HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » The Doctor. » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

The Doctor.

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Jun 3, 2004, 08:00 PM
Number of posts: 17,266

Journal Archives

A Homeless Man Was Sitting in The MacDonald's...

Where I stopped for some late heart-arresting fare. It was about 11 pm.

He was sitting alone in the corner. He appeared to be in his mid-sixties, was wearing a few layers of clothes that weren't filthy, but were obviously worn. He also had a bright yellow knit hat that he kept pulling on and taking off every few minutes. He hadn't bought much food, but he did keep getting up to refill his soda. When he did, it was with difficulty as he had an obvious motor disability.

He was just the sort that 'normal' people revile and avoid.

But there was something to this fellow. I couldn't put my finger on it, but I've always been pretty good at recognizing 'special' in people.

So when he got up and lingered in front of the TV to catch a clip on CNN, I got up, walked over to the TV, and said: "So, how do you think the humans are going to wind up?"

He looked at me and smiled. "Well, the humanoids are in big trouble, but they're going to be okay.". He also seemed to have trouble speaking, but I could understand him well enough.

"Really?", I asked feeling like I was participating in a non-terrestrial commentary on a planetary drama.

"Yes, they've tried to wreck things, but I've watched, and they'll make it. Getting rid of all the fear and hate is the hard part, and there is a lot of it right now, but it will eventually happen."

"I figure we'll have about 4 decades of very rough times, but I agree they'll pull through. I figured you'd know something about it."

He smiled and nodded, and we sat back down.

A few minutes later, as we were leaving, he came to me and said, "I really enjoyed my stay here and our breif conversation. You leave me intrigued, challenged, and edified."

"Thank you, so did I. Spirits be with you.", I said, and we went on our ways.

It wasn't a deep conversation, but it was apparent that no one had treated him as an equal in some time. He was genuinely pleased that I spoke to him. I have little doubt he has insights and wisdom that most 'normal' people never will.
When we look around, we judge others based on the most superficial criteria. The truth is that treasure lies inside so many people we might otherwise dismiss. Sometimes the exercise of reaching out to find it is well worth the effort.

You Want to Eliminate Gun Crime?

Then you'll have to do it the same way you'll get rid of abortion.

I love explaining this to wingnuts when they argue how 'evil' abortion is. They talk about pro-choicers with all the same vitriol, hatred, and hyperbole that the rabid anti-gun people use when describing RTBA people (that's 'Right To Bear Arms' if you're not keyed to this whole debate yet). So I say, "Well, you'll have as much success outlawing abortion as the liberals will have in outlawing guns." Then they go back to sputtering nonsense until I can bring them to the next sharp pointy point about how if they felt they needed a gun, wouldn't they get one despite the legality?

"Of course!"

"Well, why would that be different from someone feeling they need an abortion?"

More sputtering, a few insults, then they go back to just hurling epithet. They aren't usually the sharpest bulbs on the chandelier, but I love watching them get confused, turn red, and then frantically rationalize why "NO! THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!" (Which I'm sure we'll be hearing about in a bit here as well).

Peruse the pertinent areas of DU, and you will sure as shooting (oops) find gun ownership advocates referred to as 'wanabe killers', 'violent', 'murderers', 'death worshipers', 'fetishists', and 'having small penises'. (The women who own guns find that last one pretty amusing)

The wingnuts on pro-choicers?

"Baby killers", 'murderers', 'fetus-eaters' (yeah, some sick fuck actually said that on one of the sites I frequented), 'Death worshipers' (there's that one again), and a whole slew of other ridiculously over-the-top adjectives and expletives.

While I have considerably more respect for the folks who want to ban guns than the ones who want to ban abortion, the problem the two of them share is exactly the same: A stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge the greater reality we ALL have to live in.

Here's a couple indisputable truths that those who refuse to live in reality will nonetheless dispute:

1) Banning abortion will not prevent people from getting abortions.

