I Have a Very Low CCQ ...

... in my lexicon, that stands for "Conflict and Controversy Quotient".

Despite my background as a debater and as an attorney, and despite my loving to discuss controversial subjects, I despise actual conflict. And I hate being the cause of any sort of controversy.

It was for this reason that, after 2 years of practicing law, I concluded that I wasn't really cut out for an occupation that requires one to be a zealous advocate in an adversarial legal system. This was also the reason that, despite growing up with an aspiration to go into national politics, I turned out to be a fairly mediocre mayor of the smallest town in Virginia.

I would love to take bold stands on the issues and say things to tick people off. But I just ain't got it in me. There's no "fire in the belly" when it comes to being controversial or creating conflict.

Vicariously, then, I admire folks like:

Regular Guy Paul, who writes what we're all thinking but are too polite to say;

Kathy Shaidle, who decided long ago that she just doesn't give a damn what other people think;

Mark Shea, who can stake out a position and keep hammering away at it until he's convinced 90-something % of St. Blog's that he's right, even if most of them think he's an ass in the way he's gone about expressing said position;

Tom McKenna, who is not afraid to take on and disagree with the big boys of the blogosphere and formulate a coherent argument that causes you to pause and think about it even if you don't necessarily agree with everything he says;

and finally

Catholic Caveman and Carolina Cannonball, who take on all comers and give no quarter.

Folks, I admire your intestinal and testicular fortitude (that's "guts" and "nuts" - d'oh, somebody's going to take exception to that). I wish I had it. Alas, I was raised by a Southern belle of a mother, to whom the worst thing you could possibly do was give offense (intended or unintended) to another. So, I'll continue my "safe" blogging and leave the hardcore chain-jerking stuff to the rest of you.

Which brings me to this: Do any of you see anything particular offensive about this post from earlier today? I sorta fisked some college newspaper editorial, and, although it didn't get much play among the faithful of St. Blog's, it seems to have raised some interest at the University of Michigan (at least based on the number of hits I've received from there today). One commenter had this to say:

While you definitely have a valid argument concerning Donahue not being officially connected to the Church, I wonder why the majority of the rest of your argument was spent criticizing the journalist's character? "Wannabe" journalist? How does that add to your argument, beyond helping you come off as a fiery, self-righteous jerk? As if her journalism skills had anything to do with the idea of the article, which was, in my opinion, very well-written to begin with. It's too bad that God gave people who disagree with you the capacity to be good writers. Keep spreading the "Love" Brother.

Was there anything particular "unloving", "fiery" or "self-righteous" about that post, apart from the fact that I disagreed with what the editorialist had to say? I started feeling bad thinking maybe I had been mean in beating up on some college student, but then, I don't think there was anything out of bounds in what I wrote.

Again, I have a low CCQ, so I'm probably just being a p*ss about this. Now, you see, that's going to get me into trouble. Believe it or not, I once received an email from a priest admonishing me about my use of unsavory language, which I must say is fairly tame by blogging standards (even when compared to the language used by St. Bloggers). And let's not even get started on that post about a certain Brazilian virgin who happens to be a pro-life Catholic and models women's underbritches for a certain mail-order chain.

For someone who hates controversy and conflict, I seem to draw my fair share of it.