home

Comments Now Open to All

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:54:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I've gotten lots of emails today saying that comments are not going through. I've opened them up to everyone without registration. I'll delete the spam tonight, just ignore any that show up.

TalkLeft is going to a new comment system after Labor Day. I'm also planning on changing from Movable Type to Scoop, and putting TalkLeft on its own dedicated server. That should speed up the commenting process and allow greater flexibility.

For those of you who emailed me today angry that your comments didn't show up, please know I didn't stop any comments from being posted. There are no comments showing they are "awaiting moderation." It's a MT or Typekey glitch, and both will be gone the week after Labor Day.

< Harris Clarifies Her Religious Bigotry | AT&T Wiretap Lawyers to Subpoena White House >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Comments Now Open to All | 21 comments (21 topical)
    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peaches on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 02:40:07 PM EST
    Glanton picking up on a the military draft thread from last week you asked:
    Speaking of debating the character of Uhmerrikah, don't you, as an optimist, find it at least somewhat troubling that only in the event of an actual draft would this country's young people stand up and get serious about something beyond material gratification?
    I am not sure optimism is the right adjective to describe me. I actually do find American materialism and consumerism very troubling. I think, Glanton, that it is too easy to be discouraged by statistics, data, evidence and facts. You have all of these on your side and everything points to an discouraging outcome for the future of democracy in America. This is where hope comes in. Or, even faith. Hey, I am not a fan of organized religion. But, Humans have accomplished amazing things during our history as a result of faith or hope. Likewise, humans have justified horrible attrocities with faith. But, imo, hope is all we have left (maybe all we ever had for the universe has always doled out seemingly cruel punishments to its inhabitants). Emerson said Every revolution was first a thought in one man's mind. America is an promising ideal I am not ready to give up on, despite its history of failing to achieve its ultimate vision of all people created equal. We should continue to strive to achieve these ideals, because they are grounded in the idea that humanity is ultimately good, just and full of love for all things. We can either lose our fear and give in to hope and love for all of humanity, and thus trust the power of democracy - Or, we can continue to let power rule over the weak, dictating the course for all of us to follow. I think you have given over to that latter and have lost the trust of your fwellow Americans and would gladly hand the power of democracy over to your version of the benevolent dictator. I don't believe in any dictator, benevolent or not. Power corrupts. Democracy is where my hope lies.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    TL, I haven't had any problems with the comments. Were the problems area/trunk specific?

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    Peaches: I think you have given over to that latter and have lost the trust of your fwellow Americans and would gladly hand the power of democracy over to your version of the benevolent dictator. Forgive me for stepping into a conversation between you and Glanton, but I think you are open to other viewpoints since the conversation is taking place in a "public" venue. Your statement seems at first to be a particularly damning judgement of Glanton, but I suspect (at least I hope) that you meant "have lost the trust IN your fellow Americans TO NOT would gladly hand the power of democracy over to your version of the benevolent dictator. From my past conversations with Glanton, and from most of what I've seen him write here, my impression of him is and has been good, and I think that, like you, for Glanton... ...America is an promising ideal he also is not ready to give up on, despite its history of failing to achieve its ultimate vision of all people created equal... and that he thinks, as you do, that... we should continue to strive to achieve these ideals, because they are grounded in the idea that humanity is ultimately good, just and full of love for all things.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#4)
    by avahome on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:07:36 PM EST
    There is a new article up on Liberman connection to VFF/GOP.....it's a good read and a follow-up to a previous Kiss article: here previous: here

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    TL, not to worry, with my sordid posting past, on many forums/sites, that i am allowed to post on the net at all is something just short of a miracle! lol

