HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Waiting For Everyman » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

Waiting For Everyman

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Member since: Mon Jun 23, 2008, 12:17 PM
Number of posts: 9,385

About Me

My namesake... http://youtu.be/GgXzWhexJh0 ... If I were asked to recommend only one political / history book it would be this one... http://www.amazon.com/Treason-America-Anton-Chaitkin/dp/0943235006 ... Treason in America: from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman, by Anton Chaitkin. I do NOT endorse all of the views by Chaitkin external to this book, nor all of his actions, nor all of his associations, but I DO highly recommend this book. It is one every US citizen and everyone interested in its history should read. It it well written, meticulously sourced, and it is eye-opening -- even for those who consider themselves already knowledgeable. If you have not read it before, you need to read it, it is need-to-know information, and what it has to say is not going to be found in many places, if anywhere, else. That is my tip for whoever is passing by.

Journal Archives

Plain-spoken gets hidden while passive-agressive trolling goes on endlessly.

DU3 is very difficult for plain-spoken people, and I think that's a shame. I remember making the point, several times, that it's necessary to "choose one's battles", and that if the trivial battles always get fought then the big issues go by the wayside. Trivia automatically takes precedence and takes on a higher priority than substance when that happens. But no, no, no, the intense trivial battles over only marginally questionable words being used had to be fought, every time, to the nth degree. Now we see this. I am not surprised. And if I and others could see this coming far down the road, then maybe there is a reason why we could predict that. What's true is true, whether it's accepted or not.

DU needs to get its standards focused on values that matter. In time, maybe that will happen. Then again if nothing changes it could go on like this.

Point being, I would've let Prism's post stand - because I (among numerous others) am ok with calling a troll, a troll. If we go too far in taking away posters' ability to express themselves, not much is going to get expressed - and even what IS expressed is so obtuse it's often hard to figure out what in the heck is being said. I'll say it again: DU is hamstringing itself, and right at the beginning of a Presidential election cycle. Not good.

On the longterm troll issue I'll say this: posts are the currency of this place. If the established trolls got no replies, their clout and validity would be deflated. If you want to minimize a troll, don't feed it. Feed others on the right track instead, bump them up. I never could understand why threads by the biggest trolls would get hundreds of replies around here. They are at best hot air and boring. Not just everyday boring, but omg boring! Admins do what they do, and we can complain about that or beseech them or whatever, but each one of us still has our own currency to vote with in this marketplace of ideas.

I'd like to see a time when trolls' threads do not have hundreds or even tens of replies - that would be great. Starve the suckers! At least, make one point and leave it, don't feed the damn thing anymore. I think it would help, I really do.

Just one opinion, ymmv.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Mon Apr 30, 2012, 02:07 PM (2 replies)

One of the best movie soundtracks ever, has to be "Pretty in Pink"

If You Leave, Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark

Left of Center, Suzanne Vega

Wouldn't It Be Good, Danny Hutton Hitters

Bring On the Dancing Horses, Echo and the Bunnymen

Please, Please, Please, Let Me Get What I Want, The Smiths

My sentimental favorite though, is True Romance: Two Hearts by Chris Isaak, and the Theme.

Third place... Empire Records.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Sun Apr 29, 2012, 01:56 AM (0 replies)

K&R I can relate to everything you wrote, WilliamPitt.

It's not just in the Gospels, the prophets are all about the same theme. (At the end of the Old Testament, from Isaiah to Malachi.) If they're actually read instead of picked at, it's everywhere. There isn't any cutthroat bs that's being done today, that isn't in there in the prophets. It was foretold, and then happened, in the time of the prophets; and it was foretold to happen again now, and is re-happening again. There are so many references in the prophets, somebody really should make a book out of them. But here are three, just from Isaiah...

