Excuse me for getting all earnest, but how can we interact more meaningfully here?

And yes, I mean "earnest" and not "Ernest" like in my last post, although if you'd like you can attribute the seriousness of my message here to the influence of my serious new notebook.

Anyway, I wrote the following as a followup comment on my otherwise silly, fun post on Tina Fey, and it occurred to me I should elevate it to a separate post and see if we can get a good dialogue going on the subject here. Rather than rewrite it, I repeat myself:

Funny thing is, I used to not like Tina Fey -- or Jimmy Fallon, or, going way back before them, Dennis Miller -- in their Weekend Update days.

As y'all know, I like to have fun and kid around, but I do take the news and the issues of the day seriously, and at some point I get turned off by people who day in and day out sneer and make jokes of serious issues. I mean, let's have fun and kid around, but when one's entire diet of commentary consists of such junk food, and it's all about mocking and never taking anything seriously, I think it has a corrosive effect on society. Taken at it's extreme, I think it has helped raise a generation that has trouble respecting anyone and anything in politics. The constant drip, drip of smarmy satire adds to all the partisan attack politics and tactics of personal destruction to prevent us from coming together to solve the problems we have in common -- which is what representative democracy can be all about.

Needless to say, I have NO appreciation for Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. And while I enjoyed meeting and kidding around with Stephen Colbert (see video), I can't get into his shtick, either.

But even though the Palin gag was pretty hard-hitting satire, it was so enjoyable that it caused me to have a soft spot for Tina I didn't have before.

I should also mention that I revised my opinion of Dennis Miller just from the couple of brief spots I've done on his radio show. I had always thought of him as just too much of a wise guy, too impressed with his own snarky cleverness, to be borne. But he's actually deeper than that, and pleasant to talk to.

Of course, this is just a corollary to something I've found about life -- almost anyone is a more likable, admirable person once you get past the shorthand, bumper-sticker version of that person. To know a person is to appreciate him or her more. Maybe this sounds trite, but in our 24/7 headline news/blog world, we increasingly go by the bumper sticker, and don't get into people deeply enough to appreciate them.

And just to get WAY philosophical on you.... One of my great disappointments with this blog is that I had hoped, by having this forum for going way beyond what I'm able to say and explore in the paper, I could forge some avenues where I could have more meaningful exchanges with my readers and fellow citizens about the important issues of the day -- and the people who are important players in those issues.

Unfortunately, the resistance to that is just tremendous. So much of what passes for dialogue here remains on the superficial, partisan, shorthand, bumper-sticker simplistic level. I try to say something to provoke thought, and somebody gives some standard, boilerplate ideological response, and someone else shouts the established bumper-sticker counter to THAT, and off we go on the kind of pointless partisan merry-go-round that you can read or hear anywhere in the blogosphere or on 24/7 talking head "news." And what is the point in that?

I draw hope from the fact that occasionally, we get to the point where some actual,  mutually respectful dialogue occurs between people who HAVE gotten to know each other beyond the surface here. I see this particularly with Phillip and Herb and Karen and a handful of others -- and in the past (although, unfortunately, not so much lately) from you, Randy. I even get an encouraging word now and then from bud or Doug.

I just wish I knew how to build on that. I'm open to suggestions.

Maybe I need to make this a separate post...

... which I just did.

How about it? Do you see any way we can start having conversations here that matter?

Comments

[Doug Ross]

Brad,

As one who comments frequently and has a worldview that is probably 180 degrees from you, I hope you understand that there is no personal animosity involved. I respect your right to have opinions that are different from mine. I have said it before and will say it again, I appreciate
the forum you provide to offer my opinion.

My concern is that you seem to equate meaningful with "agree with me". I'll admit that my biggest frustration with blog comments is that when facts are presented, they can be ignored. When people can't win the argument on facts, they drop out or attack the person.

Naturally, I believe The Daily Show and Colbert provide a great service to Americans. They expose the absurdity that is our government each and every day. And the real beauty of it is that they more often than not use the politician's own words as the ammunition. I watched Jon Stewart go through Bush's last press conference. He played clips that were 30-45 seconds long of the President speaking saying that his biggest mistake regarding Hurricane Katrina was that he didn't land Air Force One... and all Stewart had to do at the end was look at the camera with a "can you believe this guy?" expression and everyone gets it.

