Hmmm.

[MadHound]

One thing I've noticed that's been going on for the past couple of years is that speculation, even speculation grounded in sound sourcing, is now discredited.

For instance, when DU began, there would be a report about a possible upcoming Bush policy come out and there would be a discussion about that possible change. Nobody was called out of bounds because the nature of the discussion concerned a possibility, nobody dismissed a person's opinion on the grounds that said policy hadn't been taken, or even confirmed yet.

But lately it seems as though a number of people on this board wish to squelch reports of what options this administration is considering. The basis for that action is that we're only talking about a possibility, with the implication that we can't engage in a discussion of that possibility until it becomes actual fact.

That is not just hypocritical, that is, in essence, undemocratic. Possible policy decisions should absolutely be discussed, and criticism of such possibilities should be heard. Such discussions, the voicing of the will of the people, are essential to how a democracy runs. A political leader puts out, through either direct or indirect methods, what they are thinking about on certain issues, and then listens to the feedback that is generated. There's even a name for this, trial balloons.

Such trial balloons are let loose all the time, and they are an effective means of garnering feedback, they are part of our democratic political discussion. Just because a trial balloon is released via "somebody close to the President. . ." doesn't make it less valid, nor less credible. We all know that administrations have released trial balloons in that fashion since the beginning of this country. So why object to that practice now, with this administration, and not previous administrations? Why object to them at all?

Yes, the information contained in the trial balloon could be incomplete, or even completely wrong. But that's the thing about trial balloons, you never know. Such trial balloons could be such stinkers with the public that nobody wants to claim them. Or they could be outright propaganda lies put out there in order to try and discredit the president. Or they could be spot on correct.

But really, that doesn't matter. It is the discussion that is important, the voicing of opinions and options by the American public, be it on trial balloons, or on actual proposed legislation, that is important. A democracy runs on public opinion, the more public input the better. And even if a discussion is about a trial balloon whose information is completely erroneous, it is still worthwhile to have that discussion, if for no other reason than to clear the air.

So please, rather than trying to squelch discussions about trial balloons, join in the discussion. Put forth your opinion on the matter, make your voice heard. But don't squelch the discussion itself, for if you do, you are trying to squelch one of the essential elements of a democracy, the free and open discussion of policies and politics that effect all of us.

[WillyT]

1. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[tekisui]

2. knr.

[leftstreet]

3. "It is the discussion that is important"

:applause:

That's why I come to DU

K&R

[ReggieVeggie]

4. Absolutely

if you can't discuss it, how can you defend it?

[sufrommich]

5. Disagreeing and trying to squelch discussions are two different

things. Countless times on DU I've seen people try to equate arguing back and forth with trying to squelch discussion and yet can find no proof of the squelching going on. Have there been a massive amounts of locked threads or just people arguing? Because people arguing is an incredibly common occurrence on discussion boards and has absolutely nothing to do with censorship.

Stopping people from discussing things is serious shit.
People disagreeing and arguing, not so much.

[MadHound]

8. Disagreeing I have no problem with,

Geez, if I was coming down on having disagreements with other people, I would be the utmost hypocrite.

But it is trying to squelch discussions about trial balloons, completely and utterly, simply because they are trial balloons, that is what I have a problem with.

[sufrommich]

24. But what you're describing is not "squelching "any discussion.

I have a thing about equating disagreement with censorship, they are far from the same thing.I find a lot of OP's annoying,the fact that they annoy me doesn't mean they exist to censor me.

[MadHound]

26. Actually such squeching happens a lot around here,

I would love to link to some examples, but then I would get busted for calling out certain posters.

[tavalon]

6. And besides, there is ample evidence that we will still talk about it

so it's wasted effort on their part. Yeah, we should talk about every trial balloon that comes out of this slightly less heinous than Bush, administration.

I would like to add that it breaks my heart to say that this administration is only slightly less heinous than the last one. I worked hard to get this administration in there. It feels a lot like wasted work and broken heartedness.

[somone]

14. Hard to tell if it's cruelty or perversity

under either administration

[WheelWalker]

7. Indeed, I mark our humanity by

the predilection toward, and the ability to coalesce thoughtful consideration of future conditions, activities and events.

[Lint Head]

9. Everything should be up for discussion as long as no one is attacked personally.

Calling each other names, except for re-pubic-craps, should be out of bounds if a discussion is to be advanced.

[MadHound]

10. Well, that is against the rules.

Though sometimes that line is cut a bit thin:shrug:

[MadHound]

11. kick n/t

[OhioChick]

12. K&R n/t

[hfojvt]

13. I said that about the Bush tax cuts

before the President caved, there were many rumours that he was going to cave, and others here pointed out that Obama still claimed that he was not going to cave.

