Appearing as a guest on the late night Craig Ferguson show Wednesday October 17, 2007 Vicente Fox former President of Mexico until 2006 was asked how he viewed America. In a Republican-ese right wing kind of reply he said we should "return to our values." He added that the rest of the world is still looking to us for the leadership we had given in the past. At this juncture in our national life this notion is little more than syrupy nostalgia, although it was good to hear an outsider saying what millions of us have known all along.

Fox also said that we needed to exercise "tolerance." He reiterated the call for tolerance several times and added that even though he is a devout Catholic he is very tolerant of all others who pursue the "spiritual life." He intimated that tolerance was the very heart and principle of all good diplomacy and politics.

President Fox's statement coupled with President Bush's recent statement about "all religions praying to the same God;" make for good news but are proof that politicians make poor theologians. Some one should remind them that not all that is "spiritual" is divine. Cultism, witchcraft, tarot, channeling, and a long list of spiritual practices are indeed "spiritual" but the question remaining is; what spirit?

Not all that is spiritual is generated by God. The god of this world (Satan) is also a spirit and only the woefully or willfully ignorant can't see that he has a lot of spiritual tricks, callings, manifestations and religions in his little bag.

We have only to look at recent legislation in California to see what happens when the popular notion of "tolerance" crosses into the realm of law. In California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill in October 2007 that disallows the use of the words, Mom, Dad, husband and wife in California schools.

The new language laws in California are an example of tolerance becoming militantly intolerant. But now gays and transsexuals are protected from any offence imagined or real. This is accomplished at the expense of offending over 95 percent of the heterosexuals and their families who reflect the make up of California schools. Is this tolerant?

Has any one asked the question; just how many high school and elementary students are gay or transsexual? Gay high school students, a few perhaps but transsexual or elementary school transsexuals; just how many of them are there in California? Has California changed its laws to defend the sensitivities of a non-existent group of people?

Have we traversed from the silent majority up to the moral majority only to slide over to the tolerant majority; then all the way back to the silent majority again? This trek to nowhere is reminiscent of a line from a Marx Brothers movie. Groucho trying to get someone to join him in a business venture said he would give his potential partner a full 20 percent of the business. After reminding him that 20 percent of nothing is nothing, he offers this assurance. "Don't worry because I've worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty" Enter American morality; the new partner of tolerance and diversity!

From the days of the Hula Hoop craze to the present Americans have loved the pop swings from one new thing to another and until now no one was seriously hurt on the way. Now we risk hurting ourselves irreparably with something that claims to take the hurt off of everyone. Vicente Fox may have hit the nail on the head. What we once had is looking qualitatively better than what we're getting into.

Tolerance is a word that is sailing around at the speed of stupidity. The confusion it creates is apparent when Islamic groups like CAIR go about pointing out every perceived insult to Islam in America even as America and the rest of the world are not afforded a speck of tolerance in return, in fact the doctrine and ideology of Islam forbids it. A cartoon, a negative statement about Muhammad or refusal to convert to Islam can result in death. Yet there are Americans who also watch for any and all possible intolerant language as it pertains to Islam. Double standards notwithstanding; this is the stupidity connected to the word "tolerance" that betrays its obvious lack of wisdom and social importance.

It does well to note that the Bible says in the spiraling immorality predicted in the last days one person will emerge to bring the entire age to its culmination. That person is referred to as the antichrist. One trait or proclivity that he possesses is that he decides the world would be better if he changed the way we count time and he calls for a change in the laws. (Daniel 7:25)

Since the antichrist is referred to as the man of "anarchy" you needn't guess at the way he plans to change the laws. Somewhere between "if it feels good, do it" and the word "tolerant" he will pull the plug on almost every folkway, more, commandment or moral code ever known. The only law that will be seriously enforced will be the one that calls for the supremacy of his rule.

For over 35 years now I have explained to thousands of people that the singular difference between the antichrist and every other despot or dictator in history is what causes him to succeed where all others have failed to dominate the world. Instead of using military might to draw the world into submission he uses the economy.