2) Banning guns will not prevent people from getting guns.

Yes, I know... if you ban them, then there may indeed be fewer people getting them, but the people that will decide they don't need them are the people with enough security and resources (be that fiscal, mental, or otherwise) to accept the consequences of not getting one. Someone who finds themselves in a position where a gun would provide security and ward off a real possibility of threats could find other ways to compensate, just as someone who is in a position where an abortion would help them ward of poverty and adversity could find a way to do the same.

No, that's not the premise of this point. Guns and Abortions are NOT the same thing and I'm sure there are a billion of DUers just chomping at the bit as they read this to tell everyone how wrong such a premise is.

That, again, is not the premise.

The premise is this: Both the need for guns and abortion arises from insecurity of some kind. Whether that is financial, mental, or any other cause for trepidation, that is the bottom line. A person seeks one or the other because there is something about their circumstances that requires it... rational or not.

So, how then, if banning either will never eliminate them, do we eliminate them?

The three fundamental pursuits of a just and equal society: Universal Education, Prosperity, and Compassion.

When someone has enough understanding, resources, and support, they can raise a child without fear of being overburdened and having their plans and life derailed. When someone is educated, given opportunities, and those around them are also secure in their resources and mental health, then there is no need for anyone to carry around nasty weapons.

As a society, we will only reduce abortion through better education, the elimination of poverty, and careful enough attention to each and every one of our members (also an education issue) so that insecurity is virtually eliminated while understanding is maximized.

Funny thing will happen right around then: Gun crime will just about vanish too.

You've contradicted nothing. Nor have I 'contradicted' myself at all.

You are essentially a coward. That is why you avoid posting any OP of your own about your own experience or real opinions. You like to just find people who actually have some kind of substance and then do your very best to undermine them.

That bullshit doesn't work on me because it's so very obvious.

You've done nothing to 'expose what I am' other than insinuate that I am something I am not. You should be a Limbaugh disciple for your mastery of the art of insinuation. What's funny? "Others" have made this observation about you as well.

Now, I know you have a nice gem through which to alert on me. I really don't give a flying fuck because I know what a sad creature you are. No, really... you're obviously lonely. Horribly so. I'm not the only one to have figured it out. You don't like me, but you can't actually explain why and point to anything I"ve said or done that makes me out to be what you insinuate. In the full reading of our exchanges, you always fail that test.

So... how long ago did he/she leave you? Why is your apartment so empty? What are you really looking for?

I'd like to help, but I know it will be easier for you to laugh and deny.

For Those Who Don't Feel 'Counter-Bullying' is "Appropriate";

You don't understand much about bullies or bullying.

The vast majority of bullies only understand the threat of force. They don't give a damn about detention, suspension, admonition, or anything that 'authority' figures will do to them. Those are merely inconveniences that reinforce their perception that their target was too weak to deal directly with them, and instead went to the 'authority'. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, the bully will ramp up their harassment of their target in order to 'prove' that they are unaffected by any such attempts to mollify them. They will then double their efforts to intimidate their target into accepting their subordinate position.

This is a 'victory' for the bully.

I know damn well that this is exactly how it works having been the victim of bullies from the age of 6 to 16.

Here's what works: You HIT them. You HUMILIATE them. You INTIMIDATE them with a greater show of force, and if that means you have big, dangerous friends, so be it.

Unfortunately, we are still animals and many of us behave that way. Bullies are no different. They are the low ranks in a civilized society, and as such are less affected by the ministrations of civilized 'authority'. Therefore, if you want to shut a bully down, as I learned to do, you have to lower yourself to their level and be uncivilized. This doesn't mean assault, it means anything that will show them that their behavior as an animal will put them in a place that actually frightens them.

NOTHING a school can do will intimidate a bully because, as I said, physical force and intimidation are the world they like to live in. Once you show them how vulnerable they can be in that world, they will start to immediately see the benefits of civility.

