Writing Good About Them Damn Homos
Sorry it's been quiet around here of late. It seems everyone is taking a bit of a blogging break, and in my case, it has to do with just being incredibly busy for the last week or so.
While I was away, there was a bit of a blow-up at the Post Standard, revolving around the ratio of pro-administration letters and anti-administration letters. It is certainly not a new issue, and I've run some of the accusations of opinion manipulation here. The argument hasn't changed or evolved, so it's not really worth picking apart more recent entries. It has simply reached the point where there are more people writing to complain about the dearth of far-right opinions than there are people writing far-right opinions.
What strikes me is the sense of entitlement that these people feel. While George W. Bush has an approval rating below 25% in Central New York, and there is far more to oppose than support about the administration lately, there's another important aspect that everyone seems to be tip-toeing around: those on the far right are less educated, less communicative, and far more likely to write a letter that has no business being published simply by the standards of professional writing. If your letter displays no ability to communicate via the written word, the newspaper should not be expected to publish it. Unfortunately for those on the far right, they got all the Larry the Cable Guy fans, while the left got at least the vast majority of English majors.
As an example, I present the following letter from today's paper.
I admit, you can decipher the gist of Skip's message, even through the punctuation errors, grammar mistakes, and vocabulary issues. Yes, Skip has an opinion, and while that opinion is ignorant and bigoted, that alone shouldn't keep it out of the newspaper. Employing a sentence as poorly constructed as, "When it comes in this category, Bush denies to have same sex marriages banned?" absolutely should. What comes in what category? How do you deny to do something? Why is this a question? What the fuck is Skip trying to say? If you can't write better than this, your written opinion shouldn't be inflicted on others.
As for Skip's illuminating stance on same-sex marriage, well, he does a great job proving the point that bigotry, ignorance, and a lack of education go just as hand-in-hand as any gay couple. At least he's more honest about it than most... he doesn't try to dilute his bigotry with claims of defending the institution of marriage or theories of cultural collapse. He just thinks it's 'disgusting.' Of course, it wasn't long ago that the majority of Americans thought that interracial couples were disgusting. Hell, Skip was probably one of them. Unfortunately for Skip and his ilk, we live in a republic founded on civil liberties, where the ignorance and weak stomachs of the many should never trample the rights of the few. Amendments to the Constitution have never been made to impose new discriminations, a trend the President would shamefully like to end as a pandering move to idiots like Skip.
Does it clearly say in the Bible that 'for every man there is a woman, and vice versa'? I'm unfamiliar with the passage Skip is 'quoting' here, but since 51% of the world's population is female, it doesn't quite hold up to literal scrutiny as well as Skip might have hoped. Additionally, Jesus called on men to live in celibacy if the choice was right for them, cutting the number of eligible husbands even further. If there were a woman for those men, wouldn't it be a bit cruel to deny them their soul mate? Regardless, since you can't base a secular law on just a bible passage and personal bigotry, Skip's entire argument is moot.
Will this world ever get straightened out? Probably not, but progress is made. Slavery was abolished. African Americans and women were granted their due civil equality. Native Americans were allowed to practice their religion again. Couples of any racial makeup are allowed to marry. Eventually, gays will be allowed the same rights taken for granted by straight couples. Progress will be made, though certainly it would be made far more quickly if those of us fighting for it didn't have to battle ignorant assholes like Skip, who care more about their own sense of superiority than the advancement of civil justice.
Frankly, the President's stance on this issue is disgusting. George W. Bush, while far from a genius, received an enviable education, and I don't believe for a minute that his position is motivated by anything other than a desire to further the nationalist agenda at the expense of any minority whose persecution is deemed socially acceptable. That he would stir up ignorant Americans to hate and discriminate against a minority for something that is not within their power to change makes him a contemptible villain, a modern day Simon Legree. History is not kind to bigots. Thirty years from now, most Americans will deny having self-righteously called for the discrimination of homosexuals. The majority will be liars. Skip will still be stupid.
