Well, I said it once, and I'll say it again: You apparently think the right wing pundits (Hitchens, Horowitz, Pipes, etc.) engage in personal attacks on the left wing's pundits, and presumably absolve the left from the same charge. I think this is unfair as I've seen plenty of rude language on your side of the fence, not that rough language on either side bothers me much. After all, one would have to be deaf, blind, and dumb not to know that there are axes being ground on both sides of the divide.
I think that some element of tough language is the appropriate currency among the pundits in the the rough and tumble of political discussion, particularly where views are as divided as they are.
I wouldn't call it the "erosion of political culture" to discuss on this thread what these warring pundits say as I think such a view borders on the grandiose. We are simply not that important. Instead, I consider their battles, and our discussions, a healthy airing of views. If you find the to-and-fro of this kind of discussion too indelicate, there is no one forcing you to participate.
I found the whole H. v. C. debate uninteresting, though I did find Cole later calling Ahmadinejad a "little shit" interesting given what appeared to be his suggestion that the evidence did not indicate that A. wanted Israel wiped off the map. One has to be an expert in Persian, however, to discuss the issue halfway intelligently. I am no such expert.
The high dudgeon adopted by all the participants was highly amusing, however. |
