BC Politics rocks! And that's the truth... sort of.
There were times, many years ago in a galaxy far away, when I was a BC Assistant Politics Editor, that I despaired at the vitriol spilling from the comments on the politics site, infecting the rest of our esteemed BC and threatening its integrity, honor, and decency.…
Article comments
126 - Jet
A country's sacred constitution should be a document that bestows rights on to a governed people, not take them, or exclude them away...
Thought that up all by myself
127 - Jet
128 - Les Slater
Jet,
What are you trying to say? Are you using Goering to claim Marxism is cowardly?
I also hope you are not using Goering to defend the nationalism of both U.S. ruling parties. It is true that they are both nationalists in the most reactionary way but why use Goering to defend that?
Marxism is neither cowardly nor nationalist.
Les
129 - Les Slater
"A country's sacred constitution should be a document that bestows rights on to a governed people, not take them, or exclude them away..."
The U.S. constitution, while permitting slavery, did exclude any rights of royalty, the right to govern by birth.
Also, that document states in the first amendment 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...'. The country's constitution can in no way be considered 'sacred'.
Les
130 - Dave Nalle
A country's sacred constitution should be a document that bestows rights on to a governed people, not take them, or exclude them away...
Even the US constitution doesn't bestow rights. Rights come from nature and are inherent in human existence. All the constitution does is to recognize those rights and make clear that the government must protect them. It is absolutely not the source of the rights.
Dave
131 - Jet
Is there any comment that I can possibly make on this website that you guys won't jump on and make me look like a complete idiot?
Don't answer, it was a rhetorical question
132 - Dave Nalle
We only jump on you in the most positive and supportive ways, Jet.
Dave
133 - Jet
I'll write that down on a post-it note and stick to my monitor...
134 - Jet
Dave Letterman had a few good ones tonight...
"Last night around 11, CNN announced that Obama had it by a landslide at something like 343 to 95; or as Fox News would say 'too close to call'"
"I wonder; would the current administration object if Obama started a little early?"
135 - Cannonshop
#126 A constitution doesn't "Bestow" rights, it defines which rights the Government may excercise, and which rights the government does not have.
#127 Why are you calling Obama a Nazi? I mean, sure, most of that applies to the Democratic Strategy, but it's really, really ugly to bring it up, and Obama's more of a Chavista than anything else.
136 - Jet
oy vay
137 - Jordan Richardson
Obama's more of a Chavista than anything else.
Really? I always figured him to be more of a Kardashian.
138 - Jet
Robert George Kardashian (February 22, 1944 " September 30, 2003) was an American lawyer best known as one of the lawyers for, and friend of, O.J. Simpson.
139 - Jordan Richardson
Kimberly Noel Kardashian (born October 21, 1980) is an American celebutante/socialite, model, apparel retailer, and television personality. She is perhaps best known for her social life, stolen sex tape with blogger Jordan Richardson, and her role on the E! reality show Keeping Up with the Kardashians.
140 - Jet
Actually I thought you misstyped one of the characters from Star Trek Deep Space 9... silly really.
141 - Lisa Solod Warren
Cindy, Re "nice," never used that word. Hate it. Doesn't apply to moon or me. Has nothing to do with my discussion of her. But I don't think we need her to discuss difficult topics, including the ones you mention, especially in light of the attributes she also has that I and others mention. Her negatives far outweight her positives.
And I post under my own name because at this point I is what I is, Mark:)
142 - troll
once again approaching such an ambivalent state recently (don'cha just hate it when that happens) that I've felt the need to self-censor just about all censure (the natural mode of expression for trolls) and therefore the overwhelming majority of my graffiti here - my alienation from this space becomes both objective and subjective
...or perhaps (anachronism that I am) I simply have nothing more to say in the face of failed experiments in sympathetic communication
outliers rock - but hegemonic hypocrisy rolls on and on
143 - Mark Schannon
You betcha, Lisa. We gotta keep each other's backs.
What a delightfully bizarre discussion. I've enjoyed all the different threads, even when I've had trouble figuring out what the hell's being discussed.
RE: Is the constitution sacred? No if you mean in the religious sense or the literal definition, but for those of us who are hard-core, immovable agnostics (joke there), sacred still has meaning. Until recently, I thought of the constitution as sacred, as in something to be treated with awe and respect, left untouched except in the most extreme cases.
However, in an article by Dave--I of course forget which one--we had a discussion about whether an 18th century document is capable of providing a framework for the 21st century. If, in fact, it's not, it's no longer sacred...simply magnificent.
And that's the truth, because...wait for it...
In Jameson Veritas,
144 - Lisa Solod Warren
And I agree with you there, too. I even have a feeling that, were Jefferson alive today, he would, too, smart as he was. But who the hell really knows?
145 - Cindy D
Jet,
I'm not sure what you meant by your Goering quote. But, I have a sense of it being some implied guilt by association. So, I'm presenting some considerations.
On the meanings of words, here is a quote from a New Yorker article:
As a buzzword, “socialism” had mostly good connotations in most of the world for most of the twentieth century. That’s why the Nazis called themselves national socialists. That’s why the Bolsheviks called their regime the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, obliging the socialist and social democratic parties of Europe (and America, for what it was worth) to make rescuing the “good name” of socialism one of their central missions. Socialists"one thinks of men like George Orwell, Willy Brandt, and Aneurin Bevan"were among Communism’s most passionate and effective enemies. And I will disambiguate "Communism" here to mean a totalitarian state.
Nationalist Socialism was a totalitarian propaganda movement used by Hitler to win support. It advocated allegiance to a dictator. "Socialism" with it's positive connotations was used by Hitler as an instrument of propaganda to attract the masses and play on their fear of the Russian Bolshevik revolution (later The Communist Party).
As you Goering quote belies. "Our movement took a grip on cowardly Marxism and from it extracted the meaning of socialism." In more accurate words they twisted the meaning. The National Socialist movement has zero to do with the principles of Socialism.
National Socialism was similar in many respects to Italian fascism (see Fascism). The roots of National Socialism, however, were peculiarly German, grounded, for example, in the Prussian tradition of military authoritarianism and expansion; in the German romantic tradition of hostility to rationalism, liberalism, and democracy...
Here is another German fellow speaking out in urgent support of Socialism, Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein.
You might also wish to look at Socialism as practiced in all the Nordic countries and elsewhere.
146 - Cindy D
Lisa,
Re "nice," never used that word. Hate it.
Quite right. You didn't. I did. I used it as a descriptive category, as a contrast to, among other things that one might do (see troll's comment #142), what moon was doing. You may hate the word, but you embody my use of it.
For example. I think moon's angry gringolandia comments had merit and truth. 'Course they weren't very nice were they.
But I don't think we need her to discuss difficult topics, including the ones you mention...
This demonstrates a failure on your part to grasp my point. I realize you don't think that. My point is you cannot possibly be who you are AND be a voice directly from someone that isn't you.
It's like only getting the white perspective on slavery and eliminating the actual voice of the slave. It's like the book Black Like Me. (An excellent book, and nothing wrong with it.) We have plenty of black voices in history, but it takes a white guy to pretend to be black and write a book on his black experience to catch the attention of a large audience in the white community.
I am never going to be a slave, a black, a Native American, gay, a minority, etc. I am never going to get all I can from listening to other people who will likewise never be those things.
And frankly, it's like being tossed into a forum of left leaning Capitalists and hearing, "we can discuss the issues of the left."
Note: On my use of the word "persona". I wasn't meaning the pen names people use. I was specifically using it the way Ruvy did (#101), having also read moon's comment he referenced. moonraven being the persona and moon being an attempt to move beyond merely expressing that persona.
Her negatives far outweight her positives.
I could not disagree more. Although at times I have thought some of yours do.
Suffice it to say that I do agree, though, with what Les said as I quoted in #123.
147 - Ruvy
Cindy,
If you have time, please go to my blogspot, look up my e-mail address and give me a holler.
TIA,
Ruvy
148 - Deano
Bluntly it is akin to the "Broken Windows" phenomenen - If a window gets broken and you repair it immediately, the other windows are unlikely to be broken. If however you leave the broken window in its state, you tacitly encourage others to break windows and create the impression that such behavior is acceptable and the norm.
When a commenter veers off of the stated norms for behavior that are acceptable on the site (and that varies from site to site), you need to have some element of moderation in place. Without moderation, you tend to get an escalation of the immoderate voices - the extreme positions, the trolls and people who's sole purpose is disruption or personal aggrandizement.
The abuse, the name-calling, and the poisonous atmosphere that can ensue will tend to push out the more moderate viewpoints, and give free-rein to the extremists from all camps. Once you have that situation, you are actively discouraging comments and frankly readers, and you end up with a site that caters to only a select few interested in trumpeting their own particualr views.
Moderation in an online forum, if done properly and judiciously, doesn't prevent free speech, it enables it. There are any number of commenters on this site whose political views I find to be...jurassic at best...however they generally conduct themselve civilly and base their comments on the ideas not the personalities or people. There is no just reason to remove them. And than there are others....
Compared to some sites I've visited, the 'banhammer' on BC is rarely administered.
149 - Jet
Cindy, like a fool I tried to find a way to intelligently enter the conversation (out of boredom) so I looked up a quote about Marxism (which appeared to be the subject).
As usual it backfired on me.
There was no other motive, and everyone's imaginings are just baseless conjecture.
150 - Cindy D
Jet,
Not like a fool in my book. But funny. You quoted a Nazi on Marxism. So, it's hard to say baseless. How were we to know you were just bored? LOL.
151 - bliffle
A problem poster puts too much burden on the poor editors, who are, after all, unpaid volunteers. And they can't afford to allow too much egregiously offensive prose to slip through for fear of reducing BC to a catfight that drives away any serious posters.
152 - Cindy D
Agreed bliffle. And let me add that I have a great deal of respect for the comments editors on blogcritics.
153 - Matthew T. Sussman
"serious posters."
Oxymoron police on Line 2 for you.
154 - Lisa Solod Warren
That's interesting, Cindy. Because I AM a minority, with a distinct point of view. But all she could do was use stereotypes, ugly ones at that against me. And lump me in with all the other Gringos in the US who destroyed her homeland when I am only a second generation American. But she wouldn't let me speak and just made assumptions. THAT was what I found so horrible and insulting about her. And she hung on like a rabid dog. I happen to have an Native American sister -in-law who gives me a lot of wonderful knowledge without moon's nastiness, craziness and ugliness, without namecalling and viciousness. You see I don't think you need to do that to get a point across. I don't know why you think you do. I went to a fabulous native american women's writers conference organized by my sister in law, a well known poet. It was one of the best learning experience I have ever had. There was anger, sure,and pain, yes. But no one like crazy, scary, moon. And so poeple actually learned stuff and came away enlightened. And not completely put off.
Moon chose me to pick a fight with. I never chose her. You are in the minority here with her. That's okay but perhaps had you been on the end of her nonsensical attacks you might feel differently. Madness is an illness. She has it. It is sad but so be it.