Weekend wound up

Comments

To Dave

A comment from me in another thread.

Thanks for the well-meaning comment, Dave. But there's a fundamental flaw in your logic.

BlueNC is a private company, owned by me. Like most organizations, it has a mission, a vision and values. Those foundational elements have never been articulated in any explicit way, so I'll used this opportunity to do just that.

The mission of BlueNC is to further an enlightened, progressive agenda in North Carolina and beyond. The vision is to create a market-based community of thoughtfulness and action, where individuals are supported and empowered to fulfill that mission. The core values are mutual respect, integrity, collaboration and transparency.

In my view, the progressive agenda often aligns with the tradition of the Democratic Party, but not always. There have been and continue to be many unaffiliated community members here, including me, as well as a strong contingent of Libertarians. This sense of independence gives us the freedom to be critical of injustice, corruption, and incompetence, no matter which side of the aisle. This quality distinguishes BlueNC (and most progressive blogs) from conservative communities, which tend to be more hostile to diversity of opinion.

The vision of a market-based community of thoughtfulness and action is where you come in. At BlueNC, we are constantly asking ourselves, "What if I'm wrong?" That philosophy means we are open to engagement with people like you, people who stand squarely against most of what we are striving for. We believe in the marketplace of ideas, literally. We are not a non-profit organization, like those in the Puppetshow, that takes advantage of public policy for financial benefit. BlueNC is a business.

At first blush, the values of mutual respect, integrity, transparency and collaboration create a certain tension with our our mission and vision. Sparring with people who are diametrically opposed to our goals can be tricky. But in the tradition of good progressive thinking, we tend to err on the side of tolerance and engagement.

Seredoc waltzed into our community, our virtual living room, and pissed on his host (me) and his fellow guests (long-standing community members). I put up with it for awhile, grudgingly, because I welcome opposing views. But when the discussion shifted to ad hominem attacks, even if they were mild, I intervened and asked him to stop and to apologize. He did neither, and so I banned him.

___________________________

You are mixing apples and oranges when you compare Seredoc's insults to, say, my criticisms of Tom Not-Gay Fetzer. Tom is not a BlueNC community member, to my knowledge. If he were to visit, though, I assure you that he would be treated with more respect than Seredoc displayed in his brief tenure here.

You and Seredoc are not aligned with our mission in any way. Quite the opposite is true. Yet after a rocky start, you personally agreed to play by our rules. You have been generally respectful, and it's often interesting to hear what you're thinking. I don't have any illusions that you come with an open mind, however, which is why I don't often respond to your comments.

That's a very long answer to your simple question, but no, I will not reinstate Seredoc.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify my own thinking about our operating principles. In the finally analysis, "intolerably obnoxious" is a judgment call that I personally make. An individual who does not know how to make an authentic apology will almost always qualify for that harsh judgment.

Thanks.

I really did appreciate the chance to clarify some of those issues. I know them in my heart, but it's good to get them out in the open.

A modest suggestion

Nice essay, but I think it would have been better to post it before banning SereDoc for violating the principles espoused therein. (Article 1, Sec. 9, U.S. Constitution.)

Dave

Actually

It would have been better if SereDoc did not behave like an asshole in the first place. He had the chance to apologize and passed.

The essay reflects my musing about policy. The policy itself is simple, intentionally subjective and sweepingly broad. Intolerably obnoxious is the standard. I am the decider.

N&O publisher dines with the Puppetmaster

Sez they had a good conversation.

I wonder if Mr. Drescher asked Mr. Pope to put a dollar value on the exposure the Puppetshow organizations get from their masterful manipulation of his newspaper.

Don't you just love the Good Old Boys Club?

In case anybody missed it.....

"Our" Democratic senator voted, along with Burr, to side with the Biggest banks against the senate bill by Kaufman-Brown, to bust up the banks 'too big to fail'. Also 22 other Dem senators voted with them. Of course it might have to do with the payoffs! (we don't like using the old bribe word) No justifications presented.

given the important role banks, big ones, play in NC

i.e., take a look at downtown Charlotte, you can't exactly be surprised at this vote.

You really think a Senator would vote to break up several of the largest employers in the State and a company that is headquartered in our largest city?

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

I know what you're saying, but having experienced this...

as a former employee in the old AT&T(1984), it doesn't mean people lose jobs. But then it was about monopolizing the communications industry, and being in restraint of trade. What we're talking now is banks controlling our government, and being involved in practices that have bought this country to a point where we don't know when the drop in our economy will be at the bottom. Or maybe I forgot, this is supposed to be about taking care of the oligarchy.

Big banks aren't the only things to protect

There is the small matter of protecting the populace and the government from big banks, but in cold business terms, one could try to protect small banks and credit unions.

NC has plenty of small banks and credit unions. We're not just home to 3 big banks.