I’ve taken a hiatus from blogging for a few weeks because of the tone of many posts and comments I’ve read recently at The Confluence.  Many are something  that I wish to be no party of or to.

There are few circumstances that cause me to go off on people.  I do not support incessant repetition of  hateful memes that scapegoat minority groups for the issues confronting our nation and our world.  I’ve always felt and articulated that an Obama Presidency would not deliver what it promised and was not going to be what it was portrayed during the 2008 campaign. His substantial shortcomings have nothing to do with his multi-racial genetics. (I believe I’ve been more-than-correct on that assertion.)  I’ve also tried to represent a clear liberal criticism and an alternative voice to the miserable policy that was enacted over the last two years.  Recent Democratic policy was symbolically labeled but short content-wise on substantive positive change in the direction that I feel is necessary for the future of our children and neighbors in this country. It continues to enable and enrich the few at the cost of the many.

Additionally, this is not 2008.  It is late 2010 and there is no point to waxing  on or ranting on about what coulda, shoulda, mighta been.

In no way should my words be taken then or now as approving any Republican take-over of government or a denial that the Tea Party is overtly right wing and full of racist, homophobic, and xenophobic elements.  I do not hate our government even though many things it does are ill-conceived and ill-enacted.  That I even feel the need to say this is because I’ve feel my words have been surrounding by too much behavior and words by folks that think differently and I wish to disassociate myself completely with that sentiment.

I’ve seen overt bullying in threads at a time when the consequences of bullying should be more than obvious to even the most obtuse individual. No one’s personal life has been without challenge recently. Not even mine. However, I have tried not to bring the stress of my every day life and the emotional chaos that surrounds the disassembling of higher education in Louisiana by a consummate right wing Republican Governor and ultimately the disappearance of my job there to you. I also have tried not let my dismay at the blogosphere or the Democratic party fester into something ugly.

I’ve watched folks brought over by my Tweets and Facebook posts poked and prodded into leaving simply because they feel differently.   All criticism of things Clinton or Obama are not necessarily part of a derangement syndrome.  Some things are honest substantial differences based on distinct opinions on policy and issues.  I have never tolerated name calling or bullying. I have always been fully committed to establishing a ‘be nice or leave’ zone.  I do believe when there is a difference of opinion not based on the blatant spin memes of interest groups, one can disagree without denigrating another human being or humiliating them to the point they angrily respond so then the bully self-righteously claims victory in the argument.  I’ve seen way too much of this activity during this political season. I’m tired of anger. There is no future in it and it creates a hostile environment for free thought and discussion.

I am–at heart–an issues oriented independent.  Since the so-called Reagan Revolution, I’ve had a horrible time identifying any Republican with whom I agree on any issue other than a few old-timers who have been jackbooted out of positions by the virulent anti everything rank and file.  I vote Democratic most of the time by default, but never without full knowledge that what I am getting is probably not what I really want.  This has especially been true in the age of the Obama cult.  Hopefully, Democrats are seeing the follies of their ways of the last two years.  My one little vote and voice have never been part of a critical mass and I don’t see this changing any time soon.

That being said, I enjoy the company of  like-minded.  Yet, I abhor the bullying of the self-righteous and the intolerant no matter how like-minded on issues they may be.  Since I committed to posting at TC, I have posted with complete regularity and have tried to take the high road when ever confronted with difference of opinion or thought. I try to start a conversation; never trying to find some ultimate correctness.  A right wing shill is still a right wing shill even if they occasionally strike a point.  I also actively question the group think of the self-labeled progressive movement.  I do not defend this either.  I try to stick to issues and I have tried to bring in different viewpoints in the hopes of stimulating discussion when relevant.  I have never sought to weed out people or question their fitness for the blog.   I rarely front page right wing hysterics and only do so as a way to provide various viewpoints.  My heavy handedness was relegated to removing bullies that name call and correcting angry people who shriek memes endlessly.  After you say the same thing about three times and some one still disagrees, posting the same argument over and over isn’t going to change the direction of people’s feelings.  I hope those actions were noticeable.   I have never questioned people’s decisions on whether they were right for the blog or the blog was right for them.  I’ve tried to maintain that as a frontpager and later as an editor. That being said, I’ve noticed a distinct change in overall tone recently that has caused me to question my commitment to frontpaging at The Confluence.  There is stuff going on that makes me want to ignore thread-after-thread-after-thread.