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:22:30 PM EST
    Why should anyone feel so entitled as to send you an angry email because their comments didn't get posted? What b**ls. Every time I see my comment come up I feel like I've been given a first amendment gift. If you don't like what the host does, whether it's intentional or not, then leave. If you have to email someone about it, you have too much time on your hands anyway.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#7)
    by John Mann on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:26:32 PM EST
    An interesting perspective..
    The US and British leaders may be getting domestic flak for their perceived mistakes in Iraq, but some observers in the Arab world see them as being quite successful - in carrying out a well-calculated plan to divide the country.
    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peaches on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 07:29:02 AM EST
    Edger, Glanton has blamed all the shortcomings of America on Americans, particularly on Red-staters. He believes we have gotten what we deserve with this administration and we have noone to blame but ourselves. This is what I have gathered from conversations with him. He does not want to discuss abortion, the the civil rights of homosexuals, or many issues believing these are settled issues and natural rights inherent to citizens. Although, I agree with him on many of these issues, I don't agree that we can decide that certain rights are inherent and not open to discussion. Everything is on the table in democracy and all rights have to be negotiated and detemined by the society we live in. If you don't trust that your fellow citizens can determine the best course for the future of the community, region or nation, then you don't trust in the workings and power of democracy. As an example, abortion is the right of females and their doctors - end of discussion. It has been decided by the courts in Roe vs. Wade. If Americans have a problem with this, Democracy be damned, Americans are too stupid to realize that females have inherent rights so don't make laws about what they can do with their bodies. I have no problem with abortion. I also trust that Americans would vote in the majority to have abortion legalized in most communities in most circumstances. I have no problem letting issues such as abortion being placed before the people and living with what the people determine. In my view, the most important ideology lying behind democracy is equality. we all have an equal right to determine the laws we abide by in the community. Democracy does not end on election day. This is what makes me a liberal as opposed to a conservative, because equality of citizens is very difficult objective to achieve. For a conservative such as Jim (despite his description of himself as a social liberal), he believes we have already achieved equality in our constitutional republic and this is as close as we are going to get. He is happy with the status quo. I have no problem with someone holding this opinion as long as the discussion keeps going forward and democracy is the final arbitrator. I am liberal, because I think we can and have to do better in terms of the equality of our citizens to be apart of the decision making for the policies and laws we live under in our communities. When a segment of the population, such as households with large income, have a greater say in how our communities are run and which course we as a nation will follow, then we must continue to experiment with alternative approaches to government and laws, so we can get closer to the ideals of democracy and the equality of all citizens. But, first, it is required that citizens have a belief in democracy and their fellow citizens. They must believe citizens can choose the proper course and each individual must be satisfied to live with the rules democracy has determined. When democracy chooses a course that is not in the best interests of societies, it is up to the citizens to pay close enough attention to notice and then choose another course. Deomcracy was never meant to be efficient. Efficiency results from the centralization of power in only a few hands. Increases in equality require a trade off in efficiency.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 07:58:34 AM EST
    Peaches - We can agree on women's rights, but if you say that everything in a Democracy is on the table, how can you then say?
    If Americans have a problem with this, Democracy be damned,
    The difference is that we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic with elections. And,the abortion issue was not settled by a law passed by Congress with due debate, etc. It was done by a judical ruling. This may be "legal," but it is a very poor way to try and govern, and in fact the current fear of the Left is that the court will overturn it at some point in the future. BTW - If you can show me a conservative who supports national health care, gay rights, women's rights... as I have repeatedly said I do, please identify him/her. Until then, please drop the false claims. The defining issue between myself and the Left is that I, as a liberal, support the WOT, and since the Demos have not provided a viable alternative, I also support Bush and his national defense policies.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 08:15:33 AM EST
    Here are the unbiased folks at BB's link to the Media Research Center: Bruce Bartlett, Senior Fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers Union Steve Moore, Founder, The Club for Growth John Drescher, Senior Fellow, The Discovery Institute Daniel J. Mitchell, McKenna Senior Fellow in Political Economy Heritage Foundation And here are examples of their unbiased so-called research.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#11)
    by roy on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 08:30:59 AM EST
    Since I gave Jimaka a hard time last time media bias came up, I'll throw him & BB a bone and pass along yet another incident of the media reporting bogus "news" and making Israel look worse than it is. Yeah, it's a conservative blog, but the argument is carefully reasoned and includes links to the MSM sources. Bloody long read though.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peaches on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 08:35:27 AM EST
    Jim,
    Until then, please drop the false claims.
    You identify yourself as a social liberal. You do have some views that have been traditionally identified as liberal. I am defining liberal and conservative by my own terms. Liberal means, by my terms means openness to change and experimentation. Conservative means satisfied with the status quo. I believe society needs both forces to function effectively. I identify you as conservative because of statements such as this.
    The difference is that we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic with elections.
    We were set up as a constitutional republic with elections in order to reach the ideals of a demcracy. You are satisfied with this system. I want to tinker with it to get closer to the ideals. This makes me a liberal and you a conservative.
    And,the abortion issue was not settled by a law passed by Congress with due debate, etc. It was done by a judical ruling. This may be "legal," but it is a very poor way to try and govern, and in fact the current fear of the Left is that the court will overturn it at some point in the future.
    Exactly, my point. Please, Jim, don't be so sensitive. My definitions of conservatives and liberals does not differentiate based on the issues. It differentiates based on worldviews and the openness to change. As for the WOT. I think this also best left to the population. We need an open discussion and a willingness to change course if the public feels we are not going in the right direction. This is settled every four years in our current system, but perhaps we need a better system if so much can go wrong in the intervening four years. I'd be willing to look at some alternatives to governing and deciding on military action as a liberal. You, as a conservative, are satisfied with the status quo. Feel free to disagree with my definitions. This is obviously your right. But, ther is no reason to be insulted by it.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 09:05:18 AM EST
    When asked by the ever-trusting O'Reilly how much financial incentive The MRC receives from Scaife to carry out their unbiased research, their spokesperson made an unbiased mistake and lowballed the amount by about 90k a year. Obviously just an honest mistake.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:21:41 AM EST
    Sailor.... Here are the unbiased folks at BB's link to the Media Research Center: As I have said in the past, when asked for links... (which is what everybody here likes to do)... any link I provide is from a source I would consider to be 'good'... which of course in your eyes would = 'bad'. Just as I would question any link you sent me... So...what's the point???? BTW -- where is my original post????

