New rules on Opinion Talk

A M E N ! But when it comes to lay off Isabell Lawson, you will deprive some bloggers of their reason for living hahahaha! I can't stop laughing....

I'm concerned these new rules will put the ones on the "right" at a disadvantage.

It is refreshing that we TRY and bring some civility back.

It is a good idea, thank you.

Now how do you do the same thing for live news? I mean how do you get the flame throwers to become more civil and improve the discoarse and civility within the public as a whole. Now that almost everything we see and hear on T.V. and radio is pretty much an extention of the Jerry Springer show? How do you cover and control that? I mean really isn't that what gives this unruly discoarse its legs and popularity?

Alot of the disrespect stems from blame from the rught and left blaming each other for everthing that happens. I think it is good to put a stop to the name calling and personal attacks.

That news and entertainment media , largely, seem to be an extension of the Jerry Springer show, is the astute observation of the month. I would not have been able to think of it. Mostly because the show has been "banned" from my TV years ago.

"I'm concerned these new rules will put the ones on the "right" at a disadvantage." Rich, I agree. But we may not share opinion on the nature of the handicap. One tine a fork not maketh....

This is really very simple, folks. Debate issues the same why you have done in the past, but don't call bloggers vulgar names or say they are jerks because you don't agree with their political philosphy.

I want the opinions expressed here to be passionate, but it seems we can disagree without attacking people personally.

In my 30-plus years in this business, I have found that the people I like the most often are the ones I disagree with the most on a political level. Just because we agree doesn't mean we're going to be pals, and just because we disagree doesn't mean we are going to be enemies.

I'm stunned that the call for civility here is so controversial. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised after being at the mall this weekend and hearing people drop the F word so freely in front of others. If you ask them to hold it down, they only get more offensive. OK. . . I know I'm sounding my age when I complain about people dropping F bombs in public. Society says it's ok, but it still offends me.

Are we realy asking too much for people to be civil on this blog?

And while we are at it, let’s be careful not to rule out any honest and thoughtful debate whether the right, the left or the middle!

Remember, it may not be about either right, left or middle; it may be about who sets the rules and controls the debate. Sometimes a call for so-called civility is really about the ability to stifle an unpopular opinion that doesn’t fit neatly into the politically correct culture of today. Yes, by all means rule out vulgarity, mean-spirited attacks, etc., but recognize that any given statement may be perceived as truth on one side and unfair on the other side.

No, Jim, you're not sounding your age! Our society seems to slowly be turning into life imitating art, and unsavory shows such as Springer are considered art by some. There is rampant disrespect in our society, and I have to admit, I've taken advantage of this faceless forum to go over the edge myself.

I recall pointing out this lack of decorum last year on a few posts. We need to monitor ourselves, or someone else will have to do that for us. Maybe backing off on the dry, sarcastic jabs might help as well. Those can easily be misunderstood.

Hope your suggestion takes hold...

BTW, I'm sick of hearing all the [insert a letter]-bombs too!

I think we can all keep ourselves in check. I for one certainly appreciate the effort Jim.

I'd like to see the same respect shown to groups of people who are talked about, whether they are here posting or not.

I checked a few back-posts, and indeed I too had become personal . Civilized, but personal nonetheless. I complained to my daughter about the attacks. She had no consolation for me. I telephoned a peer, my brother in Europe. His immediate inquiry was:
....."Is there some American law that says you have to blog?"
....." Of course not" I replied.
....."Well, then meine liebste Schwester (my dearest sister) why do you accomodate the abuse of your person?"
The new blogging rules make it possible for me to keep enjoying some beehive buzzing. I am also curious as to how that couple of tormentors of practically everyone shall be able to keep blogging. BZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Now that you have changed the rules I can tell that some bloggers are going to have problems communicating without living the great lie, that their statements are from the heart.

Matt; who is BTW, and what are his/her [insert a letter]-bombs and why? I guess I cannot deny my age?

I trust Jim to do the best he can.

He has been in this long enough to make a judgment call on what is considered civil and what's not.