I was going to try to keep this self-questioning off the front page, but by now, my absence must be noted and questioned by a few.  I’m still in tumult.  For those of you that have enjoyed your reprieve from my voice, you’ll be happy to hear that so far, I’ve not really had a change of heart. I’ve had some discourse with fellow front pagers so this isn’t going to surprise most of them.  I’ve made a commitment to post a Tuesday morning news thread and I’ve kept that commitment.  I just want you all to know that the community here is always what’s kept me here because many of you and  your wisdom has meant so much to me over the last few years.  I have to figure out if I can keep coming here and contributing under some of the current circumstances.  There is enough stress in my personal life without coming here to find discussion threads laced with behavior that makes me feel very uncomfortable.  I hope you all understand that this is difficult for me and I’m not taking my decision-making and feelings or yours lightly at all.

I’m uncertain what response I will receive for this by any one at this point but I’m prepared to live with the consequences.  Whatever that means. Hopefully, this was short and to the point and conveyed how I feel.  This was extremely hard for me to write. I just felt I needed to get it off my chest and clear the very thick air around me.

I thought I’d front page this since I posted it on an earlier thread and it’s generated some interesting discussion. The Economist has weekly debate sessions where there are two sides asked to give arguments pro and con for a statement. Then, the readers are asked to weigh in. It’s always fun to read the comments from “the floor”. This week’s motion was:

Throughout history and across the globe religion has been a cause of peace and violence, tolerance and inflexibility, charity and selfishness. Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa all found inspiration in their religious beliefs—as did Osama bin Laden, Baruch Goldstein and Jim Jones. This mixed history invites the question of whether religion, on the whole, is a cause of good or ill. Is faith dangerous, inspiring the fierce defence of dogmatic views, often leading to conflict, intolerance and regression? Or is it beneficial, compelling people to pursue moral, virtuous and productive lives? It can be both, of course, but at the end of this debate we must decide whether a world without religion would be a better place to live.

Sam Harris of Project Reason argued against the motion. Mark Oppenheimer, Beliefs’ columnist for the New York Times, author of “Wisenheimer” and a lecturer at Yale, supported the motion that that religion is a force for good in the world. Seventy Five per cent (including me) agreed with Sam Harris. Here is his major argument.

The important question is whether religion is ever the best force for good at our disposal. And I think the answer to this question is clearly “no”—because religion gives people bad reasons for being good where good reasons are available.

This is Oppenheimer’s major point.

Religion responds to a deep, satisfying human need for ritual. And it often organises the human quests for ethics and meaning. To think about the common good, the purpose of life and how to live, it has proven useful to use religious stories or theology.

My current favorite (albeit against our constitution) comment from the peanut gallery is this one.

The moral superiority of secularism gains support from Mr Harris. He concedes that there are plenty of peaceful and reasonable religious people, but this is only because they “don’t take the divisive nonsense in their holy books very seriously”. Indeed, the forces of reason and moderation within religion tend to come from outside it. He observes, “When the Catholic Church finally recognises the unconscionable stupidity of its teachings about contraception, as it one day must,” all credit will go to “tidal forces created by a larger, secular concern for human well-being.” So too have moderate Muslims learned to ignore much of what the Koran teaches. “To say that such adherents are now the ‘true’ Muslims is to blindly hope that a faith can be best exemplified by people who are in the process of losing it.”

So, I thought I’d give this a front page so every one could discuss it. So, as you know, I’m a student of Buddha, and as such I do not believe in a ‘creator god’ or whatever you choose to name it. I adhere to the practices and tenets of Vajrayana Buddhism (nyingma lineage) but as such, I believe clinging to anything, including my own practices and rituals, to be a deterrence to a better me and a better humanity. That’s the best I can do in terms of a disclaimer. It seems the more I try to say, yes, I’m an atheist and I do not believe in invisible beings, the more some people find offense.

Please be nice.

