Please share what you have learned or let flow your general musings on the past year here at

This year seemed to produce more intense bitterness between members than usual. Perhaps that's unavoidable in a Presidential election year. However, the nighttimer-Wertz feud really took me by surprise.

I think it took us by surprise, as well. I imagine, though, that some here may have taken a bit of pleasure in it: 'tis a pleasant Scene enough, when Thieves fall out among themselves, to see the cutting of one Diamond with another.

In previous years, this thread was called "What I've Learned" and/or "How My Views Have Changed" or similar. Well, I can't say my views have changed much this year, but I do feel that I've learned a good deal - not only about political issues, but about myself.

Our political opinions are shaped by a great many things: experience, research, the courses of our own lives - and by people close to us. While most of us like to think that our opinions are our own - formed through thoughtful consideration and rational contemplation, I think we'd be fools to suggest that we aren't also influenced by the positions of parents, teachers, friends, lovers - our partners and our children - and those at a bit more of a remove: columnists, essayists, pundits, bloggers, and even participants in online debate.

There are also times, though, when our faith in these "sources of opinion" can be shaken - which can lead us to question the foundations of many of our beliefs. This happens to many of us, I suspect, when we get old enough to begin questioning our parents' beliefs. If we're particularly rebellious, we may reject everything they held dear. This also happens through education - we may have a particularly conservative civics teacher or a free-thinking college professor, we may start reading Noam Chomsky or Friedrich Hayek or Ayn Rand or Gore Vidal. Later in life, when we've become somewhat settled in our beliefs, we begin looking to "like minds" - choosing the Washington Post or the Washington Times, Fox News or MSNBC, Michelle Malkin or Maureen Dowd - more to confirm our opinions than to challenge them. Epiphanies become increasingly rare with age.

On the other hand, even as rigid an ideologue as myself can also, if we're secure enough in our beliefs, seek out those of differing or opposing views - perhaps to try to understand the opposition in order to better rebut their views, perhaps to "enlighten" or even "convert" them, perhaps to simply feel superior and vent. But, sometimes, we may look to others to be persuaded - especially if we're uncertain of our positions or have not yet formed an opinion. We may look to commentators or essayists we trust, we may look to people like Dontreadonme or nighttimer, moif or Mrs. P, Amlord or Lesly - I could go on (and on) - people who are well-informed, people we respect, people who have taken clear positions and have the ability to articulate and defend them. And, while I have as much respect for most people here as I've ever had - and consider their opinions as well-articulated as ever, I have been subjecting everyone to a lot more scrutiny and have been depending more on primary sources, ideally those based on raw numbers rather than anyone's interpretation of "facts".

And that brings me to a minor epiphany that I did have this year - and, of course, it was related to the primaries. I mentioned something similar to this in a PM a little while ago (so if you're the person with whom I was corresponding, my apologies for cutting and pasting a bit). This election cycle has led me to rethink a lot of stuff - like the extent to which my own prejudices color my perceptions. For example, I used to think Keith Olbermann was annoying, but frequently admired what I saw as his almost heroic attempts to speak truth to power. While he was often a lone critic (on cable news anyway) of some of the worst excesses of the Bush administration, his "heroism" basically boiled down to the fact that I agreed with him. During the primary season, what I used to find annoying, became downright detestable: his smug bias is ludicrously transparent (and mean-spirited) and the level of spin - nay, outright distortion and misinformation - is astonishing. I think I'm generally able to see through spin no matter which side is doing the spinning, but this season I was led me to question how many of my previous opinions were influenced by spin - or if it was just a matter of seeing my own biases confirmed.

Similarly, I've been wondering if a few participants here were always jerks and that I've only seen it recently because we've been on opposite sides where previously we might have been in agreement - or if the jerkery has only emerged in relation to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain. I'm sure there are more than a few here who didn't realize what a jerk I could be until my total mistrust of and utter lack of faith in Barack Obama became apparent (though I'm sure there are Bush supporters here who could tell them that I've been this much of a jerk all along). Whatever the case, I have been more disappointed in quite a few people that I formerly held in fairly high regard (and not just here, by any means) than I would have imagined possible. I think I'm down to about two commentators now that I feel have even a minor grasp of reality. I guess I had been putting more stock in the comfort of "like minds" than was good for me.

