Rhetoric Concerning Harsh Rhetoric is Harsh

I don't do politics. Usually. I vote. I have opinions. But mostly I'm disgusted by the influence that talking heads and entertainment pundits have over the hopes, fears, and political zeitgeist of our nation. That's why I don't do politics. Call me cynical, but I wonder how much actual news is on the news anymore. I say, with all seriousness, and I'm not joking, that the news program most worth the American's time is not really a news program. It's the Daily News with John Stewart. It may be liberal, but it does exactly what somebody needs to do; point out the glaring, numerous, and silly inconsistencies and hypocrisies of modern American society.
Americans have an uncanny propensity for debate . And the freedom of speech and freedom of the press are awesome things. With that said, there is something the American people are forgetting these days that is fundamental to their being American; it's okay to strongly disagree. Your enemy is the person who wants to harm you, not the person who simply disagrees with you. As Americans we believe we can talk this out. And as a blogger, I do not purport to give any official or expert opinion, but as an American consider myself well within my rights to share an opinion and hope that those who disagree will comment and that not have to worry about being physically sabotaged, and that maybe we can have a cup of coffee, or (gasp), be friends. The bruising of your ego is not an occasion for hate, but for appreciation. Also, I hope that those who feel as strongly as I do, do not take me as a prophet, but would take a little bit of time to objectively analyze my comments. This seems to be too much to ask in today's political/entertainment climate. Preaching to the choir is as in vogue in the news as it is in churches. I think a lot of you like being in the choir, not only do I prefer to be in the pew, I don' t think you harmonize very well these days. So I may be at the pulpit today, but I'd like the choir to go sit down please.
So I realize that USA Today is a liberal publication. Now I ask, if you have a problem with left-leaning publications, is it because it's not conservative, or because it's biased. They ran a story on the shootings in Arizona with the headline: "Have nasty politics gotten out of hand? with the sub-headline: "Shootings fuel debate on tenor of rhetoric". In the article there is a quote from Rep. James Clyburn, (D) from S. Carolina. He said he worries about the effect of words on "people who may not be clicking on all cylinders" Apparently many Democrats have voiced concerns that the heated and sometimes incendiary comments from right-wing programming is to some degree sparking a dangerous angst among anti-government, ultra-right wing, folks. Republican aide to Sarah Palin is quoted as saying, "This is a terrible politicization of a tragedy" I think she's right. So kudos to USA Today for publishing it. The aide (Mansour) also said "Craziness is not an ideology". Yeah that's true, but most crazy people have an ideology. Mansour does a fantastic job of de-politicizing the issue. (That's sarcasm)
I'm not going to mention anything about how familiar this whole discussion is. How about Marlyn Manson, or Eminem, getting blamed for school shootings and youth violence, and all the lefties saying, "craziness is not an ideology", and the righties, responding that it's not worth the risk, that censorship in this case is necessary to protect individuals? Talk about role reversals. And the truth is that there really is no objective way to measure how much influence Eminem has on already disturbed individuals, or whether his music has the ability to turn otherwise normal people into crazy violent people, but to deny that it has an influence on that basis is ludicrous, so Ms. Mansour, let's be fair. We shan't blame Limbaugh and Beck for the shootings, but to deny that their daily rhetorical programs have a substantial effect on the political mood of our culture is again ludicrous.
If only Beck, Limbaugh, Matthews, and Olbermen were merely sharing opinions and allowing for us to decide. But unfortunately we don't seem to have the patience for discussion. We listen to Beck because he agrees with us, and dismiss Olbermen as unworthy of our attention or we listen to Matthews and dismiss Limbaugh, because hearing an opposite opinion than ours, as opposed to actually sharpening us, we believe today that hearing an opposite opinion will corrupt us. What is this? The middle ages? (And for anyone who wants to claim that the media is overwhelmingly liberal, let us consider the most popular political entertainers: liberal: Matthews, (moderate) Olbermen, and just to be nice, Stewart, and Colbert, although they shouldn't really count. Conservative: Beck, O'Reilly, (moderate) Hannity, Rush. If I count Stewart and Colbert, it's even. If I don't, well it looks like the conservative bias wins. But then they are the newspapers, and magazines. Granted. But I'd like you to name 3 journalist from Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News and World Report) The problem is compounded when none of these people we're listening is even trying to pretend that they trying to be objective. They are shamelessly persuading us. Not that there is not room for opinion based shows on the news, but when we take their obviously spun viewpoints as the way it is, they become not mere talking heads from whom we may gain perspective, but iconoclasts who hold an enormously un-American influence over the thoughts and speech of we 21st century lazy Americans (if we can be truly called that anymore). As opposed to saying, "I already agree with Beck, and what he says is how it is", let us leave the middle ages now and ask one basic fundamental question, "is what he says the pure truth, or is there an angle?" Of course there's an angle.
The article was titled: "Have nasty politics gotten out of hand?" It's a rhetorical question with a simple and straight forward answer. And in the midst of this tragedy it is right to do some self-evaluation, and see what it's potential causes are. Let us also reason together here. To call someone out for politicizing is usually politicizing. It hurts the said cause. This was was out of hand before anyone lost of life, and its problems are not primarily pragmatic. American politics are supposed to be heated, discussion based, and often hairy and difficult. But not nasty. Americans believe that almost everything can be talked out. But if we are really going to "talk" we're going to listen to the other side, be willing to change our own opinion, and leave our ego's at the door. I don't think its about procuring our own political power. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, its about the fact that we can learn to exist as a society with sometimes grossly differing opinions. In America, the belief in freedom of speech supersedes every other belief, and freedom of speech is best protected in honest attempts at objectivity and the willingness to break bread with your political opposite. This is my mere opinion. The Gospel is found in someone else's writings.