"Personally, I Don't Know What The Answer Is...But I Sure As Hell Don't Agree With Yours..."

Did a little sociopolitical experiment tonight.

Flipped back and forth between O'Reilly and Olbermann.

Didn't pay attention to the content as much as the presentation.

And it confirmed what I've addressed before as the problem with O'Reilly and his fellow Foxers.

They don't listen.

Olbermann asked his questions. Then he listened to the entire response. Then he either agreed or disagreed with varying degrees of passion.

O'Reilly asked his questions. Very seldom did ten words come out of the mouth of the guest answering before O'Reilly was talking over him.

Beck, Ingraham, et al.

All equally guilty.

But here's the real cheek chapper.

The rudeness is bad enough.

The content of the interruption is the key.

Always a rebuttal. Seldom an agreement.

And never, without exception, an alternative solution.

After about half an hour of bouncing back and forth, I had an epiphany.

It should become an FCC requirement that any "commentator" who profits from the airing of their program on the public airwaves must provide their own suggestions for solving whatever problem they are debating with their guests and no longer be allowed to simply dismiss, out of hand, the opinions of said guests.

Put simply...any fool can burn down a barn.

I honestly think that if O'Reilly or Beck or Coulter, et al, came back with their own specific suggestion of solution instead of simply nay-saying, even their lack of manners, in the form of constant interruption, could be forgiven.

As it stands, though, they are simply rude.

And not a part of the solution.

That's the problem.

Neither the MSNBC crowd nor the FOX News crowd have a monopoly on passionate adherence to their respective dogmas.

The thing is, though, that Fox seems to have more than its share of the aforementioned barn burners.

Old saying comes to mind.

One mouth.

Two ears.

The right...and the left.