In the EU today the newly forming seat of the antichrist is already checking the morality of the countries waiting with baited breath to join the economic mega block. Poland is but one example. The EU is insisting that the Poland which is the native land of the former much beloved John Paul, must lessen or eliminate its stand against abortion and the practice of homosexuality before it can come under the full graces of the European Union. Poland, however, is not the only country under EU scrutiny for its moral stand.

Tolerance can hardly be tolerated when it is used to contort or eliminate the very binding threads that have held civilization together through every scourge, war or catastrophe. A woe is pronounced on the architects of the unbridled and poorly defined idea of tolerance as it is being touted in today's thinking. It will go unheeded by most but it should be heard nevertheless... Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord. (Mal 2:17)

By: Michael Bresciani
Rev Bresciani is the author of two Christian books one that is entirely on the second coming of Christ. He is a contributing columnist for several online news and commentary sites. His articles are read throughout the world. Please enjoy a visit to http://www.americanprophet.org.

San Francisco Supervisor Sandoval proposed a resolution condemning Michael Savage. Savage a radio talk show personality has a talk format show that regularly presents political opinion on far ranging subjects. The resolution seeks to condemn and raise a public outcry against Savage because of his political opinions.

Savage commented on a group of 35 student protestors who are fasting in protest and to pressure congressmen to renew efforts to pass a bill providing financial aid to illegal undocumented immigrant students. The bill was defeated recently. At least two of the protestors, self described illegal undocumented immigrant students, Cesar Chavez and Nallei Sandoval are openly participating in the protest.

Savage suggested the protestors, “fast until they starve to death". This statement has given rise to the call for his firing, and censor by the San Francisco Supervisors. In Part the resolution they are seeking to pass states, the county values the dignity of its residents regardless of immigration status, free from discrimination, to live in safety. The Resolution condemns Savage, and supports the students seeking to obtain public aid.

Broadcast radio shows fall into a type of speech protected by the first amendment. The attempt to censor Savage if it is contested in court will most certainly be found as protected speech. Savage's words did not advocate violent acts, nor suggest anyone take part in any acts or actions to bring about death by starvation. The words are politically motivated satire that state how Savage felt about the protest. To suggest he has advocated any illegal activity is absurd.

To raise his words to the level of racist statements you would have to show he has defamed a protected minority group. A group of persons who fall into the classification as undocumented immigrants does not meet the test. His words can not be demonstrated to defame any protected minority such as Hispanics, blacks or other protected minority group. Since undocumented immigrants could be any person not a documented immigrant the class is not protected.

Prohibitions of politically motivated speech are not favored by Supreme Court decisions. Generally this form of speech is protected. In one case the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against a criminal ordinance. The city’s bias-motivated crime ordinance, interpreted as banning the use of fighting words known to offend on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender, but not on such other possible bases as political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality, was invalidated for its content discrimination. ''The First Amendment does not permit [the city] to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.''

Once the rhetoric has died down the actions by the San Francisco Supervisors certainly be labeled as an attempt to stifle and muffle protected political speech. These actions by a government body should be condemned and protested for the frightening steps toward a totalitarian government control of public political activity.

By: Lou Tompkins
www.loutompkins.com

The Oakland Post editor, Chauncey Bailey, was gunned down on the streets of Oakland, California, on August 2, 2007, in an attack that targeted him because of his work as a writer. Someone decided, because he did not like what Mr. Bailey had to say about a particular subject and because the article appeared in print, to end the man's life.

Jill Haring, member of the Mansfield, Ohio School Board, resigned her position recently. She cited numerous threats against her person, threats that eventually escalated to the point where her children were also threatened. In a tearfully read statement, Haring said:

"In May of this year certain individuals, hiding behind the cowardice of anonymity, decided to extend their hatred and threats past me to target my children. This crossed a line that I never imagined possible."

