NicoleSwan.com

The following piece was spotted today in a Gawker note on the death of Peter Jennings:

Jennings was an anchor for the blue states. This is not to say that his politics leaned one way or another, or that he somehow provided a friendlier newscast for liberal causes than for conservative ones; we have no idea of his personal views. What we mean is that Jennings showed, as John Kerry couldn’t in the last election, that there’s a value in being smart and sophisticated. While Brokaw was always the all-American, just-folks, nice guy, Jennings was worldy and urbane and unafraid to be a bit of an intellectual. That seems to be the incorrect mien for success in this country today, but, for those of us actually do appreciate the smart and sophisticated — for New Yorkers, in other words — it was nice to see one of us spend so long on top. [sic]

The only adjective I can find to properly describe this paragraph is: pompous. The idea that political leanings are tied to certain levels of intellect, sophistication, and worldiness is one that has been a theme (implicitly or explicitly) across the blogosphere even prior to the recent Presidential election — but more so since. I must say that I didn’t know that the blue states, and, specifically, New Yorkers, had the market for intelligence and sophistication cornered. Obviously, even with his or her superior intelligence, the writer of the above excerpt can’t see the country in shades of purple. The writer chooses to ignore the deep purple shade which is the real political spectrum in the United States in favor of continuing the misguided and pretentious idea that one can be better than another based solely on voting tendencies or physical location.

The central theme of the Gawker piece is a dangerous one. I only ask that people try to look past generalities to how things really are — even if that doesn’t leave the neatly wrapped package that makes pieces like the above easy to write.

The following piece was spotted today in a Gawker note on the death of Peter Jennings:

Jennings was an anchor for the blue states. This is not to say that his politics leaned one way or another, or that he somehow provided a friendlier newscast for liberal causes than for conservative ones; we have no idea of his personal views. What we mean is that Jennings showed, as John Kerry couldn’t in the last election, that there’s a value in being smart and sophisticated. While Brokaw was always the all-American, just-folks, nice guy, Jennings was worldy and urbane and unafraid to be a bit of an intellectual. That seems to be the incorrect mien for success in this country today, but, for those of us actually do appreciate the smart and sophisticated — for New Yorkers, in other words — it was nice to see one of us spend so long on top.

The only adjective I can find to properly describe this paragraph is: pompous. The idea that political leanings are tied to certain levels of intellect, sophistication, and worldiness is one that has been a theme (implicitly or explicitly) across the blogosphere even prior to the recent Presidential election — but more so since. I must say that I didn’t know that the blue states, and, specifically, New Yorkers, had the market for intelligence and sophistication cornered. Obviously, even with his or her superior intelligence, the writer of the above excerpt can’t see the country in shades of purple. The writer chooses to ignore the deep purple shade which is the real political spectrum in the United States in favor of continuing the misguided and pretentious idea that one can be better than another based solely on election votes or physical location.

I only ask that people try to look past generalities to how things really are — even if that doesn’t leave the neatly wrapped package that makes pieces like the above easy to write.