Lens of the left, lens of the right...

While I am a bit strapped for time and as a result this will not be as thought out as I would like, the issue should at least be mentioned. The cover of my latest issue of the New Yorker is strongly illustrative of the left and the right on each side of the fence screaming at each other... actually that is exactly what the cover is; people on both sides, waving flags and yelling at each other. There are times when I feel like I have to stoop to a certain level of unabashed criticism and I am aware that sometimes this criticism could be likened much to the ruthless, unreasoned attacks on the left that we hear from people like scarborough or coulter. The question seems to become a question of whether or not we are getting anywhere when neither side is hearing the other.

I personally try not to stoop to this level as much as possible as I realize that I become the jerk that I am arguing against. To say that Bush lied about certain things, or that Cheney got booed at a baseball game is very selective, but at the same time something that I found interesting. On the other hand, if and when people say something like, "they are all fu$!ed", it seems to serve no purpose other than to release some anger or contempt that they feel for the other side(and again, I hate sides, I know plenty of very reasonable people that might be on the "right" side of the spectrum).

If somebody were to present me with a reasonable list of things that michael moore lied about, I would surely consider them. I enjoy other people's viewpoints as there is no way that my one mind could be so sure as to have everything figured out in the world of politics. Rush limbaugh, for example, comes across as someone that isn't willing to hear other people; he knows what is right and that is that. Anybody with an opinion does this to some extent, but I agree with the walking dude that we don't need to develop a WWF kind of attitude when it comes to our beliefs. Any thoughts? More on this later... Ciao.