Can we please have a forum with a moritorium on outrage?

[arendt]

Can we please have a forum with a moritorium on outrage?

Last week, I shot myself in the foot trying to raise the issue of the Huxleyan state of America, and its influence on DU, in the General Discussion Forum. I was upset by the dominance of media-generated controversies and horse-races and the way they shoved important issues (Iraq, civil liberties, the budget, voting machines, etc.) down the discussion boards. But, I wrote hurriedly, and stepped on my own message.

Nevertheless, this topic is too important for me to just give up, despite the shellacking I took. (It was stupid to start a thread five minutes before going to work, so as to present a passive target for abuse all day long.) In order to prevent a rehash of that discussion in this thread, I have tried to deal with that discussion in some footnotes at the end.

The footnotes are relevant to this, but you can skip it if you want. I just want to state my case about Huxleyan tendencies clearly.

----

It is generally understood by the majority of Americans that the Bush Administration is Orwellian - witness the Emanuel Goldstein-like use of the terrorism threat, the incipient police state on display in Gitmo, the largest prison population on the planet, the proliferation of para-military SWAT teams, the overall thrust of the Attorney General's office, and the obscene euphemism of the "unitary executive".

But the only reason that such thuggery has advanced so far in America is because the Bush Administration swims in a Huxleyan sea, prepared for it by media consolidation.

...."In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch
....him, by ours. There is no need for wardens or gates or Ministries of Truth. When a
....population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is re-defined as a round of
....entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk,
....when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville
....act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility...

...."America has given the world the clearest available glimpse of the Huxleyan future...
....An Orwellian world is much easier to recognize, and to oppose, than a Huxleyan...
....We take arms against a sea of troubles...But what if there are no cries of anguish to
....be heard? Who is prepared to take arms against a sea of amusements? To whom
....do we complain, and when, and in what tone of voice, when serious discourse
....dissolves into giggles?

........- Neal Postman, "Amusing Ourselves to Death"

The late Neal Postman studied the impact of technological media upon the culture. The quote above, written in 1985, is an almost perfect prediction of where we are today, vis-a-vis a Huxleyan State. Truly, we are amusing ourselves to death.

It is my sincere belief that the Huxleyan burlesque of political discourse, manufactured by the corporate media (CM), is displacing what used to be a more genuine and thoughtful discourse here at DU . This burlesque can be seen both in the slavish attention paid by DUers to the topics and framing of the CM, and in the shallowness and shrillness of the discourse on the boards.

<RANT>

Why don't GD and GD-P have more pro-active conversations about what actions we are going to take, instead of whining sessions about bums like Ben Nelson and Joe Biden? For example, exactly how we are going to organize to force Democrats in Congress to do their Constitutional duty and impeach Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and all the other corrupt and traitorous officials who have lied us into war and domestic despotism while looting the middle class blind.

Why do I have to get worked up about every provocative insult hurled by the troglodyte right? Why can't I, instead, read how we are going to organize to pull the tax-exempt status of the Catholic League? Why can't I read about how we are going to get the drug-felon and parole violator Rush Limbaugh and the vote-fraud felon Ann Coulter off the air?

Why do I have to wade through the National Enquirer garbage about Anna Nicole Smith on a political board?

</RANT>

It is all about the framing. A while back, people on DU were quoting George Lakoff on framing; and that was good. But, since the election, the media has cranked up the framing, and DU has felt that it is our duty to step into each frame and refute it.
That is exactly what the CM wants us to do. They want to distract us, to get us to fight on issues that are off-topic.

The framing of issues in the CM is toxic. First of all, context is excluded - except for the biased talking points with which the CM wants to frame the issue. (Context is a well-discussed issue, if you are aware of the discussion - for example, the book "In the Context of No Context"). Second, complex issues are reduced to stories with heroes and villains. (An immense amount of Joseph Campbell material is relevant here.) These heroes and villains are part and parcel of the celebrity addiction of both the CM itself and the people who consume too much CM. Third, no story is complete without someone being "outraged". Of course, the GOP has turned being outraged into a high art form. If they are caught red-handed, they are outraged that you caught them.

To summarize: no context, stories, celebrities, and outrage.

And those four things are just what I am seeing more and more of in GD and GD-P. Worst of all, we talk about the same stories as the CM.

DU is a political discussion board, not a general news board. You want news? Go to your favorite news sites, which is where all the LBN stories come from anyway. The point of DU is to discuss politics, not any old news we find interesting. Has everybody forgotten the old saying "What interests the public is not necessarily 'the public interest."?

I come to DU to find out what is happening politically and how to make a difference. I have a technical job that requires a large percentage of my time and mental resources. I don't have a lot of time to acquire truthful political information. I come here to find such info and to find people who share my political priorities.

At this moment, I can think of more than a dozen things that need to be done, or our lives will soon become very bad for a very long time:

1. Get Congress to prohibit an Iran War, ASAP.
2. Get Congress to get us out of Iraq ASAP.
3. Restore Habeus Corpus and the right of soldiers to refuse an illegal order.
4. Impeach Cheney, Gonzales, and Bush, in that order.
5. Ban e-voting machines without paper trails. De-privatize e-voting software.
6. Shut down Guantanamo
7. Rein in the power and growth of the Military-Industrial-Prison Complex
8. Spend reasonably on first responders, cargo inspection, and chemical plants
9. Re-regulate and de-consolidate the media.
10. Start a crash program on energy independence and global warming
11. Restore the budget of the EPA, re-build its databases, and make it enforce the law.
12. Stop the wholesale export of productive jobs to East Asia.
13. Reverse the gutting of social programs.
14. Rebuild the wall between Church and State
15. Balance the budget by repealing the Bush tax cuts to the rich and to corporations
16. Make some kind of sensible and enforcable laws about immigration in this country
17. Open the black budgets and get some oversight on the intelligence community

These are the issues I want to find out how to work on in my limited time. But GD and GD-P are full of CM-dictated topics.

The 2008 campaign threads are the WORST. People - do you really want "the permanent campaign", where raising money and doing polls is all that politics is about? That is what you are voting for with your mindshare when you start threads for candidate selection so pre-maturely in the election cycle. How about pressing potential candidates to take some substantive political action first, and only talk about their prospects as candidates after they actually have done something, besides posturing and triangulating?

As far as the other "fluff" topcs, please, someone explain to me how what Joe Biden said about Barack Obama is more important than any of the above absoluetly vital issues? How is screaming at the Mars Candy Company about the Snickers commercial going to affect any of the above issues? Why do I see the same bloody set of red herrings here as I do on the CM?

My point is that its all about PRIORITIES. What are the priorities of DU?

We have to have priorities because we have a finite amount of resources. We ask moderators to enforce policies that maximize the value we get from our finite time spent here. The mindshare and bandwidth of DUers are precious. Just because everything is on the Internet (or because, for the sake of argument, all serious topics are discussed somewhere on DU) doesn't mean we all have time to independently dig it up on our own. With the rise of the net, we have learned that we need places that filter information, lest we drown in it. What would the net be without Google? What would DU be without moderated forums?

Perhaps the nature of the GD forums invite this kind of problem. LBN enforces some kind of rules, but what rule can be written for GD?

----

Therefore, I return to my second proposal (see footnote 2). I propose that we set up a "serious" discussion forum. I propose that DUers vote on what topics are "serious" - think of my list above as candidates. I propose that we keep only 20 or 25 serious topics at a time (they can change with periodic votes). I propose that (if someone pushes the Alert button) the moderators of this forum will evaluate a poster's claim that his/her post is truly about the serious topic that the poster claims it is.

So as not to have the Shiny Object of the Day discussion again, this is all completely voluntary - in its own forum. You can still have your GD and GD-P forums. Just give me one forum where people want to focus, without constant distraction, on stuff that they fear will soon hurt us badly.

Oh, and while we are doing this, could we please ban expressions of "outrage" from this forum. Couldn't we have just one forum where people have to use reason and rational debate instead of "outrage" (which usually translates to sarcasm, snarkiness, ad hominem insults, and disingenuous sophistry)? If you really need to express your outrage, you can cross-post to any other forum.

