The other day I was lamenting to The Man that one of the (many) annoying drawbacks of being female is you can't say anything about another woman without someone saying you're jealous. I have never quite understood that phenomena and have always found it exceedingly tedious. I am not a jealous person. Not jealous of other women and not jealous of others that may catch my man's attention on any given day. (I dated an overly jealous person once and that cured me of all jealous tendencies). Maybe other women do this out of jealousy, but I shouldn't be penalized for their foibles. If I point out that so-and-so says "anywayS" (with an "s" on the end) and it drives me batty...that doesn't mean I am jealous of so-and-so. It means the fact that she puts an "s" on the end of a word that doesn't have an "s" makes me insane. Full stop.
The conversation got me thinking about political blogging and how the right and the left do the same thing to each other. Once you've established yourself as being on a certain side of the aisle -you are precluded from making any valid observations about the other side. Even if you present a succinct and valid argument, it is dismissed as partisan talking pints, Kool-Aid drinking, hate-mongering, and hyperbole. You can post about something that you have given serious thought and taken time to research and source --yet the other side just claims you suck and you have thinning hair(?).
I am not blaming one side. Both partake in the finger pointing. I really try not to let myself fall into "group think" and have stopped listening to talk radio so I can't be accused of delivering GOP talking points. I alternate between FNC, CNN and MSNBC (as painful as that may be) and I do read the DU and Kos on a semi-regular basis (and that's really painful). Of course, if I say that I think John Edwards is being selfish, none of that matters. I have no real thoughts on the subject and am only regurgitating the pre-planned speech that Karl Rove left on my answering machine.