But then once he finally announced that he was caving, it was all over but the shouting. It was a done deal in about three days. Once he firmly announced his surrender it was already too late to fight.

HOWEVER

there is a certain unfairness to speculation.

Because the speculator, like the coward, dies a thousand deaths. The speculation itself generates hatred, it seems, before it is even a done deal. The speculation is announced "Obama is gonna cave on the tax cuts"

and the response is NOT - "we have to stop this from happening"

instead it tends to be acceptance, angry acceptance, but acceptance nonetheless

"it figures"
"another knife in the back from Mr. Hope and Change"
"that ratbastard"

but it hasn't happened yet. Couldn't it still be stopped? Shouldn't we wait until somebody swings at us before we strike back? We seem to believe in a doctrine of pre-emption. Where the IF gets lost. It's not "IF he does this, then I will hate him" it goes straight to "I hate him" before the crime has even been committed.

Ultimately, it is not at all effective as a preventive either. Once you have declared your hatred, then why should he work to retain your friendship? No point in trying to woo a spouse who has already filed for divorce. That hardly ever works. Courting somebody else is much more likely to be productive.

[RandomThoughts]

15. Interesting view.

I am not posting to make friends, although friends are nice, there is an adage about having to have 'friends' I think you should have principles, and from there people that agree with you are your friends by concept, not by what you do for them.

I should say I do think friends are important in life, but I think they happen, and are not woo'ed. That seems wrong. If someone is your friend, they just are. Finding a friend is something that just 'happens' when you go about your life.

Many people moving the same direction, not trying to get someone to help you move some direction.

If someone wants something to be a friend, they are not much of a friend. That sounds more like a contractual agreement then friendship, I don't really think like that.


Just like the person that sends the beer and travel money to me wont be more or less of a friend for sending that, it is due, not something to get a change of principle or attitude. That would be trying to earn it, when it is already due.

Many try to network friends,

I think it is better to think on concepts, and people that agree have similar concepts. Friends are something else, although I consider some people that like me, and some that don't like me, as friends, so maybe I don't understand the concept the same way as some other people.

[hfojvt]

18. I am thinking of friend as the opposite of foe

Ultimately in the political world it is black and white. You are gonna vote for me (my friends) or vote for somebody else (my enemies).

As a politician I can make friends, or try to make them, by voting a certain way. If I vote to raise teacher salaries, for example, then lots of teachers will be my friends. Or they better be. If they do not support somebody who supports them, then nobody is gonna support them.

Now you say that the politician should vote on principles and let the friends fall where they may. In one sense that sounds good, but in another sense you can have a George W. Bush who is gonna follow his principle "total indulgence for the rich" and not give a crap what anybody thinks about it.

In another sense, principles can go either way. Take teacher salaries. What is the principle? Say it is "I value education". You might say then that "because I value education, I value teachers, and believe they should be richly compensated" therefore I am voting to increase professor salaries.

But you could just as easily say that "because I value education, I want it to be affordable, so that more people can get an education. Therefore, I am voting to cut professor salaries because the tuition is too damn high.

Also when it comes to principles, I think most people have levels. There are things I know a fair amount about and care deeply about, and there are other, much larger areas where I do not know as much and do not care as much. So there would be a triage. Things I am for, things I am against and things where I could be persuaded to go either way. And there are competing interests, like teachers, administrators, students and taxpayers and with any decision there will probably be winners and losers. Each side is going to claim principles and try to claim the moral high ground. But it is easier to win friends over to your side.

If you start your sales pitch with "you are a two-faced, backstabbing, lying piece of crap" followed by "and you should vote for X" that is not gonna be a very persuasive argument. It's better to start with "I like you, Tripper, you are a gentleman and a scholar" followed by "but if you vote for X that is going to make you look like a two faced, backstabbing, lying piece of crap".

I said the same thing when Bush was President. I wanted our war protest to be anti-war, not anti-Bush. By showing that we already hated Bush, we made it that much less likely that he would care what we think, and it also drove away potential allies. Another 20 or 100 Bush supporters at our rally would be a good thing if they were also there to oppose the war.

But then I was standing for the principle there. It was war that I hated - on principle, not just because it was being proposed by a President that I didn't vote for.

[pinto]

16. "It is the discussion that is important". I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly.

I think part of the process is the same in the political, the public and the DU spheres.

Speculation on what Congress, the Administration or the Courts may do is speculation, not a done deal. Where the confusion comes in, imho, is when speculation is presented as accomplished fact. Or, conversely, when speculation is dismissed out of hand. Neither foster constructive political discourse and neither agree to discuss an issue as speculative. There's a middle ground.