And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. (Isaiah 59:14) KJV

Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. (Isaiah 10:1, 2) NKJV

For he (King of Assyria) says: "By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I am prudent; also I have removed the boundaries of the people, and have robbed their treasuries; So I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man. My hand has found like a nest the riches of the people, and as one gathers eggs that are left, I have gathered all the earth; and there was no one who moved his wing, nor opened his mouth with even a peep." (Isaiah 10:13, 14) NKJV

There is truly "nothing new under the sun". "Truth is fallen in the street", that's a very powerful phrase (it reminds me of a murder, like the Kitty Genovese one) and it's so true today. And "boundaries", i.e regulations? It goes to show that this isn't the first time these same practices were done, and by the same described perpetrators. (Btw, "Assyrian" does not mean from anywhere in the Middle East, it isn't as facile as that.)

Today's church: it was described pretty accurately too, considering the writing was thousands of years ago - almost as if it was known that it would be this way ahead of time, huh? (The description in Revelation 17 and 18, with references back to the prophets once again.)

There's a lot of interesting stuff in the Bible if one learns how to read it - and that isn't an easy process, and it has to be mostly "self-taught" imo. This is a great tool, among others... http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=10&v=1&t=KJV#1 Click on the little numbers ("Strong's" numbers) and it shows the original language meaning of words - that in itself can be eye-opener.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Wed Apr 25, 2012, 02:03 PM (0 replies)

It's not offensive. It's a metaphor, and it refers to behavior that anyone can do,

regardless of race, age, gender, or orientation. It refers to nothing inherent about anyone. Since it can apply to anyone, and it's chosen behavior minute to minute, just how is that a minority slur?

That is absolute nonsense.

It's much less offensive than another term for the same thing which is accepted, the many variations on "panties in a wad". 'Splain that one to me, Lucy.

Taking offense should be reserved for the "big stuff", otherwise it will be devalued and trivialized and there will be a a jury-nullification backlash against caring about even major offenses. Is that what's wanted?

The truth is, those who are "offended" by this term are trying to put our focus on the term itself in order to escape notice of the behavior it describes - trivial sensitivity. THAT is the issue, not the metaphor for it. It's an attempt to use this kerfluffle to legitimize the presumed right to flip out over nothing, and to make a mountain out of a molehill. The "pearl clutchers" want their molehills respected. Well molehills won't be respected, and they shouldn't be, no matter what words are used about it.

So blacklist as many terms as you like, the behavior will still be brought up, it will still be referred to, and it will still be justifiably denigrated. There's nothing to be gained by this phoney affront. All that will come from it, is more people noticing that it's (bullshit) er... a tempest in a teapot - another great metaphor for it.

Go ahead, blacklist teapots now. That would be just as legitimate.

Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Mon Apr 23, 2012, 01:17 PM (0 replies)

I see it as followers vx. independent thinkers.

Repubs are followers. They pick out someone they deem worthy of making judgements, and then swallow those opinions whole. Evaluating information, for them, isn't about the truth or validity of the information, but about the worthiness and credibility of the messenger. To me, that's the conservative mindset. They don't do their own thinking. Even progessives, who are followers, are conservatives in my book. There are some authoritarian progressives on DU.

The independent thinkers are the opposite. They don't care who the source of information is, it only matters whether it is true or false. The information stands or falls on its own, and the messenger is irrelevant. If "the devil himself" speaks the truth, then it's the truth.

I think we have our own brain because it's up to each of us to do our own thinking with it.

I think "good vs. evil" divisions about people are fallacies. We're all both. I will say that the more screwed up a person's thinking is, the more destructive things that person will do.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Sat Apr 21, 2012, 02:02 PM (0 replies)

Agree, and we may as well get ready for it now...

Dems will have to find a way to go into the subject of Romney's religion. I'm just starting to read up on it, but his beliefs scare me at least as much as Palin's in 2008, if not more. If that doesn't get brought to the attention of the voting public, it would be a serious lapse of our responsibility to inform them of a major danger lurking behind this seemingly "nice" man.

And when the fundamentalists find out about the specifics of what he believes and who he is in his religion, their heads are going to explode! And that could dramatically shift this election, and in my view it should. No way that guy should be President! Even if he were a Dem, I'd say that.

I know Dems don't like to wade into the territory of a candidate's religion and I've seen some have already "pledged" informally not to, but in this case it's highly relevant and necessary. The internet did a lot of the exposition on Palin's dangerous beliefs in '08, and exactly because it is distasteful and dicey for a candidate to do, it will probably fall to us to do the same again.

