My apologies for the delay in putting this up. I was working on the calendar post when our power went out on the 14th and it completely slipped my mind thereafter.

Book: we the media

Invited: Absolutely anyone and everyone. Feel especially invited should you be interested in the World Wide Web and our modern community. Given the recent happenings on OlyBlog, I'd really like to see a lot of people getting in on this.

Question: What if your meeting date and time is too limited for my schedule but I'm still interested in reading and talking about the subject matter of this book? Does that mean I'm completely s.o.l.?

Answer: It means you don't get to share a Thursday drink and in-person conversation with fellow OlyBloggers. Aside from that, as per our stated objective of considering the Web's impact on modern community, it is recommended that you share thoughts on this book, the universe and everything with the rest of us in the BookClub's forum (click the link!).

How can I get a copy of this book? I recommend going through a local book seller (in the spirit of community). As well, I encourage anyone who has a copy and has read it before the meeting to share it with your OlyBloggin' neighbors. Let us expand the conversation and bank of knowledge.

I've read posts from, and had challenging conversations with, many interesting and valuable people. I'd like the opportunity to meet most of you one of these days (yes even Olycop, provided it's not over me forgetting to get my tabs soon.)

People whose stance on such issues as flag burning, grafitti and pirate radio had me shaking my head in disbelief also had stances on other issues where I couldn't help but admire them.

However there's one in particular whose maturity must have washed away in the recent rains. His sense of righteousness, his superior attitude concerning himself, his condescension and outright snobbery on those unlike himself makes for an unwelcome environment. Normally I'd forget about it, not give him a moment's thought, but in this house it's impossible. That's life, and there's plenty of other houses to play in. Why waste my brain cells banging my head on the brick wall that is his "tolerance"?

So long - farewell - auf wiedersehen - amen.

Susan Jacoby

In nearly every interview about my book, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism,I am asked whether I am an atheist or an agnostic. The bias--a profoundly American bias--implicit in this question is that only an "unbeliever" would want to write a historical work about the secular influences on the founding and development of our nation.

This question reflects the 25-year ascendancy of right-wing religiosity, which has fostered a general ignorance about and lack of respect for the Enlightenment rationalist side of the nation's heritage.

Although I do not believe that atheism is in vogue at the moment, there is indeed more open discussion of the subject than there was when Freethinkers was published three years ago. This debate has been stimulated by three books--Sam Harris's The End of Faithand Letter to a Christian Nation and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.Both Harris and Dawkins have made the invaluable point--one that has yet to be absorbed by most Americans--that religion does not deserve any special exemption from criticism. Moreover, speaking openly about atheism works to dispel the notion that atheists have horns.

However, both atheism and secularism are still largely excluded from public dialogue about the proper role of religion in American politics--an omission that I consider much more important than pointless debates between believers and nonbelievers about the existence of God.

I have written NBC's Tim Russert several times about the lack of secular representation on his many Meet the Presspanels concerning the relationship between religion and politics. Mr. Russert has never responded to my letters. This subject was discussed once again on the show on Christmas Eve and, once again, there was no secular voice to be heard.

When the influence of religion on politics is analyzed in the press, the dialogue usually ranges from religious conservatism to religious liberalism. No secularists or atheists need apply.

Running from a memory, gagging on the fear,
    strangling on a broken scream and fighting back the tears—
Alone at home and cold as stone I ball up my fists,
    and strike out at the shadows lurking in the mist.

Waking this morning, grateful for the dawn,
    I praise God I’m finally free and that the threat is gone—
Mourn with me this morning and croon like a dove
    for every woman harmed by hate and left to die alone.

Anger is human and forgiveness divine,
    and drums in the distance beat steadily in time—
A fire burns and feelings churn as I warm my pain
    under a sky of slate, clouded o’er by rain.

AB Christie

Is this a rule we want to adopt? It seems like it may limit some of our conversations, yet it may help us be more solution based, which I think is, at least it's mine, our over-arching goal. Could we draft a rule that limits religious or political discussions to the hyperlocal realm? Is it possible to still have these discussions but limit them to fact not feeling? I'm not sure what the answer is, I do think that more involved moderators would help.

Obviously many things have come to a head lately. I think that this is healthy, that we are able to explain to each other that things arent' feeling comfy on the blog.

