Skip to content

Staying stupid is our right

We have information overload these days. Or not. I figure that sometimes it's opinion overload we're being subjected to, not information.

We have information overload these days. Or not.

I figure that sometimes it's opinion overload we're being subjected to, not information.

Every time I go on line to read a news story, I find myself drawn to the inevitable comments that follow the actual news, especially if the story contains something of a controversial nature.

Quite often I read the online version of a story I have already read in some newspaper, or vice versa, just to compare how news agencies stack up their information and who they have used for their sources.

Sometimes the online versions get a bit wacky, but for the most part, they are simply echoing a verifiable news gathering agency's efforts, so the story will come out rather similar to the original version.

But the comments that come flying after can be rather infuriating or comical.

Why do the ill-educated insist on proving how poorly informed they are by issuing their comments? It's beyond me. Is it just because the comments space and opportunity is there, they figure they better use it?

I guess that's one of the negative features of this new world of communications. Everyone can be an expert on any subject they choose, even if they know beans about it. Put it online and people like Parksie are just dumb enough to read it.
These are the people who will tell you that they "have a right to comment," on a controversial local, provincial or federal issue, but forget to show up at the polling booth on election day when their opinion would really count.

After all, there is no intelligence test to pass before you vote. You only need to prove that you're a Canadian and a sort-of resident. Your ignorance is of no consequence. Vote as you please.

There are some who will argue that a voter should be required to pass some sort of basic intelligence scrutiny prior to casting a ballot, but then they're defeated by the fact that voter turnout is pitifully low to begin with and placing any other kind of barrier in the way, as simplistic as it may be, would discourage them.

Maybe we would be better off by having our public governments voted in by only 10 per cent of the populace? The 10 per cent who would be willing to answer a few rudimentary questions about democratic processes or a local/regional or national issue. It might prove interesting.

But it won't happen.

Hey, they let us get married without any real test (other than blood), so why should they demand a test to vote?

We have to take a test to drive, but not to vote, get hitched, have babies, drink alcoholic beverages or smoke.

And I wouldn't trade those privileges for anything going on anywhere else in this global community.

We have the right to be stupid and remain stupid and there ain't anybody out there who's gonna stop us.

It's part of the democratic process one of the weaknesses some will argue, but it's an inherent right that we just have to learn to live with, along with those ignorant comments. Ya gotta learn to love them.

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks