Thank you for quoting my blog, Randy! I'm glad that you found the Tu quoque entry helpful.

Excellent post, Randy.I understood the nature of what we're dealing with with the resolution but mainly abstractly. This really helps make the issue more concrete for me.

Randy, This is very cool. What is the deadline?

Janey, I absolutely agree with you that one can debate without hurling insults. Although it is a rarity these days, from your two examples, it appears the culture of the "intellectual debate" is not dead. The point I was making, and I think now belaboring, is that unsavory comments are not a new thing in public debate. In fact, parlimentary debate tends to employ this (Just watch the UK Parliament on CSPAN). The "Obama Sucks" t-shirt is typical of what you see as problematic with public discourse, protest, etc. When given the opportunity for a group of people to express their discontent with the government in a civilized and "proper" manner along comes someone in some ridiculous t-shirt hoping to capitalize on the occasion to get attention. That is a bad thing. And so is all the yelling and ranting and Jerry Springer behaviour that poses as debate on cable news. Additionally, the shirt isn't even making a witty insult (Strike one - not witty. Strike two - self-serving). You may disagree, but there used to be a day when the insult was used effectively in debate or public discourse to good effect (See: The Lost Art of the Insult).

I think the MSM isn't doing its work on this one because it doesn't fit the "Religious people bash gays" narrative. BTW, like the new design.

I agree with both Janey and Randy on the point of raising the level of public discourse to something more civil; making sure the points we're making are intelligent and address the issues (i.e. no ad hominem attacks). However, insults and coarseness have always been a part of that public discourse (I'm not particularly happy about it, it's just the way it is). So it's not a new phenomenon. I think we simply have a wider exposure through tv and new media. Just watch some parlimentary debate on CSPAN sometime. The insults are high class, but are insults nontheless. But in the end, if the insults and silly t-shirts get in the way of making a serious point then they are a nuisance.

While I agree that the Obama Sucks t-shirt is campy, I believe the sentiment is widely held and the t-shirt expresses that sentiment imperfectly but succinctly. I do agree that the seemingly self-serving nature of the individual wearing the shirt is dissapointing. But it shouldn't detract from the message of the shirt. A public, and peaceable, demonstration of a groups' political beliefs, in the form of a protest, can get a little strange sometimes. And politics is full of theatrics (sometimes even the protester wants some of the limelight). But a low culture t-shirt is not a burning effigy. I'm reminded of the quote about Abraham Lincoln by Harper's Weekly, "Filthy Story-Teller, Despot, Liar, Thief, Braggart, Buffoon, Usurper, Monster, Ignoramus Abe, Old Scoundrel, Perjurer, Robher, Swindler, Tyrant, Field-Butcher, Land-Pirate." Were they trying to get a point across or sell magazines?

Good post, Randy. I suspect, as do a lot on talk radio, and those in the blogosphere that we'll not see the Fairness Doctrine revived under that name or at the federal level. It will be implemented locally through groups like MoveOn.org in the manner Limbaugh described in his op-ed in the WSJ, Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band? Though, some on the left just write off the whole idea of it being revived as conservative paranoia.

Well said. Our faith should, if it is a living faith, permeate all aspects of our lives, and will compel us to act on it (even in areas we may not feel comfortable with: e.g. politics). Love is our preeminent concern: If that is not our goal then we've missed the point. Great article.