The reason I made this thread was to address a question that I thought of while reading the devolution thread. Where is everyone's breaking point? And when do we realize that we are not getting anywhere in a discussion, and decide to agree to disagree?

I've had a number of threads where I've stopped posting, because I had explained what I thought, and people disagreed with me to the point where explaining the thought further was pointless.

My favorite, was the initial stormans/plan b thread. I adore Ms. Janet, she's a kick to talk to and is very "real" with the way she looks at the world. She and I disagreed heavily on that thread. It wasn't about using plan b, it wasn't about boycotting the store, but about Whether or not Storman had a "right" to carry what he wished to carry in his store. I'm sure that she and I still disagree on this point, I haven't brought it up with her since that thread. My reasoning? I knew where I stood, I knew where everyone else stood and I knew I wasn't going to change anyone's mind. I disagreed with some points, and left it at that.

I wonder if that isn't one of the bigger problems we have swirling around. Being ok with yourself, by being ok with letting someone disagree with you, even if you think it's morally corrupt, even if it's not equal or fair.

This blog is a wonderful little representation of part of the Olympia culture. Many of us agree on different points, and disagree on others. I think we really need to ask ourselves: Am I going to change this persons mind? Do I NEED to change this persons mind? Have I said what I needed to say? Can I let this be what it is, and move on?

Ever since he founded the 'conservative' (in quotes because it's not traditional conservativism - it's more of a fascist right wing ideology) mouthpiece The Washington Times in 1982, he has been forced to pour as much as $3 billion dollars into its coffers to maintain solvency.

Robert Parry has recently written a muckraking report to expose this devious relationship between Rev. Moon and a cadre of Washington 'elites.'

Here's a link: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/122706.html

The GOP's $3 Billion Propaganda Organ By Robert Parry (A Special Report) December 27, 2006 The American Right achieved its political dominance in Washington over the past quarter century with the help of more than $3 billion spent by Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon on a daily propaganda organ, the Washington Times, according to a 21-year veteran of the newspaper.

George Archibald...

As we make the transition to 2007, and to a new form of organization for the blog, I'd like to make some comments on the current state of discourse. As a prelude, I'd just like to note that OlyBlog has, in its short life, been through some difficult times when it seemed like the atmosphere became too noxious for human existence. We held our breath and survived to breathe another day. It seems like we are in one of those hold-your-breath times again. In general, however, my experience of the blog over the past year has been one of wonder and amazement. I marvel at the creativeness of content here, and the connections that people have formed through OlyBlog. All in all, I think it has been a good thing, and I would like to see it continue.

Having said that, I need to ask for help. I am really finding it hard to read some of the opinions that some of my fellow OlyBloggers see fit to post. I have become personally burned out by the process, and have therefore decided to decentralize control of the blog. I don't think this is going to solve the problem, but it will mean that it is not my problem alone to deal with.

Here is the problem: some folks think OlyBlog is a place to say things that aren't true. When confronted with this fact, rather than support their argument, they claim bias and intolerance. I personally find this challenging. For some issues, "balance" is inappropriate. There are no balanced positions on the questions of whether HIV causes AIDS, CO2 causes global warming, or whether it is wrong to euthanize or sterilize prison populations. In some cases, science gets to decide. In others, our humanity must prevail.

So, what to do with assertions such as have been made on OlyBlog that CO2 isn't a problem, we should do away with prisoners, etc? Perhaps it is a mistake to allow people to post on non-local topics at all. Maybe if we were constrained to just talking about Olympia, we wouldn't run into these kind of inflammatory topics and everything would be good. I don't know.

Maybe we should do nothing. So far, it has been intolerable for me to just let these assertions go unchallenged. I don't have infinite amounts of time, so I can't do it alone. In truth, I don't want to do it any more. As Mike and Chad360 have pointed out, it is a big waste of time.

One of the things that is most puzzling to me about this whole situation is why anyone would persistently want to push ideas that were so unwelcome. Is there some underlying need to create controversy? Diversity is great, and I welcome the process of trying to overcome differences of opinion as a way to broaden perspective and incorporate new ideas. But when the exact same message keeps getting pushed on me again and again with no tuning or adjustment, maybe it is time for the pusher to find a different audience.

I'm looking for suggestions here, because I'm about done.