It's all in the rhetoric

I have been reading with interest what is being said and written following the tragedy in Tucson. I came up with the following observations:

Rhetoric (the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing). The first thing we do as a modern society is to point the finger of blame and, in all too many cases, it is political. How do we, as a modern society, stop this type of senseless rhetoric?

Washington, no, our entire country, is laced with corruption at all levels. What does this corruption breed as it is fueled by bias? Inflammatory rhetoric.

As I did research to determine how and why the system failed, it became apparent that we, the people, have accepted this failure. Neither party will or can fix it, as they are both guilty.

The proof of this is we can't quote a national figure unless we put "R" or "D" next to their name. This is called "automatic finger pointing."

I found it interesting that the head of Fox News came out immediately to say he has cautioned all of Fox News to closely measure their rhetoric. Unfortunately, I find myself wondering if he did this as a matter of conscience or guilt.

What part of our current economic and cultural crisis belongs to the Republicans during the George W. Bush years and what part belongs to the current administration under Barack Obama's leadership?

Answer: It belongs to us.

Norm Smith, Poland

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Linda Sherwood's picture

Well said Norm

Norm,

I like the way you presented the reflective questions to all of us, making readers consider how we each contribute to the negative and disturbing rhetoric that has come to light. As a society, we all incite or encourage one way or another, and whatever leader is in office has the responsibility to lead in a manner that will move us forward. Some may see progressiveness with employing "R" or "D" ideals, then again, there is a new organization that includes leaders from all political ideologies called "No Labels" (http:www.nolabels.org). I am excited to see that this group is bringing together people from all sides, not to leave their current parties, but to find common ground that we can move our nation ahead in a positive manner.

That said, how can we, in our own communities become agents of change without inciting violent behaviors or aggravating those with opposing views? Do you think this can be accomplished or is it wishful thinking for a Utopian society?

Linda Sherwood
Auburn, Maine

RONALD RIML's picture

You know this how????

??

 's picture

It is FOX News that employs

It is FOX News that employs the person who put 'crosshairs' on congresswoman. It is FOX News that labels someone a 'babykiller,' who was later murdered. Time and again FOX News incites its viewers to violence. Tell me another news organization that has those credentials, then we can spread the blame around. Although I do not agree with FOX News bias, I fully support their right to it, I just wish they were more careful with how they infect their viewers with them.

 's picture

I fail to see the comparison,

I fail to see the comparison, but I guess that's your point. Where do you see that the DNC has threatened those states with violence? Where the threat of gun usage? Why do you take this example to justify Sarah Palin targeting the congresswoman? And more importantly, how many people on this map were shot at and how many people died because of this map? The nuances between being targeted for defeats is vastly different than being targeted for death, or don't you see the difference?

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...