Why the vitrol?
In perusing Technorati.com, I found a blog entitled Brilliant at Breakfast. I read it with some interest and great sadness. The writer strikes me as intelligent and fairly well-informed, but in a style that I'm becoming all to familiar with, she writes from the assumption that anyone who disagrees with her is either corrupt or a moron (aka Republican) or both.
Why is it that political discussion has to be this way? Why can't we forcefully and powerfully (and God forbid intelligently) discuss issues that we disagree on without treating our opponents as sub-human idiots? An example from her blog, "The craven, small-minded weasels who still support George W. Bush may applaud this..." Why do supporters of the President (still 1 in 3 of those polled) have to be "craven, small-minded weasels"? She makes some interesting (and scary) points and I would encourage you to read her blog, but she couches it in such disgusting and inflammatory writing that it's hard to keep focussed on the content instead of delivery.
This is not just the perview of the liberal side either. There are plenty of blogs that rave about the idiots that call themselves liberals and/or Democrats (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh anyone?) . Part of the reason that I've started writing is to try and encourage some of these intelligent people to gather and discuss the issues without the vitrol. I hereby challenge any of these intellectuals, from either the left or right, to "bring it on" without the hate talk and demeaning posture.
Thoughts anyone?
1 comment:
I agree. I can't even watch the channels that are supposedly in line with my own point of view. Our elected officials have devolved - evolution in a less advanced direction - into professional politicians when America and the world is in desperate need of diplomats and statespersons. Our media has moved from being tacit supporters of the old system to self-appointed powerbrokers who believe they better represent the common man. We are the losers in this game.
Post a Comment