In a particular venue in which I write and publish, I began receiving not critically reasoned reviews and counter-arguments posted in the reader's comments section of the website, but rather, I began receiving threats. First, the comments were vile, profane, and disgusting in nature. I deleted them. Whoever was leaving these comments thought I was "censuring" his or her personal attacks and became so enraged that the comments devolved into threats. Mind you, these were not critical comments, but profanity and personal attacks.

One individual wrote: "If you are going to put yourself out into the public arena, you've got to expect this and if you can't take the heat, stop writing."

Doesn't this reflect the ideology of disturbed minds?

I mean, really, if you write about issues, you should have to expect and tolerate not just verbal abuse but someone(s) threatening your life? Or, the lives of those you love? No. Sorry. That dog don't bark up this tree!

Isn't this terrorism?

Jill Haring went on to say in her prepared statement:

"As the president of the board of education, I am constantly subject to criticism and scrutiny of my actions and decisions. I understand and accept this as part of being a public servant. Unfortunately, in the past few months, the attacks have turned personal, ugly, and threatening. As unpleasant as this is for me, I can deal with it. My two young children, however, should never be subject to such acts by adults in this community."

The point here is excellent.

I expected people who read my books and articles to respond in kind. I expected others to offer counter-arguments in the same spirit in which I made my points in the critical arguments I've made about expatriation issues. Actually, I've expected the debate to sharpen my arguments or to point out the weaknesses in them and convince me of errors in my thinking.

That's how it is supposed to work, is it not?

What I did not expect were the reprehensible attacks on me and, subsequently, on my wife. That is not just uncalled for; it is despicable.

Jamison Stone, a child who was hunting with his father, killed a monster pig. Those tree-huggers, who are apparently also hog-huggers, thought it appropriate to levy death threats against this child for hunting a "defenseless pig." (Defenseless? These nuts have to be city slickers and never met a pig unless it was in a package of bacon.) Nevertheless, they wanted to see this child killed for shooting a pig.

Instead of taking the time to think through an issue and craft a well-reasoned response, what do some people do?

Some want to plot the death of the one with whom they disagree on issues. In some cases, some actually carry out their threats.

I met with a friend who is a Mexican in an American wrapper. He's lived in Mexico since he was twenty years old and is as Mexican as any native-born person walking the street. Over burgers and beers, he told me he thought I have been over-reacting to the threats I received over my articles addressing expat issues. He thought so until he read a few of the news accounts I've mentioned in this piece.

Our discussion inspired this story.

He understands and shares my fear from the threats I've gotten. He gets it now. What's wrong with Americans? "What have they become?" we both lamented.

Terrorism works.

It works indeed.

By: Douglas Bower
No Website

Is all fair in love, war and talk radio?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Unless it interferes with the free speech of conservative talk show hosts. If it were up to some in Congress, that statement would be added to the first amendment.

It is known as the "Fairness Doctrine" which died twenty-years ago. Some Liberal legislators now want it exhumed. It was eliminated then because it did not work and was found unnecessary because of the tremendous increase in outlets for expressing opinion. Then came the Internet, which expanded that opportunity for expression even further in the name of blogs.

Let us be honest with each other, there is nothing wrong with fairness. Who could be against being fair? We expect it in the officials that officiate our professional sports teams, the teachers that grade our children in school or anyone else that we charge with overseeing the rules and regulations that guide our daily lives and activities.

However, what may seem fair to one person may not seem fair to another. I am talking about another kind of fairness. The dominance of talk-radio that some believe is one-sided. Is it that Conservative talk radio is acting in an anti-trust like manner by dominating the air waves or is it just being fair, balanced and competitive? There is no doubt in my mind that the reason is the latter. When you examine the history of talk radio over the past years you will simply find that Conservative talk radio has survived because they have become the voice of the American people. They give the people a a fair and balanced voice. People, who ordinarily would not be heard, can now pick up their telephones and have their voices and ideas heard from coast to coast. Sounds like "Government of the people by the people." They do it as entertainment and with humor.

Liberal Talk radio hosts present their shows with vile verbal attacks against the administration or anyone who takes their side. It is not entertainment. Rather, it is a violent declamation of rancor without substance or facts.