We live in a political "sound bite" world. And are less well served for it, even though it's effective at times. I think if political discussions among all parties would work toward less bite and more discourse, we'd all be better off.

And, there's always the point - northing's a done deal in politics until a bill is debated and presented, a vote cast and a signature is put to paper. That's the process.

We miss the boat all around if we don't be part of it.

Thanks for your post.

[ProSense]

17. How does one squelch discussion by offering an opinion?

"So please, rather than trying to squelch discussions about trial balloons, join in the discussion. Put forth your opinion on the matter, make your voice heard. But don't squelch the discussion itself, for if you do, you are trying to squelch one of the essential elements of a democracy, the free and open discussion of policies and politics that effect all of us. "

Squelching discussion is straw man. Someone's opinion, regardless of what it is, cannot squelch discussion because it doesn't prevent anyone else from commenting and continuing the discussion.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

20. Sure it can,

Happens all the time around here. Somebody starts a thread on a trial balloon that's been put out there. Somebody else comes along and keeps hammering home the point that hey, this is a trial balloon that is being discussed, and since we're engaged in speculation, it isn't a valid discussion and we shouldn't be discussing such speculation until it turns out to be fact.

I'm very familiar with the tactic, see it all the time. You should be familiar with it too, it is quite common. You want me to post some links so you can see what I'm talking about?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pacifist Patriot]

29. It's not the offering of an opinion, it's the comments...

that we shouldn't even be discussing the issue because it hasn't been verified as done and on the books yet. I know exactly what the OP is talking about. I've seen it already in the threads regarding the proposal to cut heating assistance.

Rather than expressing opinions on whether the administration should be proposing this in the budget or not, there have been people who pooh-pooh the entire discussion because we haven't seen concrete evidence yet that the proposal has been made. It's the "cut the administration some slack and let's wait and see what happens" mindset that isn't always appropriate. We can and should discuss and express opinions on rumors and proposals as well as concrete actions.

[ProSense]

31. That's still an opinion

"it's the comments that we shouldn't even be discussing the issue because it hasn't been verified as done and on the books yet."

Saying something is speculation is a valid opinion, but it's still just an opinion and cannot (has no force) to squelch discussion.

[Pacifist Patriot]

32. Yes, saying something is speculation is a valid opinion, but...

it's not exactly discussing the pros and cons of what is being speculated. And yes, comments like "let's wait and see what happens rather than fret about it now" does not contribute to the discussion about the issue and therefore squelches it. You really can't see the difference between offering an opinion as to the status of the issue and discussing the issue itself?

[ProSense]

34. That doesn't matter.

"Yes, saying something is speculation is a valid opinion, but... it's not exactly discussing the pros and cons of what is being speculated."

Fore example: "I don't believe it." "Sounds like a rumor." "Disgusting!" "+1"

All responses that convey an opinion, but none have the capacity to squelch discussion.

[Pacifist Patriot]

36. I have a feeling you and I define squelching discussion differently.

We'll have to leave it at disagree.

[pacalo]

39. Squelching discussion is to dismiss fear & speculation based on articles

citing insiders' information because it hasn't yet been formally announced by Obama himself. It really shouldn't be necessary to explain this. As Democrats, we should all be appalled when a Democratic president's policies don't reflect the principles for which we voted. I voted for the change (interpreted as improvement) more than I voted for the man, meaning my family's quality of life is more important to me than Obama's charismatic personality. I don't give any president a free pass when his policies don't reflect what he advertised. And we should be able to sort it out without being viewed as a traitor. He's not a god.

[Bragi]

23. I agree entirely, but please supply a link

I find it amusing (and sometimes annoying) when someone at DU writes a sentence that begins: "In my view..." which is followed by a respondent demanding a link!

It isn't always clear to me whether this demand comes from an inability to actually formulate a counter argument, or from the mistaken view that demanding a link is itself a counter-argument.

Good posting.

(In case anyone is in doubt, the subject line above is sarcastic)

[GoCubsGo]

25. Thank you for calling a trial balloon a trial balloon.

When some people see them, they act like the proposals are already set in stone. I often think the whole point of them is to piss people off, so that they get off their asses and onto their Congressperson's ass.

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. One has to wonder about the intent sometimes, yes.

[boston bean]

27. K&R

[progressoid]

28. I miss the bi-monthly "We're gearing up to invade Iran" posts.

:P

[Uzybone]

33. or the Bush martial law declaration

[newtothegame]

35. Or the Seymour Hersh "I'll have to open up a 2nd phone line on January 20th, 2009" posts.

Seymour Hersh? Calling Seymour Hersh!!! Where are these thousands of people that were going to come forward to you?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lonestarnot]

38. K & R!!!!!!!!! to the MOOOOOON!

[rucky]

40. FTW