On the importance of disagreement

The beginning of thought is in disagreement - not only with others but also with ourselves. –Eric Hoffer Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. –Mohandas Gandhi Greetings all! I would like to introduce myself. My name is Brynn, and I'll be joining the fantastic stable of authors at Dangerous Intersection. I'm flattered that Erich asked me to be a part of what is being built here. Lots of very talented people are contributing their thoughts to the ongoing discussion generated on various topics, and I'm honored to be a part of that. I’ve been a regular reader of DI for about a year, and I’ve been impressed with the quality posts as well as the engaging discussion that often occurs in the comments following the post. One thing that is never shied away from is disagreement. Nor should disagreement be avoided. There is no party line here, there is no heresy. What is abundant is the type of quality discussion and debate that is the hallmark of a vigorous, open community.

Too often in contemporary American society, honest debate is stifled. Politicians have learned to speak in sound bites. Media commentators have learned to present insipid and truncated stories to a largely passive and apathetic audience. The constraints of time or column inches prevent a lengthy examination of any given issue. Talking points are adopted by the major parties’ respective constituencies as though they were absolute truth. The vehemence with which one holds an opinion has become a substitute for thoughtful reflection on the reasons why one holds an opinion.

This must change. The staggering array of challenges that face us demand a well-informed and engaged citizenry . . .

Continue ReadingOn the importance of disagreement

The crack in the wall of AIPAC

Just maybe, attitudes of Americans are changing regarding Israeli policy regarding the Palestinian people. A debate has begun to surface in Congress, small but significant. Consider this excerpt from this Truthout article byIra Chernus:

"The fact that there is any debate at all on this issue in Congress marks a sea change in Washington." . . .

"What the hell do they want from me?" Netanyahu reportedly complained after his talk with Obama. In the weeks and months ahead, we can expect a growing chorus in the US Congress to echo the changing views of American Jews and answer: We want you to heed the president's call to stop settlement construction completely, comply with international law, and open the door to serious negotiations with the Palestinians toward a two-state solution. Every time that answer is heard publicly, it widens the crack in AIPAC's wall and brings us closer to the day when that wall, inevitably, crumbles.

Continue ReadingThe crack in the wall of AIPAC

The GOP are for Healthcare reform! Honest!

Frank Lutz, in yet another sterling example of Republican doublespeak, calls on the GOP to 'support Healthcare Reform". Only one problem with that statement - the GOP has absolutely no proposals to reform healthcare. Not one! The only perspective he offers is how to sound like you are for reform, yet offer no proposal of your own. From the article:

“You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of REFORM,” Luntz advises in a confidential 26-page report obtained from Capitol Hill Republicans. “The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes ‘President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,’ then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless. “Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans. And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.” Instead, Luntz says Republicans should warn against a “Washington takeover” of health care, and insist that patients would have to “stand in line” with “Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare.”
That would be instead of standing in line waiting for a 'for profit' bureaucracy to determine your fate. As it currently stands, the current proposals are too limited, since none of the current proposals on the table include single-payer, as used in most of the developed world. In fact, at recent senate hearings physician activists in favor of single payer were removed from the chamber and arrested for interrupting the proceedings, while the committee went on to hear solely from industry lobbyists in favor of industry-based solutions. [via Politico]

Continue ReadingThe GOP are for Healthcare reform! Honest!

Comments that sour conversation: free speech versus censorship

Most of us seek a mutual exchange of ideas in our conversations, but not all of us. Most of us are open to the possibility of intellectual change, but not all of us. We get many comments at this site, most of them thoughtful, many of them really challenging to my pre-conceived beliefs. I revel in those challenging comments. In the past few months, though, I have struggled with how much leash to give to several visitors to this blog even though they tried to A) monopolize the conversation, B) preach, C) impose their favorite two issues upon every post, and D) ignore clearly-stated bona fide points made by others. In addition to using these ignorant and aggressive tactics many of these comments clearly have their facts wrong (some claimed that Obama is a terrorist; others claimed that God Himself wrote the Bible in King James English). When these sorts of people join in-person real-time conversations, almost all of us employ similar strategies. We extricate ourselves from those conversations so that we can join some other conversation. We also take steps to avoid spending time in the same room with those sorts of people on future occasions. A blog is not exactly a conversation, but it is a lot LIKE a conversation. What, then, should a moderator do when conversation-killers attempt to roost at a blog? For many months, I've struggled with this question.

Continue ReadingComments that sour conversation: free speech versus censorship