Blogging In Anger

Well …

I have to confess I’ve done it, then regretted it. An otherwise respectable blog gets into it, with this comment:

There’s a great deal I would like to say, but blogging in anger is never a good idea, so I will refrain from commenting further for the time being.

Too bad we didn’t all experience the more important step of refraining from blogging, period.

Conservatives playing word games. Where’s Liturgiam Authenticam for political bloggers when you need it?

About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in Minnesota, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Commentary, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Blogging In Anger

  1. Tony says:

    So stop saying things that tick me off and leading me into sin! :)

  2. While it is good not to write, or to weblog (I resolutely refuse to use the four-lettered contraction), I believe that I can dispassionately say that the actions which the Islamic regime of Sudan has taken to kill villagers, destroy villages, burn farms, rape women, sell children into slavery or the military, and otherwise to destroy the lives and cultures of pagan and Christian natives of Southern Sudan (including but not limited to Darfur) constitutes genocide, according to the definition which both the U.N. and the Geneva Conventions have adopted.

    It is unfortunate that the U.N. has chosen, once again, to overlook the Sudan regime’s actions.

    It is more unfortunate that Jimmy Carter, an otherwise intelligent and honest man, is choosing to do the same.

    I think there is a distinction between writing in anger, and writing dispassionately about a horror worthy of the disgust and outrage of the world.

    I hope that in chiding against committing the former, you are not advocating against the latter.

  3. Todd says:

    Bernard, I’ve commented more directly about this to Alex at the blog in question. His post wasn’t about mass murder, but about the former president and playing word games about it. I guess I don’t see this so much as a model for enemy-of-my-enemy, but an otherwise decent and passionate guy gone a little haywire in his commentary.

    I’m open to a correction on this, but Carter seemed more to be playing a word game in context of a situation that still held a fragment of hope for diplomacy. As it is, I’m sure Carter’s trip, because of his stature and the media coverage opened the eyes of not a few people who had no idea that anything at all was going on in that sorry African country.

    In light of a media focused on All Things American, a citizenry ignorant of Africa and its suffering, a UN (as you say) powerless in the face of any sort of mass murder, I guess I’d say why Alex is teeing off on a man who, despite being a Democrat, actually recognizes something is wrong. A person can get angry about horror. A person can also get angry for other reasons.

    Sadly, I think Alex reveals his true colors when he finds himself unable to accept slightly differing views from his own (and from people who are in agreement with him on the horror of Darfur) without sarcasm and insult.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s