Hey, it's not nice to point!
Do you like my UFOs?
Music reviews, editorials, gear reviews for the guitarist/bass player, journal entries, advice, funny crazy stuff and more. Updated roughly 2-3 times a week.
|
iTunes I'm Diggin On Today:My Links: |
Monday, August 01, 2005Commentary: Political Columnists
What I find be simultaneously terrifying and comical is the paradoxical conundrum that plagues every political columnist on either side of the many fences there are to stand upon in the present-day political scene. Forgive me the metaphor as I digress, but today’s political columnists are paid to stand alone in a crowded hallway of lobbyists, bloggers, political hobbyists, and partisan publications and shout at the top of their lungs, so everyone in the hallway can hear, their stance on political issues in the most articulate but non-offensive means possible. They do so with full knowledge that those in that hallway that agree, will silently nod and go about their business, while those that do not agree, a percentage of them anyway, will lash out, retaliate, and will do so without the self-restraint required of the initiating columnist. A columnist at best can only respond to these attacks one at a time. Many are deemed not worthy of a response at all, and when they are disregarded, retaliators respond in kind with declarations of having won a debate which never took place, claiming a lack of response was somehow an admission of being out-witted. With every articulate, non-offensive response the columnist makes to the responses of his original column, comes another wave of retaliatory “no holds barred” style attacks from the disagreeing masses. It’s akin to watching Neo fight off an unending stream of Agent Smiths. For every one he defeats, creates four more until the sheer number of attackers is so overwhelming, even though the original columnists believes and knows his stance to be legitimate he simply cannot keep up with it. Thus the oppressive masses once again declare victory. And the silent agreeing masses watch, and talk amongst themselves of the display, but never intervening. “Better him than me” they think to themselves. So the question remains, does the columnist write to persuade disagreeable agitators his cause? Or to egg them on in debate in an attempt to expose them for the abusive mud-slingers they are? Or does he do it to encourage the silent masses of sympathizers? Or perhaps he simply does it for himself.
Bazooka-Joe made it so at 9:44 AM
0 Comments: |