There are two parts to the Fairness Doctrine. The first and paramount rule requires each broadcast licensee to broadcast coverage of controversial issues of public importance. This ensures that every broadcaster meets its duty to inform Americans about public issues. The second rule of the Fairness Doctrine states that there must be balance in covering these issues.

Two consequences of the doctrine, the "Personal Attack" rule and the "Political Editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "Personal Attack" rule was pertinent whenever a group or person was subject to a character assassination during a broadcast. Media stations had to inform such persons or groups within one-week of the attack. They were also required to send them a transcript of what transpired and offer them the opportunity to respond on the air. The "Political Editorial" rule applied when a station would broadcast an editorial endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. The candidate not endorsed must be notified and given an opportunity to respond.

The Supreme Court has said in upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969, "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment, which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." The Court also said, "If the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered." Without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court also concluded in a subsequent case (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241) that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate".

In an article by Val E. Limburg, he stated, "The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cable casting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming."

Liberal talk radio has the same opportunity as Conservative talk radio. However, radio stations are businesses and when there are no listeners, there are low ratings, which equates to no sponsors. No sponsors, no income, no income, no Liberal talk radio. Why would you want to stay in business if you keep losing money day after day? Al Franken, host on Air America is the perfect example. Whose fault is that? Rush Limbaugh? Some Liberals in Congress are trying to get you to believe it.

If you do not believe me, my suggestion is to conduct the following experiment. Every time I try to call in to a conservative talk show such as, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Jerry Doyle, Mike Gallagher and others, I just keep getting a busy signal. If I do get through, I can be on hold for one-half- hour before I get to express my opinion or speak my mind. When I call a Liberal show such as Randi Rose, Alan Colmes, Al Franken, etc., I get right through. This leads me to believe that no one is listening or no one cares. Maybe that is one of the reasons that Air America has filed for bankruptcy protection.

In addition, the call screeners working in conservative radio will allow callers with diverse opinions to express their views. This is not what I have found with Liberal talk radio shows. I have had call screeners tell me the host was not interested in an argumentative point of view at this time. So who is being fair and balanced?

Why does Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator's John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy and others want to silence Americans? Sounds like fear to me. Fear of allowing the silent majority to be heard? They have blamed conservative talk radio for the defeat of the "Immigration Bill." It was not talk radio that caused it. Their listeners had and have the opportunity to express their views on a variety of subjects-- the "Immigration Bill" was just one of them. Of course, you could always write a letter to the editor of any newspaper. However, do you really believe the Liberal Left print media would publish them? Don't bet on that one.

Therefore, when Conservative Talk Radio plays by the rules, with or without the "Fairness Doctrine" and builds a better mousetrap whose fault is that. Liberal talk radio has been around a lot longer than Conservative Talk radio, which is really a new phenomenon.

Remember, it is the second mouse that gets the cheese.

By: M Solomon and Michael S
Michael Solomon is a former NYPD Detective. He is the recipient of 19 awards for Excellent and Meritorious police work. During his tenure in the intelligence division, he was assigned to protect the Shah of Iran, and Madame Chang of Taiwan. He has personally met four U.S. Presidents. He was assigned as the intelligence officer to the U.S. State Department during treaty negations between the United States and Turkey. He holds a Bachelors Degree Magna Cum Laude in Behavioral Sciences, from the New York Institute of Technology and a Masters with Distinction in Public Administration from Long Island University.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Services and Lifestyles portal.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes index and brighten your day.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

We like to get worked up. You have seen it - two people facing off, red in the face, sweat on the brow, a bit of saliva on the lips. Yes, I am talking politics. Yeah, we like to get worked up. That's fine. But when our rhetoric or our debate descends into vulgarity, personal attacks, shouting, abuse, or violence by language, we have lost something important. Vulgarity and abusive language are obvious signs of weak, lazy thinking. But more importantly, there is a fundamental immorality to extreme speech. That rhetorical immorality belittles those who have suffered and do suffer real abuse; and extreme speech robs our world of a level of crucial meaning.