You'd be amazed at how immediately well-behaved and civil bullies can become once they've had the right incentive. I've seen it first-hand every single time I've put the above into practice.

So when a linebacker threatens a bully, you can bet the farm the message is received loud and clear and better behavior will ensue.

The Dumbing Down of DU.

Well, here we are with another barn-burner of a clusterfest. These are good stuff. Irritating, blood-boiling, contentious, and totally idiosyncratic to the place. Complaints drop like anvils, points are made, fits are flown, alerts abound, and some things even get hashed out... but not much is really solved. Believe it or not, understandings are often reached, not that those understandings are always in the form of 'agreement'.

Funny how this new row over the jury system isn't much different.

I'm neither really opposed to or in favor of the system, personally. I see its strengths and weaknesses fairly well. I understand that it gives the community a self-policing mechanism that doesn't consume the time and resources of a few brave folks who become overwhelmed with alerts and then have to constantly contact each-other and discuss remedies which will invariably make them unpopular no matter how 'right' they try to get it. Yep, no moderators to kick around. Also it eliminates the suspicions and accusations of trolls winding up in moderator positions. In fact, it eliminates even the possibility of it (Well, if the position doesn't exist, no one can fill it, right?). I can tell the formula has been tweaked to make it more difficult to get posts hidden on a whim, and it is set up in such a way that a juror can easily do the quick research they need to come to a conclusion. Also, given that DU generally has a higher concentration of bright(er) folks on board, it is more than reasonable to believe that ultimately, the system will work well more often than not.

I do believe that it does. Personally, I've seen that to be the case (I've even alerted on myself a few times just to test the system). But there's just one teenie-weenie hitch: Very little objectivity.

Okay, but how could that possibly be a problem? People can go on 'feelings' or 'friendships' or 'flipping a coin' if they can't discern the infraction, right? Well.... yeahhhhhhhhh, but we 'assume' that people won't generally do this and of course the system is set up so that 4 out of 6 would have to base their decisions on something other than the substance of the post in question and have their decisions align without speaking to each-other.. Sounds pretty good, but there is still a problem with it.

First, I'd like to talk about 'shit'. Literally. "Why... that's an offensive word there!" Well, okay, but... when? Sure it can totally be used in an offensive way: "You're such a piece of shit.", "You look like shit.", "You're riting iz shit.", etc. But it's a complicated word because of the many, many connotations our culture has ascribed to it.

"That concert was the SHIT!", "This Shit is AWESOME." "Good shit, man." ad nauseum.

Someone without an understanding of context who was proficient in English but ignorant of our culture would hear one of the above phrases and probably be somewhat perplexed. They might also be offended.
Here on DU, we have a VERY complex culture. I've been here going on 8 years and I still don't know half the memes that DUers propagate. I've seen people who weren't even very new correct others on their spelling of the words, "Hugh", "Moran", and "Series!"
DU has spent over a decade cultivating a complex community with rich memes, jokes, and interpersonal interactions. There are DUers that have an intricate understanding of these things and know when someone intends insult or humor, or whatever.

But there are many here who do not have such a robust understanding. I know from personal experience that when I was called to adjudicate a post, every so often I'd have to do 10 minutes of research just to understand what took place. I also know that not everyone does that. That's part of the problem.

Today, I accepted jury duty. The post in question was one word.


Offensive? Well, just like 'shit', it's all about context and culture, and the context and culture behind this one post was not so simple.
My introduction to the post was the alerter's opinion that this was a personal attack on the original poster of the thread. In my head, I immediately agreed that it appeared to be a 'personal attack'. But I did my diligence anyway.
The OP was an invitation to all of DU to 'take a step back' and 'chill out'. It basically said to take a break from the fray and appreciate the nice things. "Stop and smell the roses", if you will.

I got it.

