I'm at a loss for words

Really.

I want to jump up and down about the whole Rush Limbaugh nonsense, the CNBC/Rick Santelli nonsense, the ridiculous socialism debate that seems to be raging among the political set (I say ridiculous because to charge Obama with socialism is patent, well, nonsense!), and the "feud" that Jim Cramer thinks he's in with Jon Stewart. And yet... I'm just tired. Tired of the noise. The yelling, the name-calling, the bile, the utter lack of civility, manners or judgment. But when I start to write down my feelings about all of this, I begin to rage. I seethe. And all I want to do is call Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer names. The sandbox is big and I jump right in ready to throw sand in the faces of those I dislike and disagree with, just as they do to the folks whom THEY dislike and with whom THEY disagree.

The result: I contribute to the very opera of rudeness and pettiness and mean-spiritedness that I claim to disdain.

How do I express my own anger and frustration with a sense of proportion? The past few days I've written several posts in my head that end up disappointing me. That disappointment stems not from a lack of confidence in my opinions; after all, they're simply *my* opinions and everyone out there is free to agree or disagree. My dismay results from an inability to express my anger, fear, anxiety, frustration about the state of the world, in a way that is whole, that is -- noble, I guess.

Is that even a reasonable expectation? Can anger ever be noble? Useful, yes. Necessary, sometimes. Unavoidable, absolutely. But noble?

In an effort to articulate my feelings I am left feeling empty. There seems to be no catharsis. The world is in a state of fragility I have never experienced before and never expected to experience. And the voices that are the loudest in this country are bickering, as usual. Bickering. How on earth does that help? Where is the somber, thoughtful conversation we ought to be having? Are we even capable of that? Should we even want that? Or have we gotten to the point where a full scale shouting match is all that's left?

Snarkiness and cleverness are considered an art form. I'm tired of Maureen Dowd's sarcasm. I'm baffled at David Brooks, usually so measured and reasonable (even when I find his philosophy wrong), writing recently that Michelle Obama should never bare her arms! What?! What is going on???

And when I reflect on some of my previous posts, I'm guilty of the very same snarky remarks. Don't I have anything more considered to contribute? True, not every op-ed column need be weighty and profound. There is more than enough time, room, and need for humor and levity. But why is it so often that humor becomes cleverness rather than wit?

I'm not terribly sure what I'm going on about in this post. Perhaps I am reacting to the fact that Obama's election did not usher in a new era of civility. I was naive to think it would. Rush Limbaugh did not, nor will he ever, wake up and think "You know what? I need to make my points in a way that does not demonize or insult. I need to find a new way to express my ideas and concerns." Because Rush Limbaugh, more than anything else, is a carnival barker. And he is attached to his money, his fame and his power. The ability to conduct oneself with grace is not valued any more, if it ever really was.

Sigh.

I'm sad today.

Given all that, I *do* feel that, in the long run, everything will be okay. Is it possible to be an optimist and a pessimist at the same time?

Another shout out!

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that one of my earliest posts was in praise of NY Times Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof. Well, I'm at it again, this time giving props to Gail Collins and David Brooks. In a recent post I mentioned that Brooks is one of the few Republican commentators that I can stand reading and/or listening to because he is not a crazy, raving lunatic out to whip up the extremists into a frenzy. If only Brooks were the voice of the Republican party rather than Rush Limbaugh.

I digress.

Every so often, David and Gail debate a topic. These exchanges are witty and thoughtful and, gasp!, respectful. Go to the Times website, click on the Opinion link and then click on The Conversation. Or, you know, just click right here.

This particular conversation, titled The Propeller Heads' Dilemma, concerns how large a role policy intellectuals should take in any Administration. They go on to debate a bit about the stimulus plan. What I appreciate so much about the exchanges these two conduct is the clear respect each has for the other person's intellect. It is so refreshing in this age of cable news shout-fests and screaming matches. Jon Stewart managed to get that horrible show with Tucker Carlson axed a few years ago but Mr. Stewart is only one man and despite his reach and influence, he can only do so much. (By the way, Jon, um... I've got a big crush on you. Big.) Would that it were possible to lock the 24 hour news-cycle genie back in the bottle from which she sprang (although in that case Jon Stewart would have far fewer people to make fun of, so I suppose it's all for the best). Filling air time has bestowed a form of legitimacy on countless pundits, optimistically referred to as experts in most cases.

Oh, if only Bill Moyers ruled the world!

Lest you think, treasured readers, that I only read the NY Times, it's not true. I read the Huffington Post also. Hee. Little joke there. Did you like that? Really though, I check out numerous political/current events websites; it just so happens that the Times employs a few of my favorite writer/thinkers.

So... Gail, David, thank you and keep up the good work.