Keeping Promises: This is why I am praising the Democrats

There is nothing, NOTHING wrong with challenging someone. That is the nature of debate. Perhaps you are more fond of venues where you can be a Diva, but around here we challenge eachother. JJ Ross challeneged me...I got no problem with that! Which sticks in your craw more: that I challenged 'Tude about her basis for making a blanket claim regarding the inevitablility of global warming (actually a controversial thing these days) or my challenging your misleading claims about thinning ice sheets. Seems like those were the two things that set you off on your crusade around here.

As to the former, my point was to clarify that the point she was making was more controversial than she was saying and she didn't seem to take my remarks ill. She responded with a snarky and perfectly appropriate answer which I laughed at, snark and all. You weren't really part of it. Still, after your repeated outrage, I made it clear that no offense or disrespect was ment to 'Tude and apologized if I came off too abrupt.

As to the latter, you really did make an inacurate statement and I called you on it. There is nothing wrong with that and if you have a problem with someone challenging a misleading statement then I can assure you that you will remain uncomfortable around here.

Now, how many times are you going to cry "censorship?" I am unaware of any censorship towards you on this site, yet somehow you seem to be in a state of constant moral outrage at some imagined persecution. What is most interesting to me is that you feel this persecution from people who gave you almost instant front page status and welcomed you on board despite having differences of opinion with what you were saying.

And then you expressed some vague hint that my photo (dressed as a Viking, for god's sake!) was somehow a veiled threat. Howabout that guy in a mask and cape with what looks like a blood drop under the "Blog Ads?" Do you feel threatened by him? And I don't know, but 'Tude's chosen picture sure seems aggressive to me! Do you feel threatened by her?

you need to be challenged, Steam Geek. that is one of the points of this site. we are exchanging ideas, arguing, reporting---sometimes politely, sometimes not.

you are so full of bullshit it is unreal. (that's impolite, just in case you're unsure). this is not a cakewalk at the county fuckin' fair.

i have yet to unleash on anyone, so let me congratulate you on being the first person i rip a new online asshole. i find you to be one aggravating muthafucka. you blow things out of proportion. you seem to be clueless. only you would find Mole333's ax photo threatening. you are the ONLY person who could consider that photo a threat. it is obviously a joke. are you familiar with jokes?

i suggest you look at some NYC blogs very closely and see what makes them tick. i think the managing editors of this site do a fine job. they are all excellent writers and their collaboration works well bc they hold differing opinions and ideas about issues, as do many of the writers and readers. they don't censor comments so you need to be able to take the heat if you are going to post on here bc sometimes things get heated, though let me assure you that what was said to you or your friend was not really rude. rude would be me saying that i find you to be literal to the point of fucking annoyance, which i just said.

maybe you should be writing weather reports for church newsletters.

...that we have an editorial position.

Be that as it may, frankly, disagreement is a way of life online, and as long as it's kept within the bounds of politeness, should be embraced. It's not like anyone here is all-knowing.

As far as cheerleading for the Dems is concerned, people, really, wake up. Sure, we're not perfect; but we're not goddamn Nazis who want to start nuking places and build concentration camps. That would be the republicans. This equivalency stuff isn't just wrong, it's dangerously deluded, immoral and false.

Thanks for the back up. Things have been interesting around here and I have been hoping for some Bouldinization of the situation :-)

Y'all keep stabbing away at the straw man of false equivalence between Rs and Ds, or misguided calls for bipartisanship, but the point of frustration for me is all this rabid partisanship on both extremes that obstructs reasoned analysis, rationality and collective wisdom . . .politics is the art of the possible, remember, not the science of self-serving propanganda . . .

I agree that we probably bring up false eqivalency a lot...but that is because many people perpetuate that myth. And I would say you do as well, but with some differences. Where I see you do it is to claim that there is equivalent "rabid partisanship" on both sides. I disagree. The right has been routinely employing lies, advocacy of violence and even calls for terrorism in their partisan rhetoric. On the left, there is much more adherance to truth (compare Bill O'Reilly to Al Franken, for example) and, with very few exceptions, no calls for violence. What people seemed to miss was that my diary on assassination was, in fact, trying to get discussion going on just that difference...but no one bit. The right wing "pundits" and politicians never ASK when it is appropriate to advocate violence...they just do it. The left tends to reject it without asking when it just might be appropriate (if ever).