"Douche" was not at all an insult to the OP. It was a complex commentary on the unwillingness of DUers to tear themselves away and rise above the fray despite the fact that once they did, they would be glad of it and they knew it.

"Damnit, I hate you! You made me smile!" - That was the idea.

Not so simple.

Well, 5 other jurors went into that post on the alerter's word that it was a 'personal attack'. Of those 5, it is easy to presume that 4 of them did not attempt to parse the complexity of the response. The post was hidden.
This was a small loss to all of DU for 2 reasons: 1) The poster did not get a chance to clarify what he meant and posters who otherwise might have learned something will not. 2) That long time DUer, who understands the memes of DU and the people here, now has less of a chance of serving on a jury.
Like I said, small loss, but a loss nonetheless.

The bigger loss is to the culture of DU. We have a system in place that has a more than fair chance of punishing the use of complex memes and characterizations. I have found that the more subtle, the more complicated, or the more cryptic an expression is, the more susceptible to misconstruction it becomes. We've all seen the wingnuts reduce complex arguments by intelligent people into simple strawmen like "Oh! So you want the terrorists to win!". We know how wrong they are and we simply can't decide to just be stupid and buy into their little world. Here on DU, we shouldn't accept the intellectual laziness of straw men or "TL;DR".

There may be a few dim bulbs on DU, but I really haven't seen any (except for the trolls of course, but they don't count). The problem is that this place is complicated and the ideas that fly around here are complex and invariably there will be people (and, in my experience, have been plenty) that will misconstrue or misunderstand them. Especially if they are introduced to the post in question through the view of the alerter. That alone robs some objectivity from the process.

I LIKE DU as a complex, interesting, and intelligent place, but so far I've been told that we have to 'watch what we say' because people might be offended. That's wrong because it means that we have to eliminate some level of complexity from our interactions. That's wrong because it means that we are unwilling to go through the process of better getting to know our community. That's wrong because it means that we have to settle for a slightly less intelligent place because some handful of people influenced by the unfortunate misunderstanding of just 1 person gets to hide someone's idea or reason, kick them out of a thread, reduce their chance of serving on a jury and overall make the experience less fun for someone who actually intended no harm or insult at all.

Sure, there are plenty of people who intend harm or insult and their posts should be hidden. But not until a reasonable effort is made to understand the context of that post. Ultimately, doing so will help increase the understanding, complexity, and integration of DU.

And I'd much rather that were the case, because I refuse to 'dumb it down' just to avoid an incurious jury.

You may now call me a 'Douche' if you'd like*

[font size=1]*Offer only available in present thread or for the purposes of making a clever joke or point at my expense provided it is genuinely amusing or in conjunction with a signed note from the admins that you are allowed to call me a 'douche'. Offer void where prohibited.[/font]

The Problem Isn't Guns... It's CONSERVATIVES with Guns.

Think about this, please. In a nutshell:

Here on DU, you will find the most socially responsible, safety-minded, and conscientious gun owners and advocates anywhere on the internet. I've put this to the test. Had I access to the advanced search function, I'd have one of the links right here, but if anyone wants, I'll explain it and do the digging anyway.

I know that pro-2nd DUers are an easy target because they are the closest at hand, but if anyone should decide to take an honest look at the gun violence in this nation, they will find that all liberals, including the pro-2nd ones (it's more complicated than 'pro-2nd', but for the sake of brevity...) are vested in ending the strife, corruption, and lies that lead to such tragedies.

We know damn well that Trayvon was shot because his killer was afraid of black people. We know damn well that there is an active element in the media and woven into our social networks that exacerbates those fears in people. Trayvon did not die simply because someone had a gun...

He died because a "CONSERVATIVE" had a gun.

When it comes to guns, the grown-up, thoughtful, and reverent attitude towards weapons of such power radiates from liberal types that know what they are dealing with and how important it is to educate people and relieve the pressures that cause desperate people, including misguided conservatives, to resort to deathly violence.