Did you know that for more than 100 years the Mormon church has taken it as an article of faith that it is its destiny to take over the government of the United States? They are ready for it. And we are not ready - because very few among the general public know the details of their beliefs.

It is fine for Romney to believe what he wants (or for anyone else to do so as well) but it is not ok for him to hold that agenda in the highest office in this land. Period. Deal breaker. And if any don't think it matters, take a look at the SCOTUS, just for one small example among many that we all know too well. The days are over when religion was kept separate from political office by Repubs.

Romney was required to swear blood oaths to certain tenets of his religion. A person can say, "oh well that doesn't mean anything". Well if that's so, then what can we expect his oath of office to mean when he's sworn in as POTUS?

Oh hell no. I'm not going to be cool with that. I'm going to inform myself more, and then I'm going to inform anyone that I can reach.

I don't know how this is being "sold" to Christians to make it ok with them, but I do know that it would take a pack of the most outrageous lies to make this even slightly acceptable to them. I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in church, I do my own thing on my own, so I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm going the "eheck in" with some churches and find out what's shakin' on this.

Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Fri Apr 20, 2012, 09:25 AM (0 replies)

This group is privatizing words to its own use.

Interesting. I only read a couple of sub-forums maybe once in a blue moon, so I wouldn't have known about this except for your link. Below is a post in that thread, schooling someone on why the word "beard" as it was used is completely unacceptable, which a jury decided to leave in a completely different thread. (Rightly so, I might add.)


For any jurors who don't know, a "beard" is a woman who provides a gay man cover so he appears straight. Using gay people to insult Rush only "works" if being gay is considered negative. Homophobia is a violation of the terms of service, not to mention hurtful , insensitive, or otherwise over the top. To the admins - whether this post is hidden or not, it would be nice to see that near-zero tolerance in action as promised here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/124012426#post37

Oh really? Here, in the excerpt below, is the actual definition. The word has completely different meanings than someone would believe from only reading the post and the alert comment above. I happen to know this for myself because I'm old enough to remember hearing it used in a very general way, back in the 50's and 60's and occasionally since then.


The American slang term originally referred to anyone who acted on behalf of another, in any transaction, to conceal a person's true identity.(1)

See definition #2 here:


2US informal a person who carries out a transaction, typically a bet, for someone else in order to conceal the otherís identity: the beard permitted the manipulator to protect the odds.

It is not ok to appropriate an in-group meaning to words, and then try to enforce that on other people, or use it to get people put down or in trouble for it. It's also spreading disinformation, which nobody needs.

The term "pearl-clutching" is the same. It has a general meaning unrelated to any minority group. When people "cry wolf" over things like that, then when legitimate concerns come up they go unaddressed. People "tune out", they no longer believe the source, and it's not surprising.

Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Tue Apr 17, 2012, 01:01 PM (8 replies)

A similar one from the era of the 1960's riots. (1966)

I remeber these events and this album on the radio, and the writer (Frank Zappa) describes it well: the events, the coverage, and what many of us were thinking...

Trouble Every Day

Well I'm about to get upset
From watchin' my tv
Been checkin' out the news
Until my eyeballs fail to see
I mean they say that every day
Is just another rotten mess
And when it's gonna change, my friend
Is anybody's guess

So I'm watchin' and I'm waitin'
Hopin' for the best
Even think I'll go to prayin'
Every time I hear 'em sayin'
That there's no way to delay
That trouble comin' every day
No way to delay
That trouble comin' every day

Wednesday I watched the riot...
I seen the cops out on the street
Watched 'em throwin' rocks and stuff
And chokin' in the heat
Listened to reports
About the whisky passin' 'round
Seen the smoke and fire
And the market burnin' down
Watched while everybody
On his street would take a turn
To stomp and smash and bash and crash
And slash and bust and burn

And I'm watchin' and I'm waitin'
Hopin' for the best
Even think I'll go to prayin'
Every time I hear 'em sayin'
That there's no way to delay
That trouble comin' every day
No way to delay
That trouble comin' every day

