Public Idiocy

I read the letters to the editor in the Post-Crescent pretty much every day during my lunch break at work, and I am continually amazed at the childish and ignorant rantings of the adult population of the Fox Valley. It is all to clear that these people merely want to see their names in print, and don't actually put significant thought into what they say. Either that, or they just want to stir up controversy and be able to brag about it later. In either case, its pathetic. Recently, one string of letters has really bewildered me. I am writing my own letter to the editor in response. In case it doesn't get published (which I expect will be the case), here is what it says:

I have been reading the series of letters and calls published over the last week in response to Merv Farmer's June 17th "It's Your Call." While I must admit that I am relieved to see that few people share his opinions on the current presidential candidates, I am amazed by the hostility many people expressed toward a free and open exchange of ideas. The berating of the Post-Crescent editorial staff for "exposing his bigotry via publication (Letters, June 27th)" is nothing more than a condemnation of the PC's efforts to remain an unrestrictive voice of its readers. What gives one the right to declare an opinion unfit for publication and discussion? The instant we begin to associate the mere discussion of ideas with endorsement, the ability of the public to engage in a healthy and constructive dialog evaporates. No debate can be "meaningful" if one side is muffled. We the People should not be so eager to silence views that conflict with our own, nor should we condone any such action that takes place, be it public or private. If we do, then our Rights are reduced to nothing more than fancy script on tattered paper.