In both cases it was wrong to argue the writer should be punished or to argue that he was wrong to make his statements simply because he was being "poltical."
Absolutely correct. It might make the back-and-forth debate a little less interesting, but since Ebert championed civil debate and original thinking, we can survive that. Democrats and Republicans MIGHT see the other's side. But if we're pitting conservatives versus liberals, in my mind that's probably less potential for progress. But much more gridlock.
Speaking as somebody who's voted three different ways, including independent, I think Michael Medved has a clumping habit which handicaps the points he's trying to make. To use one example, he'll call out Hollywood for churning out violent films. But then he will clump FRIDAY the 13th with, ahem, more ambitious films like TRUE GRIT or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. So he can sabotage his argument and miss the forest at times.
And yet.....and still.....
We could have been anything that we wanted to be.
It's not too late to change.
I'd be delighted to give it some thought.
Maybe you and me could.....oh, who am I kidding????