Is this proposal elitist / group-phobic ? Is it censorship? You tell me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FOOTNOTES on my previous thread:

1) Topics like "the Snickers commercial" and the Biden "clean" flap create legitimate outrage in the insulted communities.

Not being a member of those communities, I was unaware of the passion level and become a target for outrage when I objected to the volume of threads on those topics. I admit this was a mistake. I apologize. Now, could those offended please listen to what I say below with an open mind.

2) Hiding/ignoring threads will do for now

I heard everyone loud and clear on that topic. GD is GD.

But, I made TWO proposals. One was to create a forum for what I called "fluff" (roundly rejected as censorship); but the other was to create a forum for people who like a more academic and mannered style of discussion, which I called "serious". I will merely point out that people enjoyed blasting the "fluff" proposal while ignoring the "serious" proposal. (except for two who suggested that GD-P was such a more serious forum).

In the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy chose to respond to an acceptable proposal from Kruschev while ignoring a belligerent and unworkable proposal, possibly averting WW3. In the thread (not to be equated to a world crisis), the bulk of responders chose to respond to the unworkable proposal. My only point is that there is very little "diplomatic" behavior left on DU.

3) I post long articles that require some awareness/educational level.

In the GD thread, this was thrown in my face. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. I am supposed to respect the sensitivities of all oppressed minorities; but its OK to make fun of the whole style of writing that academics use every single day. I am not going to get "outraged" over this anti-intellectualism. America is noted for anti-intellectualism. Politicians make their careers on it. (George Wallace's "pointy-headed bureaucrats". George Bush: "I don't do nuance.") I would warmly welcome any of the people who implied that I'm a racist or a homophobe (both untrue) to dispassionately acknowledge, in the same spirit I just did, that America, regretfully, is noted for its homophobia and racism.

I will do my best to keep the writing interesting (not entertaining), but readers need to have some awareness of history and government. If you don't, then I respectfully suggest that you hide my threads.

Keeping it interesting does not mean keeping it simple-minded. We cannot beat the primitive "common sense" of reactionary counter-revolutionaries with nothing more than the "common sense" of liberals. That is just a shouting match between equally self-righteous tribes. We are fighting for the rule of a legal system that requires a degree of education. Without that education, we cannot categorically refute the absolutist garbage pushed by John Yoo, Alberto Gonzalez, and Justices Alito and Scalia. And, it is absolutely vital that we do that.

[Bonobo]

1. This is too long to respond to without serious consideration.

And I don't have the time right now.

Neil Postman's book that you quoted is the single most important book I have ever seen on the influence of media on politics and our mindset.

I will kick this for now and try to get to it in about 12 hours...

Thanks for not giving up. I'm glad you were able to stand up to the abuse you took and come back without giving up.

[arendt]

3. That's a perfectly acceptable response...

I was able to deal with the abuse by saving the thread, re-reading it a week later,
and realizing what petty nonsense it all was.

The future of our country is at stake. What's a little abuse among "friends"?

Thanks for taking a look.

arendt

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Everything you list would be made so much easier by public financing of federal campaigns.

(and fixing the presidential system) I recommmend adding it to your list.

On edit: If you want to make a group for the sort of discourse you are talking about, I'm onboard. I'd relish the chance to get some more education, and sink my teeth into some serious activism. Public financing is my current fixation, but I acknowledge the importance of all the things you list as well.

[arendt]

4. Right. I forgot to put Campaign Finance Reform on the list!

I was in a hurry, the list kept getting longer, I kept re-ordering it as I
added new topics. In short, I was in a hurry - even on a post this long.

Could you please elaborate what you mean by "fix the presidential system"?

arendt

[More Than A Feeling]

5. Well, the presidential campaign finance system was meant to be public financing

of a sort, but you see how well that has worked out. Candidates cannot compete under the current system if they accept the spending limits of taking Federal matching funds. That's why you see our major candidates announcing that they won't be participating. It doesn't make sense to institute public financing for congress while we let our current example of public financing rot away.

[arendt]

10. OK, you mean fix the presidential *campaign finance* system. n/t

[More Than A Feeling]

14. Oh, if you want to talk about fixing the presidential system in general...

that brings me to my proposal that we separate Presidential and Vice Presidential elections. Make all candidates run on both slates, and whoever gets the most votes on the VP slot (unless they've also gotten the most for prez) is the VP. THink of it...even most republicans probably would have voted for Edwards over Cheney in '04, if they had run against each other separately.

[arendt]

20. My list is about defending against immediate threats...

I don't see how what you are proposing falls in that category.

I'm not against it, necessarily. I'm just trying to keep the focus on defending myself
from Bush, Cheney, and corporations.

arendt

[More Than A Feeling]

24. I know, its not exactly a likely proposal.

It's an idea I came up with while brainstorming. I won't be working for it either. It's only a quarter-serious, if you will.:)

[JackRiddler]

64. In K&R I add: What really needs fixing...

NO ONE SHOULD BE PRESIDENT

What really needs fixing is the presidential system itself, yes.

There is a permanent government of vast, corrupt bureaucracies, like the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies, who are fully symbiotic and actually indistinguishable from the corporate contractors whom they serve (and the think-tanks who provide the ideology and frame the issues). The networks of personal loyalty and intelligence within this mix of public and private organizations have made themselves independent; they are self-appointed and consider themselves the real government. They constantly develop policy according to their own agendas of ideology and interest. The elected or politically appointed temporaries ratify the ideas that have already been declared inevitable (Homeland Security, focus on terror, need to create a more "competitive" work force).

Once every four years, the people are involved for a day in being given a choice about which one person (out of two fully predetermined candidates who are almost always the ones who raised the most money) will pretend to actually be the head of this beast (and appoint a couple of hundred other short-termers from among the usual corporate/lifetime bureaucrat/think-tank suspects).

Clearly, all this is neither republican nor democratic (lower case). It's an invitation to assorted racketeers to take over the government, and use it to plunder everything not nailed down.

I think a parliamentary system would be less prone to the combination of imperial insanity and total corruption our government has achieved (Britain notwithstanding). Precisely because it would be harder to "get things done" (usually a synonym for "impose the program of the ruling class in the most efficient manner while making it appear to be the will of the people").

---

THOUGHTS ON ARENDT'S IDEA

Arendt's OP is so big I don't know where to begin, except to assent generally. We see the Orwellian control as an overt expression of force, whereas we are often blind to the Huxleyan context within which we exist. (It's like the old joke about asking a fish if it tastes anything funny in the water. The reply? "What's water?")

Note that I was the OP of the "Prince's Penis" thread (intended to mock the "shiny object" phenomenon, as you remember Janet Jackson's minor breast flash was a scandal, whereas a three-foot penis flash went unnoticed) and the "Norbit" thread, which was prompted in part by the same concerns as Arendt's. (Topic A was, by what mechanism do we determine which "shiny object" of any given day is the significant one?)

I do wonder how much room for humor and cultural reference there would be in the proposed "serious" discussion board. If it drives away all but a tiny minority, isn't it failing entirely to accomplish what you hope? I think you do want something that catalyzes a different approach by the activists who come here generally.

Arendt, you surely see that your list touches upon pretty much every other "issue" that you have not yet specified. It will be easy for mods to see that a new thread about Anna Nicole is not on-topic for the "serious" board -- although what about HamdenRice's thread, which was a full-blown essay on the Nicole case as a milestone in probate law and an illuminating example of classism in American society?

More than this, what about other objects of censorship around here? Of course, I'm thinking about 9/11, the lack of a credible investigation, the faith-based acceptance of the official mythology, and the evidence that this event was the single biggest and most horrific case of media-engineered "shiny object" manipulation of all. Those who agree with the premise about 9/11 in the prior sentence see that it's extremely important, and view it as the key issue (in the sense of being a key to the doors of perception about pretty much everything else in the present US and global capitalist order). Those who disagree consider it a total distraction and want it bumped to the Conspiracy Dungeon, along with threads on bigfoot and Nessie (or altogether banished from DU).

NEED FOR MORE STRUCTURE

Perhaps these concerns can be addressed simply by further structuring your proposal and its rules. Also, one can consider the difference between OPs (which set up the issue) and replies (which can range in any relevant direction and indeed might happen upon current trivia).