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:30:50 AM EST
    As I have said in the past, when asked for links
    link to facts, not opinions. I wouldn't send you links from Michael Moore's site, don't send me that inaccurate biased crap from the wrongwingers.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    Peaches - Come on Peaches, that's fuzzy logic. First, you can't be for National Health Care, Gay rights, etc., unless you are open for some very large changes in how you live and what society expects as the norm. But nice try at slipping sideways. Your problem is the WOT. Admit it. Secondly, stating a fact doesn't make anyone anything. And the fact is that we are a constitutional republic.
    We were set up as a constitutional republic with elections in order to reach the ideals of a demcracy. You are satisfied with this system.
    Again, if I am satisified with the system why I am calling for National Health Care, Gay Rights, Women's Rights, etc.? You write:
    As for the WOT. I think this also best left to the population. We need an open discussion and a willingness to change course if the public feels we are not going in the right direction.
    So here we have it. On the WOT you want change. On abortion you say damn democracy. So again. The defining issue for you, no matter how you try and change the subject, is the WOT. As it is me. All of the other rights we have must not be allowed to slide into a situation that let's an Imam in London control what our papers publish in Boston... And we are very, very, close to that. As for tinkering... We have House elections every two years. Plus we have an executive election every four years, and the Senate, as a whole every six years (1/3 every 2) That gives a lot of room for "tinkering." Now, it you want to improve the process, put in term limits and/or don't let the parties gerrymander the districts. BTW - Just because I ask you to be accurate doesn't mean that I am insulted. It just means that I request that you be factual. As for your own word definitions... well, I guess you won't complain about "judophobia." ;-)

