In an attempt to preserve my sanity, several months ago I pledged to stop reading the editorials in our community newspaper. The pompous drivel of certain contributors had become unbearable. Alas, some issues, such as the environment, religion, and politics draw me in like a moth to the flame. The other day I tried to scan the editorial page while squinting to avoid seeing anything provocative, but to no avail. The name of one particularly prolific writer caught my eye and against my better judgment, I began to read.
To avoid confusion, we'll call this man Thing 1. Thing 1 was responding to a letter in the previous week's paper written by a man we will call Thing 2. Thing 2 was concerned about the attempts of some members of Congress to water down (pardon the pun) the Clean Air/Clean Water Act and the potential effect this could have on global warming.
*(I give full credit to Dr. Seuss for use of the names Thing 1 and Thing 2)
Let me stress that global warming is not the main issue here. The issue is civil discourse.
To provide a context, here are a few excerpts from Thing 1's letter..... "if carbon dioxide is a pollutant, does that mean all of us are polluters when we exhale? Will we need permits (to breathe)?" The idea that we would have to stop breathing to combat global warming, while undeniably hilarious, defies logic.
Thing 1 further laments "that radical environmentalism is killing our economy." Call me a cockeyed optimist, but are a healthy economy and a healthy environment mutually exclusive? In addition, why does he feel the need to disparage Thing 2's desire to pass on a liveable planet to our children? This kind of thinking makes my brain hurt.
I suddenly came up with a novel idea. People writing an editorial could not only use common sense, they could treat those with whom they disagree respectfully. Lose the sarcasm. Take the high road. I, for one, would be more receptive to what they have to say under those conditions. Unfortunately, it's naive to think that everyone is motivated by this utopian ideal. I think some people just want to stir things up.
(And yes, I realize that I too would have to behave accordingly. For the purposes of today's post, however, sarcasm is essential.)
The editorial page of our local paper is beginning to resemble the 60 Minutes segment “Point – Counterpoint” with Shana Alexander and James J. Kilpatrick. For those too young to remember it, Wikipedia explains:
To avoid confusion, we'll call this man Thing 1. Thing 1 was responding to a letter in the previous week's paper written by a man we will call Thing 2. Thing 2 was concerned about the attempts of some members of Congress to water down (pardon the pun) the Clean Air/Clean Water Act and the potential effect this could have on global warming.
*(I give full credit to Dr. Seuss for use of the names Thing 1 and Thing 2)
Let me stress that global warming is not the main issue here. The issue is civil discourse.
To provide a context, here are a few excerpts from Thing 1's letter..... "if carbon dioxide is a pollutant, does that mean all of us are polluters when we exhale? Will we need permits (to breathe)?" The idea that we would have to stop breathing to combat global warming, while undeniably hilarious, defies logic.
Thing 1 further laments "that radical environmentalism is killing our economy." Call me a cockeyed optimist, but are a healthy economy and a healthy environment mutually exclusive? In addition, why does he feel the need to disparage Thing 2's desire to pass on a liveable planet to our children? This kind of thinking makes my brain hurt.
I suddenly came up with a novel idea. People writing an editorial could not only use common sense, they could treat those with whom they disagree respectfully. Lose the sarcasm. Take the high road. I, for one, would be more receptive to what they have to say under those conditions. Unfortunately, it's naive to think that everyone is motivated by this utopian ideal. I think some people just want to stir things up.
(And yes, I realize that I too would have to behave accordingly. For the purposes of today's post, however, sarcasm is essential.)
The editorial page of our local paper is beginning to resemble the 60 Minutes segment “Point – Counterpoint” with Shana Alexander and James J. Kilpatrick. For those too young to remember it, Wikipedia explains:
"For most of the 1970s, the program (60 Minutes) included the Point/Counterpoint segment in which a liberal and a conservative commentator would debate a particular issue. This originally featured James J. Kilpatrick representing the conservative side and Nicholas von Hoffman for the liberal, with Shana Alexander taking over for von Hoffman after he departed in 1974. Point/Counterpoint was also lampooned by the NBC comedy series Saturday Night Live, which featured Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd as debaters, with Aykroyd typically beginning his remarks with, "Jane, you ignorant slut".
The interesting thing is that Shana Alexander's niece, Hannah Bentley is quoted as saying "her aunt........ and Kilpatrick were good friends off camera". This kind of civility is what we have lost in the last several years but I think we can recapture it. Let's agree to disagree, but when we're done, part with a handshake.
Copyright 2011 KKR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7S_XWuKpHc&feature=related
No comments:
Post a Comment