In any event, I am now taking everyone's opinion with a grain of salt - or, in some cases, a truckload of salt - even those with whom I agree. And that includes my own opinions.


Also, looking back, this was the first year in a long time during which I met no other AD members in person. Having previously met Jaime and Mike (several times), Mrs. Pigpen, Eeyore, Paladin Elspeth, Curmudgeon, CubeJockey, and a few others, I can definitely vouch for some of the Member I'd Most Like To Meet nominations. My phone conversations, blog exchanges, and PMs with members as diverse as johnlocke, Doclotus, overlandsailor, nighttimer, and Aquilla (to say nothing of chat room sessions with a wide variety of members) confirm my suspicion that participants here are not only great online debaters, but great - and very entertaining - company.

Now that I'm back in the bitter industrial wasteland of the northeast (albeit in the lush oasis of central Pennsylvania), and have no idea when I might get back to Savannah , there's an open invitation to anyone in the area - or anyone traveling to the vicinity of Washington DC, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, or New York - to get in touch. This is a beautiful part of the country, we have a couple of spare rooms (and a tourist attraction!), we're not too far from places like Lancaster and Gettysburg (and the cities mentioned above), and I'm much more pleasant in person than I am here. So... feel free to drop me a PM. I miss AD contact!

I found that a few self imposed breaks from (as opposed to the occasional heavily monitored Moderator imposed ones) were a VERY good thing. (Probably very good for the board.)

I also found that poorly worded, or binary questions (Yes, No) kind of annoy me. They annoy me more than loaded "gotcha" type questions. As such I find myself confined to only a few people's threads.

I wonder why terse answers are seen here as such a "thing". Do you need 30 paragraphs to write "No"?

This wasn't one of the years where I found my opinion changed on any particular topics or beliefs here at . That's more a function of thread selection/writers than anything else. I didn't generally go far out of my comfort zone. I only really needed to research threads started by Mrs. Pigpen or Wertz before I felt like I could answer competently.

While there's been a few, um, "spirited" exchanges this year I'm surprised there weren't more with an election looming.

All in all it's been an interesting year here on - if I didn't change any minds I hope someone laughed at something I posted - either because it seemed ludicrous or because I meant it to be

I'd like to think you were a Pike rather than a Sharper... I think it was the Sharpers who took the most joy in, what they considered to be, the fare-chucking.

This year tended to be about a group - previously united against one thing - learning that they had their own differences.

I think Entspeak summarized my experience this year as well. I also discovered that policies don't always divide as much as personalities do.

In general, as much of my life has gotten busier (mostly in very good ways), my time on here has suffered occasionally, and that makes me a little sad. Some of it has been the content, since we're in an election year, but some of it is just a matter of how much time I have and how I choose to spend it. I'm glad I can still make time here, even if its not as much as I would ideally prefer.

Ditto

I will add that making the supreme effort to post may not be the best thing as grammar, spelling, and accuracy of an otherwise good post may suffer as a result.

In this contentious year (which thankfully is half-way in the books), it's been like the old curse, "May you live in interesting times."

Well, it's been very interesting on . Ain't no bout-a-doubt it. Not always in a good way.

The only thing I've been disappointed in lately is how lousy the level of debate has been thus far. Perhaps its because its a presidential year and while that tends to drive the vitriol and hyperbole higher, it seems to drive the I.Q.s lower. MUCH lower.

I think it all went south for me in lederuvdapac's "Obamamania" thread. That was the first times I've ever seen someone start a debate and then totally divorce themselves of it. Leder provided the impetus and then stepped aside and let the chairs fly. Smooth move there dude. I've met Don King and he couldn't promote a fight better than you did. It wasn't any fun, but it was quite edifying in its own way.

If I needed a reminder of the limits of liberalism I was got one over the past few months as the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton became less about whose positions on the issues were more fundamentally sound and more about who could be the bigger victim. Was it the Black man trying to overcome White racism or the White woman plagued by male sexism?

