I hadn’t noticed this until I read Tom Hamilton’s post at Let’s Be Sensible, but the Devil’s Kitchen calls the Mr Eugenides essay that I blogged about “one of the finest posts ever written“. Does Eton College do refunds?
Also, having read the latest post at Never Trust A Hippy, I must revise my slur on smug bloggers. Lobby journalists describing themselves as “the men and women who make the news” is just squirm-making. (The sight of Iain Dale telling someone to “grow up” in the comments underneath Paulie’s original post adds to the discomfort.) Read Paulie’s comments about the possible regulation of Internet TV at the 18 Doughty Street blog. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, but it’s clear that he’s got Doughty Street’s number.
In the comments under this post at Stumbling and Mumbling, Tom Hamilton links back to his previous excellent piece about double effect ethics which itself was inspired by Eve Garrard’s comments on an earlier post of his. For me that‘s what good political blogging is about: debating serious and important subjects that the bulk of the press can’t be bothered with and doing so with informed concision and with a lightness that doesn’t lapse into crude abuse. There are several freedoms that online commentators have but print ones don’t. Why is it that the one that seems to appeal to so many supposedly grown-up and educated bloggers most is the freedom to call a minister of state whom they disagree with a “twat”?
Thank you for the kind words. I’ve now gone in and amplified and explained some of the more contentious arguments that I made on the Doughty St blog.