Here is a possibility for a three-way split of the current two GDs that might actually work:

GD: Current Events (open to all topics on ongoing stories in the media and anything in the universe large or small)
GD: Candidates/Campaign Politics (obvious enough, has existed before - it can't be started fast enough, imho)
GD: Politics and Plans? Transformative Philosophy? -- ??? What's the right title for your idea ???

If you can define the structure of your proposal more precisely and in a way that makes clear how the rules would be enforced in given cases, it just might a) be accepted and b) work.

[arendt]

80. The "Clear and Present Danger" criterion

> I do wonder how much room for humor and cultural reference there would be
> in the proposed "serious" discussion board. If it drives away all but a tiny minority,
> isn't it failing entirely to accomplish what you hope? I think you do want something
> that catalyzes a different approach by the activists who come here generally.

I do not wish to move from total self-indulgence to total self-denial. I want to land
in a more "sober" place, for certain. If that causes the more boisterous people who
do not appreciate exactly how close democracy is to extinction in our country to
leave, I would not count that as a "failing".

My belief is that people do come to DU for more than wisecracks and powerless
putdowns of the rightwing.

> Arendt, you surely see that your list touches upon pretty much every other "issue" that
> you have not yet specified. It will be easy for mods to see that a new thread about Anna
> Nicole is not on-topic for the "serious" board -- although what about HamdenRice's thread,
> which was a full-blown essay on the Nicole case as a milestone in probate law and an
> illuminating example of classism in American society?

I think that my criteria for "serious" topics - that they are a clear and present danger to
our democracy - addresses your point. I fail to see how ANS, much less here probate
law are an immediate threat to me or anyone.

> More than this, what about other objects of censorship around here? Of course, I'm thinking
> about 9/11, the lack of a credible investigation, the faith-based acceptance of the official
> mythology, and the evidence that this event was the single biggest and most horrific case of
> media-engineered "shiny object" manipulation of all. Those who agree with the premise about
> 9/11 in the prior sentence see that it's extremely important, and view it as the key issue (in the
> sense of being a key to the doors of perception about pretty much everything else in the present
> US and global capitalist order).

Again, apply the C&PD criterion. If an honest 9/11 investigation leads to the more immediate
imprisonment of people who are a threat to democracy, then I am for discussing how to make
that happen. If that investigation causes more damage to be done to us, with no forward progress
on prosecution, then I am against discussing it. So, the topic would have to be a proposal of
what to do to get someone prosecuted - e.g., force the release of 9/11 documents or get the
recently found structural steel tested by an honest lab. Not just some vague discussion.

----

Thanks for your thoughts. My time is limited. I want to respond to many, so I must stop now.

arendt

[Matariki]

102. General Discussion - Politics already exists

and in the past a separate forum for the election has been created temporarily. So I think all you're suggesting already exists(?)

[JackRiddler]

104. Yeah that's true

In the past GD: Politics was the separate forum for candidates, and candidate promotion threads (easily the most annoying!) were banished from the main GD. T

This was good - and it's sorely needed right now.

[Horse with no Name]

6. What about women's and minority rights?

Those are my passions.

[arendt]

8. I'm for those rights. Can you state specific issues we can add to the list?

My point with the issues list is not to be too generic.

Even when I mean "balance the budget", I say "repeal the Bush tax cut".
I believe that being concrete is more likely to lead to ACTION than being
general.

So, please help me come up with specific women's and minority rights.

Obviously, one women's right would be to "preserve Roe v Wade".

Please help me with a specific, threatened minority right. (Pell grants? Welfare?)

thanks

arendt

[Horse with no Name]

11. It encompasses several things

Health
Education
Reproductive Rights

That's a start for women.

Of course you also have the struggles of our GLBT brothers and sisters. That is ongoing.

Minority rights...it's a very broad issue. Not necessarily anything in particular at any given time, but the issue still exists.

[arendt]

13. My list is about specific things with a short time limit...

I'm asking you to name specific rights that might be taken away without immediate action,
specific new restrictions that are being implemented by executive order or trumped up
test case working through the legal system.

The list is to get people to focus, to prioritize, and to act NOW.

Please, please, just tell me some SPECIFIC thing that you are concerned will hurt women's
or minority rights SOON if we don't act to prevent it.

arendt

[Horse with no Name]

19. I have to tell you

I took a beating today.
I will get with you on this tomorrow.

[arendt]

28. Take your time...

sorry you had a rough day. Caught in the blizzard?

Anyway, its OK to respond later. I hope to keep the thread going for a while.

arendt

[thethinker]

7. You certainly have a point

Everyone here should read your post. We are guilty as charged. We do tend to talk about what the media tells us to talk about - even here at DU.

I would only add one thing to your 17 points that need to be done. We need to get money out of politics so the congress critters are working for the American people (like they are suppose to be) instead of the corporations. Nothing will get done in Washington until that problem is fixed.

[arendt]

9. Money out of politics = campaign finance reform. It will be added. n/t

[kikiek]

12. You are dead on! We need to be aware of what is distracting us. On the other hand if we

have no distractions our current situation is dismal to say the least. Therefore I do believe we need distractions, but within reason. Now define reason.

[arendt]

16. To see what is distracting, look at the list of what we are being distracted from...

pretty scary list, I agree.

But, the problem with America is that we are addicted to media. Don't act, watch
someone else act. Watch someone else comment on someone else acting.

Yes the situation is dismal, and its going to get worse if we don't sober up from
our media-induced stupor. Distractions are simply a luxury we can't afford while
Bush and Cheney are in control of the military and police.

arendt

[kikiek]

17. I agree. Geez gotta tell ya you sound like my mother. She rants about this subject!

But she is right as are you. We have no more time for talk only action can save us at this point.

[arendt]

21. Good enough. Is the topic list OK with you? n/t

[kikiek]

47. Yes it is well covered. You are right, and we need to get impeachment done now. We cannot go to war

with Iran, and we need to be out of Iraq now.

[Canuckistanian]

15. I agree with almost everything you say

The most important, IMHO is your stance on framing the issues. The CM is the CM, like it or not and you're going to have to work within it or be ignored totally. And to be excluded is worse than not existing at all.

Second is the removal of money from the discourse. You're only half-right in criticizing our choice of topics. But we take our cues directly from the messages coming from a vested interest, that same CM. We have little choice. Their bosses decide what everyone talks about, as long as it suits their bottom line. And that ain't serious discussion of issues, which would lead to questioning the larger system.

So, how do we avoid being merely reactive to stories that are spoon-fed to us each day? That would require an independence from the whole system - very difficult to do. And how do we ignore the daily insults to our intelligence thrown at us each day by people whose ulterior motives are so plain to us? It's "hard work", to quote a leading proponent of such insults.

No, we must play by their rules for now, however unfair, however seemingly pointless. Because the message HAS gotten through, as evidenced by the last election.

We must force those in power to follow through with that message, whether they're ready for it or not.

The people are already there. It's time for the consequences to fall where they should.

[arendt]

18. But their rules are "heads I win, tails you lose". I won't play that game...

We have the inernet. We have our own discussions. This thread is about having a
place where we don't have to play by their rules.

Do you think the fundies, twenty years ago, said "we have to play by the media rules"?
No, they did things the media found outrageous, but because the media was less
centralized, their message got through and their movement grew.

I have tried to see how you would operationalize "force those in power to follow through"
within the absolutely useless CM. The only way any pressure is getting through is via
the Internet and the internet-organized events, pressure groups, and PACs.

I appreciate your good intention here, but I need some concrete examples of why I
should waste my time trying to play a game with the Red Queen (a thing is what I
say it is).

arendt

[Canuckistanian]

77. I appreciate your intentions and will work with you

But the example you give of the fundies is somewhat inappropriate. They were swimming WITH the stream, not against it. THEY are the real counter-culture.

Now, I get your point about creating brand new streams. The bloggers, outlets such as Huffington Post, Air America, Kos and others have created a new cultural force that is hard to control by entrenched media.

But it will take time for this "alternate media" to gain a foothold in the American psyche.

The key is to get the politicians quoting, referencing and depending on the alternate media.

And that will take work.

[Cerridwen]

22. Yes! What you said.

It has been years since I've read Postman. Though I'd forgotten his name, I remembered his ideas and they influence me to this day. I frequently internalize ideas and I am then unable to regurgitate, authors, dates, times, titles and places. It's the way I learn.