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#17)
    by Peaches on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:18:37 PM EST
    Jim, You are not reading well. Didn't sleep last night? I am on your side when it comes to abortion (at least, the democratic part vs. judicial). I was stating Glanton's position. As for "Judophobia", I see right through you. You know this word has zero chance of becoming a part of American lexicon. You only use it to get under the skin of Squeaky. When I'm in a mischievious mood, I actually get a chuckle out of it.
    First, you can't be for National Health Care, Gay rights, etc., unless you are open for some very large changes in how you live and what society expects as the norm.
    The change I am talking about has more to do with the workings of democracy (our constitutional republic) than the passing of legislation. I am talking about what Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau, Abraham Lincoln and visionaries had in mind when they described a democracy. How can these ideals be achieved? I don't think we come very close in our current system. I have said many times before to you (as well as others) that democracy has very little to do with elections. I believe our current system is currpted by big money a leaves the power or rule in too few of hands. As a start, I favor more aggressive campaign finance reform. I would also favor experiments with representitives being randomly selected (like jury duty) vs. elected. Our system (the constitutional republic) was set up to approximate a democracy (where every one has equal representation) and should be judged on well it performs based on this standard. We don't have equal representation. Far from it. So, I'd like to scrap our form of gov't for a new one. I'd like this to be a bloodless revolution that attempt to return the power of gov't to the people and away from corporate and large money interests, thus better approximating the demeocracy our true visionaries from our history had in mind when they spoke of the term.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peaches on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:19:57 PM EST
    Jim, You are not reading well. Didn't sleep last night? I am on your side when it comes to abortion (at least, the democratic part vs. judicial). I was stating Glanton's position. As for "Judophobia", I see right through you. You know this word has zero chance of becoming a part of American lexicon. You only use it to get under the skin of Squeaky. When I'm in a mischievious mood, I actually get a chuckle out of it.
    First, you can't be for National Health Care, Gay rights, etc., unless you are open for some very large changes in how you live and what society expects as the norm.
    The change I am talking about has more to do with the workings of democracy (our constitutional republic) than the passing of legislation. I am talking about what Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau, Abraham Lincoln and visionaries had in mind when they described a democracy. How can these ideals be achieved? I don't think we come very close in our current system. I have said many times before to you (as well as others) that democracy has very little to do with elections. I believe our current system is currpted by big money a leaves the power or rule in too few of hands. As a start, I favor more aggressive campaign finance reform. I would also favor experiments with representitives being randomly selected (like jury duty) vs. elected. Our system (the constitutional republic) was set up to approximate a democracy (where every one has equal representation) and should be judged on well it performs based on this standard. We don't have equal representation. Far from it. So, I'd like to scrap our form of gov't for a new one. I'd like this to be a bloodless revolution that attempt to return the power of gov't to the people and away from corporate and large money interests, thus better approximating the demeocracy our true visionaries from our history had in mind when they spoke of the term.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peaches on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:36:51 PM EST
    And, Jim, of course, you know I am against the WOT just as I am against the War on Drugs. I am for prosecuting criminals and bringing to justice violators of laws - both domestic and international. I am not in favor of dropping drops indescriminantly on a population and causing collatorall damage in the pursuit of terrorists. Partly because I think this is not civilized and also becuase I believe it lessens our national security not strengthens it. But, I am more than willing to take the decision for military action out of the presidents hands and place it closer to the people who actually have to prosecuite a war. This was the intention of our constitution according to what has been explained to me. But, I would want to go further and have local communities decide if they want to participate in a war on the other side of the globe by sending their sons and daughters overseas. I would want local communities to decide whther to produce guns or butter and not a representative congress corrupted by corporate and big money interests. So, you are right, I do believe that the WOT would be one of the casualties of a true democracy, but well worth the price.

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peaches on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:39:48 PM EST
    not in favor of dropping drops
    should read not in favor of dropping bombs

    Re: Comments Now Open to All (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    Peaches writes:
    So, you are right, I do believe that the WOT would be one of the casualties of a true democracy, but well worth the price.
    I am reminded of the story of the woman who asked if she would have sex if paid a million dollars. After thinking, she replied yes. She was then offerred $20.00. When she huffed out, "What do you think I am?" The answer was, "Madam I know what you are, we are now discussing price." ;-) A game calls. More later.

    Comments Now Open to All | 21 comments (21 topical)