This post at Macsmind got me thinking tonight. Surprisingly, it was not about the substance of the issue (as no one will ever convince me a foreign terrorist should be granted the same rights we are guaranteed as citizens), but more as I read the comments I realized how we are becoming a union of generalizations.

Senator Specter has never been a favorite of mine or those in my family and the alternative of sending another Democrat to Washington to represent the state is not something which sends us into orbit. However, to paint the citizens of this state as ones who would welcome terrorists into our prisons and courts due to a vote the Senator cast says volumes about how absurd the thinking of some has become.

What I am leading to here is why I am so happy to be writing on occasion for J. There is such diversity here, not only in opinion but in interests, and we all attempt to allow the other the absolute right to their thoughts (we may at times get a bit testy, but hey, who doesn’t). We all try to answer comments with respect and perhaps a question or two to clarify an issue, but there is never anything directed in a derrogatory manner at an individual or group. Most times if something is controversial, it is a direct quote by whomever is being cited in an article or post, not directed at someone offering an opinion.

Make no mistake, I never object to good debate. This country has been built on differences and discussions but all too often, especially in blog form, we see those who take exception and paint entire segments of the population with a broad brush and I find that offensive.

Following the thinking of the commenter at Mac’s I say only this. If this person believes that Pennsylvanian’s would want terrorists in their midst then I suppose we must say the same for each state which has a Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee who voted for this legislation..well maybe someone else would say that but it certainly will not be me!