I prefer to discuss, debate and plan strategies around those things which can be directly addressed. The 'entertainment as SOMA' that frequently flies around here can be painful.

I'm happy to see I'm not alone. I bet there are others here, too - presuming they survived the first (and subsequent) rounds of 'culling' brought to us by 'bright shiny objects of the day.'

Thank you for saying what I'd been thinking. You said it 'much nicer' that I would have.

You selected one of my favorite sources of irony. "Why can't we Americans select a candidate based on issues rather than how s/he looks, talks, etc.?" decries DU posters who are looking for substance. "(fill in favorite candidate) can never get the nomination because s/he is looks funny/talks funny/etc." decries those same posters who have now embraced "pragmatism." My other is "the MSM (sic) never gives the Democrats a platform" followed shortly by "why the hell don't the Democrats come out and say (fill in the blank)". I presume they expect Democrats to use that platform they've not been given. Yeah, I get a mental whiplash.

I'm with you. Let me know if you find or create such a place. I'll be there.


edit to add: How DO we dissolve the veil of corporate personhood? That would address campaign finance issues, 'murder' in the name of business practice, profit trumps people, "Money trumps Peace" and so forth and so on.

[arendt]

25. Thanks for the 2 great examples of contradictory thinking here...

sometimes, when I quote old books, I feel like a memorizer from Fahrenheit 451 (another really old
book - but they did make it into a movie, which Michael Moore paraphrased).

I'm trying to create such a place with this thread. K&R it. Maybe after 24 hours we will have enough
votes to seriously petition the moderators.

arendt

[Cerridwen]

33. "another really old book" which I've actually read. :D

I wish I could be more of a 'memorizer'.

I'll check back and see how this is progressing.

Much luck!

Time to call it a night.

[arendt]

34. C U Later. Thanks. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

23. Hope this doesn't sound snarky because it isn't meant to be

but wouldn't it be easier if we just used the General Discussion: Politics forum for these types of discussions and leave General Discussion for the "fluff"?

[arendt]

26. One of my points was that GD-P is full of "vote for candidate X" threads...

and I think such threads are a distraction from my list of issues that MUST
be solved long before the 2008 election.

arendt

[BlackVelvet04]

27. Sorry....

didn't catch that.

[arendt]

31. Not a problem. Now you get it. n/t

[MedleyMisty]

32. Yeah

I took a look once at GDP to see how it differed from GD. I made a comment to my husband that it was full of horse race stuff about the presidential candidates and didn't have a lot of real political discussion.

I will admit that I took a few minutes to gather the courage to read your post, because of the use of the word outrage in the subject line. I don't join in with the forms of prejudice that are popular on liberal boards, and I thought your post would be a rant about how people who don't go along with the majority on being prejudiced against certain groups should just shut up and let people hate others peacefully.

I do think that it's legitimate to point out prejudice and intolerance, and that pointing it out is not a distraction from overcoming it. Of course, one could argue about how to point it out and I admit that my usual way of doing it probably isn't helping overcome it.

Anyway, that's all fluff, as you would say. :) I would certainly read any articles that you posted and would be interested in reading the kind of discussion that you're advocating.

[arendt]

35. Hmm, I had hoped the title would have lured people tired of outrage...

but thanks for the courage to take a look.

I agree about GD-P. And, in the last month before a real election, horse race
can be appropriate. But TWO YEARS before the election, and TWO DAYS after
the previous election? This is a monkey wrench in the political process courtesy
of the CM.

----

All my articles are in my journal here.

Stay tuned to this thread to see if we can generate such a forum.

arendt

[Change has come]

37. Well said

:applause: Welcome to DU

[Marrah_G]

53. Wrong actually, IMHO

It hasn't become a "vote for candidate X" forum it has instead become an "X is evil and no good progessive should ever vote for them" forum. I cannot even stomach reading what was once my favorite forum anymore. It's just full of post after post about how each candidate is the devil because of (usually) one issue. Who needs to go to the FR to read posts trashing our team when we have page after page of it right here?

Each one of you who thinks you are somehow "helping" your favorite Candidate by shredding another Democrat are simply playing into the hands of the Republicans. Convince me by talking about your candidates stand on issues, not by cutting down their opponents.

[jannyk]

39. I thought the 'Lounge' was for fluff not GD

and that's not 'snarky' either. GD has slipped of late into Lounge territory. Posts used to get moved and endless threads about the same inane topic used to be combined - maybe there are just too many for the mods to cope with now.

Also, all the 'pity posts'. I sympathize, I really do. I contribute and help where I can. But they also belong in the Lounge

It's very frustrating and aggravating for those that come here to be 'informed' and not just 'entertained'.


Arendt, I couldn't put it nearly as intelligently as you, but I sincerely appreciate your posts. This one in particular.

[arendt]

44. Yes. Others have said people/mods should go to the Lounge...

otherwise GD will be "neutered" the same way the CM has been -
slowly, insidiously, with Entertainment "News" pushing out the
real news needed to run a democracy.

arendt

[Patsy Stone]

29. Several points are well taken

The outrage can be a bit much, and the bickering can be a bit much, and I agree that hiding threads is a much better use of your time than running around responding to every thread that baits you.

That having been said, you shortchange DU on many levels, and I would argue that your premise that this is only a political discussion board would be refuted by the text found on DU's "About Us" page (not to mention the mere existence of The Lounge and the Crafts Group -- to name only two more examples):

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

So who decides what our shared goals are? Does everyone in GD have to agree for it to be a goal? Is it whatever you say it should be?
No, you know that's not the case.

GD is just that: General Discussion. Discussion of ideas. There are individual forums where most of the issues that would require actions on a particular discussion are explored in minute detail. The Election Reform forum, the State forums and the Activist Corps are places where things happen, and where actions are directed towards specific issues. Perhaps some of these will interest you.

Your post was two completely different thoughts rolled into one. I think I've at least attempted to address one, and to the idea of the Huxleyan effects on DU's discourse, well, DU as it grows becomes a better microcosm of the greater whole as well. Some will want to discuss how a commercial appeared to them and how it made them feel. If there is some action someone wants to get going against those they feel offended them, that is their right as a DUer. There will be people who disagree. That is viable discourse to me, even if I don't give a damn. This is the moment I hide the thread, or jump in and comment on the thread.

Don't confuse GD with DU. They are different. Heck, GD is different hour to hour. Your profile says you've been around long enough to notice when the going gets tough. That's when the tough go to The Lounge or the Keith Olbermann Group.

Besides, I think when you see a theme like the John Edwards House debacle, a lot of people stirring the shit are just disruptors in a DU mask anyhow. You can't forget to figure them into the equation.

Stop worrying about what's going on in GD. Post in GD: P, post wherever you like, but GD isn't going to stop discussing the things everyone else is talking about just because you think they should. Even if you think the reason everyone is discussing it is because they were brainwashed into discussing it, you're not going to sell that point in the middle of the frenzy.

[arendt]

30. I recognize that I can't change DU; but what about a "serious" forum?

You have a good understanding of the less obvious parts of DU. I tend to stick to argumentation,
since I have no time or inclination to have close friends that I can only type to. (Not a slam, just
a personal preference.)

> So who decides what our shared goals are?
> Does everyone in GD have to agree for it to be a goal?
> Is it whatever you say it should be?
> No, you know that's not the case.

This is the nub of it. My solution is to say that people like me also need their own place at DU.
I am paranoid that the whole country is about to go past some irreversible boundary, and it
will be changed for the worse forever.

If that is true, there must be a list of actions we must take to prevent such an outcome. I am
asking the collective wisdom of DU to vote on such actions. Then we can try to organize them.

But, this is just one person's idea. OTOH, it is an idea which I do not see being put into action
at DU. Hence, this propsal.

I can't do the lounge. Its like going for a smoke in the middle of a battle. I get my R*R off-line,
not on-line. I work on-line. I'm a techie.

arendt

[Patsy Stone]

36. For a while

The Admins were discussing something like what you're talking about. It was more of a long form diary area and a livelier current discussion forum. I don't know what ever happened to that. It was around the time they introduced the journals.

