For someone who has a degree in literature, journalism, education and philosophy I can't help but marvel at your choice of words to describe your feelings and opinions. I have friends who are sensitive to such language, even though I understand the need to preserve Freedom of Speech and Expression, the "vernacular" of the day? I find it narrow, violent and limiting in it's appeal to connect in a dimensional way. I have no right to ask you to "curb your enthusiasm" only to reconsider whether you are effective in communicating this way. It's basically a one dimensional, "common" way of speaking/yelling out. For me it's hard to get past that verbage and actually appreciate your ideas. Is it really essential to the cause/message you are sharing/imparting?
Given my credentials/record/vita/life, you'd might imagine that I introduced profanities, crudeness, childish mockeries, and the like, in a conscious rhetorical strategy?**DILLIGAF -- An acronym I learned in the Air Force in the '60s: "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?"
Call it a rhetorical "shock doctrine."
My conceit is that I am a rhetorical insurgent, planting rhetorical land mines and booby-traps all over the landscape.
I hope that, after I've pissed a little on your cheerios, you won't see Obama's name and not also see "Shamwow." That you won't see "Deficit Reduction Commission" without also reading "Cat-fucking-food Commission," with all its attendant passion. That when you hear about the 'differences' between the 'parties,' you also recall me: "The only difference is when they fuck ya, the Dims use a lube, the Pukes go bareback."
Even if you quit reading after the first time I offend, you'll remember the offense.
I learned in a psychology course: You can't unsee.