Stewart, Colbert, etc. exist to counterbalance the Limbaughs, Olbermans, Hannitys, etc. who speak to the majority of Americans who need to be spoonfed their beliefs.

I believe it is this type of vigilant skepticism and exposing of the truth that will someday lead to a better government.

[Brad Warthen]

There's the problem, Doug. You're jaded. To me, representative democracy -- our heritage from Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison -- is the great hope for the world, the deliberative process through which we rise above a state of nature, red in tooth and claw, and build something that can be called a civilization. To you, as you say, government is "absurdity." People who present politics as nothing BUT absurdity just cause more and more people to be jaded and to see politics as hopeless, and if enough people believe it's hopeless, it is.

And no, I don't equate constructive conversations with "agreeing with me." How on Earth could anyone read this blog, or read the newspaper, from the Letters to the Editor to op-eds to the news pages to what have you, or look at the unending stream of sources I interact with, and conclude that I am in any way vested in listening or giving creedence only to those who agree with me.

What I want is constructive, respectful, conversations with people who believe it IS possible to have such conversations and have something good come of people learning from each other, NOT shouting matches between people who are competing to see who can be the most dismissive, or score the biggest put-down.

How many times do I have to explain this? How hard is it to understand.

[Jeff Barge]

Your comment about Stephen Colbert is very on point. He kind of cajoles people to participate by being kooky and goofy and offering prizes and stuff. He got 1 million people to cast votes in this one online contest to get a bridge named after himself in Hungary, so it works. So, on the one hand he is definitely giving a civics lesson, but on the other hand he is sugar coating it by making it seem interactive and kooky, so it's not people acting on a civic duty to participate it's just people having fun and blowing off steam. Maybe if you had a point-counterpoint thing where you had two people arguing points on your blog, that might be something to consider. But I know newspapers are always getting free things such as books. so give away some of those books as "prizes" to the smartest comments or whatever. Although I think a lot at the newspaper people re-sell the free books online for spending money, still, if you get there quick you can nab a few as prizes. Put an intern in charge of the prizes and contest ideas, maybe.

[p.m.]

Yeah, I'm back for this one.

You endorsed McCain, yet you have a place in your heart for Tina Fey's in-your-face insult of Sarah Palin, your endorsee's pick to be vice-president, and you pat Phillip, Herb, Karen, bud and Randy -- Left Coast thinkers all, not just McCain opponents, but McCain deriders -- for their meaningful blogging?

And you wonder why you don't have conversations that matter?

Maybe it's because what you write doesn't add up.

Maybe it's because you play conservative, but court liberals, and that makes folks on both sides mad.

Maybe it's because everything I've written here indicates you're not worthy of my trust, much less that of someone who goes by their real name.

Or it could be because this is a blog, not a roundtable discussion, nor a cabinet meeting.

But it may just be because no one hear works for you, and you don't hear the customary echo.

[Doug Ross]

Brad,

I am no more jaded about the government than you are about the private sector.

I'll ask you a simple question. In all the years you have been doing this blog, can you relate one occasion where you reversed your position based on meaningful, earnest arguments presented to you?

You want to deal in the concept of an ideal government and not be distracted by the reality of how it actually works.

Your push for Inez is a perfect example. Your support for her was based on nothing tangible. You used Education Week's review of her IMPLEMENTATION of standards as the basis for your endorsement. And you either ignored or disregarded the same magazine's report card for education that gave South Carolina failing marks across the board. When these facts were presented to you (by me), you just ignore it. When Lee posts factual information to counter your opinions, he is largely ignored.

I think PM is on the right track. Your world is turning upside down. Anyone with a keyboard can create a blog and express his opinion. Rather than wait for a few letters to the editor to come in via the U.S. Mail, you get immediate feedback. You can't edit the responses like you can with the letters to the editor. Your statements can be immediately fact checked and counter arguments with supporting information can be referenced immediately.

The dynamics of editorial content have shifted and you want it to stop. If everyone can express his opinion, how do you make yours more relevant? AND get paid to do it?

Doesn't it give you just a momentary pause to look back at this blog and see that the majority of comments are in direct opposition to yours? Why would that be? Because we're all jaded naysayers who scare off all the people who might agree with you? Is it really that simple?