Ideology and Politics as Entertainment

Ideology has become entertainment. Cable news, radio talk shows, shockjocks, bloggers - all of these have an inherent entertainment value. Of course the successful ones also have substance: something to say, ideas, arguments. But often times the style becomes the message. It is not about the ideas; it's about the insults. Perhaps that is good for online journals like Ideology Forum at some level; but it is also troubling.

Raising the volume and the temperature of your rhetoric can be great for ratings and ad revenue. There are a wide array of people who have become famous and rich by skillfully exploiting extreme rhetoric. Extremity brings notoriety and attracts viewers. Of course you had better be careful you don't move from notable to notorious - a shift that Don Imus made almost overnight. But even that line, once crossed can become a cross to carry and advertise. 'My enemies are persecuting me.' 'Those censors are attacking my first amendment rights.'

We are participating in a gradual synthesis of news, politics and entertainment. We are participating. In this more democratic media age, we participate by watching and listening and reading (and paying) the extreme speakers. We are participating by joining the debate on the internet and using increasingly extreme rhetoric ourselves. But our speech has consequences.

I love politics. I love politics because it matters - for policy, for governance, for law, for liberty. I love it for the ideas and the debate. I love it for the human dramas that constantly play out in democracy. I love politics and ideology for many reasons - and among those is the exhilarating experience of politics as sport. We root for our parties, for our favorite politicians. We follow the horserace. We stay up on election night waiting for the results, for the latest round of the US Government Championship Series. Many even bet on the outcome - in more ways than one. This is more than just another sports analogy for life. We do follow politics as sports. I suppose that ideally politics would not descend to sport - but it does.

Perhaps the most important negative consequence of treating politics, ideas and ideology as sport is: that we mistake the means of politics for the ends. Elections and campaigns ought to be means toward the end of governance. After the election, good governance should be possible based on principled debate and compromise on issues. Instead, the election becomes the permanent end and we sacrifice principles and governance in favor of attacking personalities and politicians. It is not about governance or laws; it's about winning and losing. And there is always another election in a couple of years.

The permanent campaign and politics as sport exacerbates the use of extreme speech. It does not matter what you say, so long as you destroy your opponent. Even long after the campaign, we continue to viciously attack one another because governance and compromise is no longer the goal. The goal is winning the next round, the next championship. Our politicians are guilty of this; activists and lobbyists are guilty of this; we are all guilty of this.

The Weakness of Extreme Speech

Public debate and rhetorical combat is a long-revered tradition. It is alive and well. Ideology Forum exists to provide a space for the practice of open ideological debate. Do not misunderstand the purpose of this article - I do not think that we should all get along and compromise our principles for the sake of peace and quiet. People have passionate ideals and causes for good reason. At a basic level, loud, angry rhetoric is better than the silence of apathy.

But there are a variety of weaknesses exposed by high volume, personal attacks and vulgarity. Primarily, they are not communicative. Shouting and insults do not communicate meaning. They are just attacks. Vulgarity shows a lack of thought and meaning, an inability to articulate ideas, and a basic intellectual laziness. Vulgar attacks communicate only anger, frustration, (bad) judgment, and (self) contempt. They seek to demean rather than engage. Such attacks and rhetoric are an admission that you have lost the debate, or you lack the skills or will to win rhetorically.

There have been times in our past when insults had wit. Abraham Lincoln was not above insulting his opponents: "He can compress the most words into the smallest ides of any man I know." Winston Churchill and Oscar Wilde also had the knack for wit and insult that did not demean the listener simply by hearing. But today, we too often resort to calling our opponents 'Nazi baby killers' then move on as if we have completed an argument.

There is such a wide array of common examples of the weakness of extreme speech that it hardly requires rehearsing them. So I won't.

The Immorality of Extreme Speech

But extreme speech is more than just weak; it does more than demean the speaker, the object, and the listener. Extreme speech - particularly extreme analogies and extreme relativism - actually belittle those who have suffered and do suffer real abuses; and extreme speech robs our world of a level of crucial meaning. Extreme analogies and extreme relativism are actually fundamentally immoral.