As it turns out it came down to the Black guy running a better campaign than the White gal.

Not that you would know if from some of the former supporters of Senator Clinton. She could do no wrong and her principal opponent could do no wrong. To hear them tell it, Obama had no principles. He played the race card. He race-baited. He benefited from a press corps sympathetic and dazzled by the Black prince of Chicago and turned like rabid dogs on Hillary Clinton blowing every mistake into a major meltdown, killing her slowly with rumor and innuendo and falsely portraying her and her husband as shameless hustlers only out for themselves.

So it became okay for Hillary to mildly respond when asked if she thought Obama was a Muslim, "Not to my knowledge." It was fine for Clinton supporters and surrogates to go on television and question Obama's competence, credentials and qualifications to be President. Hillary lauded the presumptive Republican stating that both he and her had the experience to lead and all Obama had was "a speech." She ripped Obama and handled McCain with kid gloves.

Meanwhile Bill Clinton was acting as if he had lost his mind. He sneered about Obama on Charlie Rose and dismissed him as little more than an affirmative action candidate. He dismissed Obama's South Carolina primary victory by essentially saying, "So what? Jesse Jackson won here twice before." I could start a thread about how much of a total putz Bill Clinton was these last few months, but I really don't give much of a damn about him anymore.

The finishing stroke for me was Geraldine Ferraro's "hell hath no fury like a White woman scorned" act. While there were no shortage of African-Americans suggesting she had to be out of her happy state of mind, the response by so-called liberals, both here, there and elsewhere was to mumble under their breath and kick the dirt and say, "Well, gee, she kinda, maybe, sorta might have a point...."

Geraldine Ferraro is dead to me. If I ever see Barack Obama skinnin' and grinnin' with that loser and rabid bigot, I will hunt him down and go upside his head with a 2x4.

There are definite limits to liberalism. It didn't come as a disappointment as much as it did a bit of a surprise that from too many Democrats and a too many liberals, their idea of diversity extended right up to the point of backing an intelligent, articulate, accomplished and qualified African-American for the presidency. For some, even when they did come around, it was only after sweating blood and grinding their teeth down to bloody nubs.

Probably it's my own fault. Nobody was a bigger supporter of Obama's candidacy than me and nobody became a bigger target. I got the distinct feeling that there dual-purposed anti-Obama threads being created. First, to tear down Obama, but secondly to draw me into "debates" that would swiftly turn into flame wars and Moderator magnets.

I don't suspect this to be the case. I KNOW it is the case.

Some of the principal offenders have taken a bit of a break. Zack has been good for creating the "Get Obama" threads without a whiff of trying to be subtle.

"Man accuses Senator Obama of Homosexual Affair"

"Senator Obama's Communist Connections"

"Obama raised funds for Islamic causes"

and of course my personal favorite, "Senator Obama throws in the towel" That was good for a chuckle.




Yes, it did get rather intense, did it not?

This is what happens when two of the Alpha males of the board square off. Shoulders squared. Knuckles forward. Little extra bass in the voice. Look out for the flying testosterone.

It came as a surprise to everyone I would think, but in one sense it was probably overdue. After five years of being simpatico on most issues, it was inevitable Wertz and I would part company publically and clash drastically. We are two very opinionated men and not at all shy about sharing it no matter who likes or doesn't like it. The desire to be liked should never get in the way of telling people honestly what you feel. The contest between Clinton and Obama was not the issue I thought that would drive a wedge between us.

Now that the issue has been (knock wood) largely settled, I'd like to say everything is hunky-dory now, but that wouldn't be telling the truth. I wouldn't go as far to say I harbor any longtime ill will toward Wertz, but our disagreement was too fundamental and too bruising for me to say I'm ready to let bygones be bygones. I think neither one of us wants to see John McCain take the oath of office next January, but we don't share the belief that Barack Obama is a better alternative.

Most of all I'm tired of debating Barack Obama with half-wits, dimwits and the witless. The only thing I regret is my own part in the general dumbing down of the level of debate. I guess I just got tired of trying to raise it and found it easier to get down in the muck with the rest.

