On the Internet and outside the Beltway - 'O brave new world that has such people in it'

FRANK MIELE

It's rather amusing to keep abreast of the reader comments posted at www.dailyinterlake.com, but fair warning: It's not for the faint of heart.

There is something about the Internet that brings out the fight in some people, and although the Inter Lake keeps a general eye on the comments to make sure they remain reasonably temperate, we don't filter them beforehand. That means people get to crack wise about all sorts of topics, and let it be said up front that you don't have to be wise to crack wise.

Anyway, because my columns run every Sunday on a variety of topics and because I'm not afraid to express my opinion, lots of people enjoy ramming my opinion down my throat (figuratively, of course) every Sunday through Saturday.

It seems that many people don't like to hear both sides of an argument any longer. Either you agree with them, or you are an idiot. It doesn't matter whether you work hard to present a clear and lucid argument in defense of your position; as long as you come to a conclusion opposite the reader's, then you are a fool, a flunky or a fabulist.

And what's particularly amusing is that these combative readers don't have to prove that your argument is wrong; they don't have to demonstrate through any kind of logical analysis why your evidence is faulty. They just have to say you are an idiot, and the work is done.

What we are seeing on the Internet is perhaps an inevitable result of the medium itself - after all, this is the ultimate experiment in anarchy, a system where everyone is empowered and no one is answerable to anyone else.

Sure, there are rules, but they are hard to enforce. Get kicked off a Web site for rowdyism, and you can often return with a new registration, a new alias, and a new vengeance. At worst, you just go to another Web site and start flaming the first Web site - which by then is peopled with even bigger idiots because they kicked you off. Quad erat demonstratum.

The Internet, of course, didn't create rude behavior. Anyone who has ever ridden on a school bus or visited a high-school locker room knows that bullying and intolerance are hallmarks of human nature. That's why we should all be grateful for bus drivers and gym teachers. Without them, the whole system would fall apart.

Unfortunately, on the Internet, there are no gym teachers with whistles around their neck telling miscreants and casual offenders to "drop and do 20" whenever they post a rude comment or sneak in a quick punch to the kidneys (also known as a personal attack).

The good news is that there is no locker room on the Internet either. If there were, I suspect I would have been beaten up repeatedly in the past year instead of just called a moron.

But I do wonder sometimes why people can't listen to a viewpoint different than their own without frothing at the mouth, insulting the author, and declaring his argument wrong without bothering to provide any evidence why it is wrong. It is almost as though these people don't really understand the rules of argumentation.

One of my online critics, known only as Kalispell Native, dismisses each week's column on the grounds that I am writing about national or world topics rather than local topics. Apparently, if I wrote about the 93 bypass I would be a genius, but if I write about the war on terror I am an idiot. It seems that Kalispell Native only feels comfortable reading opinions about Washington, D.C., if they emanate from within the hallowed circle of the Beltway.

Of course, if I were writing about what happened in the Beltway, that would be a fair criticism, but I am not. I am writing analysis of what happened - in D.C., Iraq, the Mexican border, wherever, and more typically analysis of policies that are instituted in my name by my government.

Would I ever feel comfortable leaving analysis of D.C. business to D.C. insiders? Heck no. Holding our government accountable is part and parcel of being a citizen. If we just let the "people who have connections" tell us what to think, we may as well sign our own death warrant. I'll take the "people who have principles" everyday over the "people who have connections."

Anyone who wants to be told what to think by the national media has plenty of options. I don't tell people what to think; I tell them what I think, and why. The "why" is the important part, of course, and it has nothing to do with whether I live in New York or Washington, D.C. It has to do with whether or not I am capable of writing an argument that uses logic and common sense. If you don't like my logic, that's fine; you have an opportunity to prove me wrong.

Just don't tell me I am wrong because I live in Kalispell, Mont., instead of Washington, D.C.

Principles don't come with a geographic boundary; they are universal. We know that because every once in a while something sensible even comes from "Inside the Beltway."