Hey, you've got to understand you are tainted. Any part of you mind, body or soul touches that evil Bushhitler, you are a branded Bushie.

It's all or nothing on the left.

Right-wingers look for converts, left-wingers look for heretics.

Someone on Althouse's comment thread has it figured out, I think. To recap in my own words (translation: steal their idea), the left is a coalition of interest groups that don't have much in common, except a shared agreement to support one another's various pet issues. Vigorous discusion, disagreement, and discourse cannot bring them anything positive that is worth the electoral cost in terms of lost alliances from hurt feelings. So they don't get into the habit of having those discussions, and they don't go looking for individual converts - they figure that when your interest group joins the coalition of the needy, they'll have your vote.

The right, on the other hand, is a collection of people with disparate interests who do NOT support one another's hobby horses, but who do have loyalty to one central set of ideas - limited government, national security, killing terrorists and communists, a strong economy. I'm a social con and you're a, whatever you are, and so we can have huge (and hugely enjoyable) arguments and discussions about (say) pornography without it impinging on the slightest on our shared commitment to turning Osama into paste and building more carrier groups to keep our babies safe. And if we think we can convert someone else to that set of core ideas, we jump on it - even if we think that most of their viewpoints are nutfudgery.

Oversimplified, but I think that's the basic mechanism operating.

So... the "nice" folks who think that it's hugely important to give supportive words even if they're not really fitting are ignoring you, and the ones who think praise is for when you do something right praise you when you do something that's right by them.

I believe that's irony, but I could be looking sideways.....

I thought I made myself plain, Sailortette, but perhaps not.

I'm both praised and damned by Republicans (and to a lesser extent, probably due to lack of numbers, by libertarians).

From Democrats I get... bucket loads of crap.

That's a generalization, but not a gross one. Except, you know, for the crap.

I'm mystified why first Glenn and now you are picking up a post that Ann (no 'e') wrote back on January 31, 2005. It's a great post, and brings up so much material for discussion and all, but what Blogger/RSS glitch has caused it to percolate to the top of the heap again? I don't get it -- just as I don't get the Democrats' inability to recruit allies wherever they may find them. Their insistence on ideological purity creeps me out.

I'm a person who mainly votes conservative but has voted liberal about 20% of the time. What upsets me is that at the moment I'm not very happy with Bush, but all the Democrats are telling me is that Chimpy McHalliBUSHitler is the single root of all evil in the world. Not only are they not telling me why I should vote for them, but they are not even telling me in plain language what they stand for

I'm not after a 62 point plan, just a simple statement to encapsulate what their legislative goals in an area would be.

When I discuss my disappointment about Bush's performance with democrats, their response is basically "well you were stupid to vote for him", never why they would actually be doing a better job if given the opportunity.

hear hear robert!

course I'm a libertarian/libertine trapped in a society where I have to support conservatives to see anything of value done, where most people think that I'm Atilla the hun just cause I believe in economic freedom and national security. I also happen to respect the motivations of socons and the policy positions they take as having a rational and good faith basis. The same way that I respect my Jain and Hindu friends' vegetarianism despite mocking veggie hippies and being a carnivore.

Further to this point, did you see the lovely contest that Prof. DeLong was having a few days ago? "Who's the stupidest person at National Review" highlighting a fairly decent quote from a Jonah Goldberg speech as to how Native Americans weren't at one with nature and how they had massive effects on their environment, such as through the use of fire to shape environments.

Prof. DeLong then goes to rather significant endeavours to remove conservative posts but leaves up an anti-semitic post highlighting his family's Nazi past and financial involvement with Pinochet. Nice.

And this is one of the guys that I used to think was a serious and honest lefty that you could have a proper discussion with. Just like Matt Yglesias, Paul Krugman...

Specific to Robert: did you see the hilariously bad Kaplan piece at slate highlighting how we were spending all this money on things we don't need, such as carriers and subs... Who are we going to fight with these things? Do we actually need more than the 12 we have?

It's like he's never heard of China, contingency planning, how much time a carrier is actually deployable, or the virtues of having Big Ass Sticks. I'd be in support of a 30 carrier fleet, and such spending so that we could do all of rumsfeld's goodies and maintain something bigger than the Cold War peak. The country gets bigger and richer but has less and less of a defence. Get rid of Medicare and Social Security, you've got lots o tax dollars...

Then of course I always come up with a trillino dollar surplus using those budget calculators.

My perception of the differences between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans tell you what they are for and Democrats tell you what they are against.

This is probably an overly broad assessment but I think it captures the essence of it.

I wish somehow that Bush and Congress would/could rid the budget garden of the proliferation of earmark weeds.

TO: Robert
RE: THAT...

"Right-wingers look for converts, left-wingers look for heretics." -- Robert

...is a very interesting and succinct observation.

And the comment immediately below...

...the left is a coalition of interest groups that don't have much in common, except a shared agreement to support one another's various pet issues. Vigorous discusion, disagreement, and discourse cannot bring them anything positive that is worth the electoral cost in terms of lost alliances from hurt feelings. So they don't get into the habit of having those discussions, and they don't go looking for individual converts - they figure that when your interest group joins the coalition of the needy, they'll have your vote.

...makes a LOT of sense. It goes far to explain their interesting lack of interest in cogent discourse AND their insistance on not harming their 'friends' feelings, i.e., all their hyper-sensitivity. And, looking at it from that perspective, all that pent up desire to really blast people expresses itself oh so readily when they come up against someone who is not adhereing to their politically correct ideology.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. I'm going to add your succinct observation to my list of quoteable quotes. With by line.

It explains why the Lefties come across like the Spanish Inquisition, but not quite as funny as the ones on Monty Python. But sometimes there can be that funny....

Even when I agree with her, I still think Ann is a narcissistic bitch.

No offense, but I don't think too many Democrats wander outside of their DU/KOS/Atrios echo chamber.

(that's the other thing about conservative/individual/independents:
we get OUT more.)

The Democrats' progressive/socialist/technocratic ideology is exhausted. They have nothing new to offer, which is why they sound like they are stuck in 1968. Too often we accept the New Deal/Great Society progessivism as a permanent feature of the political landscape. It is not. Political movements and ideologies come and go. They arise, gain influence and power and then fade away. We need to start thinking outside the box about this and begin brainstorming to create a new political movement and ideology. That's how both the progressive movement and conservative movement were born. It's clear that there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with today's political options. We keep hearing about people who are socially liberal/fiscally conservative/strong on nat'l defense. That is a ready-made basis for a new political movement that can offer itself as an alternative to left/liberalism and conservatism. Now there will be cynics who will skoff at this, but again both the progressive and conservative movements began the same way. What we need today is a 21st century classical liberalism. But it's not going to just happen, we have to create it.

You can only have a rational discourse with people who believe that reality is knowable through reason and observation. On issues where their opinions flow directly from their belief in God, conservatives are not open to rational argument. When they start quoting Leviticus to you, give it up.

You might think that being secularists would make leftists more rational, but they are infected with the godawful philosophies of the past two hundred years. They do not believe in an objective reality knowable by reason. They believe that one's reality is based on perceptions warped by race, class, culture, occupation, etc. There is no basis for agreement between two people who exist in different realities. The only universal moral imperative they accept is that the strong should always sacrifice their interests for the sake of the weak. Among leftists, these two tenants are articles of faith that are as ingrained and as colored with superstition as any religionist's belief in God. If you claim any knowledge of an objective reality, or if you reject their demands for self-sacrifice, then you are a heretic who deserves only their abuse.

As an aside, I refuse to refer to the left as liberals anymore. They are not liberals, they are socialists, and there is a huge difference. I am a liberal. It may take a hundred years for that title to lose its association with socialism and hatred of America, but I'm taking it back.

A couple comments,

hey: I don't know if we need more than 12 carriers, but I can point out that they serve important functions beyond just combat. One, they let us tell countries that we will have a full airbase parked a mile from their coast. This is of course a huge political advantage. Two, and more importantly, a self sufficient airbase that can generate tens of thousands of gallons of fresh water a day is an incredible asset in disaster relief. Witness the tsunami and hurricane relief provided last year.

Ardsgaine: It's true that there are religious right wingers who will close off the chance for arguments with scripture, however, I find those few and far between. Most of the religious people I know, while their position may be aligned with scripture, try to use secular arguments to persuade that their position is correct. I think this is due to the healthy amount of theology that American Christianity practices. I would also point out that in my experience, the secular left is quite often religiously atheist, and thus just as strongly going on faith as the religious right.

TO: Ardsgaine
RE: Whups....

"On issues where their opinions flow directly from their belief in God, conservatives are not open to rational argument." -- Ardsgaine

...Speak of the devil!

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Nooooobody expects the Leftie Inquisition.]

For folks that claim to worship nuance, the Angry Progressive Left is awfully fond of a dichotomous black and white world where everyone is either part of the solution (i.e., you agree with them) or part of the problem (i.e., you don't). And woe unto those in need of reeducation.

TO: Ian
RE: Closing Arg[h]uments

"It's true that there are religious right wingers who will close off the chance for arguments with scripture..." -- Ian

They are not 'closing' the argument. They're bringing forth their proofs.

Whether or not you accept them is up to you.

If you want to challenge their proofs, you'd better be able to do it in an effective manner.

It can be done. If you want to win an argument with them you need to be better read then THEY are. Something to do with Sun Tzu, "Know your enemy." Then you can successfully beat them over their head with their own book.

But, if you refuse to learn how to deal with them, you may as well do a Monty Python thingie, "Run awaaaay!"

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Know your enemy and know yourself and you shall never be defeated. -- Sun Tzu, the Art of War, mandatory reading at IOAC, Benning School for Boys ('80)]

It's a mystery. Let's look at the one successful most Democrat at the national level in the past 20 years. Bill Clinton.