You have to travel a total 180º from that attitude to arrive at the ultimately childish, hyper-macho, and absolutely naïve attitude of abject disregard for the potency and potential for horror guns can cause that we find all the time in today's 'conservative' gun owner.

How difficult is it to actually point to the 'conservative' roots and ideologies that have compelled virtually every single act of violence that did not otherwise have a money or personal motive?

Let's put it this way: a stoned squirrel could figure it out.

I'd like to think that DU knows this already. Not because we're all necessarily 'stoned' or 'squirrely'... or some combination thereof, but because it has been obvious to all of us that the rejection of a civilized approach is entirely the method of 'conservatives'.

THIS is what we have to be afraid of. Not 'Guns', but the mêmes and propaganda that foster hatred and foment violence in people with guns who are too stupid to own them. We can't keep guns out of the hands of anyone who wants them without denying those who truly need them. If we tried to impose draconian gun restrictions I can guarantee you that the rabid conservative gun-nuts would have channels to obtain them, while the lawful liberals would be (slightly) more likely to turn them over. It won't work.

In the meanwhile, what this says is that we have to educate people about the danger of conservatives with guns. We have to get people to understand that the conservative mindset is based on fear and they are somewhat more likely to be carrying guns. We have to instruct people that dealing with a conservative is often like dealing with an animal that is already afraid of an unfamiliar environment and will likely respond with violence when clearly out of their intellectual, social, or conceptual depth.

I'm saying this without one ounce of humor or sarcasm. These people are DANGEROUS, and we should make sure that everyone is AWARE of that.

In the meanwhile, if anyone can think of any plausible law that would keep guns out of the hands of most 'conservatives', I'd love to hear it.

I have a few ideas myself.

Not A Tear.

I'm not writing this for gravedancing purposes, but I refuse to judge anyone who does or anyone who doesn't.

What I have to say is this: Andrew Breitbart is dead, and, in the balance, that's a good thing. No confetti, no ceremonies, no dancing or preaching, it's just more 'right' than 'wrong'.

I feel sympathy for those who relied on him or even actually cared about him outside of politics, but his passing means there is one less liar, one less hater, and one less enemy of reason in the world. He did nothing for people beyond fomenting hatred and poisoning the public discourse. He even went so low as to vilify Ted Kennedy, a man who actually helped millions of people, including the very morons who reviled Kennedy at the behest of people like Breitbart. In fact, I have a message for all of you lurking wingnuts on that very point. Too bad it requires basic literacy to get. Otherwise you might actually learn who is really on your side and decide to join the civilized world.

But you won't. Because you've been taught irrational hatred, and then been programmed to believe that the people trying to get through your thick heads are your enemy.

And that really is the point. Breitbart, like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, and all of the other proven liars (For you wingnuts: "Proven" means 'can be demonstrated in reality' not 'because I say so'), was part of the mechanism that keeps the people of this nation divided by inciting fear and anger in many many Americans. He was part of the propaganda machine that deliberately turns people who might have been legitimate conservatives into batshit-crazy, hate-filled enemies of reason. Without reason, people vote and act against their own self-interest and the interest of society. When you can't reason with someone, you cannot have productive discourse. Without productive discourse, civilization is put in jeopardy.

Now imagine for a moment what the nation would be like if suddenly all the actual liars, haters, and enemies of reason just shut up and went away.

We could go back to being a nation of ideas, creativity, and solutions. We could actually achieve peace, equality, comfort, and satisfaction for almost everyone. We could start managing the planet properly and ensuring that resources would always be renewed for future generations. We might argue about how to go about it, but ultimately, and through reasoning, solutions emerge from civil discourse.

Breitbart was an enemy of all of those. His departure will not be enough to stop the forces of avarice that poison our nation and divide us, but ultimately, the world is a better place without him.

Does THIS Seem at all Sexist to Anyone?

On another site that I frequent I was witness to an exchange.

