So I had another letter to the editor published in the Star
Tribune today. I seem to get a lot of letters published – but then I send in a
lot of letters!
I’d like to think they publish them because my letters are
so clear and logical and obviously true that they simply must be shared with
the masses. In truth, I suspect that they just appeal to the biases of whoever
reviews them and decides to publish - never underestimate the power of bias! I
can give you an example of this from this very letter.
My letter was in response to one written by another writer
that suggested that maybe we should consider making changes to the Constitution
that would reflect the changes and needs of Modern America. The guy went way
overboard on specific suggestions (but oddly nothing about texting and driving
or too many craft beers!) Nonetheless, I generally agreed that it might be time
to address some obvious flaws (obvious to me, that is – first bias.) I won’t go
into details about my thoughts here because it’s a separate – and complicated –
issue. Maybe later.
Anyway, others also piped up with their thoughts on the
issue and that’s good; that’s what a good article should do, spur discussion.
One person in particular though offered what I considered a classic example of
bias (or at least faulty logic.) He made the comment that if you were for
changing the Constitution you were a Democrat and if not, then you’re
Republican; the idea being, I suppose, that changing is bad therefore Democrats
bad and Republicans are good. I don’t know, that’s what I got from it. Anyway,
this dude clearly was not considering the idea on its merits but simply through
his political biases.
Here’s what I’m thinking: it may or may not be a good idea
to change or update the Constitution but it is NOT a political issue, it’s
practical issue. Either we figure out how make our government work or we’re all
going down the drain together.
Well, that’s what my biases tell me anyway!
Comments
Post a Comment