I know my fellow righties hate him, but Clinton has a lesson for the Democrats. Clinton talked to everyone. Sweetly, reasonably. He agreed with you much of the time. Yes he lied a lot, but he personally behaved in a way that made people want to vote Democratic. If the Democrats had 1000 or 10,000 people who behaved like Clinton in that way they would be recovering swiftly. Right now.

I don't mean they need 1000 Clintons in the lying sense, nor do they need 1000 Clintonian scandals. But if they had a buch of people who reached out and listened like Clinton did.... That would be very powerful.

P.S. Just by way of anecdotal evidence on how effective using the Bible against someone beating you over the head with one....

I attended a Halloween party somewhere off Washington Park in Denver.

I encountered a minister there who took exception to my career in the Army. He commented on how odd he thought it was that someone who professed to be a christian (moi) could be in the Army and prepared to kill people.

In reply I asked him what the name and profession of the first gentile converted to Christ.

He thought a moment, the shut-up and walked away....

Point. Set. Match.

Hey, earlier, mentioned "good faith". I think that about sums it up. I find it easy to come up with a rational argument defending almost any honest position. Trouble is, the left seems to react first, as a "whatever they want - I'm against it" move, then spend time with lame rationalizations to justify their decision.

There are many positions, however, that I think either side takes an opposing viewpoint, simply to oppose. It is usually the smaller things, like school uniforms, land trust vs. developement, issues that don't get the play that taxes, war, etc. get. The right does this as much as the left. All the support structure for those groups dutifully kick in and help.

TO: Don Stadler
RE: Hey!

"I know my fellow righties hate him, but Clinton has a lesson for the Democrats." -- Don Stadler

I don't hate him. I just think he was the worst president in American history, after LBJ.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

"They are not liberals, they are socialists"

Amen Ardsgaine.

I believe the animated socialists/liberals/Democrats get wrapped up in a need to, not just be right and find the better/best solution to an issue but engaged in a very personal need to be "righteous". I remember the civil rights days and feeling this way myself. I felt that supporting this cause made me more "noble". Its not an entirely bad motivation (particularly when the cause is important and right) but fewer and fewer choices in society are so clear cut.

This is where the left has been stuck. They continue to NEED to make issues like the environment, welfare and taxation very personal, good versus evil, choices. They won't accept how complex issues, say poverty, can be nor can they deal with the fact that better solutions may sometimes be paradoxical in nature (lower taxes beget MORE tax revenue).

The worst of the liberals are totally enthralled with the personal satisfaction self-righteousness provides. They are blind to suggestions that don't conform to what they "feel" is best. Whenever anyone becomes self-righteous the need to make the effort to persuade others vanishes. Why persuade if your position is "clearly" the "right" decision?
Hence, opponents are "stupid". Creating logical, factual and coherent arguments for self-evident truths is a waste of time.
I'm convinced the extreme left is so blinded by this very personal pathology they are hopeless. Fortunately, most people grow out of this childish mode but there will always be Cindy Sheehans among us (on both sides). Fortunately, the right does police and reject its emotional fanatics to some degree. The left, however, only celebrates them.
Most of the right wants to find the better/best solution and doesn't have a personal investment in the outcome. The left, however, isn't satisfied unless they, personally, are anointed in the process. As someone once pointed out, were it ever proven beyond a doubt that cutting taxes on the rich would do the MOST to help the poor can anyone imagine the left actually embracing this idea?

You might think that being secularists would make leftists more rational, but they are infected with the godawful philosophies of the past two hundred years.

The problem is that leftists aren't really secular- they just claim to be.

As Chuck said above- Know your enemy. Read Das Kapital. Marx isn't describing an economic system, he's propheseying the future and the 'promised land' he expects to arise after armageddon.

Marxism is a religion.

Note taken, Chuck(le). I don't hate him either.

When reading the Thomas Frank book What's the Matter with Kansas some of this came to mind. Remember the farming agents that the Department of Agriculture sent out to rural areas to help get information about modern methods out to the farmers during the Depression? Those guys must have been pretty left-wing as a rule, I think. But they lived in the local communities and talked with the farmers, and I'm sure they did a good deal to help convert a lot of conservative farmers to their POV. Or at least convince them that the New Dealers weren't a bunch of devils.

The modern equivalent would be a corps of Democrats in cyberspace spending time in places like this one. If they were willing to listen and learn, and above all be nice to the inhabitants, I'm sure they would make progress.

What was most striking to me about the 2004 election was the final surrender of the old South. The South circa 1960 was the most Democratic of regions. But in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Florida the Democrats surrendered Senate seats in 2004 or 2006. Without a whimper. In fact without anyone noticing until very late in the campaign when I saw a NY based journalist point out what was about to happen. Too late, guys.

The South and Plain states are important! They determine control of the Senate! Dminating the West coasts aren't enough!

Now they have lost their last prominent spokesmen in the deep South. The situation isn't hopeless in the upper sounth (Virginia and North Carolina), but it's far worse elsewhere.

How do you recover from that?

Stephen: Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions", written over 20 plus/minus years ago has a great deal of explanatory value on the issues you raise. The issue is not as much Dem vs. Rep, but those with a constrained vs. unconstrained vision of the world. There is something about those with an unconstrained vision of the world that forces them to focus on motives, rather than outcomes, and what you are describing is, at bottom, people's responses to the motives behind your posts. I am sure you have read this, but it may be worth a reread in light of your post.

TO: Don Stadler
RE: Recovery Ops

"How do you recover from that?" -- Don Stadler

They don't, thank God. At least while they continue to act like total lunatics.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: PDS
RE: Dang!

"Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"..." -- PDS

Another book for the politics/philosophy shelf in the library. Now...where to find it....

Regards,

Chuck(le)

27 comments. None from anyone self-indentifying as a Democrat. I know some of them read this blog, yet we get crickets.

I think the problem is that the kind of people Steve is looking for, Democrats open to reasonable discourse, don't openly identify themselves as Deomcrat anymore because of the embarassment thier party has become in recent years. Would any reasonable person want to openly associate themselves with the party that embraces Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, His Woodeness John Kerry, KOS and on and on?

The answer is not likely.

Clinton worse than Carter?

At least the man was a free trader.

I support Bush only because he takes the war on terrorism somewhat seriously. Other than that, he's a buffoon and I curse the democrats for not giving me an alternative I could seriously consider.

Stephen, I read Vodkapundit not because of your political affiliation but because of the lack of political bent to your writing. You don't hesitate to take issue with either side of the debate. There is always something here that makes me wonder, and that is a good thing. While I'm more right of center than you are left of center, it is refreshing to me to find a view from that side that is not full of vitriol and hate. And for that I express my thanks.

My parents taught me that you do not judge a person by the color of their skin, their politics or their country of birth; but by their deeds. And I think that is why I keep coming back here to read your views.

Best of luck and continued success.

Jim

Gee, after reading these comments, I can't imagine why Democrats may not come around much.

Lessee: "Marxism is a religion"; "socialists/liberals/Democrats get wrapped up in a need to, not just be right and find the better/best solution to an issue but engaged in a very personal need to be 'righteous'"; "the left seems to react first, as a 'whatever they want - I'm against it' move, then spend time with lame rationalizations to justify their decision:; "the secular left is quite often religiously atheist"; "It's all or nothing on the left".

If my fellow commenters are as willing to engage in rational debate as they profess, I'm having trouble finding evidence here.

I can't speak to your experience with bloggers of various affiliations, but I have seen some actual "across the fence" engagement from time to time, but overall, very little. It disappoints me. I like Vodkapundit because it's one of the few well-read blogs I've found that, even though it trends conservative, is not devoted to churning out propaganda for one party or the other. Nevertheless, due to our near-universal love for simple categorizing, you've been lumped in with the conservatives.

It's too bad there's that divide. Here we have this great tool that lets us communicate to anyone, anywhere, and most groups just use it to talk to themselves.

But I've got to ask: how many Democrat bloggers do you link to? It seems fair enough to ask when you're wondering why they don't link to you. I'm sure you have at times, and I think I can recall several, but is it that common an occurrence?

Rosignol wrote:
"The problem is that leftists aren't really secular- they just claim to be."

I guess we could quibble about what makes someone 'secular', but that would be pointless, since we are in essential agreement that they approach their beliefs as articles of faith.

And yes, Marxism is a secularized form of Christianity where God is replaced by the State and the Christian ethic of self-sacrifice is given a pseudo-scientific basis.

Chuck(le) wrote:
"They are not 'closing' the argument. They're bringing forth their proofs."

Quoting from a 2000+ yr old book is not bringing forth a proof, it's appealing to authority--and a pretty lousy one at that. And before you trot out the cannard that atheism=faith, let me point out that that argument is on a par with the left's claim that all beliefs are tainted by one's frame of reference. It is a denial that there can be any objective, rational belief regarding the existence or non-existence of God, therefore all positions must be equally tainted by faith. That is wrong. It is an act of faith to believe in something regardless of evidence for or against it. It is not an act of faith to disbelieve the existence of something for which no evidence exists. It is not faith which leads me to deny the existence of pink unicorns on Mars.

It is true, however, that one can hold a correct belief in an irrational and dogmatic way, and I'm sure there are people out there who approach atheism as an article of faith rather than a reasoned conclusion. In truth, I don't see how a leftist could approach it any other way, since they don't believe in an objective reality anyway.

Oh know, we don't get a whiny neocon on our side. Big loss. Listen up, do think there is an "in-between" on social justice? Well there isn't. So you take your Randian-fascist views and keep them to yourself. We progressives don't need you, and we don't need your militia-KKK buddies either. Keep pumping the corporate and Rovian messages over and over...we are watching you. You nazis won't infiltrate us. You will be stopped.