If some of you have a problem with it, or until you push the envelope and get called out on it then thats just tough, isn't it?

Sticks and stone will break my bone but words... well words... they can sometimes be worse. I'm all for it Jim! Maybe we can be like the first drop of civility that will ripple wider and wider. O.K. I'm prone to visions of grandeur but why not... it's got to start somewhere. I never was one to walk away from a challenge. Let's go for it.

Kind of hard to remain civil when you read idiotic statements,being talked down to and having your beliefs and country being trashed by a bunch of do nothings(you know who you are).

Generally a good idea. Especially about vulgarity. But a word of caution - brought to us courtesy of Justice Thomas (and forgive me for having posted it before, but it sure seems relevant): "The insistence on civility in the form of our debates has the perverse effect of cannibalizing our principles, the very essence of a civil society.......By yielding to a FALSE FORM OF 'CIVILITY,' we sometimes allow our critics to intimidate us....Active citizens are often subjected to truly vile attacks; they are branded as mean-spirited, ..... racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. To this we often respond (if not succumb), so as not to be constantly fighting, by trying to be tolerant and non judgmental - i.e., we censor ourselves. This is not civility. It is cowardice, or well-intentioned self-deception at best......Today, as in the past, we will need a brave ‘civic virtue,’ not a timid civility, to keep our republic." Hon. Clarence Thomas in a speech, 2/13/2001.

Gee....I think Jim just wanted to see if maybe we could cease with the name calling. I find it funny that suddenly those who are the most guilty just look around and point fingers. Or perhaps they're trying to throw up a smoke screen so they don't appear quite so guilty. That shows me a lack of "huevos" ....with all due respect of course.

It's also funny that someone might put up a quote in an attempt to justify being disrespectful to others. Never a dull moment...and always predictable.

It appears, Mr. Boren, you ask to much from humans. I am disappointed but not surprised with how this blog has progressed.

I don't care who said it, civility does not translate into cowardice and civility is definitely not timid. It takes great strength to be civil when you are dealing with arrogance, fear, ignorance and the naive. Grandma told me that people use profanity because they are not quick enough to find the correct words to use. In the same vein, name calling, generalized stereotypes used to define broad groups of people, are a sign of ignorance. It is a common method used to distract, to deflect the issue because their opinion is not defensible or they do not have the requisite knowledge to continue the discussion. Children use this tactic on the playground. Here it is a combination of ignorance, mob mentality, laziness and arrogance.

Don't worry, it won't last too much longer. The road humans are traveling; selfishness, lack of respect, intolerance, lack of concern and kindness... will be our downfall. Soon the earth will not have to suffer the pox of human infestation as we lead ourselves to our own extinction... and humans claimed to be the enlightened species in the animal kingdom. HA!

S H E : Occasionally it is not easy to find the right slot for filing something. I think this thread is it.

Thanks for elevating me to a status of virtual divinity. Everyone is expected to know who SHE is who is being sniped at by Mr. Turnipseed, following nearly every post I click to the beehive. Considering that even Napoleon had to put the crown on his head himself because the church refused to do it; I am not doing so bad. Would it not be soooo much easier to just ignore my posts.

And now to change horse in midstream. The Hon. Clarence Thomas is being quoted : "...today we shall need brave civic virtue..." I am sure his title is being used correctly, but some authorities would consider it a misapplication of an adjective. I recall his Senate confirmation hearings. He was accused of the sexual harassment of a female subordinate. And she made a very credible accuser. Research prior to posting would improve some bloggers' credibility. I must hand it to blogger Kim Tanksley, she is always doing intensive research of her material . Thanks for letting me use this file.

By all means, do research and do more research! And it will show that no scholar of any repute attached any significance whatsoever to the meaningless accusations brought against Justice Thomas. Baseless rumors, no doubt created by heterophobic and racist liberal bigots who just couldn’t stand it that maybe, just maybe, a black conservative man was worthy of being a Supreme Court Justice.

