I remember those discussions, and I was here, as you know.

The gist was this: Those who oppose the Patriot Act are giving aid and comfort to the enemy... but I don't mean you. Those who want transparency in our treatment of prisoners are fools... but I don't mean you. Those who doubt the intelligence (both senses of the word) of our chief executive and his staff are just knee-jerk Bush-haters... but I don't mean you. Those who want to know what the plan is for ending the war in Iraq are appeasers... but I don't mean you. Those who oppose torture under any circumstances because it violates the law upon which this country was founded are cowards... but I don't mean you.

I am merely misguided. I will see the light eventually. pat pat pat on the head.

It's very difficult to have a serious conversation under those conditions. People to the left, like me, did not appreciate the accusations of, let's face it, treason in wartime. The politics of fear was in full play.

You want names? Just go on back to 2003 and peruse any thread for such a discussion. They were frequent enough. Who called me such things? Nobody, except Ed Nelson, and he didn't necessarily mean I should be put up against the wall and shot. (He doesn't understand my profession very well, though.) Links to virulent opinion pieces that condemn -- condemn -- my political positions, but with the disclaimer by the poster that he didn't mean me, rang hollow. I was called these things... by proxy.

The saddest part about all that is this: When I first belonged here, I wanted to talk to people who had other views than my own, because I was interested. Sometimes you learn things. Sometimes other people learn things from you. Sometimes an unexpected middle ground appears where there wasn't one before.

I'm still interested, but after several years of being accused of being a criminal accessory or called a dupe for holding a perfectly valid, completely supportable opinion, I don't believe it's possible to do that in this environment anymore. Sure, I lashed out at people. It made me angry to see support for the freaking Bill of Rights put in the appeasers' column. Even worse, I now find it difficult to concede a point to an opponent, even when I may have altered my own opinion, because of the tendency to pounce and gloat, and to assume that if I concede one thing, I am on the verge of conversion. It reminds me of conversations I've had with religious fundamentalists who believe I am one of the flock who is as yet merely unaware. (Actual quote from one of those: "I don't believe you don't believe in God. You're so good. You'll see the light, eventually." arrrrrrrgh)

Given the choice, then, of becoming a shrill caricature of my former self, something I was in the process of doing, or becoming less engaged, I chose the latter. Why shriek in an echo chamber when I can actually practice my principles in the real world where I live? Teaching by example is always best.

With the tone that was set back in 2002 when the right was ascendant, no one should be surprised that the left now continues in the tone we have been hearing since then, although the words are different. I'm disappointed in "my" side, because I had hoped that someone would have remembered the Golden Rule, but I do understand.