Thank you so much for the kind words. These things mean a great deal to me, and I am committed to taking the bull by its horns, as it were, because I think issues of profoundest consequence deserve no less.

"A renewed movement of PC authoritariansm is not going to get us any further. Thoughtful, substatantive debate that you bring to the table, is IMHO what we need much more of if we are to overcome our limitations and create an improved discourse."

See, this is one of the many things that attracts me to Obama. This is what he brings to the table, something I agree we're desperately in need of. This is what his racism speech was all about, and it's a core tenet of his campaign: politics is not a zero-sum game and in fact, if you play it as such, you get conflict without end. At best, you can end the conflict temporarily through brute force, but doing so will probably just lead to an eruption later on.

You're just deferring the conflict, not resolving it. Kind of like the Treaty of Versailles that so demoralized Germany any sane person could have seen that there would be hell to pay down the road.

"Policing morality and obscenity always - and justly- produces a backlash."

Yup. This is the difference between being smart (which I think Clinton is) and being wise (which I think Obama is). Taking a long view of things, you really want to take what you know about human nature, history, etc. and apply it to actually trying to prevent backlash before it occurs.

To this end, each party to a dispute must be allowed to save face, whether "Absolute Justice" is entirely on one side or not.

It's zero-sum, adversarial thinking v. consensus-building.

"It may be difficult to see the diference because in many instances, as here, you will arrive at the same conclusions, from very different starting points and reasoning. But I think how we get there matters."

Agreed.

"I wish more on the left- progressives, liberals, whatever you will call us, would leave the morality and obscenity policing to the right wing. We can do better."

Agreed.

"Hate-filled language is so destructive--it eats at the soul like some horrid parasite. That's one reason I so dislike Republican politics, because they are hate-filled and venomous. Sad thing is, so are many of the letters on Salon."

Hear, hear.

Perhaps one question to ask, before selecting from a grab-bag of insults, is, "Is this dehumanizing? And if so, why should I want to dehumanize?"

I respond the same way in the automobile and often end up laughing at the absurdity of my response.

Call me a crazy starry-eyed idealist hippie, but I really believe that language is powerful in that it primes the pump for crimes like the holocaust.

Once you start engaging in dehumanizing speech, you're really playing with fire.

I understand. I'm just talking about remaining engaged. Actively choosing to engage rather than staying in your own corner.

If nothing else, such interactions can sow seeds that may not bear fruit for a long time, or ever. But the effort is important, imo, because without that commitment, you're left with which side are you on, and I don't think that's healthy for society or for humanity.

How we deal with conflict is critical, and I think "stepping up" in a good faith effort to engage is commendable, especially in an environment of such frenzied rancor that threatens to tear us all apart.

There's enough needless pain and crippling anxiety out there already.

Heh heh.

Agreed.

What are you going to do?

:)

No, but you see, I don't want to fight with anyone! I see all this as a common project of exploration. It's collaborative.

Sure, we'll disagree and there will always come times when we draw lines and are invested in our positions, that's natural.

But being open-minded means just that, right? Open to the prospect that you have something to learn from someone else, that we all have different things to learn from one another.

Please, just know, I'll never argue about something just for the sake of arguing or in order to be right about something, so if you find I'm not hearing you, please, please, please, don't hesitate to let me know.

It's really just about the pursuit of knowledge for me.

Rock on, Carol!

I'm with you.

You know, I've wanted to read Sun Tzu for awhile now, most recently when Tony Soprano was reading him. :)

I'm going to try to get myself a copy and look at it one of these days, it sounds like I'd enjoy it.

"i am not fighting with weepy. he knows when i am. i'm not that difficult to read."

Actually, David, ftr, I find you very difficult to read. Others might not, but I do.

I find it hard to get a solid read on where you're coming from, when you're being serious, when sarcastic, and why.

Maybe I just don't know that many people like you, but there's something about you that I find very disorienting.

Just ftr.

Brilliantly articulated.

Sorry you're demoralized. Let me offer you a vote of confidence, fwiw--your words are not falling on deaf ears.

They may not be resonating with Joan right now, and perhaps they never will. Or perhaps they will, in time.

But either way, there are lots of other eyeballs reading your words, so keep up the good work. Who's to say whom you'll resonate with and when and why and how?