At some point all it becomes is slight variations on the same theme. Obama said this. McCain said that. This associate said something stupid and that candidate has to disavow any knowledge or approval of the remarks. ZZZZZZZZ! This isn't debate. This is karaoke. It kind of sounds or looks like or reads like the real thing, but look a little closer and it's obvious it ain't the real thing.

Fortunately, I have finally learned the Obama debates on this board can go on quite well without me. I've kept out of the most recent Obama threads and having passed the 3,000th post personal milestone and with the campaigns getting ready to enter a pre-convention lull, now seems like an opportune time to self-check my posts on

I've had the good fortune since I started my blog to get picked up by a start-up news and opinion portal. In exchange for a higher profile, web traffic for the blog has begun to pick up and now requires me to update it with greater frequency than the three times a week I had originally envisioned. A blog that is not updated frequently is a blog that is never visited again.

Which doesn't mean I'm going on summer break. I do still work nights and there are times at 3:00 a.m. I need to post because I just can't choke down another Diet Coke. Laying down the smack is an acceptable alternative to falling asleep on my feet. My goal is to post less and enjoy posting more.

Let someone else fall for the Barack Bait for awhile. Nothing said here is going to change the final outcome in the final analysis. It's already far past the point where all this sturm und drang is going to even change anyone's mind.

Over the course of the last year I continued to undergo my metamorphosis from being a politically indifferent, but curious observor with a strong anti American bias to being a Danish nationalist with a strong anti socialist/Islamic bias. This process seems to have its roots in my earlier adult years, when I was in the military. Back then I was far more prone to regard the world with critical eyes. Later, when I went to university in the UK I became almost left wing and, though I wouldn't have admitted it then, anti American.

Since having returned to Denmark in 1999, I have constantly been moving from left of centre to far right, skipping conservatism along the way. I still have no time for liberal conservative policies which I feel are fundamentally anti human with their constant emphasis on the work ethic. Maybe thats a Danish thing, but conservatives over here are money grubbing elitists who care little for the well being of other people and display all the selfish character traits of the typical nouveou riche.

In the last year however, any thought of reconciliation with the socialists has been well and truly trounced. A series of ongoing riots in Denmark by left wing agitators, known as the Autonome, left me distinctly cold within. Quite frankly I found it astounding that such ongoing social violence was not only being tolerated, but supported by the left wing parties, the national media company DR and various social commentators/comedians. (Another aspect of my metamorphosis is a growing distaste of stand up comics, the vast majority of whom appear to be peddling a political agenda rather attempting to entertain their audience.)

Prior to last years national election, Århus (or Aarhus for those of you unable to see Danish type) lost one of its cultural bastions. For thirty years artists had been able to utilise a public workshop called 'Huset' (translates to The House). Huset was a place designed to offer people in the city all those opportunities for artistic endeavour they required. It had metal and wood workshops, photo studios, an IT suite, pottery and sculpture workshops, a printing press and it offered child care as well. In an apparent bid to make the government look bad, Århus City Council, under the control of the socialists, shut down Huset just prior to the election. Naturally socialist politicians and socialist political groups then held demonstrations against the shut down, hammering home the message that the government and its cut backs was to blame. I attended such a demonstration because I sometimes used Huset to attend life drawing classes. In fact it later transpired that Huset had been shut down prematurely at the behest of the socialists who had decided to allocate its funding else where but the election was over and lost by the time this information reached the public.

The real kicker came months later. Instead of working to reopen the foremost artistic resource of Århus and when after almost a year of left wing rioting, the Autonome were given Huset, for free, to be their new 'Youth house'.

I can't begin to describe how irritated I am over this. In effect the Autonome are the Brown shirts of my day. They attack and destroy anything they do not like; for example any obvious American business like McDonalds. They use firebombs and physical violence, and they torch cars belonging to members of the public. There is no place for this in a modern country and to see it happening, and being supported and even rewarded by the socialists at the expense of the city's artists is an outrage.

