Everything I ever needed to know I learned from the Simpsons. Loved the quote and the source.

I agree with you. There are some issues that I feel strongly about, but I am always up for a good debate and opinion sharing. I hate the Ann Coulters, Sean Hannitys, and Michael Moores of the world who are convinced that they know what is right and those who disagree are idiots.

During the election, I was called an America hater and unpatriotic simply because I was supporting Kerry over Bush. Not only did I not listen to those people on those things, but was closed even to their good arguments.

I have resorted to believing that in American debate it is better to be loud and hostile then it is to be right.

Well, I suppose all publicity is good publicity.

As amusing as this is, you've now reached the height of absurdity. If you had bothered to read my post instead of stopping at the first sentence, you would have seen that I do in fact present arguments and that I am not calling you or anybody who disagrees with me a racist.

In my post, I considered why the torture scandals have not had a greater impact on people's impressions of Bush. I suggested that ONE possible explanation is that people are more willing to give the Administration a free hand when it comes to dealing with brown people than with white people. Is that really so far-fetched? Since 9/11 we've been drowning detainees to the point of unconsciousness, chaining them up in stress positions, beating them mercilessly, running electric currents through their testicles, leaving them naked in extreme heat or cold, and conducting mock executions (all reported in the NY Times). Now imagine that we were doing all of this to white people. Do you really think that our collective response would have been identical? Do you really think that Ashcroft would've come under no more fire if he had been detaining mainly white Christians after 9/11? Or if similar tactics had been employed after Oklahoma City?

In any case, I was merely questioning why this scandal hasn't erupted. But you would have your readers believe that I'm accusing all Bush supporters of racism. That's absurd.

I present strong opinions on my blog. But I would never call someone stupid or a racist for disagreeing. Nor, unlike you, would I attack straw men because I have some axe to grind. To quote Bart: In my weaker moments, I almost pity you.

Mike,

The argument I have made, both here and on your weblog, is that your piece suggests that people who disagree with you are not just wrong, but self-evidently wrong. In reading your piece it appeared to me that you were not inviting debate, but closing it off. That was not your intent, but that is nonetheless how I read it. You're free to believe that I'm simply a fool with an axe to grind (although I confess to curiosity here: what axe am I grinding?), but if you're attempting to convince me that your point has merit, I'd submit that gratuitous insults isn't the best road to take. I understand that it wasn't your intent, but intent doesn't mean a thing when you're trying to convince others, only results. For example, it has been my intent to point out to you that your debating style isn't tuned to convince others of your arguments, but clearly I'm doing a lousy job of getting that point across, so what difference does it make what my intent is?

As to your claim regarding racism, here is the offending paragraph:

All of this raises a truly vexing question: what is it going to take to get people to turn against Bush? If torturing the innocent doesn't do it, what would do it? My girlfriend (the sorest loserette) suggested to me that Americans are too selfish to give a damn about the torture of brown skinned people. The average Joe thinks that if a little torture is what it takes to make us safer, then so be it. This attitude is both abhorrent and seriously misguided. We're engaged in a battle for hearts and minds. Even on purely self-interested grounds there is no justification for torturing detainees.

Please show me where in that paragraph you suggested this was an explanation rather than the explanation? Again, I believe that was your intent, but reading that paragraph can you understand how the reader might come away thinking that it is your opinion that Americans don't care about Abu Ghraib because they're selfish and racist? Nowhere do you present this as one possibility: it is the only explanation you offer. I'm willing to take you at your word that it was assumed there were other possible reasons, but you didn't offer any nor did you suggest there might be any.

Also, you once again insist in claiming that the U.S. has committed acts you have no proof of. I have asked you three times for proof, and three times you have ignored me. Why? (And don't point to that NYT article, because I've read it and it does not support your claims.)

Finally, if you wish to engage in ad hominems, I will insist that in the future you maintain them on your own weblog. I maintain comments to encourage debate, not to give people opportunities to insult me. I was sorely tempted to respond in kind, but I refrained because it would have done no good and I have instead attempted to answer your criticisms. Might I suggest we would both do well to live by that policy?

Andrew,

In the block quote you pull out of my post, you'll notice that I don't even claim to subscribe to the view I'm describing. In fact, I attribute this view to someone else. That should tip you off that this is merely one view among many. Second, in your post you say:

"And while I'm concerned over the extent of abuses committed in Iraq and Guantanamo, I have yet to see sufficient evidence to suggest this was a deliberate policy as opposed to a result of poor supervision lower in the chain of command. According to Mike, that means I'm a racist."

