So your duty of citizenship, if you are still listening to your Turkish pal, is to recognize that you _do_ have power through the people you send to DC. You also have (or used to if history is to be believed) a tradition of dissent-to-authority as a reflex. Please exercise those parts of your national psyche, instead of causing offence to each other. You are pretty much all good-hearted, hard-working people over there. Too good and too productive, in fact, to end up becoming just a passive part of a downward spiral where things happen both to you and — with your blessing and funding — to the world.

I suspect such sites are a bust now, but as more of us poor folk become members of the broadband society, such sites will become much more attractive.

I think the most important conversations about political differences and reasoning are done one-on-one, where neither person feels a need to defend his or her integrity or values in front of others. Also, it should be clearly understodd that “I’m not trying to change your mind, but want to explain why I feel the way I do and understand your reasoning.” Hoping to change some one’s mind and actively pressuring the other person, with emotional or intellectual or moral bullying, are two very different things.

Finally, lawyers seem able to disagree strongly with each other and then have an enjoyable meal together. Most folk are not like that. We lawyers need to remember this when making our points and trying to win our arguments.

It’s not your duty nor is it anyone’s to force personal ideals onto others. It’s disheartening that more constructive discussion does not take place in a time such as this. There are too many uninformed, apathetic individuals who are easily swayed by people they trust to “share” their beliefs. When it comes down to it, nobody is the same. We’ve lost the importance of individuality in this country.

Might I also add that if these “tools” you speak of are to succeed, that you realize that your nor anyone elses agenda can or should have influence on them. A democracy immune to the spin of “bin Laden and Rove” makes your position clear. Where there is media, there is spin, spin not limited to those whom you oppose.

You have to stop thinking like a lawyer and start thinking
like a neighbor. Unless your neighbor consents to your
attempt to persuade, sometimes it is best to shut your mouth.

I remember that Linus in Peanuts once said that there are
three subjects that should not be discussed with people and
they are religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin. 🙂

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

Thanks for making me think.

We must learn as a society to constructively engage with opposing viewpoints and our previous tools for doing that have proven unable to do that.

The true sea change in this election is that the role of the mainstream media as provider of unvarnished facts has been proven false.

The necessary condition for “explaining why” is “choosing why” as a citizen. What tools/social structures will emerge to help us “know” so we can “choose” is a great question. Lots of great attempts, like p2p-politics, will likely be made before a clear trend emerges.

Interestingly, it all comes back to how our society creates and communicates ideas – in both the economic and non-economic spheres.