Very interesting.I'm someone who started reading the warbloggers as a moderately right-wing supporter of the war in Iraq.Then,when I became increasingly disenchanted with the the way the war was conducted,about two years ago,I jumped to reading (mostly) liberal blogs.

Only to become disenchanted again by the blind partisanship that permeates a lot of the liberal discourse.As an example,I offer you James Howard Kunstler's comment on Bush's wiretapping program:

I rather admired George W. Bush's hard-boiled remarks Saturday about the secret snooping carried out by the National Security Agency. As if we could afford to do otherwise. I just wish he'd quit calling it the War on Terror, which is so imprecise...

The vitriol that followed,mostly by 9-11 conspiracy theorists, was a thing to behold:

What the fuck? You're condoning this?

True colors, I guess. Maybe I missed something in some earlier posts. Anyway, there goes your link on my favorites list. I don't need moronic tripe, there's plenty of that on Fox News.

To be sure,there were reasonable comments as well,but the crazies dominated,by a long shot.

It's ironic,as far as I can see,that as far as actual policy positions are concerned,both communities are more alike than they admit.

If a Democratic President had sent troops to Koso.. I mean,Iraq,you'd be reading the anti-war commentary in Counterpunch,pretty much.Yes,I'm that cynical.

TO: andrsgaine
RE: Authority vs. Proof

"Quoting from a 2000+ yr old book is not bringing forth a proof, it's appealing to authority--and a pretty lousy one at that." -- andrsgaine

Authority? Proof? Not much difference between the two.

You don't care for the 'authority' they are citing, that's not THEIR problem, until you can prove their authority is either (1) wrong or (2) they misunderstand it.

This brings us back to my earlier point that you need to understand and cite their authority better than they can. If you don't like that, then, as I suggested, do the Monty Python thing....run away.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Thank you, "True Progressive," for validating Stephen's point. That sure didn't take long.

A lot of leftist take any assertion or generalization as if the person making it considers it the whole and only truth, and not just an assertion or generalization.

Pretty sure that True Progressive was joking.

TO: ardsgaine
RE: Atheism as Faith

"And before you trot out the cannard that atheism=faith, let me point out that that argument is on a par with the left's claim that all beliefs are tainted by one's frame of reference." -- ardsgaine

Hardly a 'canard'. Indeed, I do believe that the Supreme Court said atheism is a religious belief back in the 1960s. Not sure of the case ID.

Hope that helps.

RE: Hardly

"It is a denial that there can be any objective, rational belief regarding the existence or non-existence of God, therefore all positions must be equally tainted by faith." -- ardsgaine

Wrong again. I think you're projecting here, when you claim that people who arg[h]ue from a perspective of 'faith' are denying any objectivity in discussions. Instead, you are throwing up your hands, i.e., in the proverbial towel, and going away without even trying to reason with them. This is a common plow amongst atheists. I think I commented on a recent encounter of that sort, a few doors down the hall from here. They went so far as to delete my comments, rather than have them hang there for all to see and consider.

RE: Evidence

"That is wrong. It is an act of faith to believe in something regardless of evidence for or against it." -- ardsgaine

And what 'evidence' are we talking about? That God does not exist?

Bring forth your evidence. Either that or mimic Monty Python....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I'll wager you I can bring forth more 'evidence' He does exist than you can that He doesn't.

Indeed, we were reviewing one tidbit of evidence that the Bible is true this very morning during my Friday Morning Mens Group.

Remember the story of Joseph [and the technicolor dream coat]? The seven years of 'famine'?

Guess what, they've found evidence in the tree rings that about the time historians think the Israelites began their 'sojourn' in Egypt, there WAS a massive depression in plant growth all over the entire earth.

Then there is the confusing values with politics.

Kos here tries to say an excert from Bush's eulogy of Reagan was political. Bush talks about Freedom and goes out of his way not to be political. He doesn't tie it to any policy or issue. He even seems to have avoided mentioning democracy in the excerpt.

ardsgaine @ 09:50 AM ...

One of the better things the West gained from Islamic influences was the mathematical concept of zero (around 1000 AD/CE/whatever you call it +/- a century or two) ...

Extend that concept to religions, and you can conceptualise a zero-deity religion - one practised by many on this planet - it's called Atheism ... its followers - Atheists - are those who spend time actively defending their faith, and prosyletising for new converts ... they do their best to stamp out any of the competing faiths ...

There are also atheists - people who do not belive in any god nor in any faith ... and they just prefer to be left alone ... they don't care if others believe or don't believe ... if approached by a missionary, they are secure in their own philosophies and can simply and politely decline the converation ...

Atheism=faith isn't a badly-spelled French duck ... it's an acknowledgement of observed reality, of experiences with many who fight to have *their* personal zero-deity religion established as the One and Only True Religion in the United States ... and its practitioners have as an item of faith to prevent *any* prayer in the schools, whether voluntary or otherwise ...

Chuck(le) wrote:
"Authority? Proof? Not much difference between the two."

Appealing to factual evidence vs appealing to a book written 2000-3000 years ago in which some holy man said that God said that gays should be stoned to death. Hmmm. No, I guess you're right. No difference at all. (Heavy sarcasm.)

"This brings us back to my earlier point that you need to understand and cite their authority better than they can."

So how exactly would I be able to convince a Christian that there is no god by appealing to scripture? Is there a verse in the Bible that says, "Heheh, just kiddin'?"

"If you don't like that, then, as I suggested, do the Monty Python thing....run away."

I never run away, but I have been known to walk away when the discussion became repetitive and tedious.

Republicans believe that Democrats are misguided and can be converted. Democrats think that Republicans are evil and not worth saving.
I love your site. As a conservative with strong libertarian leanings, I find that your postings are never predictable and they constantly make me reassess my own opinions. I read it all-especially the stuff I disagree with you on because it is presented, not as dogma. but as reasoned opinion. Democrats consider any opinion that strays in any way from their commandments to be wrong and evil. Discussion of certain topics, even if done in a humorous way, is verbotten. Their capacity for tolerance of opposing views is the same as the asshats in the middle east torching the Danish embassies and burning their flag. If you want to see great examples of their lack of open-mindedness, check out the racial slurs that they pepper Michelle Malkin with. Keep up your great work.

From Kos, dem loyalists are publishing a Buy Blue business listing.

Now, if only the Rep loyalist will publish a Buy Red list so we'll know what other companies to avoid.

TO: Ardsgaine
RE: Poor Reading Skills

"Appealing to factual evidence vs appealing to a book written 2000-3000 years ago in which some holy man said that God said that gays should be stoned to death. Hmmm. No, I guess you're right. No difference at all. (Heavy sarcasm.)" -- Ardsgaine

As I said (above), you need to know your enemy and his reference material better than he does.

And, as I suspected, you've got a LONG ways to go. Unless your talking to a Hebrew. You, like Rachal Lucas, some years ago, seem to be ignorant of a guy named Jesus Christ. Consider this...

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. -- John 3

I pointed that out to Rachal on her blog when she tottered out that same golem and she promptly killed me; for such temerity.

Read the book. Know the book. Then you won't be made to look so ignorant when you bring up your arg[h]uments.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

--which felt kind of like a French kiss from an ugly aunt.--

HEY!

I resemble that remark.

TO: Ardsgaine
RE: No God via the Scriptures

"So how exactly would I be able to convince a Christian that there is no god by appealing to scripture? Is there a verse in the Bible that says, "Heheh, just kiddin'?"" -- Ardsgaine

Interesting question. Likewise, there is nothing in that old Book that would convince you there is one.

So, if you wish to attack the believer using his own weapon—scripture—you'll have to show where the scripture is wrong, turning the weapon upon him.

You tried that with me (above), but you used a poor example against someone who was better armed and more adept with the weapon.

Look what it got you....

You, grasshoppa, must learn much more in order to defeat a master.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: Ardsgaine
RE: Walk, Don't Run

"I never run away, but I have been known to walk away when the discussion became repetitive and tedious." -- Ardsgaine

Run. Walk. No difference. You flee....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Tedious is just another word for nothing [effective] left to say.]

Chuck(le) wrote:
"Indeed, I do believe that the Supreme Court said atheism is a religious belief back in the 1960s. Not sure of the case ID."

The Supreme Court may be the last word in US law, but it's not the last word in philosophy. Atheism is a belief about religion, but it is not a religious belief. A religious belief is one characterized by belief in the existence of the supernatural. Here is a definition of religion straight from my Random House dictionary: "concern over what exists beyond the visible world, differentiated from philosophy in that it operates through faith or intuition rather than by reason, and generally including the idea of the existence of a transcendant spiritual entity that has created the world, that governs it, that controls its destinies, or that intervenes occasionally in the natural course of its history," etc. Now, if we're going to appeal to authorities, I'll take Random House over the Supreme Court when it comes to definitions of words. Since atheism denies the existence of the supernatural, it is not a religion. As I said previously, whether it is characterized by faith depends on how one arrives at the conclusion that there is no god. If it is reached by a process of reason, then it is not faith.

"And what 'evidence' are we talking about? That God does not exist?

We are talking about the lack of evidence. What evidence do you have that there are no pink unicorns on Mars? It's impossible to prove the non-existence of a thing. Proof relies ultimately on observation. How do you observe a thing non-existing? If someone is going to insist that there are pink unicorns on Mars, then he needs to trot out his evidence. In the absence of evidence, the only rational response is not to believe in them.

There is a difference between pink unicorns on Mars and God, though. The pink unicorns wouldn't necessarily contradict all the known laws of nature. That is, they wouldn't exist outside of nature as undefined, undelimited entities with the power to contradict the laws of nature at their whim, thus rendering the very concept of proof null and void.

TO: Ardsgaine
RE: Oh?