When all else fails; we can always play the race card. Right? Except Anita Hill, the alleged victim is also Black. And so much for the bloggers research prior to the inevitable name-calling.

Wasn't talking about Anita Hill, but the "meaningless accusations brought against Justice Thomas... Baseless rumors, no doubt created by heterophobic and racist liberal bigots..." T.C. Morgan

So to waffle, to hem and haw is part of a certain brand of religious practice. Reality check: Nobody except Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual impropriety. I guess my clinical detachment is my bane. Otherwise I might not even acknowledge of sharing the same planet with a most un-Christian of Christians. "Iudica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta; ab homine iniquo et doloroso erue me." Psalm 42. In short...Oh God! Deliver me from unholy, mean and crafty folk...

So to waffle, to hem and haw is part of a certain brand of religious practice. Reality check: Nobody except Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual impropriety. I guess my clinical detachment is my bane. Otherwise I might not even acknowledge of sharing the same planet with a most un-Christian of Christians. "Iudica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta; ab homine iniquo et doloroso erue me." Psalm 42 in short...Oh God! Deliver me from unholy, mean and crafty folk

"Heterophobic racist liberal bigots"...

That's good stuff all alone, but it goes on to say:

... "who just couldn’t stand it that maybe, just maybe, a black conservative man was worthy of being a Supreme Court Justice."

Are you a complete moron? We elected a black president. Why on earth would we have a problem with a black Supreme Court Justice?

Oh...and I love the "heterophobic" add-on. You are creative.

469! Wow! I am the champion! Bring on the trophy!

... "who just couldn’t stand it that maybe, just maybe, a black conservative man was worthy of being a Supreme Court Justice."

What a joke. If conservatives had their way, school segregation and Jim Crow would still be alive. Every advance in racial and gender equality has been made with conservatives kicking and screaming and pulling the other way. You were never even remotely a "liberal," T.C.

"I'm stunned that the call for civility here is so controversial." Jim Boren you said it!

And what a prolific thread it turned out to be. It even gave the word count of each blogger. (I hate to brag: but I won!..though multiple postings of a post padded it a little...but who cares...it's the winning that counts.) Before this topic sinks into the archives in cyberland, I am going to make a hard copy of it. I am amazed at myself how I got Anita Hill into the simple appeal to stop attacking people with vulgar names. I had an English prof who would not accept any sentence with faulty or lacking subject-agreement. Maybe sticking to the subject should be made compulsory.

civil: "adhering to the norms of politeness and courtesy" (Random House College Dictionary). Jim Boren! I hear you!

This blog may not be the most appropriate forum for an observation I'd like to share, but as a new blogger it appears to be the most relevant at this time. I only started blogging recently (a month ago I didn't know what a "blogger" was) and I've noticed certain patterns in the topics that appear on these pages. Most seem to be local stories of the day. To the extent we comment on anything outside the realm of California, it (so far as I can tell) has been limited to Dick Cheney's view of gay marriage (Yawn).

It seems to me that there are national issues that would warrant topics for this blog that are much more crucial. A few current examples include:

1. The federal government's increasing appetite to take over private companies or in a more general sense the refusal of the federal government to allow capitalism to work
2. The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
3. The Iranian and North Korean nuclear aspirations
4. The Obama administration's apparent abandonment of Israel
5. The federal government's ongoing attempt to take over another 1/7 of the American economy through "health care reform"
6. The closure of Gitmo and the uncertain final destination of the terrorists there who are not welcome back in their own countries
7. The "apology tour" that the Obama administration has been on since its taken office.

Perhaps these topics aren't as sexy as gay marriage and perhaps as a new blogger I haven't yet appreciated the point of blogging, but I am interested in the views of my fellow citizens on these topics because the dominant media does not seem particularly concerned with these developments.

Thanks.

