I have a collection of bookmarks that I visit many times each day. Most are blogs -- more specifically, newsblogs or blawgs -- and they cover much of the ideological and political spectrum.

Ok. That's not entirely true: while my list of bookmarks originally included a wide variety, I have gradually eliminated many of the blogs which provided the weight on the right side of the scale. Hold your horses, this is not a statement of censorship or intolerance of opposing viewpoints. It is, however, a statement about my desire to come home to a discussion that is more often than not palatable rather than one which exacerbates the headache and/or depression which the day's news itself has caused.

One of the blogs/newsblogs/blawgs that has survived the evolutionary trend is The Volokh Conspiracy. While its general tone is politically conservative, I find this tilt is due in large part to the political and professional background (and/or ambitions) of each individual contributor rather than to an organized "conspiracy." There are two exceptions to this general rule:

On the other hand there are several individuals who post on The Conspiracy who I do not enjoy. Their bias may be due to recent positions in an administration which does not allow constructive dissent; or, their bias may be due to a method of reading the U.S. Constitution which would favor a federal government which exists only to provide assault weapons to "desired" citizens. Whatever the source, their bias poisons their contributions to The Conspiracy to a point of repugnance which I often cannot overcome.

Let me be clear. I understand that one should listen to all viewpoints. I try to do so. But my tolerance is often challenged such as when a Conspirator recently wrote that a solution to the problems in New Orleans must be vigilante execution:

Given the absence of a sufficient police presence in order to stop the looters, I strongly agree with Glenn Reynolds that such looters should be shot on sight by armed citizens. A citizen's arrest and detention isn't possible as a practical matter. Shooting the New Orleans looters is, under present circumstances, an appropriate response to the collapse of civic order, and a first step towards the restoration of that order.

QUESTION: Must we be tolerant of intolerant viewpoints?

One of the most frustrating aspects of life in today's political climate is the high level of ignorance. The disaster in New Orleans has brought to the forefront new layers to this ignorance of life in the "other America."

The recent discussion has reminded me of a young student who participated in a discussion of poverty in North Philadelphia by expressing disbelief: "There are plenty of jobs in the suburbs...poor people can't complain when they aren't willing to drive to the suburbs to work?" We laughed when he said it and then quickly stopped when we realized he was serious; he explained that he had lived his entire life in a bubble that will never burst.

Not everyone has a car in which to pursue a job or flee an oncoming hurricane. Before we discuss (1) how people have come to be too poor to have sufficient private transportation, (2) why jobs/housing/safety is beyond reach for those who do not have private transportation, (3) why those poor persons who cannot afford transportation are concentrated in isolated geographic areas which requires extensive transportation to/from housing/jobs/services, (4) why private transportation is necessary (and no viable public transportation is available)...I arrive at the purpose of this long post (when it rains, it pours). Today, The Volokh Conspiracy included this post by Todd Zywicki which argues that increased -- not decreased -- ownership of SUVs may be one way to help Americans avoid some of the tragedy of future Hurricane Katrinas. I encourage you to read the comments, as well.
- posted by C @ 4:46:00 PM