I’m glad I don’t have to vote in Nevada. If there was ever a Hobson’s choice for a Senate seat, this would be it. The option is to take the horrible offerings that spring from two corporate parties or just stay home. Either way, you’re about to get stuck with the worst that both parties offer. The current political domination of two parties and the state laws that have enabled this duopoly has given new meaning to the Zen Act of choosing None of the Above, PLEASE! We need serious political reform if our choice continues to be between Bat Shit Crazy and Visionless Huckster Beltway Insider.

If you eyeball the current newspapers, Reid appears to be the loser of last night’s debate. How is this possible? This is incredible given the ongoing outrageous comments of his challenger, Sharron Angle. Angle basically offers an agenda that returns the country to a post civil war status, at best. She seems to be walking back some of her most outrageous statements from the primaries. Angle even admitted yesterday to CNN’s Jessica Yellin that she did not fully understand issues like social security where in the primaries she favored privatization alone. Now she is aware of a ‘blended’ approach and thinks that might be a better idea. How do you get to the point of running for a position of one of 100 US senators without fully understanding the ramifications of eliminating one of the primary legislative achievements of the 20th century? This is a bit like saying we can probably go back to slavery as long as the supply side of the market shows that it could be useful. She’s also said that it was a mistake to send government aid and troops to help victims of Katrina and that unemployment pays more than a job. She believes two American cities–one that doesn’t even exist in Texas any more and another in Michigan–are under Sharia law. She’s just the poster child for the Republican Right who seems to think that facts are untruths because they want them to be untrue. Damn the data! Full speed ahead with the things we want to believe because of our continual blind faith in ideology.

So how did Reid manage to lose the conversation last night to Angle?

The air of desperation around Reid must be thick to have engaged in a debate with a woman that appears to exist in some other plane of reality. The fact that he came off worse than her–as outlined in many news sources–just indicates how bad things have gotten. I find Christine O’Donnell to be goofy, affable, and some one I wouldn’t run away from if I met her on the streets. She’s somewhat likeable despite her Paris Hilton affinity for purse dogs and her affectation of Sarah-Palin-light looks. But, all I have to do is see Angle’s eyes. I’d cross the street to avoid her and drag my daughters with me, pronto! They look as though they don’t see what the rest of us see and she sounds that way too.

This is what the current political party system delivers; batshit crazy Republicans and Democrats that are corporate and political insiders who could care less about actual public policy. I’m sorry but THIS IS NOT a CHOICE! It’s a travesty! Down with the political duopoly! The outcomes are costly and terrible!

Let me just highlight some of the media coverage as listed by Memeorandum. (Standard “I’m not a right wing republican racist ratfugger” Rubber Rule here plus a new “I don’t agree with every one on every point, I’m just quoting it folks” addendum. I’m tired of the BOHICA of presenting some one else’s punditry.)

From Jon Ralston at the Las Vegas Sun: Reid lost the debate to Angle.

Angle won because she looked relatively credible, appearing not to be the Wicked Witch of the West (Christine O’Donnell is the good witch of the Tea Party) and scoring many more rhetorical points. And she won because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looked as if he could barely stay on a linear argument, abruptly switching gears and failing to effectively parry or thrust.

Whether the debate affects the outcome — I believe very few Nevadans are undecided — it also perfectly encapsulated the race: An aging senator who has mastered the inside political game but fundamentally does not seem to care about his public role (and is terrible at it) versus an ever-smiling political climber who can deliver message points but sometimes changes her message or denies a previous one even existed.

Look upon these works, ye mighty, and despair.

T.A. Frank from the New Republic: Reid My Lips: Last Night Was a Disaster; The Senate majority leader should’ve stayed home.

Why Harry Reid agreed to have a debate with Sharron Angle is a bit of a mystery to me. If your campaign is based on portraying your opponent as loony, then why give that opponent a chance to look reasonable? Lyndon Johnson never debated Barry Goldwater. Then again, I’m no political strategist. And neither, I’ve come to see, is Harry Reid. So let’s focus on what matters now: that a debate was held in Nevada last night between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Republican challenger Sharron Angle. And its upshot was—sorry, folks—that Angle improved her chances.

Jonathan Martin, Poltico: Nevada Senate debate fizzles.