"The Supreme Court may be the last word in US law, but it's not the last word in philosophy." -- Ardsgaine

Well, as I recall you were telling me not to bring up the idea that atheism was a form of 'faith'. And I was thinking that if the Supreme Court considered it, then SOMEONE other than myself had considered it a legit argument.

But, if you want to discount it, now that it's been brought out as legit, just on your own philosophy, that's YOUR prerogative.

You sound like you're pulling the same sort of stuff you accuse christians of doing. What was that I said about 'projection' earlier?

So, if I must learn about your 'faith', where's there published reference material? Can I find it in the Library of Congress? Does it have an ISBN? Or do you just make-it-up-as-you-go-along?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

--You might think that being secularists would make leftists more rational, but they are infected with the godawful philosophies of the past two hundred years.--

The religion of "me."

---

ANd here I thought it was the Indians/Hindus who created "0" and the muslims co-opted it like they do so many things.

TO: Ardsgaine
RE: Evidence

"What evidence do you have that there are no pink unicorns on Mars?" -- Ardsgaine

I'm happy to entertain your evidence that they DO exist. Bring it forth.

But then again, I've probably got more evidence that God exists than you do of pink unicorns on Mars.

But, frankly speaking, I'd rather see your evidence that they exist on Earth; pink, white or chartreuse. Color is not important.

Did you know that King David, in the Psalms, writes about unicorns? So, maybe they do have pink ones on Mars. It would make them blend in better with the terrain. That would explain why the rovers have not discovered them yet.

See...I've got more evidence of things existing than YOU do. Even the things of whimsy you try to trot out as arguments.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. Got a meeting to get off to for the Master Gardeners. Be back later....

I've always been a registered Republican (got the vote in '76), and am fairly socially conservative - more so in the past 20 years. Why?- because I found, in both my personal life and my observations, that deviating from the philosophies of that "2000 year-old book" has consequences. When those consequences spill over into the greater society, we have problems. Not everyone has the same life-philosophies , but we have to get along together and so from there we have our differences as to what laws allow the most personal freedom while protecting the greater society.

What I will never understand, however, is socialism of the Left, (and the implied acceptance of socialism by those who say,
"...but if only they would give me a good candidate!") What is there without economic freedom?

It must be hell, being a Libertarian - who to sleep with tonight?

"I pointed that out to Rachal on her blog when she tottered out that same golem and she promptly killed me; for such temerity."

I'm not the one who uses Leviticus to argue against gay marriage, and my point wasn't that you do. Talk to your co-religionists, who trot out Leviticus in any discussion of homosexuality, about Jesus's forgiveness. (Kind of irrelevant to the issue of homosexuality, anyway, since the "go and sin no more" part is a bit of a problem for gays, as well it should be.)

So, if you wish to attack the believer using his own weapon

But I don't. I will leave dogmatic appeals to authority to the religionists and stick with my own weapons.

"Run. Walk. No difference. You flee...."

Lol. I see. If I'm not willing to sit here and trade back and forths with you until the Second Coming renders the argument moot, then I'm running away from the argument. I'm sorry, but I reject the idea that it's my responsibility to stay here and debate until you're convinced. You're not going to be convinced, so I'll leave when I have nothing further to add to the discussion.

[Tedious is just another word for nothing [effective] left to say.]

That's sort of correct. Tedious is when I realize that nothing I might say would be effective.

Chuck(le) wrote:
"But then again, I've probably got more evidence that God exists than you do of pink unicorns on Mars."

In either case, the burden of proof is on the person who asserts the existence of a thing, even more so when they claim that it is able to contradict all the known laws of the universe.

Atheism is a religion because its followers claim to know what happens after death and claim to know what's happening with the old man in the clouds just as surely as any other religion does.

What atheists think they are, agnostics actually are.

What atheists think they are, agnostics actually are.

Bravo, Tim. Where the atheist commits the basic logical fallacy of insisting that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (see also, Ardsgaine, above), the agnostic grasps that the answer to the question is unknowable.

David Warren is more theocon than neocon, really.

I've read this blog off and on for a couple of years. While your personal views may be varied and you've certainly taken your share of shots at Republicans, I can't remember an occasion when you praised a Democratic politician. So I think that while you may sometimes agree with liberal positions, you hardly ever agree with actual liberals. Attacks on Democrats, on the other hand, are pretty much a daily feature here. All of which makes me question how woo-able you really are.

I try to balance my blog reading pretty evenly between right and left, but I'm most interested in reading opinions from bloggers willing to question the orthodoxies of both sides -- I'd include Yglesias, Drum, Sullivan, Drezner, Cathy Young and, increasingly, Volokh in that category (plus the Corner on alternate Tuesdays).

I find your writing entertaining, but more predictable than those bloggers. And most of your posters seem to think Kos is the alpha and omega of liberal thought, which is silly.

"While your personal views may be varied and you've certainly taken your share of shots at Republicans, I can't remember an occasion when you praised a Democratic politician."

The snide response to that assertation would be, "That's because there are so few Democratic politicians worth praising."

Snide, but true.

I can only think of two off the top of my head; Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. Both of whom I'm pretty sure have gotten props from Steve in the past.

"And most of your posters seem to think Kos is the alpha and omega of liberal thought, which is silly."

Well, I don't. The problem is, voices like KoS are the ones that get most of the attention. And when the ideas advocated by KoS and its ilk become the Democratic party line, with few prominant Democrats willing to stand up and say "Wait a damn minute", well don't blame us for not praising them.

Give me something praiseworthy and you'll get praise, regardless of whether you bow to the Donkey or the Elephant.

TO: Ardsgaine
RE: MY Co-Religionists...

"I'm not the one who uses Leviticus to argue against gay marriage, and my point wasn't that you do. Talk to your co-religionists, who trot out Leviticus in any discussion of homosexuality....." -- Ardsgaine

...know better than to quote that business about stoning homosexuals to death.

But, now, as a slippery eel, you change it to mean something else; oppose homosexual marriage.

What's the matter? Short term memory issues?

RE: Jesus' Forgiveness

"...about Jesus's forgiveness." -- Ardsgaine

GOTTA be short term memory issues. You forgot that business about 'sin no more'.

Even though, in the next breath you say, "Kind of irrelevant to the issue of homosexuality, anyway, since the "go and sin no more" part is a bit of a problem for gays, as well it should be."

It's hardly 'irrelevant'. But, lots of people like to skip over those sorts of things. Just like (il)liberals like to skip over factual information and go for the name-calling.

It's sort of like ignoring the law, when the speed limit is posted at 55 and driving 95 instead. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make the law of no effect. Nor is it of no effect if you aren't caught. Especially THIS 'law', i.e., 'commandments'. He's got a REALLY 'long' memory. No problems with memory loss...WHAT...SO...EVEAH.

RE: As I Was Saying....

"If I'm not willing to sit here and trade back and forths with you until the Second Coming renders the argument moot, then I'm running away from the argument. I'm sorry, but I reject the idea that it's my responsibility to stay here and debate until you're convinced. You're not going to be convinced, so I'll leave when I have nothing further to add to the discussion." -- Ardsgaine

You don't have what it takes. You don't pack the 'gear', i.e., you lack knowledge. Furthermore, you don't have the stamina.

Do your Monty Python act....

Regards,

Chuck(le)

tim maguire wrote:
Atheism is a religion because its followers claim to know what happens after death and claim to know what's happening with the old man in the clouds just as surely as any other religion does.

I know what happens after death. I've seen dead bodies. They rot.

I don't claim to know anything about an old man up in the clouds though. If you tell me that there is such an old man up there, though, you should have some pretty good evidence. I mean clouds are pretty insubstantial. How does he keep from falling through? Doesn't he get cold? Is he able to get enough oxygen that high up? If you tell me that he doesn't have to obey the laws of nature, well, that looks like snake oil to me.

Brett wrote:
Where the atheist commits the basic logical fallacy of insisting that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (see also, Ardsgaine, above), the agnostic grasps that the answer to the question is unknowable.

It is not a fallacy to insist on evidence before committing to a belief in something. It might make sense to reserve judgment on a semi-plausible thesis until one has more data, but God doesn't fall into that category. I do not believe in aliens or fairies either, and belief in them, at least, would not commit me to believing that something exists which is undefinable, unlimited in scope and power, and capable of suspending the laws of nature on a whim.

Come on, guys, you know it's not reasonable. Just go ahead and say you've accepted it on faith and be done with it.

Garrett, saying there's only one serving Democrat of any value and then saying you're willing to praise either side is a joke, right? Even Kos and Michael Moore could probably come up with a couple of Republicans they'd give some grudging credit to.

TO: Ardsgaine
RE: That's Kinda Hard, Compadre

"Just go ahead and say you've accepted it on faith and be done with it." -- Ardsgaine

You obviously don't know me very well.

I won't bore the others regaling you with the details of the incidents. I'm certain that the regulars have seen them oft enough.

Suffice it to say, I've talked with and heard from the Big Guy. Or at least His associates/messangers. On more than ONE occasion, my life has been saved in the last few seconds before being snuffed out by timely instruction.

So, I cannot say it is on 'blind faith'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There are things that go 'bump' in the night.]

P.S. Not to mention some interesting encounters with elements from the other camp.

American Mother, you confuse libertarians with libertines, I sleep with my wife and it has been so for the last 25 years (length of marriage). The rest of your post I can live with.

P.P.S. Maybe that's why I scored so high for Stargate; a few doors up the hall from here. I'm used to the 'unusual' and 'unexpected'. Every day is something of a new adventure, one way or another.

I'm sorry you're missing all of this, Ardsgaine....

TO: David
RE: Not AGAIN!!!?!?!?

"...you confuse libertarians with libertines..." -- David

I think we've been over this before, haven't we?

Libertarians and libertines are of the same mentality, just different, and sometimes overlapping, venues.

