You guys do not make this easy. Another great week of comment content and the addition of a few new names I don’t recall seeing or seeing in a while. Thanks for reading and engaging not just the content but each other.
We did have some intrigue last week. I received emails challenging whether certain First Amendment exercises were unconscionable and, therefore, not protected speech. After review, the alleged offenses were deemed protected. That will piss someone off, no doubt, but I can’t help how you feel, and I won’t delete content or ban someone unless there is a clear incitement to violence or explicit threats against a person or group.
Trolls don’t get that consideration, for the record, nor does the inappropriate or excessive reliance on the use of “adult language.” No porn, obviously, with rare exceptions related to the current debate of age-appropriate material in schools and libraries. When possible, we will edit out the offense and not the speaker, but repeat offenses could get you the boot in part for wasting our time.
I was also asked about why someone got banned for something while others with perhaps an opposing opinion were not. I didn’t ban them so that one is still under investigation – I’m waiting on them for more details.
This isn’t rocket science—attack issues, not people.
And, as a side note, I have a lot of emails left to sort and several submitted op-eds to review. If you sent a piece, it is likley waiting for me to get to it.
Comment of the Week
Many a great remark we shared last week, and I am seeing longer and more involved debates on some posts, which is exactly what we want. I apologize for not being nearly as engaged as many of our authors, but I find myself overly busy, and since we missed our fundraising target for 24, I am pulling in other work to make up the difference. If you’d like to help us reach the goal this year, you know what to do.
I pulled at least two dozen great comments to review for last week, but as you all know, there can be only one.
Ian (deliberately, I think) misses the point. This constitutional amendment is a direct attack on the incorrect Claremont supreme court decision from the 90’s. That decision said that “cherish” meant “pay for”. He is right that it never did, but that’s not what they said. This is the subtle way to kick them in the pants to changing that ruling, without having to reprint the constitution.Of course, it will never pass because so many D’s love dem an adequate education, but at least we can get the issue percolating again.The real bit I think you should consider is what was the 1784 meaning of “public schools”. Might it be the current British meaning of the phrase, i.e. what we now call private schools?[I will, of course, be using Ian’s point about “and” as part of the argument to reinterpret “cherish”. As inigo Montoya said, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” ]
There were plenty of other comments as good, but Dan’s unique take on this issue intrigued me. “The real bit I think you should consider is what was the 1784 meaning of “public schools.”
I’d not seen it or heard it (and maybe I missed it elsewhere), so thanks to Ian for inspiring Dan to write it – Ian, as always, has a lot of keen insights on this and other issues. And isn’t that what this is all about? Conversations that allow debate move the needle in our minds to a perspective we’d not yet considered.
I think it is. That’s what I want to build here and we’ve always had a great foundation to rise from.
Congrats to Dan, and since we’re halfway through this week, I need to start looking for the next winner.
