About “Rants,” 2012 and More (even Barack and Blackwater)

Another in our series of readers’ expressions — SusanUnPC

There are several terms that I personally would like to see fall out of favor for a while and the word “rant” is among them.  Drawing from Wikipedia.org – which is only as accurate as the people who contribute – but feels spot on accurate here in its definition, I want to share what I specifically find off-putting.  I will put the words I want to focus on in bolded italics.  

“A rant or harangue is a monologue that does not present a well-researched and calm argument; rather, it is typically an attack on an idea, a person or an institution, and very often lacks proven claims.

Some rants are used not to attack something, but to defend an individual, idea or organization. Rants of this type generally occur after the subject has been attacked by another individual or group.

Rants are used often in situations requiring monologue.”

Hillary’s withdrawal from the race has brought me a certain amount of peace which I haven’t seen discussed any where else in the blogs.  So much of the passion of her supporters has been aroused to defend an individual, idea or organization that after a time, we can and need to put that to the side.  She remains the strong, intelligent, committed Senator, wife and mother she was when she started her campaign.  She is now more familiar to millions of people who went out and voted for her.  It will only be easier now to elect her in 2012.  

Her platforms of universal health care, educational reform and economic programs that look after the welfare of the working and middle class are not going to become less relevant.  They will continue to be daily issues not just for those who did vote for her, but also those who were on the fence, didn’t vote at all or voted for one of her opponents.  Add primary election reform and I can see nothing but good things for her four years from now.  
 
There were two organizations we were defending throughout the final two months of her campaign:  women and the “old” Democratic party.  Four years from now, there will be more of us who understand what the media has done in this election.  The woman who didn’t see how important Hillary’s voice was will have seen her own share of misogyny and we will see a cultural backlash against it.  

After one more missed opportunity to regain the White House, there will either be a different Democratic party in four years, or there will be at least one more party in four years.  We have a real opportunity to be a part of the planning and realization of those fundamental opportunities.  Isn’t that an exciting thing to look forward to?  I for one can’t wait to get started either way.
 
So.  Where are we now?  Speaking only for me, I think that we challenge the notion that rants are used often in situations requiring monologue.  The most meaningful thing we can do is remember that our writings here are not monologues.  Borrowing once again from Wikipedia.org:  ”A monologue is an extended, uninterrupted by a single person. The person may be speaking his or her thoughts aloud or directly addressing other persons, e.g. an audience, a character, or a reader.”

When one of the posters launches a thread, he or she does so for the express purpose of encouraging – challenging actually – us to digest the thoughts and to think for ourselves  to bring something to the conversation.  To take the post a little further by offering up and contributing a new fact, a link, a suggestion that moves the original thread to a higher level than where it started.  

When we don’t contribute, we have a conversation that circles the drain and the life force of the conversation sucks it down ward.  When we deign to permit a Troll (again, Wikipedial.org  ”Someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion”.)  we permit the discussion to lose its direction and it ends up down that drain faster than one might imagine.

Again, speaking only for me, what I would like to see is more discussion that focuses on a well-researched and calm argument; and relies upon proven claims so that we can demonstrate to the elders within the Democratic party that unlike the passion and fury that is required to sustain a rant, we are prepared to do what it takes insofar as educating the ill-informed electorate on matters that do effect them.  

A personal example seems like a good idea here.  There was a three-part and very detailed emotional article that appeared in our media here in Cleveland focusing on how difficult it was for two mothers to find out how their sons died while in the employ of Blackwater.  

While most of you are probably aware that Senator Obama supports continuing to have paid forces defend the interests of our country, I don’t know how many people know much about his policies beyond his oft reported claim to have spoken out against the war in Iraq.  We all know of issues that are important to American voters and yet they are not reported or are falsely reported or under reported so that he would have a cleared path to the Democratic nomination.  Well, he has it now.   

Are we going to rant or are we going to put forward calm, well researched, reasoned thoughts for why Senator Clinton’s former supporters cannot support him?  I for one vote for reason.  
 
Thanks for listening.