Against this backdrop, Islamic extremism is gathering pace and the very same people who burn cars, riot and attack the police and who have the audacity to accuse their opponents of being 'Nazi's', walk side by side with Muslims who not only deny the Holocaust, but who claim Palestinians are victims of the 'true holocaust'. Whilst Muslims murder and rape women to a degree never before seen in this country, our socialist politicians are busy ranting about Israel and accusing the rest of us of being racists for not wanting to allow Islam to spread further into our country.

I can't pretend any more. I grew tired of making excuses for people who, after being given asylum, reward us with violence, rape, political intimidation. I'm sick of seeing my politicians catering to the unreasonable, if not insane demands of unelected clerics and grovelling to the kings and tyrants of Arabia. I'd rather be poor but free than be a fat dhimmi facing an Islamic future.

Islamic supramcists march freely and without fear along our streets holding up placards and banners which call for our violent destruction, but should I dare to draw a cartoon, I will live not only in fear of the Muslims, but I shall like as not be attacked by the EU, by the socialists and by the Autonome.

As things stand now, it may go either way. The minority liberal conservative government has survived three elections now, though it rules with a very slender margin granted to it by the nationalists and by a new centrist party run by a secular Muslim MP who campaigns against Islamification (and who has a secret service bodyguard as a result). Denmarks immigration laws are said to be the strictest in Europe as a consequence of the influence the Nationalsist have had on the minority goverment, but for how long will this state of affairs continue? Sooner or later the socialists will return to power.

Over the course of the last year I've become ever more sceptical of western politics, and our ability to govern our lives through democracy. It seems to me now that democracy is weak against wealthy interests (the American election where the biggest bag of gold usually wins being a good parallel example). I find that our greatest problems, over population and pollution are not being addressed but are being compounded by the ongoing demand for more EU citizens by immigration and our ability to keep religion out of politics is steadily loosing ground.


With regards to I have been unable to divorce my reality from my opinions. My mother died last year and my mind has become a far darker place as a result. I don't think this has led to any change in my political opinions but it has certainly made it harder for me to think better of people. I've read more than I've bothered to comment on and when I have commented its usually been because I was disgusted by something. The whole Obama vs Clinton feud didn't really interest me as much as the blatently obvious manipulation I saw there.

I applaud Wertz for sticking to his principles. His posts were lucid, well written and germane to the debate. He didn't deserve the frenetic, personal harrassment he received.

I bow to DTOM who seems to have blossomed into an excellent debator, delivering astute post after post and to Mrs Pigpen and Victoria Silverwolf who remain my favourite posters for their clarity of comprehension and their general level headedness.

And I salute (in a non military fashion) Jaime and Mike for doing a difficult job well.

Thank you to every one who responded to me in a polite and rational manner.

• American Presidential campaigns last for far too long - they've been at it for over a year and haven't even had the formal Nominee announcements yet, let alone the proper Presidential campaigning - and they cause more divisions than they heal here on and in America as a whole
• In Britain, the "New Labour" experiment has failed and they should give the people an election now to get it over with and give back the party to the members who believe in principles other than clinging on to power as long as possible and maximising their own earning potential when they do leave office.
• As I have found every year since I joined , and on every visit to America I've ever made, Americans have some quite fundamental thoughts and ideas in common with one another, while those same things are often quite starkly different to the fundamental thoughts and ideas that Europeans have in common, either within their own polities or the fewer number that they have in common across the continent.
  Most notable are the default views of the state and of elected leaders.

I'll explain that last point in more depth outside the bullet list.

As a rule Americans tend to be very cynical about or even suspicious of the state (Federal government especially), while they have a deep and enduring need to have faith in the people they elect to run it, or maybe more especially for the offices they hold. Areas of the economy or of public affairs where that Europeans expect state involvement as seen as undesirable or even offensive if proposed in America (e.g. health - the creation of a European-style state-funded comprehensive health system is supported only by the leftmost fringe of liberalism, and modest proposals for the extension of basic cover are opposed by a majority).

On the other hand, even the deep-seated dislike of the opposite ends of the political spectrum for their opponents - e.g. of Republicans for Bill Clinton, or of Democrats for George W Bush - seems to carry with it a sense that they have somehow demeaned or sullied the purity of the office of President. Despite there being only two or three examples since the Revolution of Presidents who didn't lie in office, and none of Presidents who made no mistakes at all, Americans continue to believe that their elected leaders can and should be exemplary human beings.

