It's useful that I take time in my spare time to focus on various things* other than political matters, since they can be a sort of drug after awhile. An unpleasant one of sorts given the limited nature of the current situation for those who want so much more out of it. Sometimes, a reality moment is necessary. Consider the fact that mortality numbers are dropping globally in significant part because of various efforts that might in some general sense be deemed "liberal."
So, there are some basic limits, and it seems to me that they suggest pretty clearly who to support in various cases. I realize I am not in the majority here in various cases, but it still amazes me on some level, while also aggravating me and so forth. For instance, why exactly was Sen. Scott Brown a credible candidate? I can see why he was nominated; quite a different matter actually electing the guy. This is who you think should fill Kennedy's shoes? Really? I know Kennedy grew into the role, but he was basically replacing his brother. From what I know about Brown, he comes off as some basic political hack. These sorts have a place, and make credible candidates in various cases, but in this one? I know ... it can be explained.
And, so forth in various cases. For instance, I can understand someone opposing using the courts to protect same sex marriage rights and so forth. They are in no way necessarily bigots. They also can differentiate Loving in that that took time to develop and racism was deemed by then simply wrong, at least as something that can be defended above the board. I can dispute various things here, but it has some sense of reasonableness. But, when then some go into "this isn't marriage," it was "understood" not to be covered (as if miscegenation was) and so forth. IOW, bullshit.
The same with various other comments online. The tired Obama critics that fail to see that Republicans on various grounds are worse get really tiresome. There can be reasonable difference of opinion here on various issues. Fine. But, those worried about government spending or alleged libertarians really can't think Republicans these days are better on that front? Selective use of the evidence (e.g., Democrats used the filibuster at times, so it's just "more of the same") at some point is also annoying. Basic facts, putting aside debatable principles, are ignored. It can get to be a cesspool.
Some people online are best not dealt with, though sometimes they say something stupid enough that you are compelled to respond in part because you like to hear yourself talk. For instance, someone says the federal courts should just stay out of "marriage" issues. Right. So, when some federal tax issue involving just that comes up (to take an obvious case -- military spouses), what? This sort of thing is stupid or lazy ... or both. That is, the failure to actually respond to being pointed out to be obviously wrong is often just lazy.
But, comments are on some level egotistical, so you have to deal with that too. Actually thinking can hurt that. I find this to be the case with various smart asses online. Their reasoning is shallow, but it doesn't affect their sarcasm or vitriol much. Actually, it's easier to do that when you write in simplistic terms. Consider this case, where Dahlia Lithwick -- who apparently is not an American citizen but has lived, studied, worked and raised a family here for twenty years -- is criticized for saying "we Americans" and allegedly trying to be a "spokesperson" for them. Seriously? And, one of the people supportive of the criticism is someone who I have found reasonable if not always sharing my point of view. Reasonable people can have blind spots.
A taste of one of my replies, after the person basically ignored me:
What then is the American, this new man?...He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He has become an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all races are melted into a new race of man, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world. Americans are the western pilgrims.
-- Letters from an American Farmer
One test, btw, is that Dahlia is liable to be charged of treason against the U.S. She has shown by her extended residence and life here that she has a responsibility of "allegiance" to the U.S.; citizenship is not required. Likewise, the government has various obligations in return, putting aside her concern for the people she has lived among and in some cases loved for years.
Links can be found in the original. It isn't rocket science to note that some people just have a radically different way of looking at things. But, sometimes it is useful to keep it in mind.
[And, now there is another reply with the claim I did basically nothing to respond to the allegation made. That is, the person doesn't agree with me. Not quite the same thing.]
---
* My last book review is a case in point -- it's good to move from the "300s" in the Dewey Decimal system, shall we say. Also, via a recent interview on Democracy Now! with Robert Redford, I sought out Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Yet to see the main picture, though have seen some clips from famous scenes.
Very good bonus features, including a full length documentary about the real outlaws and "making of" feature from the time when the film was first released. The latter is particularly interesting in that the director is the narrator and refreshingly blunt about things at times. Nothing like a few "fucks" to do that. Great final line. The 1994 interviews also are interesting.