I'm not saying you have to go to the Lounge, but sometimes that's the best place to let off steam about the wacky world of GD. You'd be amazed who goes there. I have also been known to turn off the computer, walk away, and pet the cat when I don't see anything I want to comment on.

I'm just suggesting that there could be a group of people discussing exactly what you want to discuss when you want to discuss it, but it just might not be in GD. Usually, I read the Greatest Page and check out a few forums I'm interested in. The best stuff usually ends up on the Greatest Page anyway. Sometimes there's a real dog on there, but then as I read it, I realize others thought it was just as much of a dog and wonder how it got there. That's when my faith is restored.

BTW, I've met a number of the close friends I type to, and some of them have become actual human friends. :)

[arendt]

38. I vaguely remember a discussion about such a forum...

I have made peace with the fact that I can't change the existing forums.

But, I do feel the need for a strong "theoretical" foundation for activism.
I don't tend to just jump up and so something. I tend to plan first, and
act when I have a plan.

But, the Huxleyan nature of America is constantly distracting me from
planning.

Maybe I will take a look in the lounge. I certainly should remember to
go to the Greatest section - heck, I ask people to vote me onto it.

Thanks for the sage advice.

Its my bedtime.

gnite

arendt

[tom_paine]

40. K & R for common sense!

[salin]

41. I would be interested in such a forum... though

I think the name shouldn't be "Serious" per that suggests that every discussion everywhere else is not serious.

While the Greatest Page is a quick way to find important breaking info or intriguing 'deep' posts (original writing rather than a news item) - once the thread dies down - there is no place for ongoing discussion of the implications or additional breaks - or a 'what can/should we do' discussions.

There was a period of time before the 2004 primaries got kicked into gear where the GD hosted some very great 'research' done as a group and digging into stories how they connect to develop a greater collective knowledge. I would hope that would have a place in your proposed forum - as it is helpful to have a broader understanding of the interwoven nature of some of the damage being wrought by bushco - in order to develop better responses/solutions.

[arendt]

43. How about "Progressive Theory"?

I agree that "serious" will just be a slam.

In most other intellectual disciplines, what you call 'deep' is called 'theory'.

Of course, America being such an anti-intellecual environment, theory
willl be slammed as elitist, if not communist.

But, the GOP has gotten where it is via its 'think tanks' and conservative
"scholars(sic)". So, I like some title with the word 'theory'.

arendt

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. How about 'Policy Discussion'? ('and Implementation'?)

I think I see what you're getting at, anyway. What you're looking for is a forum in which the topics are things we want legislators, or similar people, to do concrete things about now - or at least form concrete policies for if they're elected. The forum would be for discussion of both what changes should be, and how to get them done - writing to representatives, raising them with campaigns, joining groups or protests, standing for office, whatever.

GD would remain for discussion of things that are about society at large - so when someone wants to raise an issue of discrimination, which may need attitude changes from society as a whole, it is, as the title says, for 'general discussion'.

I'd worry that "Progressive Theory" would be too much "in an ideal world ..." or "ignoring the practical aspects, I'd like ...". Your list of suggestions is very much "what we need to do, or get done, now".

I have to point out that, as a non-American, my participation in "how to get these things done" might not be great, but I certainly see how your suggestion would be useful. I find GD a huge thing to sort through to find things I'm interested in, whether they're really 'important' or not. Hiding threads takes forever, when there are 50 new threads each time you look (though if you could select several to hide at once, just that would help as an alternative method of sorting out your interests).

[salin]

70. I really like this suggestion "Policy Discussion"

This would get my vote!

[arendt]

81. You make a good case, but see my post 80 above...

how about the Clear and Present Danger Forum?

arendt

[Jonathan50]

42. I had a nice long post mostly done last night and then my computer froze.

Windoze can be a pain sometimes.

Huxley and Orwell were writing a form of science fiction or speculative fiction (both called SF). The society we live in today is neither Huxleyan nor Orwellian but rather a mixture of both with a lot of other factors thrown in as well. SF has never intended to or pretended to predict *the* future but rather to extrapolate a *possible* future by following current trends in a logical manner and trying to see where they might lead.

Most people think of SF as being all about ray guns, bug eyed monsters (BEMs), space ships and technology in general. That is an over generalization by people not really familiar with the genre. Huxley and Orwell both were writing anthropological or sociological SF and that type of writing is not all that uncommon in SF. Norman Spinrad is a writer whose works are more sociological and anthropological than technological. His book _The Iron Dream_ is an SFnal examination of Nazism and covers anthropology and sociology both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Dream

The Iron Dream is a metafictional 1972 alternate history novel by Norman Spinrad.

In his nested narrative (i.e. a Story within a story), Spinrad tells a fairly standard action story. However this story, Lords of the Swastika, takes the form of a pro-fascist narrative written by an alternate history version of Adolf Hitler, who in this timeline emigrated to America and became a science fiction writer. Spinrad's seems intent on demonstrating just how close Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces — and much science fiction and fantasy literature — can be to the racist fantasies of Nazi Germany. The nested narrative is followed by a faux scholarly analysis by a fictional Homer Whipple of New York University.

I agree with your idea of a more serious discussion about sociological and political problems being necessary. I'm largely uninfluenced by the CM since I don't listen to radio and watch very little television beyond John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I get all my news from the web and only read those stories which I find interesting or relevant while skimming the headlines.

Although I've only been registered at DU for a short time, I've been lurking on and off for years now. It's only recently that I've had the time to contribute in a serious manner and so I finally registered and started posting. I have to admit that you have to wade through quite a bit of "yay team" and "me too" posts to find the true gems of insight. As a former denizen of usenet though I'm long since inured to that sort of thing, the signal to noise ratio on usenet is way lower than it is here.

[arendt]

46. Thanks for finally joining DU, old timer...

your post shows you are a well read and world weary traveler, like me.

Your points about SF are true. BTW - I love Spinrad's "The Big Flash",
too close to the current situation for comfort. I had never heard of the
Iron Dream. I will check it out.

As I have watched US politics being deliberately lobotomized by the
CM, I have felt ever more the outsider. Anti-intellectualism is rampant
again in this country. In fact, as a result of this thread, I am trying to
formulate a way to get Intellectuals recognized as an oppressed minority.
How did the working class go from wanting their kid to get a college
degree and a better job to despising anyone who has a Ph.D. behind
his name, even as downward mobility turns them into chattel?

Thanks for reminding me that DU is better than usenet. But, I am
grateful that the sheer volume and age of usenet has buried some
of my comments from the early 90s, when no one got that posting
on the net was forever.

arendt

[Jonathan50]

49. You might want to check out _Journals of the The Plague Years_ also by Spinrad

Thanks for the welcome, I'll be looking forward to more conversation on this and other topics.

Since my full name is unique I never posted on usenet by my full name. I'd read enough SF to realize that it was not a particularly good thing to put really controversial ideas under one's own name out where they could be accessed by anyone and everyone . Call it paranoia if you will but I'm really glad I took the precaution.

http://www.amazon.com/Journals-Plague-Years-Norman-Spinrad/dp/0553373994

The most basic (and best) science fiction stories are those that take a current condition and extrapolate to the future. Here Spinrad writes of a future threatened by a sexually transmitted disease that started in Africa worked its way through the gay and drug communities and now is at large in the general population. The term "AIDs" is not used at all in the story, only mentioned in the author's afterword. The disease is particularly deadly because as each successful vaccine is found, the virus mutates to a resistant strain almost immediately. Spinrad's story follows 4 characters: A soldier in a military division of the infected (nicknamed The Army of the Living Dead), a fundamentalist Christian politician who heads a new Quarantine Bureau of the government, an infected young girl who tries to bring sexual solace to as many of the infected as she can, and a research scientist looking for the ultimate vaccine. Because the disease requires repeated vaccines to counteract the many mutations, the drug companies don't want this "SuperVaccine" found. Starting with these vastly different characters, Spinrad spins a web of intrigue until the story culminates in the quarantined San Francisco. The story is tense and exciting. All the characters grow, for example, the girl becomes almost a religious icon to the infected. All of this is set in a world where sex is done through machines and various interfaces to protect the quickly diminishing ranks of the uninfected. This is an excellent SF tale with an adult theme and frightening settings.

[The Straight Story]

45. Have not had a chance to read this all yet - but a kick for what I have read so far

And will get back to it in a bit.

[arendt]

48. GOT TO GO TO WORK, BACK TONITE. PLEASE KEEP KICKED. THX. n/t

[Cerridwen]

50. Morning kick

1. Get Congress to prohibit an Iran War, ASAP.
2. Get Congress to get us out of Iraq ASAP.
3. Restore Habeus Corpus and the right of soldiers to refuse an illegal order.
4. Impeach Cheney, Gonzales, and Bush, in that order.
5. Ban e-voting machines without paper trails. De-privatize e-voting software.
6. Shut down Guantanamo
7. Rein in the power and growth of the Military-Industrial-Prison Complex
8. Spend reasonably on first responders, cargo inspection, and chemical plants
9. Re-regulate and de-consolidate the media.
10. Start a crash program on energy independence and global warming
11. Restore the budget of the EPA, re-build its databases, and make it enforce the law.
12. Stop the wholesale export of productive jobs to East Asia.
13. Reverse the gutting of social programs.
14. Rebuild the wall between Church and State
15. Balance the budget by repealing the Bush tax cuts to the rich and to corporations
16. Make some kind of sensible and enforcable laws about immigration in this country
17. Open the black budgets and get some oversight on the intelligence community

I'd like to add a #18 (apologies if I missed someone else saying the same)

18. Address corporate 'personhood' - this was an 'unintended' result of a Supreme Court clerk's notes which should never been allowed

--18a. Corporations should be returned to their role as corporate charters formed for the benefit of the common good which was their original role in the U.S. i.e., the to build a canal, a dam, or some large project to benefit the common good but which was out of the purview of government but which was too large for one business to achieve

--18b. Return to corporate charters which are formed for periods of no more than 20-25 years or when their project for the common good is complete - whichever comes first

This could potentially, address #5, #7, #9, #10, #12, and #15.

edit: punctuation

[CrispyQ]

52. Another morning kick.

And a :thumbsup: for suggestion #18!!

[Cerridwen]

55. Thanks and a quick

I should have added that #18 could possibly address the campaign finance issue (not yet added to the list), as well.

G'mornin', Crispy!

[AikidoSoul]

73. Cerridwen -- thanks for reminding me of this. One of the most important considerations

of all. It would solve many problems with one fell swoop. :)

[flying rabbit]

51. excellent post

but creating a new forum would compartmentalize DU more, and fewer people would get the chance to see this post.

[Jcrowley]

54. Excellent post

K&R

Please send over a link to your original post on topic. I remember it as a rather accurate reflection of things.

If you haven't already I recommend reading Jerry mander's, "Four Arguments For The Elimination of Television."

[AikidoSoul]

74. Killing Your TV is a good start. Teaching kids and ourselves how to think is also essential

because the school system does a poor job of it.

Some of the most interesting courses I've ever seen are the Edward DeBono lateral thinking courses that can be taught to small kids and adults. Kids get it quickly while many adults squirm because it forces them to move away from the linear ruts where they feel so comfortable.

In some countries the DeBono courses are required in elementary schools -- at least that used to be true in South America and Europe. Mainly the teaching is done by getting students to work either alone or in a group to solve a range of difficult and interesting problems --using lateral thinking methods. The results are often incredibly clever, cost effective, strategic... and fun!

These methods can be applied to anything.

[atommom]

56. That would be nice, but not everyone would be able to shift gears

for such in-depth conversation. DU is so fast-moving. There's so much to see here. It encourages people to skim through posts quickly, and reply quickly, often without deep thought. I'm as guilty of that as anyone. I'm not sure we could get an entire forum for this purpose, but perhaps a DU Group could be formed if we articulate our purpose for it well enough.

[bettyellen]

57. i have limited time, and long self mastubatory lectures do interest me or spur activism

and like it or not, outrage works to motivate people. there is an activists forum and a research forum- two perfectly good places for you to post, it would seem. why aren't they good enough?
why/ how do you want tone and content so heavily policed?
elitist you ask? yes, and unrealistic.

[donco6]

78. But that's not what DU is ALL ABOUT!

Like anyone can put in a nutshell what DU is all about in the first place.

Outrage brought about the Boston Tea Party. Outrage raised Stonewall. Outrage fueled the fires of countless revolutions all over the world.

Frankly, I think we could all use a little more outrage, myself.

[arendt]

82. Outrage is exactly what a gunslinger wants from an honest citizen...

so he has an excuse to shoot him dead.

You just don't get it. Outrage is a commodity anymore. Anyone can be outraged about anything.
Outrage has no value add anymore.

As "bettyellen" so insultingly put it. "long self-masturbatory orgasms of outrage do not interest me".

arendt

[donco6]

84. Well, tell you what.

You just gimme that there list of what's OK to post about on the board and I'll stick right to it.

(snicker)

Or maybe I'll post 10 straight articles about Anna Nicole just to get you outraged.

[arendt]

83. What do you do for an encore? Go to the opera and piss on the stage?

Outrage has been beaten to death.

That is why there are so many positive responses to this thread.
In fact, yours is the only turd in the punchbowl.

Did you miss the entire 20th century? Did you miss George Orwell?
Do you understand nothing about propaganda and manipulation?
Are you now or have you ever been an anti-intellecual?

You continue to misrepresent my proposal. I and people like me
want a place where people like you will not be interested in coming
and pissing on the stage.

You can call that anything you want, but I call it a place where I can
get some work done.

I am not policing anyone. I have made that explicit in my footnotes.
You clearly just want the right to throw a tantrum and not get called
on it.

arendt

[donco6]

85. Hey! Mine was just as big a turd as hers!

I demand an apology.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

92. Here's the deal.

The real basis for my objection to your OP is just the sheer stupidity of it. Without passion and fire and outrage, discussion boards are flat, dull, lifeless entities. I goaded you on to get a rise out of you so that you would see that for yourself. No one wants to post when there is no gut-level emotion involved. But I'll bet you'll be checking "My DU" for the next 20 minutes to check your posts on this one tiny subthread. Why is that, do you suppose? Because you have a vested emotional interest. Perhaps even a tiny bit of "outrage" at someone being so audacious as to challenge your super-duper nominated thread. Pfft. I've seen 'em come and seen 'em go. Don't get too full of yourself over it.

But if that's what you really want, fine. Go ahead and start your "outrage-free" forum. Perhaps you could call it "Pleasantville". I prefer a little color, myself.

[lonestarnot]

99. I do not speak for the op'r here, but wasn't it clear that the

"outrage" was misdirected to A.N. and crazy shit rather than issues that matter? :shrug:

[donco6]

100. Not really.

Because the last time he posted this crapola, he "accidentally" let it slip that gay rights didn't fit into his "ideas that really matter" world view. Of course, that post got locked. But here he's back again.

And besides, it wouldn't matter. When you limit outrage, you limit passion; when you limit passion, no one's going to give a shit about the forum.

[lonestarnot]

107. Oh. I see.

A second class citizen maker. Hmmmf. Well, my passion can't be limited on stuff that matters so I'm just freak'n outraged!

[bettyellen]

108. flat, dull, lifeless yes, this is why the OP doesn't want to use the existing forums

somehow they think they can transform a busy forum like GD into Pleasantville and it's going to stay busy, so they have an audience.
I don't give a damn how many degrees they have, that's just totally lacking in common sense. And the scolding condescending tone, it's like they think this is the Paperchase or something, so yeah, I'd rather take in a Karen Findley performance.

[bettyellen]

111. don't go being all girly and emotional! quick! look at this bright shiny object and you'll be

appeased! Lol. The OP thinks he's the first to post about media manipulation, I thin they need to get out more.

[Nikki Stone1]

58. I'm all for a Snake Pit forum for the fights and distractions

Easy way to kick the moles & trolls out too.

[LeftHander]

59. But ANNA'S DEAD!...

:sarcasm:

Excellent post K&R...for further digestion.

[Nikki Stone1]

60. Maybe we need an Unimportant Celebrity of the Day forum?

Hmmm

[BluePatriot]

61. Excellent, content-driven post,

the type of which keeps me coming back to DU. The voting idea is a good one, in line with the already existing "recommend" system. Maybe instead of "general discussion" forums only we need a supplementary "action and education" forum? I would think GD-P would have morphed in to that, but it doesn't seem to have.