While I was away, there was a bit of a blow-up at the Post Standard, revolving around the ratio of pro-administration letters and anti-administration letters. It is certainly not a new issue, and I've run some of the accusations of opinion manipulation here. The argument hasn't changed or evolved, so it's not really worth picking apart more recent entries. It has simply reached the point where there are more people writing to complain about the dearth of far-right opinions than there are people writing far-right opinions.
What strikes me is the sense of entitlement that these people feel. While George W. Bush has an approval rating below 25% in Central New York, and there is far more to oppose than support about the administration lately, there's another important aspect that everyone seems to be tip-toeing around: those on the far right are less educated, less communicative, and far more likely to write a letter that has no business being published simply by the standards of professional writing. If your letter displays no ability to communicate via the written word, the newspaper should not be expected to publish it. Unfortunately for those on the far right, they got all the Larry the Cable Guy fans, while the left got at least the vast majority of English majors.
As an example, I present the following letter from today's paper.
To the Editor:
The biggest issue is still going on: same sex marriage: Yes, there may be some states that will do a ceremony. But there are other states that won't do it.
I think it's disgusting to see two of the same go hand-in-hand. It does clearly say in the Bible that for every man there is a woman, and vice versa.
When it comes in this category, Bush denies to have same sex marriages banned? I believe that he quoted this awhile back and I do agree: let's have it banned. Will this world ever get straightened out? God only knows.
Skip
I admit, you can decipher the gist of Skip's message, even through the punctuation errors, grammar mistakes, and vocabulary issues. Yes, Skip has an opinion, and while that opinion is ignorant and bigoted, that alone shouldn't keep it out of the newspaper. Employing a sentence as poorly constructed as, "When it comes in this category, Bush denies to have same sex marriages banned?" absolutely should. What comes in what category? How do you deny to do something? Why is this a question? What the fuck is Skip trying to say? If you can't write better than this, your written opinion shouldn't be inflicted on others.
As for Skip's illuminating stance on same-sex marriage, well, he does a great job proving the point that bigotry, ignorance, and a lack of education go just as hand-in-hand as any gay couple. At least he's more honest about it than most... he doesn't try to dilute his bigotry with claims of defending the institution of marriage or theories of cultural collapse. He just thinks it's 'disgusting.' Of course, it wasn't long ago that the majority of Americans thought that interracial couples were disgusting. Hell, Skip was probably one of them. Unfortunately for Skip and his ilk, we live in a republic founded on civil liberties, where the ignorance and weak stomachs of the many should never trample the rights of the few. Amendments to the Constitution have never been made to impose new discriminations, a trend the President would shamefully like to end as a pandering move to idiots like Skip.
Does it clearly say in the Bible that 'for every man there is a woman, and vice versa'? I'm unfamiliar with the passage Skip is 'quoting' here, but since 51% of the world's population is female, it doesn't quite hold up to literal scrutiny as well as Skip might have hoped. Additionally, Jesus called on men to live in celibacy if the choice was right for them, cutting the number of eligible husbands even further. If there were a woman for those men, wouldn't it be a bit cruel to deny them their soul mate? Regardless, since you can't base a secular law on just a bible passage and personal bigotry, Skip's entire argument is moot.
Will this world ever get straightened out? Probably not, but progress is made. Slavery was abolished. African Americans and women were granted their due civil equality. Native Americans were allowed to practice their religion again. Couples of any racial makeup are allowed to marry. Eventually, gays will be allowed the same rights taken for granted by straight couples. Progress will be made, though certainly it would be made far more quickly if those of us fighting for it didn't have to battle ignorant assholes like Skip, who care more about their own sense of superiority than the advancement of civil justice.
Frankly, the President's stance on this issue is disgusting. George W. Bush, while far from a genius, received an enviable education, and I don't believe for a minute that his position is motivated by anything other than a desire to further the nationalist agenda at the expense of any minority whose persecution is deemed socially acceptable. That he would stir up ignorant Americans to hate and discriminate against a minority for something that is not within their power to change makes him a contemptible villain, a modern day Simon Legree. History is not kind to bigots. Thirty years from now, most Americans will deny having self-righteously called for the discrimination of homosexuals. The majority will be liars. Skip will still be stupid.
posted by Zafrod at 11:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home