It's dang-near 'anything goes' for almost all of them.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Curious, you list a lot of center and center-left stuff, I think most of us read as well. I don't read much right stuff, Professor Bainbridge and occasionally I check JYB because he used to have good Iraq stuff back in '03. But if venture slightly more left, I think you get Kevin Drum, who pushes a lot of obviously bad leftist ideology.

I read Kevin regularly. He usually has good points.

Didn't mean to really knock him. He's just very partisan, not necessarily leftist. It seem to me like he pushes the ideology for the party, not vice versa.

I also recommend Crooked Timber. They are entertaining and interesting. Very solidly on the left, but not irrelavent and not too obnoxious. Sometimes very reasonable.

To venture center right I recommend Arnold Kling and Brian Caplan at econlog.econlib.org. Megan McArdle is good, it's very good to read the comments there too.

Back to the center, Marginal Revolution is a must read.

"Garrett, saying there's only one serving Democrat of any value and then saying you're willing to praise either side is a joke, right?"

Ahh, but that's not what I said. I said I could only think of two off the top of my head. I was posting a blog comment, not am in-depth analysis of all serving Democrats. :)

If did some digging, I'd probably find a few others. I'm certainly not saying all Democrats are bad. But I see few who are willing to openly challenge what is happening to thier party. They put Howard Frackin' Dean in charge for cryin' out loud. Not exactly a move that makes me think they're gonna try to appeal to my classically liberal self any time soon.

Anyway, I am of much the same mind as our host when it comes to politics. Currently, the issue of primary import for me is foreign policy and while this administration's handling of specifics could use some improvement, I agree with thier general goals: go after terrorists and kill them, do something to jumpstart reform in the Middle East.

I can't think of any Democrat with a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination in '08 who I believe is serious about that issue. Kerry certainly isn't. Ditto John Edwards. Hillary believes whatever her pollsters tell her she should. Who else do you think the Dems might nominate next election?

Oh, if someone can find me video footage of Michael Moore praising a Republican, I'll eat my sock. :)

Chuck(le) wrote:
P.S. Not to mention some interesting encounters with elements from the other camp.

And this is ultimately the problem with the religious right. They can present a veneer of rationality, but when you scratch it, something like this pops out at you.

You don't have what it takes. You don't pack the 'gear', i.e., you lack knowledge. Furthermore, you don't have the stamina.

You win. I was wrong. There is a god. I can see that now. Your conclusive evidence and stellar argumentation have convinced me. Thanks! Bye now! Allahu Akbar!

Er, or whoever...

TO: Ardsgaine
RE: Ignorance....

"And this is ultimately the problem with the religious right. They can present a veneer of rationality, but when you scratch it, something like this pops out at you." -- Ardsgaine

...is not bliss. Or, if it is, it's rather short-term.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. Whether or not you 'believe' is not, repeat NOT, my problem, compadre.

Good luck....

I empathize with you, Stephen, but I don't see any evidence that so-called liberal bloggers behave any differently than conservative ones. I see no more debate on the right than on the left, and I rarely see "well done, I agree" links from Red Blogistan to Blue, and vice versa. Unfortunately, there's nowhere for people like you (and me, a "liberal" blogger) to go. The center is gigantic, but in Blogistan as well as in the fictional universe of conventional American political discourse, it doesn't exist. Why that's so is a long story, but in the end it's just sad. It's America's lament.

PDS: You've mentioned that Sowell book before, but without reading it I have no clue what you're talking about. Would you mind clarifying?

Ah, David,

First off, congratulations on your 25 years! (We've notched a mere 21 in our household!)

Obviously my sad attempt at metaphor failed, but I do find some libertarians to be rather libertine (at least that's what it sounds like.)

I found the "rules" I like to live by, but people are going to do what they're going to do. There are always sacrifices to be made , no matter how one chooses to live. Am I wrong in thinking it was Mae West who said,"Good girls go to Heaven, but bad girls go everywhere"?

Oh poor you, yet another youstabee watb.

You claim to be this way moderate lefty d00d, but I have to tell you, your blogroll completely outs you.

Blow me.

TO: quxxo
RE: Sure Thing

"Blow me." -- quxxo

I gotta quarter-pound block of C4, shaped like a cucumber and primed to cram up your fourth-point-of-contact, buckie.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There's nothing like a quarter-pounder to give complete and total satisfaction.]

P.S. Be more careful about what you wish for....next time...

P.P.S. I didn't say that....

Ardsgaine said: "[The argument that Atheism is a form of faith] is a denial that there can be any objective, rational belief regarding the existence or non-existence of God, therefore all positions must be equally tainted by faith. That is wrong. It is an act of faith to believe in something regardless of evidence for or against it."

The "evidence" is the Universe. You can choose to believe that it was created or not, but you must choose. No known aspect of the Universe proves one or the other proposition. In fact, the only scenerio in which Atheism would be the only reasonable stance would be if the Universe did not exist.

Althousefan,

Yes, you can choose to believe that the universe was created or not; you can also choose demand evidence of its creation before accepting the notion of a creator--and there is no such evidence.

Just because we do not have a complete explanation for how a thing came into existence does not therefore prove there was a creator who created it. That's the error committed by IDersm and it makes no sense.

Religion requires faith. And what's so wrong with that?

Chuck(le)

Why is it so important to you to look down your nose at people?
Especially at people who try to have a civil discussion with you? It seems like every one of your posts is like "I am better then youuuuu--uuu! Nya nya nyaaaa!" Why don't you try being nice to people instead of constantly pointing at your self and asking us to admire your narcissism.

TO: Steve
RE: Wrong Perspective

"Why is it so important to you to look down your nose at people?" -- Steve

I don't. Everyone of them is more important that I am.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For the power of paradox opens your eyes, and blinds those who say they can see. -- Michael Card, God's Own Fool]

P.S. More later. I have to attend to making breakfast....

TO: Steve
RE: Being Nice

"Why don't you try being nice to people..." -- Steve

Yeah. Be 'nice'. Just like the Swedes and Dutch and French are being 'nice' to terrorists?

I've tried that. It's ineffectual. And they'll 'kill' you anyway. Unless you're completely silent or parrot what they say.

I'd rather be truthful.

What would YOU rather do?

RE: Narcissism, Inc.

"...instead of constantly pointing at your self and asking us to admire your narcissism." -- Steve

Hey. I've been abused by the best. And, I abuse [mentally] myself better than anyone I've come across. That's hardly 'narcissism'. As I said, everyone is more important that I am.

But, that doesn't preclude me from being truthful to people like Ardsgaine. Or would you have me tell them pretty little lies to support THEIR 'narcissims'?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Selfish: Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others.]

P.S. Are you 'projecting' here?

a civil left-leaning site is hard to find. but jeff jarvis at buzzmachine.com does a good job. i don't often agree with him, but you learn nothing if you don't read opposing views.

Vodkapundit, I have great respect for your view.

I feel, though, that you have presented it in an unfortunate way.

Leftists may all be more angry and less reasonable than rightists. But when you tell them so, guess what effect it has?

Yup. Makes them angrier. That's not good for them or us. It's polarization, and that's bad.

So let's not attack "The blues" or praise "the reds" but rather,
impersonally, praise & encourage those who are reasonable, and discourage those whose passion rules over their reason.

Thank you for reading.
--Chad

Chad — Or we could expect self-described adults to exercise their own self-control, rather than treat them like three-year-olds who want to run for Congress.

TO: richard mcenroe
RE: That Doesn't Work, Either

"...we could expect self-described adults to exercise their own self-control, rather than treat them like three-year-olds who want to run for Congress." -- richard mcenroe

As evidence, I offer Senator Edward Kennedy. Not to forget the primary group you refer to, Kos' Kidss. Neither group seems to live up to the standard of self-described adults who exercise their own self-control.

The point is that the world is too safe at the moment and any self-described adult, who for one reason or another can't seem to exercise their own self-control, does whatever they please. That includes abusing people who politely disagree with them. They are not 'adults'. Rather, they are spoiled brats, lacking any concept of self-control.

And it's really a shame when one of them DOES get into Congress.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. We can thank the fine people of the great state of Massachusetts for giving US two of them there.

TO: Chad
RE: Negative Reinforcement

"...discourage those whose passion rules over their reason." -- Chad

What do you suggest as a tool we can use to 'discourage' them?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

LNS said: "Just because we do not have a complete explanation for how a thing came into existence does not therefore prove there was a creator who created it. That's the error committed by IDersm and it makes no sense.

Religion requires faith. And what's so wrong with that?"

You're absolutely right. But Atheism -- which asserts There is no God, not There is no proof of God -- also requires faith, and many Atheists commit the same error as IDers. Namely, they presume one can determine whether or not God exists through Reason alone. It cannot be done. Atheists who say, "I came to my belief through Reason alone," are kidding themselves, or else they don't really understand what Reason is. You want a belief system that is based on Reason alone? Be an Agnostic. In the quest for God, pure Reason inevitably leads to one conclusion: I do not know because I cannot know what cannot be known.

TO: Althousefan
RE: Not So Sure About That

"Namely, they presume one can determine whether or not God exists through Reason alone. It cannot be done." -- Althousefan

There is at least ONE 'rational' approach to evidence of God's existance; prophecy.

From that point, it boils down to whether or not someone is going to accept the proffered 'evidence'.

Generally speaking....atheists won't because their whole rationale unravels. Instead, they'll call it 'coincidence'. But I ask you...what are the odds that someone of the 1st Century could describe, in terms his contemporaries would understand, the image of a runaway nuclear reactor AND name the town where the event occured, almost 2000 years later? Using the proper noun form?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Coincidence: When God works a miracle and doesn't get the credit.]