Well you can cool it,
You can heat it...
'Cause, baby, I don't need it...
Take your tv tube and eat it
'N all that phony stuff on sports
'N all the unconfirmed reports
You know I watched that rotten box
Until my head began to hurt
From checkin' out the way
The newsmen say they get the dirt
Before the guys on channel so-and-so
And further they assert
That any show they'll interrupt
To bring you news if it comes up
They say that if the place blows up
They'll be the first to tell
Because the boys they got downtown
Are workin' hard and doin' swell,
And if anybody gets the news
Before it hits the street,
They say that no one blabs it faster
Their coverage can't be beat
And if another woman driver
Gets machine-gunned from her seat
They'll send some joker with a brownie
And you'll see it all complete

So I'm watchin' and I'm waitin'
Hopin' for the best
Even think I'll go to prayin'
Every time I hear 'em sayin'
That there's no way to delay
That trouble comin' every day
No way to delay
That trouble comin' every day

Hey you know something people
I'm not black
But there's a whole lots of times
I wish I could say I'm not white

Well, I seen the fires burnin'
And the local people turnin'
On the merchants and the shops
Who used to sell their brooms and mops
And every other household item
Watched the mob just turn and bite 'em
And they say it served 'em right
Because a few of them were white,
And it's the same across the nation
Black and white discrimination
They're yellin' "You can't understand me!"
And all that other jazz they hand me
In the papers and tv
'N all that mass stupidity
That seems to grow more every day
Each time you hear some nitwit say
He wants to go and do you in
Because the color of your skin
Just don't appeal to him
(No matter if it's black or white)
Because he's out for blood tonight

You know we gotta sit around at home
And watch this thing begin
But I'll bet there won't be many live
To see it really end
'Cause the fire in the street
Ain't like the fire in the heart
And in the eyes of all these people
Don't you know that this could start
On any street in any town
In any state if any clown
Decides that now's the time to fight
For some ideal he thinks is right
And if a million more agree
There ain't no Great Society
As it applies to you and me
Our country isn't free
And the law refuses to see
If all that you can ever be
Is just a lousy janitor
Unless your uncle owns the store
You know that five in every four
Just won't amount to nothin' more
Than watch the rats go across the floor
And make up songs about being poor
Blow your harmonica son!

Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Fri Apr 13, 2012, 07:52 AM (0 replies)

It's my view that frequent alerters are tolerance-challenged.

So here's my question:

Which is more tolerant: 1) allowing a post that seems intolerant or offensive to you? or 2) making an effort to see that nothing you consider intolerant or offensive is allowed?

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." (Noam Chomsky)

Are the rules of political correctness all that is necessary today? Or do we still need tolerance and a presumption of good will? I ask because political correctness is shoving aside the latter two qualities.

Maybe it doesn't matter?

Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:02 PM (85 replies)

The interesting question is: what's so heinous in MY post to warrant a 'hide'?

Forget the example I posted, it's irrelevant. I could've posted the OP without an example. It was merely the last random straw, representing all the jury behavior I've seen since DU3 started. So forget that, I wasn't "defending the post" I cited.

What's so awful in my OP? Take a look, just on that quesstion. All I can see is the four adjectives I used in the subject line. Bear in mind that this is Meta, and Meta threads are not supposed to be hidden, as I understand it. This is the place to vent and whine, right? So there must be something really, really, really gosh-darn despicable in this one. Something? Anything? Since my choice of words was not allowed, I wonder what adjectives I should be using to refer to our ad hoc editor overlords? I'd like to know what is the approved terminology, to convey the same meaning I have in the subject line? Any ideas?

The jury proved my point perfectly. This is a trivial hide, merely because the over-zealous censors don't like that they were criticized.

Awaiting rationalizations sure to come.

* btw, I knew the poster was a troll too. See my jury comments in the OP (#5). If the alert had asked for the hide to pass it along to MIRT, I would've punched his ticket... before he made more posts and "made us look bad" in more places. What is this "look bad"? Are we going to be on the cover of Vogue, or something? "Look bad". Yeah, that trumps what we actually do here. Silly me, what was I thinking?

btw2, I couldn't care less that this post was hidden, because it can still be read anyway. Even better that it can't be changed or added to now. It's more interesting that way, just as it is.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:13 AM (2 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »