Let's put it this way:
I'm a conservationist (not an environmentalist).
I'm for labor (but a proponent of LOCAL unions not National – I belong to USW).
I am for government provision of military, unlimited unbiased education, and infrastructure; but against government provision of individual needs (a libertarian belief).

Those are a few of my Democrat qualities.
My conservative all surround social issues and fiscal policy.
Regarless of the party, I wish all would act in accordance with the Constitution. And very few do.

As far as ANWR goes. Did you realize that the many (on both sides) in the US Government have arranged for us to use up everyone elses oil first, before tapping into ours. It's a way to make us more secure later. It actally makes sense. Many of the Arab nations are running out of oil (UAE, QATAR, etc). But ANWR, to me, is second fiddle, to national security. And we are not secure as long as we are dependent on those that wish harm upon our culture and people.

Here's my take on ANWR, dont touch it. Leave it alone until the other wells are tapped dry or close to it and then open it up and we have one of the last supplies, this is a classic paleo-conservative position. Drill for it now and we lose all strategic advantage. I still cant believe the dems would never go there I just think we had a valid excuse to not, which the world would deal with and then we could have a stock pile of oil. If we really wanted to bring down prices Bush should have stopped filling the strategic oil reserve at the rate he did which made the oil industry, his family connections included, a huge amount of money that you and I paid for slowly every time we filled our tanks.

You're probably right about the big oil companies in AK. Back to the same now that the “sheriff” has been run out of town. However, I agree with their precepts. They should drill (cleanly) in the ANWR and everywhere else, until some green alternatives are PROPERLY developed, and without yanking a knot in our economy.

However, in the 60's and 70's the protests were covered in the same manner. Of course, mom & pop conservative didn't like the coverage, but the media no less covered the protests with a bit of favoritism.

Similarly with the scandals from then until now. That's the biggest tell-tale concerning coverage. When Repbulicans fall to temptation and find themselves in a scandal – it's a free for all media frenzy. When democrats fall to the same temptation within a scandal, there's a more reserved “that has nothing to do with character” slant toward “journalism”. That's just the way it is. No one in the media or on the left will admit that but there it is.
Fox is a different animal. And I'm glad they are there. Otherwise we'd already have a Soviet-style “no questions asked” form of press in America. They covered the Tea Parties fairly (or at least made up for what the others refused to do).

And for the record: To all here…..
I've been to every Tea Party here locally. Not once have I heard anyone attending refer to themselves as “Tea Baggers”. Nor did I here our rallies called “Tea Bag Parties”. Yes, several adorned themselves with Lipton Tea bags, but that was because it was a Tea Party. I agree with several of you when you say that the left coined that term and used it accordingly to demean the parties involved. Much like the Senators and Representatives demean those calling them into account at Town Hall meetings.

We're all just “astroturf”. Right?

I'll agree to disagree with you on how to respond to bomb throwers and look forward to more and varied intelligent discussion in the future.

On the subject of the post, from which I was so rudely distracted by the bombs bursting around me: There is an old Chinese proverb…or at least there should be…that he who votes against buying the instruments should not complain about the quality of the music.

Your substantive point is understood, but not agreed to. Ignorant beliefs do not require me to acquiesce to that ignorance. It's similar to the congresswomen some years back who called the use of the word “niggardly” in an economic discussion racist. I cannot take responsibility for someone else's paranoia; nor must I change who I am based upon the false reading of my personality by those who don't take the time to ask. As you may have hopefully noticed, I'm happy to discuss any manner of personal opinion if someone asks.

Your philosophic point requires a little more. You appear to have reached a place in your life where you no longer believe that “showing them how it's done” is an appropriate way of living. Likewise, you point to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi as examples of worthy individuals who demonstrate a better response to violence in act or word.

You may well be correct that this is a more noble way to approach the bomb throwers, but both the individuals you cited led groups that were majorities within a suppressed society. While I honor their non-response to negative factions in their environments, I believe its fundamental to understand that they headed populations that by their sheer numbers could affect the opposition by their very non-action. Ignoring those who wish to incite the crowd or mislead the public discourse used to lead to shunning in small, like-minded, communities in the past. I don't believe that technique is effective at TMV.

TMV is an intellectually diverse community, and the binding commonality we seem to share is the intellectual rigor we apply to our own comments as well as those of opposing viewpoints. More than once, I've been handed my head for conveying a poorly argued idea, and for that, I'm grateful for the lesson that taught me to make sure what I wrote here underwent closer scrutiny prior to publishing. It's that closer scrutiny that makes me keep coming back to TMV.

Personal attacks, implied racial slurs, etc; the bombs we have been discussing, have no standing within that rigor, but unlike shunning where one can merely turn away from the disingenuous individual in the crowd, here their voice forces its way into the conversation. The bomb is designed to distract, and almost every bomb entices someone away from profitable discourse. It's the collateral damage that is the real problem, not the bald-face lie or exaggeration of the bomb itself.

If we all were standing in a crowd somewhere, physically turning or moving away from someone would be an option I would take. Here in the electronic salon where everyone's volume is the same, I believe my response is both appropriate and measured. As you said at the outset, we may disagree about this whole subject, but I've chosen my words to you based upon the care you have used yourself to voice your criticism of my actions. I completely agree you should voice that criticism based upon your understanding; please understand that I respond to the bombers on this site with the words I believe they understand the best as well.

Thanks for the chance at self-examination. It sounds like we both may have learned something from this exchange. It's the reason we both show up.

Your substantive point is understood, but not agreed to. Ignorant beliefs do not require me to acquiesce to that ignorance. It's similar to the congresswomen some years back who called the use of the word “niggardly” in an economic discussion racist. I cannot take responsibility for someone else's paranoia; nor must I change who I am based upon the false reading of my personality by those who don't take the time to ask. As you may have hopefully noticed, I'm happy to discuss any manner of personal opinion if someone asks.

Your philosophic point requires a little more. You appear to have reached a place in your life where you no longer believe that “showing them how it's done” is an appropriate way of living. Likewise, you point to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi as examples of worthy individuals who demonstrate a better response to violence in act or word.

You may well be correct that this is a more noble way to approach the bomb throwers, but both the individuals you cited led groups that were majorities within a suppressed society. While I honor their non-response to negative factions in their environments, I believe its fundamental to understand that they headed populations that by their sheer numbers could affect the opposition by their very non-action. Ignoring those who wish to incite the crowd or mislead the public discourse used to lead to shunning in small, like-minded, communities in the past. I don't believe that technique is effective at TMV.

TMV is an intellectually diverse community, and the binding commonality we seem to share is the intellectual rigor we apply to our own comments as well as those of opposing viewpoints. More than once, I've been handed my head for conveying a poorly argued idea, and for that, I'm grateful for the lesson that taught me to make sure what I wrote here underwent closer scrutiny prior to publishing. It's that closer scrutiny that makes me keep coming back to TMV.

Personal attacks, implied racial slurs, etc; the bombs we have been discussing, have no standing within that rigor, but unlike shunning where one can merely turn away from the disingenuous individual in the crowd, here their voice forces its way into the conversation. The bomb is designed to distract, and almost every bomb entices someone away from profitable discourse. It's the collateral damage that is the real problem, not the bald-face lie or exaggeration of the bomb itself.

If we all were standing in a crowd somewhere, physically turning or moving away from someone would be an option I would take. Here in the electronic salon where everyone's volume is the same, I believe my response is both appropriate and measured. As you said at the outset, we may disagree about this whole subject, but I've chosen my words to you based upon the care you have used yourself to voice your criticism of my actions. I completely agree you should voice that criticism based upon your understanding; please understand that I respond to the bombers on this site with the words I believe they understand the best as well.

Thanks for the chance at self-examination. It sounds like we both may have learned something from this exchange. It's the reason we both show up.

Exactly, Leonidas. You have made my point for me. Private enterprise has profit as a motive, not public service, or the public good. The phrase “more carefully” in your reply is a euphemism. It doesn't mean “more to the benefit of the public.” It means “more to the benefit of the corporate bank account.”

t also has more flexibility than a government run enterprise of the same funding as far as operations, especially if it isn't handicapped by unionization which cuts into efficiency.

Good golly, you privatization fetishists do love the creative use of euphemisms, don't you? Allow me to rewrite your sentence to reveal, rather than obscure, its meaning: “It [private enterprise] also is free to cut employee wages and benefits, hire only for part-time work at minimum wage, hire temps who can be paid less and fired at will, reduce its work force to save money, skimp on safety measures and on the manufacturing end, because sound construction done by quality manufacturers costs money that can be put to better use for the CEO's and senior management's personal needs and wants. Of course, it's a lot more difficult, if not impossible, to do all of the preceding if you've got unions in the workplace, so one expense that actually pays off for the bottom line is hiring union-busting law firms to get rid of those pesky unions that make you pay workers fair wages and give them health insurance.”

I know that's a lot more words, but it's actually more accurate and, if I may be so bold as to to say this, it's what you had in mind, but of course would not say in plain language.

There is no way that privatizing public transportation is going to result in a better outcome for the public (defined as more trains, shorter waiting times, seats for everyone on days when tens, or hundreds, of thousands of extra riders are in the system because of a special event, etc.), because those things cost a lot of money and cut too deeply into profits.

Just a quick thought. This is an example to those on the left who claim that conservatives are the ones who use all the hostile language that this sort of thing goes on with both sides.

It's not just the “extreme right” that thinks that. When this whole tea-bagging brouhaha began I had to go to the Urban Dictionary to see what the hell they were talking about, and at that time by far the most common definition was the sexual one. The term was obviously being used as a derogatory double-entendre by the left for some time. There were snickering posts posts on left-wing boards saying “heh heh, those hicks don't even know what we're talking about, heh heh” as well as the comments from Olberman and others in the media.

I would liken it to as if we suddenly started to call a group of people “blow-jobbers”. There isn't any racial aspect to it, and probably not any homosexual accusations, but it's just kind of an odd thing to tag someone with. The demonstrations had nothing to do with tea bags and called themselves tea parties, so it's a misnomer.

Now since that time the term has gained wider use and I believe I've seen some people actual identifying themselves as teabaggers in the political sense and not the sexual one, so maybe the term has taken on a new meaning and is not being used as derogatory. Personally I think many on the left are still using it as an insult, with the sexual connotation at least partially attached.

Onto the philosophical. Many years ago, I have since changed my mind, I had a personal credo “Be nice to everyone, but if someone isn't nice to you, show them how it's done”. That sounds similar to your bomb-gets-bigger-bomb explanation. Over time I became very good at “showing them how it's done” until an event that caused me to ask if that was the person I really wanted to be. And, I will confess that the “show them how it's done” side of me still rears its ugly head on rare occassion. The difference is that where I once took pride in my ability to crush others, I now view it with shame, or a self aware knowledge that I f***ed up if you prefer.

Yes, there are bomb throwers on this site and in life. Some are flat out mean, some like to be outrageous to stir the pot, and some throw bombs because they fear intelligent discourse. But, when you or I or anyone else responds in kind we are “playing on their turf”…they have already won because they have reduced us to their level. Here's a political example for you. When the Patriot Act passed, I told my wife the “War on Terror” was over and the terrorists had won. You see, in my view, we had reduced ourselves to their level by compromising the principles of a free people and adopting authoritarian methods to respond to an authoritarian threat. We became more like them; they were not convinced to become more like us.

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi understood that real strength does not come from responding to violence with violence; it comes from suffering the violence of others with moral dignity, that moral dignity is more powerful than violence, that it takes more couage to take a punch than to throw one.

We may not yet agree. Before ending, however, I want to say how much I like some of the things you said: that the “purpose of a debate is not to win so much as it is a method to find solutions neither side was previously aware of”…well said…that antagonistic comments, including bomb throwing, have “become more and more commonplace”…I share that view…that TMV tends, more than many other sites, to be a place for “well reasoned, tightly argued debates”…the same reason I'm here. The bomb throwers here are the outliers, and please understand that the editors will, if necessary, block at least the most offensive of them eventually.

Best,

tidbits

how crowded DC was with people, i.e., how many people actually came to DC. (Hint: It was crowded like that on Metro and elswhere in DC during the big anti-Bush, anti-war demonstration, even with record cold, one winter morning there not too long ago.)

I've re-read your comments a couple times before responding, and you certainly are entitled to a fuller explanation of my thought process. I've been commenting at TMV for less than a year, and I came here because of the well reasoned, tightly argued debates taking place between politically opposite commenters. My first real exchange took place between CStanley and me clarifying a proper analogy between the the Wall Street financial breakdown and an Emergency Room triage. We never totally agreed, something I have come to expect when she and I debate , but I know that I learned a new perspective from CS. I am a firm believer that the purpose of a debate is not to win so much as it is a method to find solutions neither side was previously aware of.

Maybe it's always been this way, but since the election, I have seen another type of comment have become more and more common place. The bomb-thrower is a commenter who insists upon outrageous, insulting comments about “the other side” that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. These bombs are merely tossed to cause emotional turmoil. Their purpose is not for discussion, clarification, nor counter-point. I believe their purpose is the same as people who deface artwork because they have no talent to create something themselves, so they destroy as their “act of creativity.” Bomb throwing does nothing positive, and the game of tag that ensues fills threads with pointless insults that detract from the subject others wish to discuss.

Given this analysis, I believe I have two choices for responding to these infantile “contributors.” The bombs thrown in my general direction, I simply ignore and go about my business. This itself is not always easy as some of the crap tossed into real discussions distracts many of the people I actually wish to engage. When bombs are tossed specifically in response to one of my comments, I react differently.

As my analysis above explains, a bomb “with my name on it” comes from someone who is either unable or unwilling to carry on an intelligent discussion about the topic. At the same time, they wish to distract the ongoing debate with obfuscation. If I do not respond, their destructive act passes for artful debate. The bomb I return to them is on a scale many times greater than that thrown. Please notice that its effectiveness can be measured by the lack of response. I do my best to make it a smart bomb, one that hits only its target. I don't try to smear opposing views, I merely use the terminology that my target likes to employ to shame its absurdity.

So, in this case, if you believe that PWT was actually conjecturing that using the term “teabagging” was a racial or sexual slur, my explanation will fall short in defending my actions. If however, you tend to agree that his conjecture was merely an attempt to stir the pot, please notice that he ceased to interfere with the discussion. The bomb seemed to hit its mark.

Let me know if this makes sense.

So you're agreeing with me (“Yup”) that it takes money to make a service efficient, and you're agreeing that a private company would spend the necessary money. Then you turn around and contradict yourself again (“The explanation is privately run.”)

The explanation is not “privately run.” The explanation is money, and you admit that the explanation is money, but you would prefer, for ideological reasons, that public services like the D.C. Metro be privatized.

You also contradict yourself by agreeing that running the Metro efficiently takes money, and then suggesting that the Metro is lying, and doesn't really need money.

You say that “stockholders demand returns to a greater degree than taxpayers,” but you are a taxpayer and you're demanding returns on the tax money you spend. You point to the significance of taxpayers who go to a rally in D.C. to demand returns on their tax money, and you praise them to the point of exaggerating their significance, while simultaneously insisting that taxpayers are not as demanding of returns on their money as stockholders are. You say that stockholders' payments are voluntary, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people who use public services like the Metro are not stockholders and would have no say-so or voice whatsoever in how a private corporation would run the Metro. You say that stockholders must be “won over,” while conveniently not mentioning the fact that taxpayers have to be won over, too — it's called “elections.” You say, “If a businessman saw that more trains were needed he would call in people to run extra trains and boost his revenue,” ignoring the fact that boosting revenue has to be weighed against spending money, and many “businessmen” will decide that the expense isn't worth the revenue, OR, they will attempt to minimize the expense and maximize the revenue by hiring under-qualified workers whom they can pay less, thus risking passenger safety to make a buck. And you say that “a bureaucrat might look at the extra paperwork and either shrug or go through a long process of 'proper channels' ” (whatever that means — maybe it's a euphemism for making sure safety isn't compromised) without offering any evidence that this is a legitimate concern.

In other words, you employ arguments that are factually incorrect, logically dubious, and morally empty.

No Kathy I apply arguments that are grounded in reality and from an understanding of how business and government work instead of some fantasy land.

It takes money to make things work, I agree there, but Private enterprise spends its money more carefully because they have profit as a motive. It also has more flexibility than a government run enterprise of the same funding as far as operations, especially if it isn't handicapped by unionization which cuts into efficiency.

Oh, please. My therapist tells me I crack her up all the time.