Your blog represents a microcosm of the people of South Carolinas. Lee represents 10%, Phillip 10%, Karen 10%, Randy 10%, bud 10%, pm 10%, Herb 10%, slugger 10%, Ralph 10%, all the rest 9.9%, and me .1%. I think you believe in your heart that you speak for 50.1% of South Carolinians. But the content does not support that belief.

If someone attacks you or someone else personally, delete the comments and be done with it. It's your blog. Make of it what makes you happiest.

[Herb Brasher]

Since when am I a "McCain derider"? I don't remember doing that? Nor do I remember getting "patted" by Brad very recently. Brad usually ignores what I write--which is fine--he's provided an interesting forum for people who want to discuss things. I think, P.M. you expect people to buy into an ideology, and for some reason, it has to be lock, stock and barrel. That somebody could be to "the right" (whatever that is) on one issue, and to "the left" on another, doesn't seem to occur to you guys. How about wanting to believe the truth about something, no matter where it falls? This ideology thing reminds me of some evangelicals--we don't believe in global warming, it seems--it doesn't matter what the scientific evidence shows. But why do I have to buy into somebody's system?

And the other issue is that I may be persuaded of a position, and have to be able to compromise and not get all I want.

Some of my positions (for what they may be worth) come from living overseas. When one gets out of this country, a whole new perspective opens up--and even if one doesn't agree with the world view, it becomes apparent why the rest of the world thinks the way it does.

[Rich]

I have been appalled at some of the posts on this blog. I know people here think that I am reflexively a man of the left, but when I express those views I am invited to go back up North or I have my sexuality and intelligence questioned by those who think they can win the left-right debate by shouting down the opposition.

That kind of politics lost the Republicans the election. I think Sen. Graham understands that, as does Brad, even though I would disagree with him that a non-ideological approach to politics is best. American pragmatism has always been suspicious of fixed ideological positions, and rightly so. But it is imperative to have some sort of coherent political philosophy based upon reflection and, at least, a derivative scholarship.

It cannot come from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. Their political obstinacy in the face of a tanking economy, a failed Republican administration, and a determination to impose their vision of society on everyone else is what got the Republicans defeated.

Americans want freedom. They don't want right-wing pundits, militarists, and bullying fundamentalist preachers bellowing nonsense from the pulpit telling them what to do and how to live.

[Funny Jokes]

Lindsay discovers yet more abducted children, and the hunt begins in earnest to return the children to their parents. http://www.simfool.com/

[Herb Brasher]

". . . and bullying fundamentalist preachers bellowing nonsense from the pulpit telling them what to do and how to live."

Rich, you really seem to have a problem with "fundamentalist preachers," whoever they are. I just have a hard time figuring out how they seem to be threatening you so badly. Are they coming around to your house? If they're on the TV, can't you change the channel? And some people go to church, including evangelical ones, because they want to. Some of us are, I'll admit, convinced that God has revealed His mind, and we need to listen to him. No less a mind than Dietrich Bonhoeffer was convinced of the same thing, and lived his life accordingly. Is that such a threat to you? Nobody is forcing you to go to church, or even to listen to a preacher, are they?

[KP]

If the majority of comments on this blog are in direct opposition to Brad's views, it's only because the same people post over and over again. And p.m. and Doug don't seem to be able to disagree with Brad without turning it into a shouting match, so many of us who might engage in discussion here don't even bother.

Actually, Brad's column in support of Inez was chock full of very good reasons why her service as superintendent deserves respect. He never suggested that she solved all the problems we have in education, only that she did a good job and moved us forward. You can disagree with that view, but you don't have to treat it (or its author) with contempt just because you don't agree.

[p.m.]

Hey, Herb, you're right, I lumped you in with other bloggers in a way I shouldn't have. Sorry.

[bud]

Brad, some of the stuff on the blog is over the top. Yet much of what you post or comment on warrants a strong response. I'm with Doug on this one. I find it very annoying when you dismiss someone who does not agree with you by suggesting they are partisan. That grates on me like you wouldn't believe. In particular when you compared Ann Coulter to Paul Krugman my blood began to boil. The 2 approach the world very differently. Coulter is nothing but a mercenary who has found a niche to sell books to ultra conservative readers. She's obnoxious for sure but what makes her especially disgusting is her complete inability to get basic facts correct. Remember her attack on the NY Times when she claimed they did not have a front page article about the death of Dale Earnhart? That was flat out wrong. The NY Times indeed DID have such story, complete with a photograph of the incident.