[Strawman]

62. Have you read anything by Michael Schudson?

I just read an interesting article of his entitled "Why Conversation is Not the Soul of Democracy." If you have access to JSTOR or a access to an electronic university library database of academic journals, you can probably find it. It is not that long either. I think he agrees with alot of what you are saying here and you might find it interesting if you haven't already read it. Essentially, the point he makes (as I understand it) is that civil society and democracy don't just emerge as a result of talk. Instead democracy forces us to talk in public about important things that we otherwise wouldn't. And there's not really any democratic value in mere natural, comfortable, frivolous talk that is not of a problem-solving nature.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It's an important subject to think about, and one that I'm not quite done thinking about myself. I'm not willing to say that there is no value to the public act of merely talking about the news regardless of it's "fluff" or it seeming to be merely reflective of the CM's agenda.

So I don't know where I come down on this yet. Interesting topic though.

[arendt]

89. I have JSTOR access, but the article doesn't seem to be in there.

sounds interesting. I will try to find a copy.

Google leads from this straight back to Habermas and the Crisis of the Public Sphere.
Looks very seminal.

arendt

[AngryAmish]

65. Anna Nicole died for our sins

I can't beleive folks will shit on her.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Well said.

My reaction to the celebrity/outrage/horse race discussions (not to be confused with outraged discussions about criticism of celebrity horses) has been cynical snarkiness. I'm the first to admit that this has been counterproductive.

Thanks for elevating the debate.

... but can I still make fun of Antonin Scalias DUI daughter?

I would only suggest that issue #12 be interpreted more broadly, "promote policies which benefit working americans".

[cui bono]

67. If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

So what do I do with that bumper sticker then?

;)

[GoneOffShore]

68. I watched you take a beating last week and was appalled

at the level to which various posters sunk, overcome with outraged reactions to your post.

Your post should address most of those who were up in arms over what you said.

I too would like to see more discussions on specific threats and actions to take to counter those threats.

And a suggestion to add to your list - though it may fall under "campaign finance reform" - shorten the electoral season. Have primaries all fall within the same 2 weeks, followed by 6 weeks of campaigning before the elections. Eliminate party "Conventions" They've become meaningless in light of the the primaries. If political parties want to dance and strut, let them, but don't call it a nominating convention, call it what it is - a circle jerk.

[arendt]

90. Thanks for the sympathy. It was really only 2 or 3 people who...

seem to get off on insulting people rather than adding value.

I am in favor of what you propose; and I think the advent of the permanent
campaign requires some kind of response.

I'm undecided if this rises to a Clear and Present Danger. Although, if
Hillary or Obama is rammed down my throat with absolutely no air time
for any non-DLC alternative, it clearly has become a danger to democracy.

arendt

[GoneOffShore]

93. I would admit that it's not a "Clear & Present Danger"

But it is one of those things that we need to look at.

I'm of the opinion that the long run up to the elections discourage voter turnout. People get bored - Huxleyan overload.

And by the way, it's interesting to note that the people who attacked you the most, seem to have faded into a well deserved oblivion.

[GoneOffShore]

69. Just a kick to keep this going

I often wonder why more posts that are releveant and good for discussion don't get pinned.

Maybe there could be instead of a recommend option, a "Pin Post" option that would allow a selection of posts to stay "above the fold" for at least a day.

[AikidoSoul]

71. You might consider adding to you list -- getting rid of the revolving door between

government and corporations.

Start with the federal agencies where top level presidential appointees go to high paying jobs in the industries that they previously "regulated". Make the revolving door have at least a 5 yr waiting period. The same or similar time limit should be put on members of Congress who often go into high paying jobs in the industry for which they had previously funneled large sums of fed monies and contracts.

Also on the list would be reforming the education system from K-12. This could start by setting up an educational system that operates like a "Life Lab" where kids are taught concepts and then asked to develop and work on real projects where those concepts are applied and put into practical use. I've never seen a kid who didn't get excited doing this -- and it's the surest way to get them to incorporate information and really learn. It also can get them into community projects where social responsibility and awareness can develop.

Finally -- I would like to see teachers' salaries raised to a dignified level, and some status accorded to the best ones -- the ones who have a talent for teaching.

I no longer work in the University system -- but when I did, the Life Lab concept described briefly here, was the program that generated the most enthusiasm and worked the best. It also works for young kids.

Kick and recommend this. This is what I'd hoped for when signing up to DU.

[puebloknot]

72. Agreed. Harness energy of DU to target specific...

...projects. The time we spend here on "fluff," as you put it, could be organized so that we take your first five topics and work the hell out of them.

Iran is robbing me of sleep. And we should be phoning and writing every day for restoration of habeus corpus.

I would also like to see serious political issues in a place where we don't have to skim through a dozen nonsense topics to get to what is important in terms of saving this country. I learn a lot here from seasoned and intelligent writers with political/social experience.

[JackRiddler]

75. Continuing thoughts from post 64: Arendt, aren't you asking for two different things?

A while after my thoughts in 64... It occured to me you seem to be asking for two different things.

Which of the following best describes your idea?

GD: "Serious" political discussion

or

GD: Countercoup

?

The first involves a discussion restricted to sober arguments (no outrage, no emotional posturing) about "serious" matters, i.e. those that are subjects of the democratic will in a constitutional republic: taxes and expenditures - war and peace - justice, law and enforcement - economic policy - foreign policy - governmental and corporate process and transparency - democracy and constitutional rights.

The second is more restricted and defined by your list of subjects, which actually spell out an explicit program: the reversal of the most egregious (and for the most recent) systematic attacks on liberty and justice, which under Bush threaten to end the republic and snuff out the spark of democracy. A countercoup. Unlike the first, I see some room for outrage and emotion there - also for the relatively less philosophical details of demonstrations, guerilla marketing, rabble-rouding, how to raise hell, etc.

Which is it that you want?

Finally, what have we gained if this forum is set up, but no longer reaches the hundreds of thousands of people (including the unregistered lurkers) who frequent the current GD?

---

On edit, an example: matters of long-term urban planning (conversion of cities to more ecological design, or even carfree utopias) would seem to be appropriate for the first forum, but not for one where the concern is to act quickly before "life becomes much worse for all of us" as you put it in the OP.

[salin]

76. the last question is easily answered:

periodic GD threads highlighting (with links) new discussions/ideas threads from this forum (I like the "policy discussion" as a title to the forum.) Folks in the GD can then see what the latest developments are - and discuss them on GD.

[arendt]

91. A little of both...

I want to have sober arguments about subjects that are a Clear and Present Danger
to our democracy. I want those arguments to be about how to act, not about how
to whine about losing.

I instinctively recoil from your emotion-laden word "countercoup" because it immediately
raises the stakes and pre-empts sober discussion. I think that we need some kind of
intellectual foundation much more than we need more yippies-in-the-streets nonsense
that will either be completely ignored or be demonized by the CM.

The CM is in complete control of the national emotional tone. We can all be boiling mad at Bush
and the CM will report that we are in love with the Caligula-clone in the White House.

I see emotionalism as a weapon that the powers that be can use against us, but that
we can't use against them. We just don't have a big enough megaphone. They bought
all the megaphones.

We have to be "the quiet voice of reason" saying "if you don't wake up, you are going to
be dead real soon".

arendt

[Time for change]

79. I partially agree and partially disagree with you

First for the agreement: Great set of priorities. And the idea of discussing how to deal with those priorities is great too. Also, I think that it may be worth while, as you suggest, to set up a "serious" forum, for the kinds of things you suggest. Perhaps a better name for it would be "solution identification" forum.

What I disagree with is the idea that there is something wrong with posting news on DU and something wrong with so-called "ranting". I believe, as do many DUers, that the DU is an excellent place to get news. We find out a lot of things here that we wouldn't find out from watching all the TV networks combined plus reading some major newspapers. Sure, if we spent enough time at it we could dig up all that news elsewhere. But as you say, our time is limited.