I'd add Marc Cooper to the list of interesting leftists. He's pretty dogmatic, and has a habit of overusing boldface type in the process of making his arguments, but when the people of Iraq first cast ballots to determine their own future, he was one of the few on the left to congratulate them and note that the vote was a good thing -- for which, sadly, he was endlessly pilloried by fellow leftists in the comment threads. I seldom agree with him, but at least he stays true to his convictions even when they lead him to what those around him would consider to be heresy.

And yeah, Jeff Jarvis is another good 'un. Smart, open-minded and savvy.

Chuck Pelto said: "There is at least ONE 'rational' approach to evidence of God's existance; prophecy.

From that point, it boils down to whether or not someone is going to accept the proffered 'evidence'."

I see what you're saying. But there would have to be a standard for interpreting prophecy/miracles agreed upon by all "rational" people. Not even Christians agree on how to interpret prophecy/miracles.

Personally, I think if God exists, He doesn't want to reveal Himself through Reason alone. I think He wants us to trust, to make the leap. I think it's part of the game. This might explain why prophecy/miracles (if they are real) are so rare. Free Will only really works if we don't "know" for sure.

On the other hand, I am convinced that if God exists, He would never contradict, or ask us to ignore, Reason. I see no contradiction between Reason and a belief in God. In fact, if God exists, Reason is one of God's gifts to Man. I agree with JPII: "Truth cannot contradict Truth."

TO: Althousefan
RE: Standards

"But there would have to be a standard for interpreting prophecy/miracles agreed upon by all "rational" people." -- Althousefan

Just like their's a 'standard' for interpreting the Universe? Look around you. As that old Book admonishes, "The proof of God is in the firmament, the earth, the sea and the life that exists therein," or words to that effect.

However, we know all too well how people reject even that evidence. Likewise, they'll reject prophecy. Why? Well, because it's proof that THEY are not God.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I am the lord my god. Thou shalt have no other god before ME. -- First commandment of the Atheist]

Personally, and that is all it is, I am tired of hearing from every 'There is only one TRUE way to think, and that is...' and then add in any mix of religion, atheism, economic theory and whatnot to that sentence. I will happily chat onwards with people from all stripes of religions from monotheists to polytheists to deists to ancestor worshippers to socialists to conspiracy theorists, they all seem to fit the same dogmatic template of narrowing views based on set beliefs. These things don't seem to do a whole lot of good when trying to figure out how to govern people, however. As population, demographics and other things change over time, a set ideal of human liberty and tolerance works a lot better than something that deteriorates due to dogmatic schisms. Not that this has prevented the Politically Correct culture from trying to do just that.

After surviving the 17th and 18th centuries the good people who set up the United States wanted a mutual respect for beliefs present and did *not* want the country run along any set dogmatic belief. A bit hard to do, even then, when you have a motley crew of all sorts of people in the colonies. They purposefully set up the Federal Government to be neutral on such things, and left it to the States to do as their people wanted, and a number of them followed the Federal lead, but some did not. So, if you want to persuade me, put away all those fun religious texts, those economic text from Marx & Co., and other assorted belief systems that have little to do with governing.

The Constitution is a very short document, and easy to read but difficult to fully work through. It speaks to Us, The People, that We have the rights within Us and that We agree to hand some few to the Government to help Govern and protect Us. So, when people go spouting off about wanting their *rights* from the Government, all I end up asking is when did they take them away from you? The Constitution is constructed so only those few things we cede to the Government are to be used for the benefit of everyone. Everything else is that of the States and The People.

So, first off, my problem with Government is that it *cannot* be a Nannystate and recognize my right as a Citizen to do as I damn well please so long as it endangers no one but myself. If you want cradle to grave socialized medicine, socialized welfare and watered down socialism as a whole, go to Europe. You are free to do so.

Second, it seems to me that World War II allowed people to think that Government can be a force for *good*, if only you would let them decide what *good* IS. So we get the Dept of Education, but Johnny *still* can't read since 1958. Institutionalizing a *problem* means that it never, ever goes away. Ditto the Dept of Agriculture. It is the 21st century, let large AgriBusiness fund its own damn research into soil preservation. If food *really* needs to be inspected, then why isn't the FDA doing it?

Third, the economic engine of the US is *small business*. About the only thing that ever made sense from the early part of the 20th century was breaking up monopolies and curbing oligopilies. But even so, big business asks for too much in the way of welfare and support from the Government. The only businesses that should ever need that are ones providing vital National Security needs, and even then only *that* section of a company should receive it. If the rest of the company goes under, let the remaining part re-organize to be supported until such time as it is not needed.

National defense is critical. Congress has gone flaccid in its buck-passing ways since the rise of the Nation State made war semi-civilized. They don't know how to deal with sub-national or transnational actors that respect no law. After the Executive tells Congress that Federal Military and Federal Law Enforcement is *not* enough, nor Nation Building then what is left? Commerce. Who gets that? Congress. I will not vote for a buck-passer any more. Either Congress will wake up to the Powers that We have given it or We will perish as a nation. Congress holds a vital key in its posession, but it hasn't used it in so long they forgot it is on the keychain. I guess they never bothered to read the Constitution, either.

To those pushing a *perfect* society, I not only just walk away, but I *run* away (ah, if only I could run or even walk well these days). A *more* perfect society, yes... but do not look to Government to cure all ills around you. It has only limited powers that we have given it.

If you want problems solved, look in the mirror. You have the rights in this country, although people in both parties want you to forget that little detail. If you have beliefs and ideas and wants that you think are worth putting out and expressing, then knock yourself out and do so! But do *not* try to get the Government to do it FOR you. That is also passing the buck and passing your rights over voluntarily.

So, until there is a political party that comes along that actually tries to put such things into action, I remain on the sidelines. I smile at defending the nation and spreading liberty. I frown and despair at *any* side that tries to make some social ill a Federal matter, as that has not worked on so many things: education, poverty, cancer, drugs....

It is not a question of Taking Your Rights back... it is a question of Not Handing Your Rights Over In The First Place.

Harry Truman had the sign on his desk: The Buck Stops Here. It *starts* in Your hands.

Stop asking for pennies in return.

TO: ajacksonian
RE: Contradictions R Us

"I am tired of hearing from every 'There is only one TRUE way to think, and that is...' and then add in any mix of religion, atheism, economic theory and whatnot to that sentence. I will happily chat onwards with people from all stripes of religions from monotheists to polytheists to deists to ancestor worshippers to socialists to conspiracy theorists, they all seem to fit the same dogmatic template of narrowing views based on set beliefs." -- ajacksonian

Tired, but happy, eh?

RE: A Jacksonian?

"...recognize my right as a Citizen to do as I damn well please so long as it endangers no one but myself." -- ajacksonian

Sounds more like a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, to me.

The question becomes, how the heck do YOU know about what does or doesn't 'endanger no one but' yourself? Do you run an Underwriters Labs? CDC? FDA research facility? Most of those are government funded/operated facilities. And most libertarians find most government anathema.

RE: At Last, Agreement

"If you want problems solved, look in the mirror. You have the rights in this country, although people in both parties want you to forget that little detail." -- ajacksonian

You should go up the hall and give Billy, Billy, JB and Roy a good talking to.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Chuck - Tired, yes. And I will happily nod my head and smile... while thinking of other things. I don't mind listening as that is what usually ends up happening, until the person doing the talking realizes that I am not engaged in a dialogue. Somehow that always seems to work...

Now, onto what I find good for myself. I certainly don't mind CDC and FDA, good folks and a decent set of safeguards and oversight there. I would class them as 'provide for the common defense' part of the Constitution. Perhaps 'promote the general Welfare' for FDA, but I see that keeping quality of food high is more of a defense issue in latter days. Do note that some states have their own standards, Pennsylvania comes to mind, which are highly regarded, also.

Now UL might have some disagreement with you:

"Q: Is UL part of the government?

A: UL is not part of the government. UL is an independent, not-for-profit organization."

I am all for funding not for profit organizations, but I would not class UL as an Agency or part of the government. It receives a hefty amount from the industries involved and is a totally voluntary organization. Indeed, according to the Ludwig von Mises Institute about UL:
"But the Lab isn't an arm of the government. It is privately owned, financed, and operated. No one is compelled by force of law to use its services. It thrives, and makes our lives safer, by the power of its excellent reputation. For that reason, its ideologically driven enemies on the left despise it.The firm was formed in 1894 to deal with the dangers posed by the dramatic increase in the use of electricity. Today, it employs 4,000 scientists, engineers, and safety specialists to render an independent verdict on hundreds of thousands of products.

The very existence of the Lab debunks the common civics-text view that without government intervention, private businesses would seek profit without regard for safety. Thus, bureaucrats have to police markets to impose a balance between private interests and the common good. The government, then, is the only thing standing between us and unceasing fatal accidents.

The truth is the opposite. The market is well equipped to regulate itself, and does a fine job of it. It's the government that operates without oversight. To discover the quality and value of products, no one would trust the advice of the scandal-ridden Commerce Department or the Federal Trade Commission. " [lots more in the article]

Truer words were never spoken!

So, would you like to tackle the Dept of Education and Dept of Agriculture? I would enjoy seeing the grand successes of the former and the real need for the latter.

I stand for where the Constitution is in its broad overview: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Or perhaps you would enjoy a Nannystate to slowly erode all of the decisions in your life? Somehow I just cannot see promoting the general Welfare with so much porkbarrel spending that is going on. And with a Congress lax in its wartime role, I am pretty aggrieved at the people within it deciding that 13,999 earmarks are required in order just to featherbed their re-election chances.

And while I do have some libertarian leanings, you might be interested to know that when I take a stand I try to ensure that it is one that is well reasoned within the compact that We The People have set up. Somehow people have gotten the strange concept that polarizing attitudes towards issues *helps*. Instead it just causes stasis and frustrates both sides. We can work things out if we would step back from the deep emotional involvement going on and ask if there is away to allow progress on some issues that will still allow both sides to gain a bit, move the isssue forward and, hopefully, someday come to a resolution.

