Truth is hard medicine sometimes but we have to face the reality that everything has already changed and either we are able to see it and remould our lives and policies to the necessities that this change invokes or we prolong the process of stagnation, or maybe worse, we empower the destroyers and hoarders.

The American Dream is not a sacred emblem of worship, it was an idea that had it's time and under a better humanity it may have been able to work longer. But when that dream lost it's sense of the oneness of humankind, it slowly evolved to become each man for himself and with that came it's own demise.

The vices of humankind are deep in the root of our brain. Hunger and sex and the will to survive are very close to the drive of greed. It is no wonder to me that greed made it's way through the ranks of power to become the 20th/21st century sum of all vice. If not checked we all have the greed drive working against us through the sensuality of survival which is a corrupted form of survival. Sex sells, whether the sale is logical or not. Hunger sells and we can be provoked to eat what we are given when there is nothing. Greed sells, because it is the pretty shiny thing twinkling and compelling.

We need to break the bondage of greed and cultivate the oneness of humankind again by discerning the difference between the twinkle and reality.

But there is a time to be in people's face and a time to go the subtle route. There are also times to be cautious. Wars and battles are not always won by overt actions. On the contrary, most things in life are accomplished by thoughtful decisions and respect of other people. I don't mean respect for their beliefs necessarily but respect for the persons themselves and what they are able to grasp.

I put atheism in a totally different category simply due to its absence of a "thing". Religion is in your face because of its addition of a "thing". Because religion has to add something they wish to think it has to be defended and even promoted to exist. Atheism does not need to defend or promote because you can't defend or promote nothing.

As an atheist, I promote those things that advance humanity and life; those things do not require atheism but only require a human being. That being said, I would rather promote the causes and qualities that atheism allows me to understand, not atheism as a thing... because it's not a thing.

I am angry. I am angry this day like many are angry at what congress has failed to do by not enacting the obvious, logical and reasonable, due to the loud mouths of disinformation emanating from the halls of plutocracy. The NRA is just a vocal arm of that monstrosity we call big business agenda. I believe most of America is angry as well, but I do not agree with any idea that espouses we kowtow to the machines that promote the lies. Any legal gun owner that does not fight tooth and nail against the NRA bull shit is no friend to America and the future of humankind. They are actually promoting ignorance and slavery, and they promote it through their inaction just as much as with outright support.

I am sick of the half ass attitude that says there is middle ground on any issue concerning gun regulation, social security or Medicare allowing any one of those to be the sacrifice for the other. There should be no ground for compromise on those issues. They should be cut and dry absolutes... except that politics, money... the halls of power and media propaganda as well as the stupidification of America keep us from the most obvious and humanitarian outcome.

I will not yield, sir. I will not stand down on one issue or the parts of an issue to appease the slow process of the dismantling of America, period.

It's very simple: If you want new gun control laws, you must take out the NRA by removing the congresspersons who support them.

But there is a phenomenon in America now that is probably unprecedented. It's a polarization of ideology that seems practically impossible to bridge. Let me make a terribly extreme analogy just for a point... put Gandhi and Stalin in the same room and ask them to find middle ground. There would be no middle ground between these two ideologies; it would never happen. But if you meshed the two mechanically... what do you end up with? Probably something between George Bush and Obama. I think we have tried to find middle ground on issues of race, violence, capitalism, environment, human rights, animal rights, you name it. The problem is, it is like finding middle ground where Grand Canyons of ideology exist.

I wish us all the best in finding the solutions to gun violence and the trauma and mental illness that both precipitates it and follows it. But there is a chasm of understanding between methods that is almost impossible to mesh and therefore reaching that goal of peace probably will not happen without great losses on one side. Only one side.

Concerning WilliamPitt's post....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022509955

That was an incredible thread. There was so much information, so much work and effort by all sides to hash out their demons, I really don't see how that could possibly be locked. I understand the letter of the law reasoning and the "feelings/opinions" of the hosts but it is a shame to snuff out anger and defence in what I see was a major learning experience for most of those involved. There should be a point where the value of a post is determined by the weight of the interest in it, overriding the opinions of a few in the back-room OR using the letter of the law as a tool to find an excuse.

Simplistic overview:

Theists are angry that their belief/heritage is being challenged. Theists are also angry because they feel it is directed at them personally. That's not to say that there aren't comments that are personal but adults usually handle that without too much difficulty.

Non-theists are angry that theistic politics is pushing America toward a theocracy. Non-theists are many times angry because religious people or religious family members have abused them at some point in their lives, maybe psychologically, maybe physically.

My point is that though this was heated and nasty at times, it was anything but dysfunctional. This is the way people learn to BE functional. It was honest. It was emotional. That is what humans do to live and learn. Function is not found in pretence, suppression or dishonesty; it's found in discourse and expression. There is something to be said about "respect", but the definition of that word is where that problem lies. Respect does not disallow argument and it's not necessarily respectful to simply add niceties to the wording to give the disingenuous impression of acceptance. Respect is found in allowing others the right to their own experiences, ideas and maturity. No matter what the common meme is, you don't demand respect, you don't earn respect... you give respect.

One final thing: If it were possible to move such a thread, the real question would be whether it belonged in GD, Religion or Mental Health. ????

Sorry... had to say it... didn't know where else to put it. DF7

I have come to appreciate many of the posters here and I have also seen the face of ugliness. This truly is a microcosm of America which includes all the differences and forms of humanity in every code. I do appreciate this but I just don't fit into a microcosm of anything so it's time to hit the road. Looking through my posts won't reveal much as this has been coming for some time.

I am a believer in rules and regulations as long as they promote the better good and don't stifle common interests and dissemination of information. The rules here don't seem to promote this end and actually undermine that outcome in many ways. In the rough and tumble, good information is lost, bad information is promoted, some people are advanced due to linguistic popularity and others are wished into purgatory for the socially incorrect and basically the site descends into a condition I call "forum grooming" which separates the ins from the outs even among the politically like minded. Can this be made better? I doubt it. But step by step, if the administrators promote a laxation of controls on information and pull the reigns on social extremism as well as insider trolls it may help. I really don't know the answer. But I don't wish to be brushed off only to be allowed a voice under the constraint of a socially correct agenda or dismissed just for sheer nonsense; that's wasted effort. When rules become the enforcement of rules for the sake of rules we have stagnation. Human systems are complicated and require nuance... grace, if you will, that make systems work for people, not people for systems. On DU, there's little I can do to help as an "out", I just have to put up with it like so many others.

I would like to make a conjecture that there may be a few individuals who have access to either administrative or sub-administrative permissions who use them for passing personal information to others who do not have those permissions or that use those privileges for less than acceptable control of participants. That may include the jury system. It's only an observation.

Be well. And thank you again for the ride. No hard feelings whatsoever because any issues I have with DU are minuscule compared to the excellent contributions of a few of you who have added greatly to my experience. In the words of a highly respected and profound DU persona, "... until the inevitable return..."

I am, Defacto7