There is also the difference in how the right and left treat those who disagree with them. The right, personified by O'Reilly, hysterically yells "Shut up" and, figuratively or litterally, cuts off your mike. The left invite debate. Al Franken's favorite guests have included Pat Buchannan and G. Gordon Liddy...and he has never told them to shut up.

To equate what Michael and I do (which is, unabashedly partisan) with what the right wing does is a false equivalency. Now I am not sure that you really do that, except when "pulling our capes." But you do bring it up when we are being partisan and that invites a false equivalency.

Personally, I am partisan because I, by and large, find the Democratic Party representative of who I am. "I am not a member of any organized Party...I am a Democrat," to paraphrase. That rings true for both the party and for myself. By contrast, modern day Republicans have genuinely reached levels of intolerance, advocacy of violence and corruption that it is hard to discuss them without using perjoratives.

As to "obstructs reasoned analysis, rationality and collective wisdom . . .politics is the art of the possible, remember, not the science of self-serving propanganda . . ."

When has politics involved reasoned analysis, rationality and collective wisdom? In fact, how often is wisdom collective :-) ? Actually, I try to inject analysis and rationality and even wisdom into what I write. But personally, my rational analysis actually leads me to be a partisan Democrat. Not blindly so, of course, but partisan. And my reading of history right back to the earliest writings in Egypt and Sumeria and China indicate that politics has always been the science of self-serving propoganda ;-)

(Mole333) Please share with us your personal view of looking 300,000,000 +/- Americans in the eye (by way of television) and with your Wife and Daughter at your side, and say "I did not have sex with that woman, ML......"

I'm curious of your view not as a writer, or as a representative of any political view, but as a Husband and a Father.

I would point out as a matter of political history, Nixon was not held to account for any crimes he may or may not have committed, but his attempts to cover them up.

At least perhaps we can suggest that neither side of the political aisle is the sole holder of any moral high ground. As far as any need to imply I'm taking sides, I'm not.

I'm also not very impressed by either side's behavior in the public eye. Perhaps recognizing the need to "place" someone within a party or ideological philosophy is really an illusion anyway. Nothing is ever that simple.

I'm still open to the idea we can learn from each other. This is my invitation to share with me (us) your view as a regular person, all politics aside.

Everything I write is as myself, as a regular person...well, almost everything.

"At least perhaps we can suggest that neither side of the political aisle is the sole holder of any moral high ground."

I never said otherwise. In fact, I have spent a great deal of time in my blogging attacking Democrats I differ with. I have already made that point more than once, so please stop ignoring it.

I am partisan because as a scientist, as a father and as a human being I see one party as HUGELY superior to the other on almost every level. But not perfect. I criticize where I see criticism appropriate and I praise where I see appropriate. Period. That goes for both parties. If you see me praising one over the other, there is a good reason for it.

As far as Clinton lying about getting a blow job, there is no equivalency between that and Bush's lying to get us into a war. None. Clinton should have said "none of your business," but that would have been politically unacceptable. But really, lying about getting a blow job doesn't kill anyone and in no way damaged America. Bush lying to get us into a war has led to thousands of deaths and has damaged our reputation, split our alliances and sucked money out of our nation for nothing but a pack of lies. This is the kind of false equivalency that I object to. The old "but Clinton lied about a blow job" excuse never was logical to me and never will be. I personally don't care that Clinton lied about a blow job. It makes no difference to America whether he did or not. It DOES make a difference to his family, but it is a private matter. Bush's lies were very much affecting the public and the world. So I refuse to consider them even vaguely comparable.

I drew no comparison to current Bush or broad swath party politics. I did try and suggest deception impacts perception on basic levels, and impairs productive debate of data.

deception impacts perception
***
Yep.

As nicely summed up in today's column by Leonard Pitts --

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/164...

And as addressed in "On Truth" by Harry Frankfurt (better known maybe for his earlier book, "On Bullshit.")

