In part due to the reaction toward my Indecent Proposal post and in part do to the nature of my next post, I'd like to make a quick point regarding my interpretation of the nature of blogs.
Blogs have three major beneficial effects: dissemination of information, a check on the media (as well as a supplemental source of that media), and blogs create a forum where ideas are placed on a table and then people can either admire, ponder, critique, applaud, add to, subtract from, etc. to those ideas. Blogs create dialogues.
I am a person filled with curiosity. My mind wanders, I daydream, and I constantly search for ideas and details that have been hiding in the shade. With that said, I like to play devil's advocate, I like to defend positions I don't agree with, and I also like to tinker with the perception of certain subjects in order to obtain a fuller understanding.
The point of this post is that it is much more beneficial for all of us to critique a stance or reasoning, than it is to denouce that person or idea as simpy "Republican," "Stupid," or "crazy." Instead, it'd be much more productive to cite counterexamples, other arguments ... do we all agree, or am I sounding too much like a hippie beside a camp fire at 3:30 am?
-- Steve Cieslewicz
