Yes, they'd rather have their tax cuts, and permanent ones at that.

I remember very well the week that Pam posted here. It was a pretty lively debate all week. Pam had a lot of interesting topics. I think the posts that may have bothered Thrasher, in particular, were those re: Obama and the black gospel singer who also has a reputation for being both ex-gay and homophobic.

From Pam's post on Oct 24:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/24/black_homophobia/

His campaign is sponsoring a gospel concert series in South Carolina called "Embrace the Change Tour," an important state in which to make headway with black voters. It features extremely popular recording artist and "former homosexual" Donnie McClurkin. The problem is that it appears that no one on Team Obama bothered to read up on the well-known homophobia of the recloseted singer...

Pam refers to this episode as Obama hitting the 3rd rail, since there is either the reality or the perception of very little tolerance for homosexuality among African-Americans. I don't know the truth or extent of it, but have seen the issue discussed on blogs and heard others on NPR, etc.

Thrasher appears to disapprove of homosexuality, as well, given his reactions to both Pam (who is not white) and Glenn (who is), since both are gay. And he never fails to bring it up.

As for his other complaints (there have been many all over the terrain of Salon), I am sympathetic to them, but he does not really seem to want any resolution. One wonders if even a serious debate on Reparations would appease him. It is at a minimum a debate that we should be having-- nationally-- but I don't think we're there (again) yet, given the many emergencies that Bush has created. However, if a President Obama could make something like that happen, then even my skepticism would be suspended.

There have been other episodes, but that is the most recent one I recall on Glenn's blog.

You really could save yourself some time if you just read some of his archives. Of course, that is often the case when a thread is being derailed or hijacked, but hardly anyone ever does it.

* * *

Cheers, Thrasher! If you ever do decide that you are more interested in educating than hectoring, and in solutions, rather than stalemates, this blog would be a good place to start. There is a lot more diversity here than you realize, but a lot if it is lurking.

Jane Hamsher has the goods on...

wait for it...

Bill O'Reilly!

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/05/bill-oreilly-shoves-obama-staffer/

Are we really surprised?

BTW, can anyone point to a similarly literate comment section - for those times when that of Glenn's becomes hijacked beyond salvage?

I wish. If you come across one, could you please let the rest of us know?

I completely agree with you about the difference in comment quality here vs. other blogs.

...there is entirely too much of lumping people together, and ironically in a thread derailed by biases, stereotypes, and the like.

I leave it to objective readers to appraise the quality and the implications of such impaired intellection, [sic] whether on the parts of the Bush/Cheney cabal, or on the parts of benighted devotees of Empire, such as ProWar and L.W.M.

Devotees of Empire? ProWar and LWM? with the Bush/Cheney cabal? Please!

* * *

ondelette: I always appreciate your sensible and nuanced perspective on drug regulation (not prohibition and not resulting in incarceration). The whole thing is so complicated. And all or nothing answers will not do.

I really related to your story about your friend. One of mine had a similar episode this year, but a small circle of us intervened and caught it in the nick of time. Still, she was already unable to act in her own best interests. And we had to force the issue, which would not have been possible without the help of both Medicine and the Law. Fortunately, she is pretty much her usual self now. We did not want to find ourselves in the position of feeling regret, but easily might have, except that we had so much interaction with our friend on a regular basis, that we could not miss the change.

I still think the real emphasis needs to be on more and better access to more and better mental health care. The current system is far from perfect, but it's what we have to work with and increasing access, and eliminating the stigma could have a beneficial effect. It is not enough to decriminalize and/or to release non-violent offenders from prison without offering them some sort of recourse.

...it is very complicated.

And when someone has a chemical imbalance and takes drugs for it... and the drugs quit working... that person is often not in a position to make an actual informed choice, due to the illness. In such a case, someone needs to step in, preferably a family member, but that's not always possible. And that's what ondelette was also saying. Sometimes people need to be saved. Especially when they are unable to "choose" due to their physical or medical circumstances.

In general, I'm not really a big fan of medication. No OTC's, no NSAIDs, etc. Too many side-effects. And I tend to be very sensitive to just about everything. But I do take one prescription regularly, because the benefits to my quality of life waaay outweigh the risks. It is a choice that I am able to make in consultation with a doctor.

However, if I were incapacitated in any way, and urgently in need of medication, I would hope that my family and/or friends would act in my best interests, and not just leave me to sink or swim. I would not consider that "forced" medication.