second act, a street and tavern scene (see picture above), must have had 400 performers on the stage, all exquisitely costumed, in motion, yet not being able to move very far, somewhat like you would see at times on the Midway at the Minnesota State Fair. Except carny barkers don’t sing like that. Although I must admit I am greatly amused and entertained by the carny talkers’ calls and cracks to get the rubes to part with some of their hard earned cash. It reminded me also of some of the beautiful street scenes from the movie, Oliver!.

The sound also was unbelievably pure. How those performers can fill the cavernous Metropolitan Opera House, unamplified, I don’t understand. Of course, they would have had very expensive boom microphones for the digital performance recording.

I once attended a performance of Peter, Paul and Mary in the Albert Hall in London (Army leave time), about 1967 or so. It’s probably comparable in size to the Met Opera House. The sound was great. We had good seats, probably in the front third of the huge theater. Then the sound failed for maybe ten seconds. We could just barely hear them while they continued to sing; and then the sound came back on, uninterrupted for the rest of the performance.

On a personal level, I totally approve of the casting of this performance. I didn’t see too many men with 28” waists. Very good for my morale! Another reason to like opera!

Here are the rest of the performances for few last weeks of the Summer Encore Season. (Turondot and Carmen, and if you want to go to Canada for that performance, Madama Butterfly). Go and enjoy yourself if you haven’t seen an opera before. ◙

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.

Wish I'd Written That

By Mitchell

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

Terry Teachout at About Last Night

Wish I'd Written That

By Mitchell

Hopkins: Ben, I want y'to see some cards I"ve gon 'n' had printed up that ought t'save everybody here a whole lot of time 'n' effort, considering the epidemic of bad disposition that's been going around lately. "Dear sir: You are without any doubt a rogue, a rascal, a villain, a thief, a scoundral, and a mean, dirty, stinking, sniveling, sneaking, pimping, pocket-picking, thrice double-damned, no good son-of-a-bitch" - and y'sign y'r name. What do y'think?

Franklin: I'll take a dozen right now!

Stephen Hopkins to Benjamin Franklin in 1776, by Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards

[You know, if bloggers just adopted this idea, it could save everyone a lot of time and effort...]

More on Politics and Art

By Drew

Earlier this spring we engaged in a nifty four-part discussion of politics and art (part one starts here; it continues with two, three and four).

Now one of our favorite sites, 2Blowhards, continues a similar thread. Check it out, particularly the combox where there is a great discussion going. (Including a comment from our own co-leader!)

More Mr. Wizard

By Mitchell

As an addendum to our pieces on Mr. Wizard last week, here is a very nice tribute to him from the indespensible site TVParty. Don't forget to check out the other great features at Billy Ingram's site, including the blog (with some nice links to us!) and this wonderful rundown on the 1972-73 TV season (which, the critics promised us, would be filled with sure-fire hits such as Bridget Loves Bernie and The Julie Andrews Hour. Remember The Paul Lynde Show? Anyone? Anyone?

In Case You Missed It...

By Drew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Advice

By Drew

Here's another good quote:

"I have a talent for silence and brevity. I can keep silent when it seems best to do so, and when I speak I can, and do usually, quit when I am done. This talent, or these two talents, I have cultivated. Silence and concise, brief speaking have got me some laurels, and, I suspect, lost me some. No odds. Do what is natural to you, and you are sure to get all the recognition you are entitled to."

Rutherford B. Hayes, diary entry, Nov. 20, 1872

Would that we (and the rest of the blogosphere) took that advice more often...

This Would Explain a Lot About Why the Blogosphere Isn't Better

By Mitchell

Via the Onion.

Why do I feel as if I know most of those people?

UPDATE: Drew wonders if that last comment of mine was intended to suggest the existence of something such as P.J. O'Rourke's Enemies List, and whether or not any of our fellow bloggers should take umbrage at it. Well, we're far too genteel around here to have something such as an enemies list; and no, if you're listed on the sidebar, you have nothing to fear. However, there certainly have been cases in the past when a blog has disappeared from the sidebar - were they part of the 38%? We report - you decide.

"Stranger Than Fiction" Part II

By Drew

I find it hard to believe that anyone took this story seriously, but apparently some did. Gentlemen, what are we doing wrong that this doesn’t happen to any of our stories? Perhaps (in the spirit of Mitchell’s “truth is stranger than fiction”) they need to be more outrageous before people will start believing them? Steve, get to work!

Around the Horn

By Mitchell

Elsewhere,

• At 2Blowhards, Michael offers an excellent piece on the latest disturbing, exhaustingly trying trend: crying at the office. In this confessional, Oprahfied, touchy-feely culture we've developed, I suppose this shouldn't be surprising. The stat of the day, from Michael: "One shrink estimates that 'the average college student in 2006 was 30% more narcissistic than the average student in 1982.' Given how self-centered college kids were back in the early '80s, that's a frightening figure." And that, as I am wont to say, explains a lot.
  
• At Architecture and Morality, Relievedebtor asks whether the Imus flap hurts or helps conservatives. Does the almost complete ban on serious discussion of issues such as race mean, as Relievedebtor fears, that "unless there is enormous push-back among voters and consumers, the sensitive nature of political correctness in America Imus exposed will make it much harder for a conservative to now be elected president," or will it be that "If the frustration over what happened to Imus and the subsequent debate about hip-hop and hypocrisy in the media builds, an outspoken conservative may be able to awaken the sleeping Republicans." I hope for the second, but fear the first. But I agree wholeheartedly with his conclusion, that "ideas must continue to be of primary importance, not the opinions of others." Including bloggers!
  
• Two wildly differing opinions on Puccini's Il Trittico, which appears tomorrow afternoon as the Met's final moviecast of the season. An Unamplified Voice was distinctly unimpressed with it, while Jay Nordlinger at the New York Sun was far more favoribly disposed. I always enjoy reading Nordlinger; his opinions are frequently reliable, and when he doesn't like something he has a way of letting you know without resorting to the cattiness so often present in reviews of this type. So who's right? Perhaps we'll know after the live broadcast tomorrow.
  
• Mstislav Rostropovich, one of the greatest cellists ever and a staunch opponent of Communism, died earlier today. A friend of Solzhenitsyn, Rostropovich was outspoken in fighting for the rights of dissidents and eventually fled the Soviet Union in the 70s. He memorably performed Bach at the base of the crumbling Berlin Wall, returned to Russia during the abortive Communist coup attempt in 1991, and will remain a giant of classical music long for as long as there is classical music. R.I.P.