Extreme analogies are an insidious kind of rhetoric that has become practically ubiquitous. The fools' gold standard of extreme analogies is calling your opponent Hitler. Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies states, "the longer a discussion takes place on the internet and the more people involved, the probability of someone being compared to Hitler or the Nazis approached one." In other words, if enough people talk long enough on the internet, someone is sure to start shouting, 'Nazi!' These attacks are everywhere. It is passé to call to call people 'Commies'. But asserting that your opponents are goose-stepping their way toward Fascism and genocide - what an argument! - is so common that we don't even flinch at it. This is just another cheap way to shout down your opponent, without engaging their ideas or arguments.

But there is something deeply wrong with constantly shouting Hitler at ones opponents; and it goes much deeper than immature language. It is actually immoral to constantly call all of your opponents little Eichmanns. What about the people who have actually suffered from the things you purport to hate so much? You hate fascism? You hate abuse of human rights? You hate anti-democratic activities? You hate genocide and systematic rape and torture? Then take them seriously. Do not accuse political opponents of such terrible crimes unless they actually commit them. If they do commit crimes against human rights, then be specific. Such accusations should mean something; they should have power; they should work toward lifting the suffering of the abused.

Conversely and perversely, the vulgarity of calling everyone Nazis actually belittles the suffering of people who have died and continue to die at the hands of despots. If everyone you disagree with is a Nazi, then being a Nazi is silly; it's stupid; it's meaningless. But it is not and cannot be meaningless. Too many people have been starved or worked to death or gassed in concentration camps, or hacked to death by machetes, or burned alive in churches, or tortured to death in hidden places. Too many people have been raped, tortured and killed all over the world during the 20th and 21st centuries to demean their lives and deaths by calling your opponent in a political debate a Nazi. We must preserve the meaning and power of speech.

The immorality of extreme relativism is a very similar abuse of the meaning and power of speech. False assertions of moral equivalence are deeply immoral. Blithely asserting that all morality is relative undermines the position of people who suffer real abuse of their human rights. Morals and cultural can indeed differ according to circumstances. But this should not and cannot stop us from identifying abuse and condemning it. People know when their human rights are violated - and they don't need 'Western' ideals or morals to tell them they have been abused. Similarly we must be capable of distinguishing between different forms of abuse, because if all abuses are equivalent then they are all the more trivial.

Sadly, the examples of false moral equivalence and amoral relativism are terribly commonplace. How often have you read or heard arguments that falsely equated the morality of government surveillance in a democratic state with extrajudicial executions in authoritarian states? When we assert the moral equivalence of completely different acts, we rob our world of a basic level of meaning.

If we really care about liberty, democracy and human rights, then we must be willing to condemn abuses wherever they occur; and we must be willing to judge, compare and more loudly condemn the more terrible abuses. If we refuse to condemn any abuse, we ignore some victims in favor of others. If we are unwilling to evaluate and recognize greater abuses, we belittle the victims of the worst abuse. If we equate moderate abuses (or heaven forbid non-abuses) with genocide, then we make a direct attack on the meaning of language and basic morality.

Extreme analogies and false moral equivalence are deeply immoral forms of speech.

Abusive, vulgar, personal attacks are weak tools that we do not need. Extreme analogies and false moral equivalence do much greater damage to those who truly suffer than the damage we may accomplish to our opponent's argument. People will be convinced by the power of our ideas, the reality of our experience, and the intelligence and clarity of our rhetoric. We do not need extreme speech.

By: Ian Wendt
Ian Wendt is the editor of http://www.ideologyforum.com an online journal and forum dedicated to exploring, discussing and debating the ideas that shape our world. Ideology Forum is open to the widest array of ideological and political ideas. Its authorship is completely open to all readers and users. He is also an assistant professor of History at an American university. In his writing, research, teaching, and especially on Ideology Forum, Ian strives to expand free speech, political and ideological debate, civic engagement and activism.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Resources portal.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.