Debate's context lost amid diversion tactics

In response to Mrs. Fuchs letter of June 18, requesting that we have civil debate in our community. Nice gesture, but curious.

A bit of mud slinging got you so riled up you must have forgotten the long pro-torture letter written by your husband in the April 23 paper. What aspects of torture do you consider civil?

As far as Rush being mainstream, 14-20 million weekly listeners is a lot.  It must be because Rush speaks so decently, in a tolerant fashion, and surely he wouldn’t insult anyone or attack them personally. As I’ve been accused of.  That explains why he attracts all those diverse folks to his family friendly program.

However, at this time there are more than 306 million people in the U.S. so I believe Rush has a way to go before he has a large enough audience to be called mainstream.

See how Rush stole the limelight once again when this originally was a debate concerning Sonia Sotomayor, and the one statement she made that turned Rush a peculiar shade of purple.

Remember, a few on the right were attacking Sonia Sotomayor because she shared her opinion concerning experience, and then labeled her a reverse racist. Once again the context of yet another debate is lost because of clever diversion tactics, hoping that their opinion is really the only one left standing. 

I do apologize that the Bee chose to use the word “stupid” in the headline; I’d have preferred “differing experiences causes differing awareness.” 

CINDY AASE

Sagle