There is nothing wrong in this, unless you assume that they are perfect and incorruptable (which is rather more dangerous than assuming they are all venal), or - worse - refuse to believe that they not even when presented with evidence, or assume that some minor character flaws are indicative of an overall unfitness for office.

I'm thinking less of Bill Clinton's peccadilloes, and more of the elaborate steps taken under the FDR administration to avoid being seen in a wheelchair, the efforts of the JFK administration to hide his ailments, etc.

Europeans are almost the polar opposite - aside from some fringe right-wingers (including, alas, much of the modern UK Conservative party, though, tellingly, not Mrs Thatcher while she was PM). Most people here think that the state and its institutions should be, and broadly are) forces for good - arguments here between left and right are about the nature and extent of state involvement in the economy and society, not that it has no place in either (as is quite common, though not entirely mainstream, in the USA).

Most Europeans I've spoken to or read about, and certainly most British people, reserve their cynicism for the politicians , not institutions of state. When talking about politicians, "they're all the same", "you can tell they are lying when their lips move", "they're just in it for themselves", "they never listen to us" are practically truisms over here, but they are not something I ever remember reading on or hearing in the US media (be that mediated by the British media, or directly on my trips to the US).

Even now, after five years or so on , I have to keep reminding myself of this, sometimes to just understand what's going on.

But maybe it's just me - what do you think, moif?

I think you are right.

But look at it from their perspective. They're like children by comparison, and I don't (necesarily) mean that in a bad way. I mean, look at the history of European politics and compare our thousands of leaders to their forty three presidents... GW Bush is often described as 'the worst president ever', and may be he is too... but how does he compare to Sulla? Or Caligula? or Napoleon? or Ludwig II of Bavaria (mad as a hatter), or Henry VIII? or Catherine de Medici, or Pope Urban II, or Chamberlain...?

I've even seen people compare Bush to Hitler, which would be hilarious if it weren't so scary. It seems to me that we Europeans have had our scepticism spoon fed for twenty centuries or more whilst Americans really don't have a clue. We've had the 'advantage' of being governed by the greatest monsters in history whilst they're still living in some kind of cute fairy tale.

Whoa.... those aren't truisms in America? In fact, up until you posted that, I thought some of those sayings were American-born Aphorisms. Like "How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving." I've been hearing that one since forever. Or how about the "they're all the same" saying. Been hearing that one always and forever too: in fact, right up until the Bush era, there was a saying I used to hear in democratic circles that went something like this: "the difference between democrats and republicans is democrats say they want to help the poor, then they go and screw the poor, while republicans just flat out say it to your face: screw the poor." You can take that saying and substitute blacks or the elderly for the poor.

One thing that might have changed that is the 2000 election. After 8 years of Clinton Centrism, a lot of democrats didn't see much of difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush, who spent his campaign promising to be a center-right compassionate conservative. We stayed home on election day or voted for Ralph Nader in protest of a system that seemed rigged against any real change, and boy did we pay for it.

So if you've been visiting the states over the past 8 years, you might not have seen the kind of apathy towards our electoral processes that reigned throughout much of the post-Vietnam/Nixon era. For 40 years, Americans viewed the government in much the way you say the English view government -- as a distant, uncaring, and alien entity. That notion was supported both by the extra-legal antics of Richard Nixon, and the rhetoric of conservatives like Ronald Reagan.

But lately, I would say a lot of democrats have learned their lesson: if you brush off government as something alien and distant, it's not going to come back and beg you for penance. Governments going to go off and spend your money on wars you don't want, and jam through laws that reduce the constitution to an archaic non-binding suggestion, and cater solely to the tastes of social conservatives who'll line up in the snow to keep Terry Shiavo alive. So yeah, I haven't heard a lot that kind of apathy coming from Americans lately. Folks in liberal circles might not exactly think the world of John Kerry, but, given the circumstances, they'll pretend he's Bobby Kennedy if it keeps Bush out of power.