I would like a political party that does that. Currently that does not describe the Democrat or Republican parties. My vote in many elections has been *present* as there have been NO *lesser of two evils* between the parties. I do believe in the Republic. I have lost faith with the current two parties and must, perforce, vote for individuals regardless of party stance. And my voting of *present* tells me something about the quality of the individuals seeking office from the two parties.

When it comes down to it, a bureaucrat far away making decisions should be making few of them. The closer you get to where you live, you can have a few more. The best government is local government, which is another thing we seem to have forgotten since the Second World War.

Do you get where I stand now?

It is lonely ground out here.

The comments are getting hit and run-esque.

My thoughts exactly Stephen. Run a Harry Truman demo and Karl Rove is in the dumper.

It'l never happen, therefore we are consigned to vote with knucle-dragging fundies.

That's why your blog is in my favorites under "Conservative", welcome to the right. Your finally understanding what we're about.

TO: ajacksonian
RE: UL Issues

"Now UL might have some disagreement with you:

"Q: Is UL part of the government?

A: UL is not part of the government. UL is an independent, not-for-profit organization." -- ajacksonian

What's the matter? Trouble reading, as I had said, "Most of those are government funded/operated facilities."

RE: Civics Lessons

"The very existence of the Lab debunks the common civics-text view that without government intervention, private businesses would seek profit without regard for safety." -- ajacksonian

When and where did YOU take civics?

I don't recall anything like that from MY classes; late-60s, Bossier City, LA.

RE: Preaching to the Choir?

"I stand for where the Constitution is in its broad overview:" -- ajacksonian

I'm there too.

"Or perhaps you would enjoy a Nannystate to slowly erode all of the decisions in your life?" -- ajacksonian

Hardly....

"Somehow people have gotten the strange concept that polarizing attitudes towards issues *helps*. Instead it just causes stasis and frustrates both sides." -- ajacksonian

Well. In many instances it helps. But you do have a point in the potential for 'frustration'. This is especially true when people DON'T exercise patience and TRY to understand the other person's point of view.

On the other hand, as one of my favorite axioms goes....

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster. It's an opportunity.

The problem I've seen most often is that a lot of people don't seem prepared to learn anything from such encounters.

Take our engagement, for example.

My initial perception was that you were a bona fide libertarian. After all, there are a good number of them around these parts. However, we are probably closer to each other, idiologically speaking, than I originally perceived.

That would not have come out, if you and I had not continued our disucssion.

On the other hand, we've got people like Billy [Bo Bob] Beck, up the hall from here. He's dropped down to the name-calling level, at this point in that engagement. He's still stuck in his keen desire to prove that civil disobedience is the answer to all things. This, despite the evidence proffered by myself and others that it doesn't always work. [Note: I think rosignol's contribution is a real killer argument; that it only works, e.g., Gandhi and MLK, when you're dealing with decent governments. Those are few and far between.]

At any rate, you're earlier claim to do as you wish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone but you, seemed to me to be the epitome of the libertarian.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: Horst Graben
RE: Hey!

"...we are consigned to vote with knucle-dragging fundies." -- Horst Graben

I resemble that remark.

Thanks...

Chuck(le)
[Godless Bible-thumbers. -- some liberal making a comment about church-going people who believe in the words in that old Book]

P.S. I should make a bumper sticker of that.

Chuck Pelton - On the civics lesson: you may want to sit through a social studies course in your local elementary or high school someday. I believe you will be less than impressed.

Perhaps, instead of bringing the Government in at the beginning, would a better statement of your perception of the health and safety of the People be encapsulated: There are some limited and necessary things that cannot be properly addressed by voluntary or industrial organizations and, as needs be to protect The People, the Federal Government must take up those few and limited tasks.

My conception of personal liberty comes from Amendments IX and X of the Constitution, reserving the rights not specified in the Constitutional document to the States and The People. By founding that social compact within the framework of the Constitution, we recognize that some few things must be handed over to the Government to govern. And, since the document itself is extremely concise, brief and even tart in its listing of those things the Federal Government actually *gets*, I look askance at anyone who suggests it should get *more* power over The People. I am far more comfortable with local government experimenting with its people to find what does and does not work to maintain and enhance the social fabric of The People as a whole. By kicking ideas directly to the Federal Government that interface becomes diluted as the voice of The People is no longer heard via The House within the Congress. That is, unfortunately, another can of worms that needs to be opened at some point to bring back more accountable representation to the Federal Government.

My main problem with stultified antipathy is that it tends to decay the of positions to ones that are 'absolutist' in nature. On some given arguments one may find it very lonely saying that there is a middle ground between them and will be vehemently attacked by both sides for even suggesting same. In many, although not all, social problems that have turned into sclerotic and simplified strawment, I have found that trying to address anything other than the absolute position of either side is often fruitless. You are damn right that our society is a DIALOGUE!! A discussion between the People so as to find a better way to help us remain a civil society.

To those who immediately move to name calling, painting with a broad brush or in believing that there is one and only one true way to do things, if you would only let them pontificate at you for endless hours:

Dumb looks are still free!!

I have found that doing so allows the speaker of such ideas to believe that they have made their point while, in point of fact, I have been thinking on other things. It is a polite and civil way to behave and only when asked if I happen to agree with whatever they have put forth, I can politely say: "No."

I engage only when I feel it necessary to do. I do not encourage anyone to agree with me, and those that wish to engage in a dialogue may say so. Othewise my some few ideas and observations I put out, but push on none. I do not crusade for anything, save to keep the Government within the bounds that have been set for it so that I and my fellow Citizens can make our own decisions on everything else.

To those who wish to crusade in the street on the common land set aside for The Public, they may do so as so long as their protestations are peaceable and civil. I believe that is a rare tool in the persuasion toolkit and should be reserved in its rarity so that it may gain in importance. By turning every idea into a civil protest, the protest itself is demeaned and made common and soon is viewed as harassment by a minority that seeks to enforce their beliefs on a majority rather than persuade through that most common of civil means: dialogue.

Back to the topic of this thread and the viability of the Democratic (or, indeed, the Republican) party: neither seems to have a coherent idea of government at this point in time. Or, even worse, they see the concept of Big Government used for *good* be it 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Big government has NOT solved: poverty, cancer, poor schooling of our children, drug use, nor any of the things that latter day social crusaders have put under it in an attempt to make things *better*. The 'liberals' have not addressed the fact that the Federal Government is *not* the solution to every social ill. The 'conservatives' have not taken the corrupting influence of handouts on the social fabric of our society into their consideration when trying to begin or expand handouts to religious and charitable institutions.

I thank you for your convesation, Mr. Pelton! Rare and refreshing these days.

TO: ajacksonian
RE: Civics Education

"On the civics lesson: you may want to sit through a social studies course in your local elementary or high school someday." -- ajacksonian

I may do that think. Of late, the shabby state of the vaunted public education system has come to my attention. We have something of a low-key scandal developing in the local school district over the quality of education the kids are getting.

It's not quite into the local papers yet, but sitting in on local government and citizens advisory committee meetings, I'm detecting an interesting series of what we in the military would call 'indicators'. Mostly in the math realm, but I'm pretty certain that they're available in other areas as well. [Note: As of last Fall, I judge high school debate tournaments, and listening to the teacher/coaches in the judges' lounge between sessions has been quite an ear-full.]

I hope Stephen takes this sort of information, and that which Venomous Kate is providing, to heart with regards to his contribution to the future of this country.

RE: Good Governance

In my opinion, the least government is the better government. The problem devolves down to where do we make the demarkation?

It's hard to say. Case in point, one would have thought that by NOW we'd have a good handle on mine-safety. However, events of the last month show we've still got some serious problems in that area.

I'm concerned that we won't REALLY figure it out what happened last month for another 10 years. And I am again reminded that 'life is a crap-shoot'.

So, it further devolves to "Who do you trust?" [Note: Why am I suddenly reminded of the Joker, spreading dollars around at the parade in Batman?]

RE: Dumb & Dumber

"if you would only let them pontificate at you for endless hours:

Dumb looks are still free!!" -- ajacksonian

Sorry....it's against my 'religion'.

Seriously. What are they going to do to me [for trying to educate them]? Bend my dog-tags and send me Home? [Note: Nam-era grunt joke.]

Oh...please, Brear Billy [Bo Bob Bear] Beck, don't throw me into the brayer patch!

Sheesh. Some people never learn....

Try as we might. But still and all, my understanding of 'the one true Way' is that I should not keep quite. Silence is acquiescence/aggreement.

RE: Get Civil

"By turning every idea into a civil protest, the protest itself is demeaned and made common and soon is viewed as harassment by a minority that seeks to enforce their beliefs on a majority rather than persuade through that most common of civil means: dialogue." -- ajacksonian

Amen to that. The problem is the hot-heads. And I suspect they revel in their 'passion' more than they do in the truth.

RE: The Two Predominant Parties

"Back to the topic of this thread and the viability of the Democratic (or, indeed, the Republican) party: neither seems to have a coherent idea of government at this point in time." -- ajacksonian

True. And we are, like so many others, left with a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Then again, we seem to have a plethora of other parties, none of which seem to have a modicum of common sense for the common man. But this, sort of, gets us back to the funny thinks going on in the vaunted American public education system.....which is another story.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. I return the compliment of praise for our meeting here.

Chuck Pelton - Let me just say that involvement in the local education system is often... mmmm... less than appreciated. Part and parcel of the 'hand it off to the experts so it never gets fixed' syndrome. The more that we trust 'experts' the less that we trust the widom of the whole People. At some point in that process individuals will *only* count if they are an 'expert'. The process of knowledge through dialogue is becoming a lost one in many areas of political intercourse in the modern world.