So if you want to come across as a victim, go ahead. But you are as guilty as anyone on the blog for posting opinionated crap rather than well thought out posts based on facts and evidence.

[Lee Muller]

The first thing you could do, Brad Warthen, is respond to the facts which contradict your world view, instead of ignoring them. Your attempts to explain away reality might help you work your way out of your delusional worship of lying politicians who pander to your desire to escape personal responsibility for your medical care, retirement, and safety.

[bud]

People who present politics as nothing BUT absurdity just cause more and more people to be jaded and to see politics as hopeless, and if enough people believe it's hopeless, it is.
-Brad

Not so. Satire is a great way to make a point. What makes people jaded about politics rather than the comics are people like Sarah Palin who are simply not qualified for the second highest office (let alone the highest) in the land yet the are in a position to do just that. Or Blogo who has earned his derision. Both deserve the treatment they're getting from the satirists.

Even the truly gifted like Obama warrant some good-natured ribbing from the comics. Folks can sort all that out without becoming jaded.

[Bart]

This is Brad's blog and he has the right to do with it as he pleases. If he wants to delete comments, he can. If he wants to edit comments, he can. He sets the rules.

I have been reading and posting here for a while now, not as long as some. My viewpoint is valuable to me and at times, they get a little long but I try to be as respectful to others on this blog as they are to me and the state I call home.

When reading Brad's postings, it is done with the idea in mind that discussion will be the result and generally it is discussed by a few but others get off track. I am guilty of that as well so I cannot say much.

However, I have posted previously that overall, this bunch does represent a good cross section of South Carolinians. The back and forth can get heated and as pointed out, we do take some pointed shots at each other including Brad.

I hold a lot of respect for each opinion whether I agree or not. Lee, p.m. (keep on commenting), bud, Rich, Doug, KP, Karen, Herb, Capital A, and many others put it out there and do so with a little passion. There are thousands of blogs available for us to visit and join if we wish but none as diverse and lively as this one.

I have been pissed off at times and ready to delete the link from my favorites list but each day, there is something here to think about and another point of view to consider. Of course there are times when a new visitor is totally not welcome because of the nature of their comments and the regulars let them know about it. I don't have to call anyone out but I think you know who I am referring to.

We are heading into a new era of politics in this country. We have elected a new president who represents something different. A man who promised change but so far has delivered snapshot of his administration that reveals nothing more than a bus of insiders riding on retreads with a new tire thrown in here and there. We are in the last two years of Sanford's tenure as governor and to add to the mix, we are facing a financial crisis that keeps expanding each day.

My point is this. I have a strong feeling most of us are feeling a little helpless right now and have no idea of what next week will bring. Will we have our jobs? Will more bad news indicate a further erosion of our savings and investments? Will the government step in and take over even more of our private business enterprises? Will our tax dollars keep on going to banks who refuse to extend much needed credit so the economy can start to move along again?

There is a certain catharsis involved when we are able to express our thoughts and emotions freely especially on a blog like this one. We need that and I truly believe that even though we do cross the line at times, the discourse is good for all of us.
I find that on more than one occasion, I will type a response to something someone has written only to delete it once it is put into words. I think there are times when we perform self censoring because it is the right thing to do.

So Brad, this is your blog. You set the rules. Tell us what they are and if we choose to participate or not will be up to us. If my comments are to be censored unless I am guilty of using filthy language or inappropriate sexual innuendos, then I will go away and not return. If I am free to continue posting how I feel or interpret a position, then I will stay and continue to participate. The ball is in your court.

[marconi]

KP makes the best point, I think. Lack of more varied response is the result of response by repeat posters.

I also think that perhaps you've become too emotionally invested in your blog as evidenced by an overflow of temper (your perception of others seeing you as an
equivocator regarding the reason for a cigarette tax (hold your fire here, I'm merely observing, not stating anything).

That kind of explosive dialectic could get you into real trouble if the wrong people read it.

Best to can this blog entirely, or do what larger papers do and simply not respond to comments.

[Birch Barlow]

Excuse me for getting all earnest, but how can we interact more meaningfully here?

I don't know.

Will you stop calling libertarians radicals?

