<p>Full steam ahead!</p>
<p>Sometimes when the heat gets to be a bit much, I’ll leave the kitchen for a while for some cooler air. But I always come back - it’s where the best conversationalists hang out.</p>
<p>Good for you, Digmedia, just be sure to chime in when it comes to scientific theories : ).</p>
<p>“I pledge to try and resist temptation to respond to political threads on the Parents Cafe, and if I do respond, will welcome efforts by fellow parents to stop my backsliding and to get me back on the wagon.”</p>
<p>I am afraid though, that, once again, I must be the grammatical heavy here – and the fact that no other poster saw the above, glaring breech of correct usage makes me really wonder at the depth of your collective educations.</p>
<p>This one in particular really is bewildering. You, Dig, said “I pledge to try AND [caps mine] resist…” Well, what is it?! Are you going to first “try” AND THEN “resist” (pretty confident, are you?), or are you going to try TO resist (which brings the “try” back into the equation – since it is not a sure thing)? If we could always just “try and…” do something, why not simply leave the “try” out of it altogether, since we are going to do it anyway?!</p>
<p>Since this thread refers to politics, I’m not reading it… :)</p>
<p>I had to leave the “try” in there because I know I will backslide… </p>
<p>“I will try TO resist…”</p>
<p>Never. It’s too much fun to give up.</p>
<p>Take the rest of the day off. You’ll feel better in the morning.</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
<p>parent2noles: “its too much” fun to give up. Not.</p>
<p>Well, all things in moderation. Visit and post on college BBSs responsibly.</p>
<p>This has been a [color=blue]Public Service Announcement for the benefit of all hyperactive cyberparents.[/color]</p>
<p>You have got to see this. Be sure to read the sample pages.</p>
<p><a href=“http://littledemocrats.net/[/url]”>http://littledemocrats.net/</a></p>
<p>Dig, took the same pledge, although I doubt anyone noticed my absence. Being in India and China for the past two weeks with little internet access helped in the cold turkey withdrawal.</p>
<p>I agree too many of the political threads are more like two groups shouting at each other than two groups discussing things. And too often the posters don’t even seem to read each others postings.</p>
<p>Some, like aries and xiggi have been thoughtful and thought provoking. Some, whose names I don’t remember 
seem just polemical.</p>
<p>The best thing about the pledge is that I can get other things done…</p>
<p>Count me in–and please, nudge me back to sanity if I backslide! Thanks! :)</p>
<p>A kinder gentler CC…It takes a village…Can anyone see a thousand points of light??</p>
<p>I’m in!</p>
<p>Forgive me for firing a few final fusillades at your fleeing fannies, but is there not something a touch self-congratulatory about these grand “goodbye” threads? As in “passive aggressive?”</p>
<p>^Why I’m off these threads. In case I needed any more reasons.</p>
<p>edit: Should have read “frantically fleeing fannies”.</p>
<p>Driver,</p>
<p>Great combination of indoctrination and subtle messages, such as the middle picture (“Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does.”) where the Democratic mom and kids cower as the big-footed elephant plods by. And what’s with the homeless-looking guy by the park bench? He looks sinister - he must be with the elephant.</p>
<p>Great books like this demand a sequel. How about “Why Mommy is Anti-War”?</p>
<p>Seriously folks, for the past fifteen (?) years, American political discussions have been ‘happily’ and ‘successfully’ submerged in a pond of screeching. The popularity of Rush Limbaugh is evidence of that phenomena. The use of personal attacks to discourage or drown opposing opinions on CC is further evidence. </p>
<p>Why? Why is it impossible for Americans to discuss political options in a dispassionate manner? Is our ever-present surround-sound media at fault? Is it something about our late stage democracy? Our two party system? Our reliance on media to determine electibility?</p>
<p>digs’ and garland’s desire to retreat is understandable. CC political discussions do descend into non-intellectual backbiting all too often. A collection of Americans at home and abroad, it is difficult for CC to rise above the zeitgeist. Mostly, the site is a perfect reflection of our achievement-obsessed era; ie “We’re the winners! We’re the winners! Waaaaah!”</p>
<p>However, their desire to retreat is also a worry. For one thing, I don’t see any arch-conservatives retreating (has anyone else noticed how well the conservatives write? As a group?). Digs, you realize that if you leave with other liberals, AllMusic and cgm will be left alone to present liberal counterpoints? That’s a big ask for them.</p>
<p>Anyway, I can’t help but think of the wider picture, the wider impact of liberals retreating. Even though it isn’t always easy or pleasant, liberals should stay and participate in some of the political discussions. Sure, take a holiday if it starts to feel personal–or better yet–find a way to deflect the screeching back toward more considered conversation.</p>
<p>
Really?? I hadn’t noticed ;)</p>
<p>Conservative, maybe, but surely not arch, Bandit!</p>
<p>
I completely agree with Cheers’ post, point by point. Political wrestling is nothing new; we are indeed a reflection of our larger society–the shout shows on TV, talk radio, the blogs. Al Franken has a new movie out, and I came across this gem of a quote in a review:
Sound familiar? I know that there are many here who profess to deeply admire Franken, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, et al.–when they are tweaking the president. Why so sensitive when the tables are turned?</p>
<p>There was a time here on CC when someone could initiate a thread title such as [this</a> one](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=178366]this”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=178366), and could reasonably expect to hear nothing but “yes, of course Bush is an idiot.” I remember…I was there. And so were several others who are embedded in the original CC code. I think CC is a better place for the divergence of views, and will be the worse if some decline to participate.</p>
<p>I shouldn’t even be doing this, but since this is a meta-thread, not in itself a political one…</p>
<p>that’s not at all analogous. Franken, Stewart, Colbert, etc. are tweaking those who are more powerful (actually, most powerful). That’s intrinsically different from ridiculing in a community, which happens here, or making fun of the less empowered–whoever might be doing that. To me, anyway.</p>
<p>I’ve become–over time–a fan of cheers, while most often being of a different political disposition. </p>
<p>Garland,
Respectfully, you are wrong about Colbert and Franken. More so Franken, but Colbert’s shtick relies on ridiculing the usual suspects, ad nauseum. Saying that, I think he is, at times, funny but most often obvious and droll. Franken, in my opinion, is more vicious than Limbaugh, and Limbaugh more than Colbert/Stewart.</p>
<p>Solzhenitsyn wrote, in “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” that it is hard for a man comfortable in his warmth to truly sympathize with a man in the cold. Perhaps that’s what you’re missing here; as a liberal you see liberal humor as funny and conservative humor as vicious. Makes sense…but you’re smarter and subtler than that. </p>
<p>At least that is how I’ve read you in the past.</p>