With regard to so-called "rants" and outrage, I believe that those are important also. Trying to develop a solution to a problem is great. But before one tries to develop a solution to a problem one needs to prioritize the problems. Take the need to impeach Bush and Cheney, for example. I believe it's fair to say that the combination of many impeachment posts over the past several months on DU have convinced many of us that it is a priority that is highly worth pursuing.

What about ranting about things that all DUers agree with? Take the Iraq War, for example. I haven't seen any DUer defend the war or recommend that it be escalated. So why "rant" about it? For one thing, lots of independents or open minded (and potentially convertable) Republicans read DU. I'm sure that some of them have been convinced and converted by our arguments. Also, when DUers read convincing arguments on DU they often use them in their political arguments with friends or family or acquaintances who have different political views. So I believe that this is a worth while endeavor, so long as the arguments that we make are cogent.

[arendt]

95. Let me try an analogy. Outrage is like alcohol...

some people can get outraged on occasion, but other get addicted to outrage.
And that addiction is destructive to them and those around them.

The problem is similar to local "news" on TV. They report the most bizarre and foul stuff
that happened anywhere in the country on ALL local news channels.

As a friend of mine said "gee, somewhere in a country of 300 million people, someone
did something bad to someone else today. Why am I not surprised?"

My point is that GD is such a broad collection of stuff that it winds up dominated by
the outrage, just like Local "News".

I stopped watchin Local News decades ago. And I have just about stopped coming to
GD.

As I said in another post, outrage is now a manufacturted commodity.

Rants are a very human thing. I even included one in my post. But I did it in a larger and
hopefully productive context.

> I'm sure that some of them have been convinced and converted by our arguments. Also,
> when DUers read convincing arguments on DU they often use them in their political
> arguments with friends or family or acquaintances who have different political views.

So, you are saying that rants are really arguments? (Just trying to define terms here.
That may be part of the problem.) Don't want to get too intellectual about this :-).

My point is that when an argument has too much outrage in it, its like a person that has
had too many drinks. It may sound good to his fellow drunks, but stupid to a wider audience.

This is a complicated question. i am not trying to solve it. I am not asking for Prohibition.
I am not asking others to not rant. I am asking for a forum where I can go and not have
to hear other people's rants. Its like second-hand smoke to me. It makes me ill.

arendt

[WilliamPitt]

86. Worthy of consideration

Thanks for putting the work in on this.

[arendt]

96. Thanks. I learned my lesson from the previous thread. Be positive. n/t

[GoneOffShore]

98. What's the chance of getting this pinned to the top of the board?

It certainly deserves that.

There are some very good points that Arendt has made that need to be seen by more DU'ers.

[Blue_Tires]

88. ttt n/t

[lonestarnot]

94. Hey my education thread dropped like a rock. And it's too late to

rec. this thread. I love your idea. Thanks!

[nam78_two]

97. Great post-however I feel the environment has been mostly ignored

In the things/issues you consider of importance. I would have recommended this, except for the fact that, as many liberals tend to do, the environment was largely ignored in this post as an important issue.

Which gets to an important point-i.e. what is important to me may not be important to you. While I cannot argue with you about the frivolity of GD in general ( "Toddler left in cart!", "Old woman attacks child!"....etc.-"Human interest issues"), I cannot agree with your blueprint of what issues are the important ones :shrug:.

I think environmental issues, issues concerning poverty, human rights (civil rights/gay rights) are important. While I agree that these issues are often discussed in a very superficial manner (i.e mostly content-free flame bait), I cannot agree that because some might think these issues unimportant, we all should :shrug:...I do not think that confining oneself to the political landscape of the United States (which I agree is extremely important overall for the world), is necessarily the only thing that should interest an effective liberal activist.

I agree with a lot of your post overall though, except that these issues I mention (especially the environment -barring a reference to the EPA) are largely absent from your post. As a scientist and an environmentalist, I think people underestimate the importance of environmental issues....

[arendt]

101. You minimize the environmental /poverty content of my list...

1. Get Congress to prohibit an Iran War, ASAP.
2. Get Congress to get us out of Iraq ASAP.
3. Restore Habeus Corpus and the right of soldiers to refuse an illegal order.
4. Impeach Cheney, Gonzales, and Bush, in that order.
5. Ban e-voting machines without paper trails. De-privatize e-voting software.
6. Shut down Guantanamo
7. Rein in the power and growth of the Military-Industrial-Prison Complex
8. Spend reasonably on first responders, cargo inspection, and chemical plants
9. Re-regulate and de-consolidate the media.
10. Start a crash program on energy independence and global warming
11. Restore the budget of the EPA, re-build its databases, and make it enforce the law.
12. Stop the wholesale export of productive jobs to East Asia.
13. Reverse the gutting of social programs.
14. Rebuild the wall between Church and State
15. Balance the budget by repealing the Bush tax cuts to the rich and to corporations
16. Make some kind of sensible and enforcable laws about immigration in this country
17. Open the black budgets and get some oversight on the intelligence community

-----------------

Items 1-7 must be done within a year or our democracy will be dead way sooner than
our environment will be.

Beyond that, what about:

10. Start a program on global warming
7. Rein in military ( a major source of pollution, e.g. Depleted Uranium)
8. Spend to protect chemical plants (and prevent envirronmental disasters)

12. Stop job export.
13. Build up social programs.
15. Repeal tax cuts (which will allow social programs to be funded)
14. Fix immigration (a major cause of poverty and rights loss, both to immigrants and natives)

I could not overfocus. I wanted the list to at least bow in the direction of as many topics
as it could. We are under threat from so many directions. My point was that there are so
many serious topics we haven't got time for all the "fluff". Making my list heavily on ANY
topic would have contradicted my point.

I hope you can appreciate that I'm not trying to slight anybody and that I am not congenitally
anti-environment. On the last thread, I was accused of being racist and homophobic for not emphasizing
those topics enough. Now I hear I'm not being environmental enough.

I hope I am being paranoid enough :-).

arendt

[nam78_two]

103. Ok then!

:toast:
I agree with you about the uselessness of flame-bait, celebrity gossip, etc.

As long as we focus on real issues and support basic decency, I agree with you.

However, as someone who followed 2 of the recent "controversies", I can say one thing though-for example regarding the "Snickers" controversy-it was not the gay rights activists (who have a very genuine cause) who shut down this board, it was the more conservative posters/trolls (?) who kept on and on posting about why the ad was inconsequential, and who were supporting a libertarian stance on how everyone has a right to be offensive etc., who kept the topic alive.

In my (unscientific) observation, it is the more conservative posters on here who keep these divisive/flame bait issues alive. Honestly, I think most of them are trolls. While many people think its the "far left loonies" who make DU seem silly, in my observation it is the more conservative/troll posters who keep flame bait issues alive (by starting a zillion posts on the subject).

So overall I agree with your point :toast:-I just think this site has a lot of conservative/ fake centrist trolls who effectively bait genuine DUers and then pretend its the far lefties bringing the site down.

But overall I agree very much with you about how discourse of a certain kind is bringing the quality of DU down.

[arendt]

105. Food for thought. I will have to reconsider the trolls I got in my two threads...

you are very insightful.

And, it makes life on the net soooooo difficult. You only have a person's
handle and what they post.

So easy to impersonate a looney leftwinger.

That is why I'm against emotionalism. Its harder to be a rational troll than
an emotional troll. Rational trolls are laughed off.

thanks again,

arendt

[LostinVA]

106. Great post -- thank you very, very much

[siligut]

109. Expand on this and give it an OP.

Kicking arendt's thread, loud and clear, and asking that nam78 share this observation in its own thread. There is seeding going on, it would be good to increase awareness.

[bettyellen]

110. you derided gay concerns over homophobia here by dismissing the snickers threads as bright shiny

objects. that's a far cry from not "emphasizing them enough". In fact it's an entire alternate reality you're presenting here.
Talk about taking a dump on a stage... how about doing it and pretending it never happened?

[donco6]

112. Exactly, bettyellen.

Let's just pretend we don't remember the OP's original comments which belie his underlying motives here. I still smell that steaming pile.

[bettyellen]

113. it was a really nice try to distract people from her motives. but not bright or shiny enough

to inspire anyone to shut up and get in the back of the bus.
outrage "has been done" my ass. And they have to ASK if they sound elitist. LOL....

[Jonathan50]

114. Kick