You were never even remotely a "liberal," T.C.
(posted by M.D.)
And you were never even remotely A "good Christian" I am very versed in the New Testament the book about Jesus Christ from whom comes the religion CHRISTIANITY. Stop stoning people. Jesus of Nazareth was perfectly clear on that point. I do not proselytize, I am not a missionary. All I am saying is...if one keeps proclaiming publicly to be a Christian, one is obligated to treat others in a Christian manner. Basta!

Conservatives have had to change with the times, Tony. They just haven't liked it. And notice I didn't say "Republican," I said "conservative." The party labels have changed over the years, from Federalist, to Democrat to Republican. But since the "Southern strategy" of Nixon (perfected by Reagan), the GOP has pretty much been the home of opponents of racial justice.

T.C., I assume you wrote your post before you saw my reply to Tony. "Conservative" did not always equal "Republican," though it mostly does these days. There's a reason most African Americans switched from Republican to Democrat, and most southern whites from Democrat to Republican in the second half of the 20th century. There's a reason the Republican party is now almost 90% white (and that's before the fallout over right-wing attacks on Sotomayor).

History in itself is neither denial nor affirmation. It is reporting ineradicable facts.
And the philosophies of the various political parties have indeed changed during the nation's genesis.

You asked this question, "Are you a complete moron?..."

I believe this is precisely why Jim began this thread.

Mike D.

You said, "There's a reason the Republican party is now almost 90% white..."

I'm a little confused. Can you explicitly state that "reason?" Maybe I'm getting a little defensive, but that statement leads me to believe that white, conservative Republicans must be racists in order to belong in that classification. Please clarify.

Isabelle,

I'm not sure if your question is honest innocence or laser-sharp dry humor. Either way, I love it!

BTW means "by the way."

[insert any letter]-bombs are cuss words. Jim referred to "f-bombs," and I was referring to any swear words my kids might overhear in public.

KLK, you're items 1-7 (actually 1-6) are good topics for discussion, however your versions of what they are are a little skewed.

1. The federal government's increasing appetite to take over private companies or in a more general sense the refusal of the federal government to allow capitalism to work.

The government is helping GM stay afloat with a 60% shareholder position but Obama has made it crystal clear they do not want to, and will not attempt to, run the company and will sell back when GM gets back on it's feet. This is helping tens of thousands, perhaps more, people keep their jobs and keep an American icon from going under.

2. The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Good topic and a fair way to put it. You left this one straight up.

3. The Iranian and North Korean nuclear aspirations.
Same here.

4. The Obama administration's apparent abandonment of Israel.

Just because we finally have a president with the "huevos" to tell Israel they are part of the problem as well, it shouldn't be considered as his abandonment. He has also made this clear that our friendship is unwavering and that friends tell each other the truth.

5. The federal government's ongoing attempt to take over another 1/7 of the American economy through "health care reform"

Do you think we need heath care reform? 90% of Americans do. And where exactly do you get the idea Obama has any aspirations to run health care? In every conversation I've heard with him he says over and over that he has no desire to run people's health care. He wants health care for everyone (however we achieve that), and to put a stop the outrageous increases in costs that send people to either bankruptcy or no health care at all, or cause companies to collapse such as GM, Chrysler and Ford.

6. The closure of Gitmo and the uncertain final destination of the terrorists there who are not welcome back in their own countries.

Not everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist, and he has no intention of letting known terrorists run loose in the U.S. I can't think of anyone who would. That would be a little stupid.

7. The "apology tour" that the Obama administration has been on since its taken office.

This sounds like a "Rushism." It's not even a topic of discussion.

"I'm not sure if your question is honest innocence or laser-sharp dry humor."

Since seeing the explanation, I am honest enough to say that it is ignorance more than innocence. I do have a good sense of humor. Without it , one could be driven nuts these days. And my ignorance about certain things are best explained by my daughter's judgment...."Mother; you live in a paper bag." And you know something world out there...it's pretty comfy inhere.

" for amusement purposes only "

But it seems Brian Murray's amusement consists of being insulting and/or to ridicule. Not the best character reference, I dare say! Furthermore...the best, the funniest humor is the self-deprecating kind. But that is preconditioned; it takes brain.