It seems that we are getting caught up in an ever-increasing need to “ramp up” the level of our language.
It is not new to hear candidates for elected office promise to “fight” for us or for a particular cause. Evidently it isn’t good enough to “fully support” or “work very hard” for an issue or to “do the best I can” to see something gets done. We have to fight. Of course, that implies all the other elected officials will try to deny your wishes.
On May 4, SVM published two editorials. One dealt with the loss of manufacturing jobs in Illinois, the minimal actions to try to not only recover them but to add more such jobs and the value of this segment of the economy.
While there is no question the actions recommended would be good for our state, the editorial questioned, “Where’s the outrage about the state’s stagnant manufacturing?”
Why do we have to be “outraged” in order to take action? Are we so lazy that recognizing a problem and taking actions to improve the situation are doomed unless we are “outraged”?
The “Editorials Elsewhere” discussed the issue of “angry driving.” Undeniably this is a serious problem. My concern is that the article stated, “It is time for a war on road rage.”
Seriously? A “war” on rage? We have used the title “war” for many years for our efforts to put an end to problems, but it seems that, increasingly, we jump to language to express our passion that is highly combative and even implies that there are people who want these problems to continue.
How many people do you know who want road rage and the lack of good jobs in Illinois to continue? Can’t we discuss things calmly?