Things that are annoying:

-The erroneous idea, (and oh how popular it is), that neutrality about the upcoming presidential election somehow gives one the moral high ground over those who have chosen a side. Perhaps this is just another growth from the Postmodern cancer of indecisive apathy. Having evolved out of an employment of radical skepticism and a belief that truth is not only relative, but incapable of being known, thus the response of uncultured young idiots is abstinence from things like the political process, or worse yet, vocal involvement but practical neutrality. Important to note: You’re neutrality whether or not founded upon illusory premises about the political process, or your lack of concern which has evolved out of ignorance about the process all together makes you worse than either side which you presuppose superiority over. Fulfill your moral duty to be informed and participate in the political process. You have no right not to care. Of secondary importance, you do us no favors by uploading your non-opinions to Facebook and Twitter.

-The belief that all opinions are equal and worthy of equal coverage and respect. This has worked its nasty little self out in a couple of abominable ways. Firstly, I will reiterate what I have already spoken and written several times in dull, mostly unchanging, terms: “Perhaps, my libertarian friend, the reason that your candidate is not receiving the same amount of coverage as President Obama and Gov. Romney, is because 71% of Americans consider themselves either Democrats or Republicans, and among voters, 96% will support either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. Your candidate is not being censored, he/she is simply not relevant.” The mainstream media and I make no apologies for the lack of success experienced by third party candidates, nor do we feel obligated to spend hardly any time discussing candidates that appeal to 0.4 out of every 10 American voters. However, let me say that your involvement in the process is worthy of ovation. None of you Libertarians, Greenies, Commies, and Constitutionalists are to be confused with the first mentioned amoral dotes. Now, onto the more troubling part of this annoyance. No, of course an opinion that is rashly stated, not well reasoned, thought out, or supported is not worthy of anyone’s respect. Nor is it the equivalent of one that has been well argued, thought out, and supported. These vague sideswipes at Barack Obama and Mitt Romney that really do little to disprove the complete incapacity of its user to be intellectually virtuous, must come to an end. Cease to “spout off” as the captain of illegitimate opinions, Bill O’Reilly, is always telling you, and begin to think well.

– The assumption that any display of intelligence, sustainable opinion, or well refined argument demands arrogance or self-righteousness. It is actually perfectly good of you to regard your opinion as better, higher, dare I say, more important, than the loose talking pundit that has nothing of real substance to say. Nor should you feel guilty for being able to analyze, reason, and construct arguments. Mitt Romney’s extensive knowledge and ability to speak on the inner workings of a business and the economy come from 25 years in the business world, not a haughty spirit. Having an opinion does not demand dogmatic ignorance about the opposition, rather the opposite. You fail to understand your opposition in their strongest suit unless you have been at one point tempted to join their side of the fight. This is the essence of intellectual openness, something that is needed in concentrated doses this political season.

When in the world did ignorance, neutrality, apathy and indifference begin to trump well reasoned opinion and participation in the political process? Liberals, conservatives, and moderates that come down on either side, encourage those in your own life who assume, consciously or not, that their capricious role in society is either just fine, or worse yet, those who think it is good and proper.