Frankfurt writes about how finding out that someone you have trusted has lied to you makes you feel "crazy." And this is because you have to be able to rely on your own judgement in evaluating the truth of what's going on in the world around you in order to function. If you turn out to have been wrong in trusting someone, someone bent on being untruthful for their own reasons, you begin to doubt your own abilities to know the truth, and feel "crazy."

A guy lying about a blow job (when we all knew he was lying and had always lied about such things) doesn't make me feel nearly as crazy as a guy lying about his ability to make decisions about war.

Nance

First the disagreement. It is SO IMPORTANT for our Congress to focus on domestic issues that have been neglected by the Republicans for so long. Not only does it define their agenda, but if they DO get passed by the Senate and get beyond a veto threat, they will actually help Americans in a big way.

Now the agreement. It is still a big "if" what if anything the Dems can do about Bush's worsening Iraq quagmire. The best they can do is refuse to fund it...which opens them up to the accusation that they are abandoning our troops. I hope they do all they can but it is still Bush's war.

What is encouraging is so far I have seen statements by Edwards, Vilsack, Feingold, Kennedy, Dean and some other prominent Dems opposing the surge and urging Congress to withhold funding.

I personally have a slightly different strategy. I think Dems should withhold funding until a.) veterans benefits are restored, b.) combat pay is increased, c.) there is a real investigation into war profiteering including a restoration of the oversight body Bush eliminated, and d.) Bush outlines a CLEAR exit strategy with a CLEAR definition of what circumstances are required for our exit.

I want us out. We never should have been there in the first place. But disengagement can't be done in a heartbeat. It's his war, let him define what his goal is in a clear way. Then that exit strategy will be out in the open for discussion by the voters. That is my personal view, not what anyone else is advocating as far as I know.

No...it is NOT Bullshit. In this era of right wing dominated media, that portrayal has worked for years...until 2006. It is a very real threat. Personally, I think the Dems can manouver around it, but don't discount the right wing media's ability to distort the truth and sell it in some states.

You might disagree, you might have suggestions of how they can avoid that trap, or you might thing that trap or not it is the right thing to do. But it is still a very real trap that can't be ignored.

Jimmy Carter did the right things regardless of the media and Republican portrayal of it. He lost big because of that. Now the Dems got terrified by that ever since. I think they overreacted, but they still needed to react to it. You really do have to consider how your actions will be framed by a hostile opposition and a hostile media. Otherwise you lose.

It really is a tough balance between showing your backbone and being considered obstructionist, doing what's right and being viewed as weak. So far I like how this current Congress is finding the balance. We are mere days into the session. I hope they continue to find a good balance!

Again, I think they still can stand up to Bush on this and should and many already have been (all those I cited above). So let's see what happens before you vent rage on them.

I certainly have opted for venting rage from time to time in the past. But I still maintain for once the Dems are doing the right thing as quickly as they can and we should savor it for as long as it lasts.

I will note that a couple of the candidates I supported in November voted against the stem cell bill, which sours me on them a bit, but I like seeing an overall voting record and judging based on that.

Keep in mind that Steam Geek was welcomed warmly to the site only to start complaining about censorship and being generally insulting. So we are tending to be a bit more dismissive of him than we were initially.

Personally I welcome your participation. I do tend to challenge people, but isn't that part of the process here? And, of course, in return I expect to be challenged. What rubbed people the wrong way about Steam Geek was his martyr complex at a site that initially gave him front page access almost without question.

I also notice something around here that is different from Daily Gotham, where I really got my start as a blogger. Over there, perhaps because we are all New Yorkers, people tended to be a bit more abrupt in their discussion. In fact, when I first started getting noticed as a blogger, I got swarmed with attacks on other NYC sites. Eventually I muscled my way in fairly effectively I think.

Here people seem a bit more timid than at Daily Gotham...excpet Steam Geek who complains about bullying while he's insulting you.

Join in, please. Speaking for myself, I tend to mainly be challenging when challenged and more gentle when people are gentler. And you can see that many on this site post in the forums and get read without generating such hot debate.