One poster, long since admittedly 'female', upon finding out that another poster was a man stated the following:

"All those wonderful pictures (nature scenes) you have posted, I thought you were a woman all this time."

I told the poster she was being sexist in making a gender determination based only on the sort of content that someone posts.

That poster refused to even acknowledge my reverse analogies, such as, after dining at Sylvia's in Harlem, Bill O'Reilly stating surprise that black people weren't swearing every other word was very racist of him. He just laughed it off. The other poster took no offense, he was just gracious for what he chose to perceive as a compliment... much to his credit.

So was I wrong? Is it at all sexist to assume someone is of a particular gender just because their posts are of a certain character or content?

"Where in This Bill does it Grant Authority to Indefinitely Detain US Citizens?"

Seriously, I'm asking. I've seen a lot of hubbub about it, I've seen the exemptions for US Citizens and legal aliens, but for all the hand-wringing and Obama-bashing I have yet to see the part of the bill that grants him that power. Admittedly, I may have missed some of the detailed analysis. Even what I saw and read didn't seem conclusive. I found the gaping hole in the MCA of 2006 (which was subsequently closed), but I haven't seen a big enough loophole in this one except for something vague about being 'on foreign soil'.

Now, before the usual suspects do their very best distortion/spinning/demonizing act, I'd like to make some things very clear so we can weed out the LASPs:

I am NOT in favor of holding anyone indefinitely and without trial or charges. Period.
If Obama signs it, I will be disappointed. I will hope there is an ulterior motive that works in our favor, but it could just be something as politically shrewd as taking the 'soft on terror' argument away from the Repunditcans.

Now, if someone can point us to a solid explanation of just how the bill suspends Habeas Corpus for US citizens as I've been hearing, I'd very much appreciate it.


I Have a Pledge to Make. Who Will Join Me?

If we want to elevate the discourse, some things need to change... from everyone. I'd Like to Give Everyone a Chance to be Clear.

I have been seeing a higher level of dishonesty here than ever before on DU. That includes the '08 primaries. I'm not whining about DU, it's a fine place with plenty of fine people. The thing is that we've crossed a line too many times and that lowers us.

I know that I come down more on one side of this issue than the other. I know that I'm going to be roundly and unreasonably lambasted for speaking my mind... as usual. I accept that as part of discourse, but the level of dishonesty that goes with it is very disheartening and robs me of my faith in what should otherwise be a body of intelligent and thoughtful individuals.

First, I'll address the Obama supporters:

Yes, I'm with you. We will have two viable choices for President and anyone who says otherwise is not living in reality. I've heard that we are 'authoritarian' and in pursuit of censorship. I have not seen direct examples of this, but I'd like to make something perfectly, abundantly, and crystal clear: Telling people that they shall not criticize the President is NEVER appropriate. To quote Roosevelt:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Again, I honestly have not seen examples of people telling Obama's critics that they are not allowed to voice their opinions, but that does not mean such examples do not exist. Therefore I will say without reservation that to state anything of the sort is reprehensible. It also plays into the contrived narrative that Obama supporters are 'authoritarian' and 'intolerant'.

To be an Obama supporter means listening to criticism, understanding it, expanding on the context where possible, or admitting to the faults or failures where they have no reasonable explanation.

It is dishonest to deal with criticism otherwise.

But speaking of 'dishonesty'...

This has become something of a problem lately among many that are highly critical of Obama. It has been made very, very clear that taking exception to criticism is intolerable to many who wish to air their outrage over Obama, his administration, and the policies that the two have enacted. This intolerance should have no place in discourse.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If you choose to be critical of Obama on a Democratic discussion board, expect people to take exception to that criticism. We Get It: You Don't Like Your Criticism of Obama Being Challenged. Now this aversion to criticism of Obama being challenged wouldn't be an issue at all if it weren't for the way it is so often handled:


This is very telling. It means that Obama's critics (not all of them, of course, but there are plenty) want to shut down any challenge to their criticism by deliberately mischaracterizing it as 'authoritarian', 'censorship', or otherwise impertinent to the criticism itself. Unless you are actually told that you should shut up, that you have to 'fall in line', that you must vote for Obama, or that you are 'with us or against us', to claim anyone has instructed you so is a LIE.

