KLRU
We Need Intelligent Discussion
RECEIVED Fri., June 4, 2004
Editor,
What is interesting to me with regard to Mark Vonderburg's challenge ["Postmarks," June 4] is that he complains of a lack of intelligent discourse within the "Postmarks" section even as he himself is offering simplistic admonishments in a sneering, superior tone (hey, I thought that was the province of the liberal elite). I would first like to point out that the amount of space given to the letters in "Postmarks" is limited. In order to be published, writers must constrain themselves to the 300-word maximum, so by default any argument is cut short.
Vonderburg is right when he states that we need intelligent discussion. Personally, I don't think we the people are as divided as our partisan leaders would have us believe. But if by "discourse" he means "shut up and listen to how stupid and wrong you are," I haven't time or interest.
I concede Vonderburg is also right about Gore running a terrible campaign: It was timid, lackluster, and safely centrist. But Bush was not elected; he was appointed by the Supreme Court (ostensibly under the impression that our fragile democracy would perish before a recount could be completed). A good many voters in Florida were denied the right to vote, either through erroneous purge lists or by tactics at the polls (they never saw the infamous butterfly ballot).
We have a responsibility within a democracy to question the actions of those who would lead us. All the legal maneuvering by the Bush team combined to offer at least the appearance that our democratic system was sabotaged in 2000. At worst, we had a coup d'etat and the "liberal media" failed to comment on it.
This November, most of the country will rely on the new electronic voting machines that remove the problem of the annoying butterfly ballot ... and a paper trail as well. Recount not an option. As citizens of this democracy, I should think that would make us all a little nervous.
What is interesting to me with regard to Mark Vonderburg's challenge ["Postmarks," June 4] is that he complains of a lack of intelligent discourse within the "Postmarks" section even as he himself is offering simplistic admonishments in a sneering, superior tone (hey, I thought that was the province of the liberal elite). I would first like to point out that the amount of space given to the letters in "Postmarks" is limited. In order to be published, writers must constrain themselves to the 300-word maximum, so by default any argument is cut short.
Vonderburg is right when he states that we need intelligent discussion. Personally, I don't think we the people are as divided as our partisan leaders would have us believe. But if by "discourse" he means "shut up and listen to how stupid and wrong you are," I haven't time or interest.
I concede Vonderburg is also right about Gore running a terrible campaign: It was timid, lackluster, and safely centrist. But Bush was not elected; he was appointed by the Supreme Court (ostensibly under the impression that our fragile democracy would perish before a recount could be completed). A good many voters in Florida were denied the right to vote, either through erroneous purge lists or by tactics at the polls (they never saw the infamous butterfly ballot).
We have a responsibility within a democracy to question the actions of those who would lead us. All the legal maneuvering by the Bush team combined to offer at least the appearance that our democratic system was sabotaged in 2000. At worst, we had a coup d'etat and the "liberal media" failed to comment on it.
This November, most of the country will rely on the new electronic voting machines that remove the problem of the annoying butterfly ballot ... and a paper trail as well. Recount not an option. As citizens of this democracy, I should think that would make us all a little nervous.
Sincerely,
Kellie Salome
Kellie Salome
