Let me offer an analogy.

There was a Star Trek episode where Picard was captured and tortured.

The captor attempted to break Picard's will by compelling him to accept a reality he knew to be false, thereby stripping him of his dignity by suggesting that his own perceptions were subject to the control of another.

The captor would show Picard four lights and ask him how many he saw.

"There are four lights." ZZzzzzzzzz. Excruciating pain throughout his whole body, "Wrong, there are three lights. Now tell me, how many lights do you see?"

"There are four lights." Wrong! Zzzzzzzzz! "There are three lights!"

And on and on.

In brief, I choose to remain committed to the notion that there are four lights, whatever the pundits and the pollsters and the bigots and the non-bigots and everyone else says.

I may be wrong that there are four lights, but zapping me with punishment is not enough to make me concede the point.

It's my personal choice.

Btw, as an example of what I mean when I say I'm compromising.

I accept a lot of Obama's panders, even though I think that's what they are.

For instance, he likes to say that only in America is his story possible.

That's bullshit, but it's the kind of American exceptionalist rhetoric you have to say to be elected.

I wish Obama could actually say something like, "You know, there are a lot of great places to live in this world, and America is what it is. It has it's moments, but really, you need to get over yourselves."

But he can't say that, even though it's the truth, because people want to believe in America in a very narrow and cliched set of terms.

So Obama says these things, and probably believes it in part.

Whatever, I let that go. It's not as high up on my list of false mythology that I can't bring myself to wink-wink at.

So when I say I'm compromising, that's what I mean. I mean that Obama does not perfectly reflect my perspective. He comes amazingly close for a presidential candidate, though, so I'll overlook a certain amount.

I'm not a fanatic, is my point.

I may appear so to you because admittedly I'm more of a purist than is considered mainstream, but I am reasonable and not above some compromise.

I just have limits, is all.

Jkalos, thanks for the kind words. I'm touched.

Fester: "So how do you deal with some one who rejects or doesn't appreciate your analytical or philosophical traditions, but otherwise might be persuaded to your viewpoints?"

Good, good question. I guess I don't know, in the abstract. Maybe there's some evidence of that here somewhere, but offhand, I have no answer. Actually, I have a partial answer: keep trying. I do keep trying not to persuade, but to make connections, establish trust, build relationships that might allow for these things to get worked out over the long term. That's really the best I can do, keep the door open and be ready to seize an opportunity of mutual understanding when it comes along.

"And you mentioned earlier, in another thread I believe, about Empathy, a quality that I also consider really important. But I also understand that some don't like it, many may actually loathe it and consider it as a sign of weakness in others. Some posters here appear to fall into that camp. Certainly the dem nominee will be up against many such.

Yeah, some do loathe it and consider it weakness. That may be an irreconcilable difference. I can only remain committed to the dictum that nihil hominis alienum est mihi (nothing human is alien to me).

It's a core value for me, something I cling to, along with my guns, my church, my resentment of foreigners and others. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

"How does one reach an accord with such folk? How are they best persuaded?"

Probably by not trying to persuade them. If they're not open to being persuaded, it's presumptuous to try.

I only try to persuade people who show some openness to being persuaded, meaning, who engage in honest debate and argument driven by a desire to get to the truth, rather than just tit-for-tat polemic.

It's not my place to argue with people whose minds are calcified. Still, in the interests of social cohesion and in accordance with nothing human being alien to me, I'd still like to achieve a mutual respect and understanding, if not agreement.

That's all I got.

Manos: Thanks for the reference! Cheers.

Heh hehe heh heh!

Me too.

Patrick Stewart's something else, isn't he? He does a mean Claudius in the BBC Hamlet, too.

It's going to be allwright.

(Oh, God, I can't believe I said that.)

Poor judgment of consequence is when you authorize an untrustworthy, one might say dastardly administration to wage an immoral and cataclysmic foreign adventure.

There are four lights.

Bravo.

I think you and Carol would be fast friends.

See, this is what cuts me to the soul about this Wright issue. Wright and his church are a living symbol of the diversity liberals claim to embrace and celebrate and tolerate.

If liberalism is to stand for anything, mustn't it stand for tolerance?

When Hillary Clinton says, "He wouldn't have been my pastor" and when Joan writes of her concerns, the bedrock principle of tolerance for diversity is what's undermined.

Joan, you and Hillary are showing yourselves to be enemies of tolerance of diversity.

That's what hurts so much.

Empathy is essential to tolerance. To real tolerance worth its name.

Peaceful coexistence is a core liberal value and yet, when you rail about Wright, you're defining who gets to be considered a legitimate part of the body politic.

This is a tactic of oppression, Joan, can't you see that?

I like the duct tape idea.

That'd really give Joan something to worry about, eh?