Search the ArchivesNavigation Contact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
Stop the apologies, already I wonder what this world would be like if people still challenged others to duels. You know, they remove a long white glove from their hand and slap the face of the person they want to take on. Sure, the body count would likely be higher (although, maybe not) but it would be kind of fun to see someone get all offended by some remark that someone made about him, say in a coffee shop or a men’s restroom, whip off that glove and say, “You sir, I challenge you to a duel.” I guess what I’m really getting at here is that I want people to start wearing gloves again. Actually, what I’m really getting at is that I would like to see people stand up for their convictions, minus the violence. I don’t advocate the use of violence towards others, even if it is of the hilarious “Three Stooges” variety. Honestly, what’s better than a two-fingered, horizontal eye poke. Too often, we hear of someone in the public spotlight say something that really grinds the gears of someone else. A day or two later, the offended party demands a public apology. People recently demanded an apology from William Bennett even though his comments were taken completely out of context. I’m not a big fan of the man, but he has a right to say whatever he wants to and what he said was not as heinous as many attempted to make it. I’m not against apologizing, but sometimes you don’t have to apologize. Sometimes you were right and others misconstrued what you said. Do you then have to say, “I’m sorry you misunderstood me,” and try to clarify your argument for their sake? If you read the news, you see this type of thing every day. People on both sides of the aisle in Congress are constantly demanding that others, often those who oppose them, apologize for something they said. If they made a mistake, then fine, but many of these politicians have writers and are saying carefully scripted snippets of dialogue. An apology would be disingenuous. If they didn’t mean it, they wouldn’t have written it and then said it. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. It’s perfectly fine and natural and OK. With a population creeping close to 300 million people, you are bound to not like what most people have to say. Just like you wouldn’t watch a television program that you didn’t like or listen to music that went against your sensibilities, you can ignore what someone has said about you or an issue that you agree with. Call it taking things with a grain of salt, turning the other cheek or feigning temporary hearing loss. Stew about it on your own time, in the privacy of your home, while working out how to civilly win the argument and make your case without looking like a sniveling, tattle-tale of a child. What I would really like is for someone to demand an apology and have the person they demanded one from to book some airtime on a morning news program and just say, “No.” Wouldn’t it be great if the person wouldn’t cave to these demands? Oh, how public discourse would benefit if people would just agree to disagree and state that instead of having a public apology, there could be a public debate. Wouldn’t it be better if issues could get talked about candidly and in a spur of the moment, non-scripted format? Instead of just lining up ideologically, the real issue could be talked about in a public forum. Think Jerry Springer without the fights and nudity. People should talk more and if one says something that offends the other during their discussion, they shouldn’t demand an apology. They should fight back with something better than politically charged rhetoric: the truth. login to post comments | Michael Boylan's blog
|
Copyright 2010 - Fayette Publishing, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use Policy
Server 4