Will conservatives stop calling liberals brainless libs or something to that effect?

Will liberals stop calling conservatives Limbaugh parrots or something to that effect?

Will all of us be more respectful to your purpose of this blog?

I see no reason why we can't. But I see no evidence that we will.

[Bart]

marconi,

One of the more appealing aspects of this blog is the fact that Brad does in fact respond to comments at times. That is what is different about this one. If it remains, I genuinely hope he continues to get angry or whatever and put it out there. There have been and still are progressive blogs who have expressed outright hatred for this one but on the other hand, some conservative blogs are guilty of the same thing. What does that tell us?

I am not defending Brad but pointing out that if we are not capable of recognizing what is going on here, we are in trouble. This includes Brad as well. This is democracy in action and is a snapshot in time of how it works as long as we are allowed freedom of expression for all who post here.

Will the name calling stop? Birch is correct in his analysis. No the name calling won't stop. It has been going on for centuries as evidenced by the Roman Senate forums and political discourse over the span of two thousand years or more. Capital A is perhaps one of the more learned of the posters here and often refers to the Greek philosophers. Go back and read some of their works and then read some commentary by Will Rogers as a counterbalance. History is full of dissenters and discord when politics is discussed.

[Capital A]

Warthime, one needs read no further than Doug's post, the first on this blog, to identify your problem. Doug is right: you think that when someone disagrees with you, that they are wrong or lesser. This belief cannot be quantified if I were to try to produce solid proof from your writing, but the reader, this reader anyway, can deduce that fact from years of reading your blog.

When a disagreement exists, you end up reacting passive aggressively and by basically acting out the same behavior you claim to despise as noted in your constant, hand-wringing posts. Your true problem is that some people react to agreement in a plainly aggressive way, when you would prefer passive aggression (your method), or just plain old agreement (with your worldview), of course. The problem you are experiencing is with yourself, not with us.

The logical, free thinking audience can understand that radical wingnuts like Ele Ulmler, p.m.s, and (sigh) myself, at times, aren't to be taken seriously when we are in full rant mode. That type of recognition is characteristic of being an adult. Now, why can't you, Warthime, grasp that concept?

You aren't being earnest. You're being overly emotional. That problem may be hormonal, and there are none of us here who may help you with that issue.

[Bart]

Capital A's comments - see what I mean? Damn good response!!!

[Capital A]

(Sorry for pulling an Ele Ulmler here with the back-to-back postings.)

That said, I really enjoy the blog. Your work, all our work, represents one of the few websites I visit on a regular basis. I have learned everything from what the best audio format is to what Andre Bauer does on his work time with when he is supposed to be representing us (Myspace, of course!).

I am a more informed person due to this blog and the myriad of viewpoints, especially those in opposition to me. Thanks to you all, but that doesn't mean I will cut any of you slack when I think you are being disingenuous, furtive or are just plain wrong.

I would expect no less form any of you.

[Bird]

1. Right-Capital A: Plainly aggressive=best.

2. Free Cindi. With only males on this forum, it gives ALL OF YOU a false sense of superiority.

3. 'Someone' needs a basic lesson in what is truth; what is lies; what is propaganda; what is delusion; what is deception; what is a smear campaign.

4. XOXO's = Lee

[bud]

I second Capital A. I've learned a great deal here. Others that are not as lazy as I am do a terrific job with the research. RTH was especially good at that. Sorry he doesn't post anymore. Even Lee Muller provides some very useful links to financial/economic data. And yes, Brad has some great links as well.

[Herb Brasher]

And don't forget Rich. For all my consternation at his anti-religion stances, I learn from him as well.

What I try and remember, and don't always succeed, is not to write content or tone that I wouldn't use if I were speaking directly with the person. I'm beginning to recognize Cap's tongue-in-cheek, but it's a lot easier to pick up on that in speech than it is in writing. Or maybe I'm just obtuse.

And when everybody seems mad at everybody else, there is always Karen who steps in like a pretty nurse on a hospital ward of old, bickering men. Everybody shapes up their tone. Yeah, come to think of it, a few more female commenters would do us all good.

Just reading The Poisonwood Bible. A great illustration of what religion should not be.

[Bird]

I wonder if Brad locks Cindi somewhere in that building everyday, with her mouth taped up and no internet access or phone?