Passion and Ryan Seacrest

So I was listening to the radio today. Flipping stations to find music, and not just people yapping.

KISS fm was talking about a new poll that married women 2 to 1 are in favor of Bush for President, and that single women are in favor of Kerry. Ryan Seacrest took a call from someone about it.

HE brought it up, remember.

Lady gets on and says: “I am a married woman and I do NOT want to see Bush as our president.” She goes on to explain, quoting something from Cheney and drawing some fairly well-thought out conclusions.

Ryan says, “I appreciate your passion, I appreciate that you have taken the time to find out about this issue and that you are going to go out and vote. That is very admirable. I’m also putting you on my list of people never to piss off under any circumstance!”

That pisses me off.

Mr. flash-of-the-fashion-moment brought up politics. And then he basically tells her to back off and not care so much, ’cause it’s excessive.

I get this response a lot too. I care about whatever I do. But I get this feeling that it is intimidating to others. Like, you can only talk about something if you don’t get too excited about it.

It’s not COOL to be passionate about things that everyone else in the room is not equally passionate about.

I find this frustrating. Why is this lock step necessary?

One thought on “Passion and Ryan Seacrest

  1. You are so right – it is uncool to be passionate about anything, except media. Our current media examples are “Crossfire” where everyone is arguing their point without anyone giving any real thought to the discussion or Ryan Seacrest who seems pretty passionateless himself. Good or bad it seems that media is where we are taking our behavioural cues from.

    What would happen if the entire world got incredibly passionate about the inequities within our societies? We might snap out of our collective apathy and start actively changing the world. Funny, all I want to say is don’t get me started on this….

    Wendee