So, clearly you think that, according to my post, anyone who doesn't believe that the Bush Administration is responsible for Abu Ghraib is a racist. While I see how someone who is interested in arguing against a straw man might reach this conclusion, I don't see how a reasonable person could reach this conclusion. I mentioned racism as a possible explanation for why the Abu Ghraib scandal isn't bigger than it is. I never accused anyone who disagrees with me of racism.

Frankly, I don't know what more to say about your insatiable requests for more evidence of torture. Perhaps you could point out where my evidence falters or perhaps you could offer an alternative account. That would be far more constructive. I'll just repeat what I said to you on my blog, and you can tell me why you're unconvinced:

"First, it's clear that there was torture at Abu Ghraib. Surely you'll admit at least that much. Second, there is plenty of evidence that the use of torture was much more widespread. This evidence comes from detainees themselves, the Red Cross, anonymous whistleblowers (in Hersh's articles), and now from CIA officers (as reported in the Times). Also recall that those accused at Abu Ghraib claimed that they were not acting on their own, and the sophistication of their torture techniques confirms this.

Still, this may not be enough to implicate the Administration. After all, as you say, they may be victims of "bad legal advise". But do you really believe that this legal advice was unsolicited? Do you think Gonzales just decided on his own to write a memo about torture just for the fun of it? Surely he was asked by his bosses to consider the question. The most reasonable explanation is that someone in the White House asked Gonzales to produce a legal rationale for torture. This explanation is entirely consistent with the Administration's rejection of the Geneva Convention and its policy to allow for the seemingly endless detention of suspected terrorists. Note further the administration's redefinition of torture to include only that which rises to the level of "death" or "organ failure".

Perhaps, as you say, the Administation was simply unclear about its policies on these matters. I think this is extremely unlikely, but even if it's true then the Administration is guilty of negligence. So the best case scenario for the Administration is negligence and incompetence, and the worst case scenario is that they are war criminals."

Let's drop the issue of who is closing off debate and who is encouraging it. It's become tedious.

"That should tip you off..." Clearly I'm not doing a good job of expressing myself here, but I'll try again because I think this is important.

Let's examine your latest missive: in two sentences you accuse me of attacking a straw man and being unreasonable. If you're looking to encourage debate, I'd love to hear your explanation of how that does it. After all, if I'm an unreasonable man who likes to attack straw men, what's the purpose of debating with me?

Let me state this very plainly: if you tell me that it was not your intent to say imply that those who disagree with you are racists, I believe you. But you didn't say "this is a possible reason," you presented it as the only reason (and you gave no indication that you disagreed with your girlfriend's opinion). I understand that it was your intent to present this as a possibility, but that was not clear in the written text I quoted above. So I drew the conclusion I quoted above, which I have since modified based on your statements.

Look, writing opinion pieces is a lot like selling something: it doesn't matter what you message you want to convey, only what message is received. If you're trying to persuade me that the Bush administration has committed a crime, but you bring up racism as a possible motive for those who don't agree with you, you're going to involve their emotions on a tangential issue that detracts from your primary point. Now I'm is not even interested in discussing the point you're making, because I'm angry because I think you've accused me of being a racist. At this juncture (which we are now past, this is for example purposes only) you're having a difficult time getting your points on torture across because I'm distract by what I consider your accusation. In my opinion, this is an ineffective method of getting your primary point across.

Or take the example we see in this post. My intent was to point out that many people who honestly want to encourage debate sometimes use language that harms their attempts to advance the argument rather than help it. But because I cited your post as an example of this, I hurt my own cause in trying to convince you of the problem because you became defensive about your post because I interpreted it differently than you intended it. So now you keep returning to the point you want to discuss and I'm having a very difficult time making clear my point (although I suppose this discussion should illustrate it well for third parties who aren't emotionally involved) about how poor choices of words or examples can distract people from the point you're trying to make.

For the record, the point I'm attempting to discuss is not who is closing off debate (although I do find it amusing that you attempt to close off debate on who's trying to close debate), but what are more effective ways to encourage debate. I believe this is a valuable discussion, as I think this is a goal we are both seeking.

I actually didn't think that he was calling everyone who disagreed racists or that he was even putting forth his own view. Maybe he was using his girlfriend to give himself some sort of separation and deniability of the issue, but I thought he was just putting forth one view and not necessarily promoting one.

As far as your post, I do agree that the debate has become trivial. Everyone promotes their own view as if they were given that insight on stone tablets, but nobody listens or takes the time to think.

Thanks for your input, Scott. Perhaps I was overly sensitive. I apologize for misconstruing the words, but I maintain that the paragraph is a distraction from the main thrust of the article and it can cause people to end up arguing on a tangent, as in this case.

Perhaps we should be like the Minnesota elected officials and go to group therapy so that they can work together. Can you believe it, marriage counseling for state senators and congressman?