It's very, very simple: Do NOT substitute your own meanings or the voices in your head for what is actually written in black and white (or whatever color scheme you use) on the screen in front of you.

This is one of the most poisonous practices in discourse these days. It is exactly how Fox 'News' and Rush who-is-not-necessarily-a-sex-tourist Limbaugh program their brainwashed audience. It is uncivil, impolite, and ultimately dishonest to pretend someone has said what they did not. We are all guilty of this at some level, but those of us who are aware of it have the responsibility to keep it in check.

IF you are not certain what someone's intentions are from a given post, then ask them a simple yes/no question such as: "Are you telling me to stop criticizing Obama?"

That way they have an opportunity to clarify their intentions and discussion can continue on without devolving into a kindergarden playground fight.

Too many times people have made such claims about my own posts or those of other DUers without a single shred of evidence. We know why; it is because engaging in earnest on the nitty-gritty of the issues can be work and it's so much easier to end the exchange and walk away feeling righteous by lying about the other poster's intentions.

Let me be perfectly clear, again; To resort to such a tactic is both transparent and childish. I know that many people don't want to hear that and will likely throw a tantrum about it, but I would like to think we're all adults and anyone who reflects on their use of this tactic will eschew it from here on out.

As for the way many see the criticism of Obama here, I have another quote from Roosevelt:

"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger."

Many DUers are currently and actively fighting to wrest the nation out of the hands of corporate avarice and public corruption. The installment of another Republican will set that fight back another decade or more and increase our struggle as a nation. They see abject criticism of Obama as a failure to recognize that although he is not the savior we are all desperate for, he is the best possible option for us at this point in time. They have the attitude that those who refuse to help keep up the fight and keep him in office are only getting in the way and making the fight to restore the US to The People more difficult.

If that is not you, fine. If it is, then please contemplate the above and take seriously those who wish to keep the White House in Democratic hands until the fight is won.

Here is my pledge:

[font color=blue]I am an Obama supporter,

I am aware that he is not perfect, and although I believe he has good reasons for most, if not all, of the policies he enacts, the bills he signs, the people he appoints, and the decisions he makes, I recognize that criticism of those is often valid. It is for this reason that I shall not ever tell any of his critics on DU to 'shut up' or instruct them who they must vote for. I will endeavor to listen to their honest criticism and do the work of discovery to determine the validity of that criticism before dismissing it out of hand. I understand that there will be differences of opinion on whether a criticism is valid and will do my best to recognize the point of impasse. It is at this point I may make such an observation, but I will still maintain the other poster's right to voice their opinion. I will do my best to be polite, but even failing that I will not mischaracterize a critic's position absent of evidence and reasoned facts.
Also: I will save any lectures on the foolishness of not voting for Obama only for those who have explicitly stated that they refuse to vote for him. If I am uncertain of a person's position on this matter, I will simply ask them before making such a judgment.
I make this pledge in the understanding that if we are to effect change in this nation, we must do so with our eyes and minds wide open, and we must do it together.

To the best of my knowledge, I have not violated my above pledge. If anyone wishes to accuse me of doing so, then you have my express permission to retrieve any direct quote by me that does so in exchange for an apology. Naturally, I will construe any accusation absent such a quote as a lie.

I believe discourse on DU would be well-served if Obama's critics were to make a pledge recognizing that this is a Democratic site where they can expect reaction to criticism, and not to characterize that critism as 'authoritarian' or 'censorship' where such characterization is not merited. But I won't be the one to write such a pledge.

I'll leave that up to you.

Go to Page: 1 2 Next »