As to which government is best to handle certain things: as a geologist I can say that each mine is peculiar in its own rock strata, overburden, water clearance problems, seismic activity, heat dissipation and other particulars. While some good ideas of ventilation and drainage are common, how a mine is constructed and re-inforced has to take many factors into consideration that will be different from area to area and even within a single mine itself. Some good safety guidelines are necessary, but at some point once the data is analyzed and geologists talk to the engineers who talk to the miners who talk to the company who talk to the union who talk to the supply companies, there becomes a mix as to what is safely possible within known parameters. One size does not fit all. Putting out general guidelines on how safe a mine should be versus how safe it can be are often at odds. You do not want safety regulations that would allow a construction group to skimp on materials when, for a quoted cost, it can be overbuilt. Similarly the very best of materials and engineering may only barely *just* satisfy guidelines but still be incredibly unsafe to work in. Mines, even strip mines, are incredibly dangerous propositions to begin with, and good sense guidelines may *help*. But the provisos should always be in that 'And if you see a better way to do it, you will be required to do it even if it is not stated within this regulation' sort of verbiage. It cannot be brought down to zero risk. It may never even approach the risk of waking up in the morning and taking a shower as long as people are required to be in mines to do work. Here local knowledge is necessary and the Federal Government can be a great sledgehammer, but woefully inadequate when a jewler's stencil is needed.

In RE: religion. Why, yes one may go on to describe your beliefs to me. And, in good grace, if you ask me if I agree with them and I say: "No" I would hope for civility on the part of the questioner to not shoot back with a: "Why not?" And I will politely say: "For reasons personal and particular to me, thank you for asking" If that is not good enough, then in my book continuing the discussion is pointless, fruitless and, if continued by the side that wishes to push its viewpoint, is quite frankly insulting to me as a fellow citizen. I ask no one to adopt my beliefs or ways. I may point out how things could be handled in another manner or way, but leave the decision as to how good or bad that is up to the listener. In my time I have been trailed by Jehovah's Witnesses, Socialists, Anarchists, Moonies, and quite some other individuals with fervently held beliefs. Being in a civil society means, to me at least, respecting differences in belief between Citizens and trying to find a common ground to work out problems that confront us as The People. The beginning of *that* process is civility. Or so that is how I see it. And, if a belief system requires one to be uncivil, discourteous and to disregard the beliefs of my fellow Citizens, then, truthfully, I want no part of it in any way, shape or form.

There are none so blind as those blinded by the Light that they will attack any form of Gray, suspecting it to be Darkness, while it is only reflected Light from something lesser than that Light. If I turn from that Light and look into the Darkeness it is not to embrace Darkness but to see better into it. And if I tell you that I do not care the name or source of the Light, but that it is worth protecting, would that explain my soul? I accept all ways and follow none, so that I may better know what kinds and forms of things may move within the Darkness to prey upon those that see only Light. For that Light is worth protecting, no matter what its name. And those who follow each part of that whole Light are worth protecting, even by those that stand and look and see out into the Darkness. I stand my ground twixt light and dark, between waking and the dream. And hope my few words will let other see what that Darkness screens.

Chuck, I do respect your right to speak out on what you see. I listen. I learn. I use those thoughts, although perhaps not how intended by you. I do that with all I listen to, and speak only when needs be that I must. All I ask it the decency and respect to let me think my own thoughts in my own way and not to pester me continually with such things while I think. I am sorry if that is a lot to ask in a polite way.

As to the two parties: I stand my ground for the Republic. Which I am trying very hard to think about and find ways that will work to preserve it, so that I may keep trust and faith with those who handed it to me and so that I may pass it on as a gift to those that come after me. It is very lonely ground, these days in a political sense, standing by the Republic. I look around and see no political party or movement near me. Not Democrat, not Republican, not Libertarian, not Socialist, not Anarchist, not Green... Where are those that will stand by the Republic, vigorously use the powers that have been given to it and respect that everything that is not a part of those powers it may have no say upon?

I am Gray, standing next to the Republic. I look out and see darkness, pettiness, roiling and rampant hatred, polarization between factions and those factions reflecting almost no light at all... and the shadows lengthen. Perhaps that is just my failing perception and sight. So many seeking new and unique ways to make the Republic fail, so few standing next to it to try and help it succeed.

I am sorry to any that I offend, that is not my intent. When I wish to be offensive, you will know it.

TO: ajacksonian
RE: Education

"Let me just say that involvement in the local education system is often... mmmm... less than appreciated. Part and parcel of the 'hand it off to the experts so it never gets fixed' syndrome." -- adjacksonian

I'm becoming all too keenly aware of the power of the 'education system'. I'm finding it more to be a system of 'brainwashing' than education.

As an old colonel told this then young captain....

There are two ways to exercise power. The first is to make decisions for people that they'd be better off making for themselves. The second is to withhold information from people that they could use in makeing good decisions for themselves.

I see the politicians exercising the former and the so-called major media exercising the latter.

Of late, I've come of the opinion that the education system exercises both.

RE: Religion

"In RE: religion. Why, yes one may go on to describe your beliefs to me. And, in good grace, if you ask me if I agree with them and I say: "No" I would hope for civility on the part of the questioner to not shoot back with a: "Why not?"" -- ajacksonian

Oh...come ooon. Are we not curious as to WHY each other believes what they believe?

Yes, it can be tiresome to have to repeat the same think over and over again, hence, I've set up some techniques for keeping track of such essays for future use. Saves me a lot of typing.

"And I will politely say: "For reasons personal and particular to me, thank you for asking" If that is not good enough, then in my book continuing the discussion is pointless, fruitless and, if continued by the side that wishes to push its viewpoint, is quite frankly insulting to me as a fellow citizen." -- ajacksonian

Well. I'd chalk it up to curiosity, that they persist in asking. From my perspective, it is part and parcel of being a 'seeker'.

Seriously, I find it a spicy side of life to ask and to get answers. But that may be part of my ENTJ [Myers-Briggs] personality. I'm not ashamed of it, as I do enjoy learning other peoples' points of view. There is hardly a day that goes by wherein I don't learn SOMETHING new. It may be a disagreement. It may be an agreement. But, whatever it is, it adds to my understanding. So, whenever I encounter a learned and thoughtful individual, I appreciate what I gain from the encounter. And I'm equally happy to share my particular perspective on the matters discussed.

RE: Being 'Gray'

"I am Gray, standing next to the Republic." -- ajacksonian

Sounds like a Mimbari, of the Gray Council....

We are gray. We stand between the Shadow and the Light.

The Republic does that. Or did. However, as with the Gray Council of the Mimbari (see Bablyon 5) sometimes the Shadows tend to overwhelm good council.

RE: Blinded

"There are none so blind as those blinded by the Light..." -- ajacksonian

Could be. However, I think the proper quote is...

There is none so blind as he who will not see."

Light does not make one blind. Light makes all things visible. However, Darkness makes all people blind and all things unseen.

As for being 'Gray', it reminds me of 'fog'; something through which things are improperly perceived. Better to be in the 'Light'.

In truth, the measure of a persons perception of reality can be gauged by how offended they are when people 'assail' their sense of it. Those without confidence will react with aggression. Those with it will react with question, e.g., Why?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is persecuted.]

P.S. There may be something in there for your consideration.

From my perspective the follow-on quotation is....

[Life is boot camp. We are all expected to go out and be heroes.]

Chuck Pelton - On education I think we are on major agreement. What has been tried has not worked since 1958. Somehow the non-professional but passionate instructors of that era were able to do *just* as well as their modern-day counterparts. I expect a bit more for my tax dollar... I wish others would too.

As you may have guessed I am a space alien on the M-B scale, INTP, which accords for 5% or less of the population, last I checked. We each seek in our own way, and each have different lights that make sense. I think that the lights we both see stand much closer together although different in their own ways. And the Minbari Council phrase did strike a deep and meaningful chord, that I see crossing across all religions and major modes of thought. You may not see it that way. So be it.

As to how I see by that light... need one look so deeply into it that it consumes all else? Or may I use that light to discriminate and see further using it? And if one sees many lights all around a common axis, may I not give honor to them all and not single out a one? Perhaps you see them all as one, I do not. You seek answers. I seek shapes and patterns and less well defined things that have coherency to them. I cannot describe how I did think, and because of conditions how I can now think is more limited than former times. I walk in a land of light dimming and darkness gathering and it is the fog of encroaching dream upon me. At this point I must trust the light to be out there, so that I can tell where the end of dreaming is and where the solidness of reality begins. I can no longer do that well and some days not at all. But I have will and means to use it, still. I fight and I struggle daily to hold on to the things that matter. It is not a pleasant land I walk in and there is no exit from it.

How can I even begin to describe what it is to walk without a good nights rest after more than a year? No matter how one imagines it, it does not approach the experience. My memory is mostly intact, my reasoning a bit less so but still serviceable, overall not good shape. Awakeness, awareness, energy, concentration all go in their own cycles and no longer coordinate and do not vary predictably. Oft times I need to resort to a form of meter or rhyme scheme as it is a structure that still resonates and allows me to speak and think.

I had a voracious mind and read much in my life before now... I have seen enough of the patterns of the light to see that no one description *fits* for what I see. So I give honor to that, turn to see the works we have put forth to make the Republic and see a lesser, but kindred structure. Both are worth defending.

These days I can barely remember what I write in the morning by the time evening falls. I read what I wrote just weeks ago and wonder how I did so. My longer works from more than a year ago are more than I can read or understand. I can no longer keep much past a few hundred words in my head, yet enjoyed stories in the past covering 10s of characters and more than some few plots and storylines. Those are closed to me now. I often let my fingers move without my thought, as there is a part that still works in a somewhat fashion.

If you