I’m a liberal democrat horrified by the current Dr Seuss drama and normalization of censorship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

What are you talking about? This is how things have always evolved. There is nothing new here. How do you think older mores died away?

Sure, and you think it always worked the same, nobody noticed, and nobody had any complaints and it all went smoothly? Really? Is that what you learned from studying history? I sure didn't.

Of course people noticed. And since they were in a position of power, the push back was harsh. Why is what is going on today any different than anything that has happened in the past? Do you think that in the past that people looking for change tried to "understand" those they considered on the wrong side of history?

Some people understood their opponents and some did not. The ones who understood their opponents won a lot more often than the ones who didn't. You do not understand your opponents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

You're missing the point. I'm not picking nits about the name, I'm talking about the distinction between caving to pressure from an outside group, and voluntarily making a decision that happens to dovetail with current cultural norms. I don't know how you could possibly make the argument that they're remotely the same thing.

They are not current. They are proposed norms. Accepted by some and not others. And being hotly debated too.

um no. Nobody proposes a norm, and then we have some sort of vote, and then hey presto - new norm. They sort of come into being. Some will accept the new norms. Some will continue to fight against them. But yes, when large companies start reworking their advertising, or publishers start choosing what to publish based on evolving societal standards, new norms are being codified.

Well okay, you are getting there. So who does the codification? Corporations, lawmakers, bureaucrats and the like? Can we call them elites?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Dr. Seuss Enterprises said it made the decision after consulting educators and reviewing its catalog."

Dr. Seuss had a long history of publishing racist and anti-Semitic work, spanning back to the 1920s when he was a student at Dartmouth College. There, Dr. Seuss once drew Black boxers as gorillas and perpetuated Jewish stereotypes by portraying Jewish characters as financially stingy.

Oh, the horror that the people who manage his estate might want to dial back the parts of his work that suck by today's standards. Why can't I just go eat in a Sambo's Restaurant, pour some Aunt Jemima over my pancakes, and read some Dr. Suess depicting black people as gorillas. Damn you liberals!!!

OP is offended that people to portrayed fairly. Why would someone want to buy those books anyway?

Because this is the United States of America, and that is actually a highly offensive question. Even worse would be if you or any publisher ever decided not to print a book because they didn't think I should read it anymore. Which just happened. They didn't stop publishing these books because they were money losers. They stopped publishing because they thought they were too offensive to read. And they said so.

That is a big, big, change in American culture. And if you don't see how huge that is, and why the principle they used is so controversial, then all of you are the blind ones, not me. Open your eyes.

Thanks.

You are going to have to back that up. Am I to believe that publishers have never chosen before to stop publishing a book because the times were changing and they were no longer what they wanted to be associated with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Dr. Seuss Enterprises said it made the decision after consulting educators and reviewing its catalog."

Dr. Seuss had a long history of publishing racist and anti-Semitic work, spanning back to the 1920s when he was a student at Dartmouth College. There, Dr. Seuss once drew Black boxers as gorillas and perpetuated Jewish stereotypes by portraying Jewish characters as financially stingy.

Oh, the horror that the people who manage his estate might want to dial back the parts of his work that suck by today's standards. Why can't I just go eat in a Sambo's Restaurant, pour some Aunt Jemima over my pancakes, and read some Dr. Suess depicting black people as gorillas. Damn you liberals!!!

OP is offended that people to portrayed fairly. Why would someone want to buy those books anyway?

Because this is the United States of America, and that is actually a highly offensive question. Even worse would be if you or any publisher ever decided not to print a book because they didn't think I should read it anymore. Which just happened. They didn't stop publishing these books because they were money losers. They stopped publishing because they thought they were too offensive to read. And they said so.

That is a big, big, change in American culture. And if you don't see how huge that is, and why the principle they used is so controversial, then all of you are the blind ones, not me. Open your eyes.

Thanks.

You are going to have to back that up. Am I to believe that publishers have never chosen before to stop publishing a book because the times were changing and they were no longer what they wanted to be associated with?

Well okay. Thanks for getting this far without calling me an idiot. Basically, the standard for racism is changing. It used to be that producing or saying something offensive was simply offensive and that's it. You were a jerk and the pictures you liked were stupid. Publishers produced all kinds of material that were considered offensive by this group or that group. People accidently said offensive thongs, they apologized, and then they moved.

The new evolving standard is that if any member of any oppressed group thinks something is offensive, it's offensive and should be removed. This is the microaggression concept. So you've heard of that. It's moved out of the schools and into real life.

Here are 3 examples.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2020/09/13/cancel-culture-is-only-getting-worse/?sh=6a92c01c63f4

There are many more. Perhaps thousands. Each one is one is met by denials that there is anything wrong with it. But they are all the same. In each case, someone said something deemed offensive and they suffered a consequence. For speech only. Not what they did time after time. Sometimes they said it 30 years ago when it was a common opinion during another time of change. Sometimes they didn't even say it all. But in almost all cases, there was no measurable harm, no discriminatory action, not even an accusation of such.

There are now hundreds, perhaps thousands of stories like this. And it's changing behavior. Which is in fact what people who promote the idea that we should cancel "offensive" speech really want. Like publishers changing what they publish on their own, whether they have readers or not.

Don't know how many incidents like these I need to prove to you. I've seen enough though. They are easy to find if you look. Also don't know how good your memory is, but I don't remember many from before 10 years ago. The first I remember was actually much earlier, but it didn't happen again for years and there were other issues there that made it worse. Now it happens almost every day.

Don't have to believe me. All I can do is put a bug in your ear. You do the rest.

[Anonymous]

Come on. Come ON. This guy up there acting like he’s discovered water is wet. Is this a joke? People facing consequences for their words and deeds is not something new ffs. Unless you’re a white dude I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on. Come ON. This guy up there acting like he’s discovered water is wet. Is this a joke? People facing consequences for their words and deeds is not something new ffs. Unless you’re a white dude I guess.

Half of you are amd at me because I pointed out a subjective social change that I don't like and the other half are mad because they don't think anything has changed.

Meanwhile, my prior answer to you was deleted for using a normal english word that happens to sound like a racial slur. That's a part of this change in itself, but now I can't even talk about it.

I guess you don't see it. That's ok. You don't have to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on. Come ON. This guy up there acting like he’s discovered water is wet. Is this a joke? People facing consequences for their words and deeds is not something new ffs. Unless you’re a white dude I guess.

Half of you are amd at me because I pointed out a subjective social change that I don't like and the other half are mad because they don't think anything has changed.

Meanwhile, my prior answer to you was deleted for using a normal english word that happens to sound like a racial slur. That's a part of this change in itself, but now I can't even talk about it.

I guess you don't see it. That's ok. You don't have to.

OP, what I think no one ever wants to admit is that there will be “innocent” victims of societal standards.

There will be, just as there have always been consequences for people of color for falling out of line. And that’s something that happens when we make progress.

Do you think that the fact that Neera Tanden is a brown woman has nothing to do with the fact that she couldn’t get a position in the administration over MEAN TWEETS? Like mean tweets ever stopped the nomination of a white man.

People of color and women are always punished for the most minor of indiscretions, and now that white people are getting a taste, it’s cancel culture.

Maybe the larger problem is that our society is so punitive in general. Everything is your own fault, everything is your responsibility. No one’s apology is accepted, no one is reformed, once you have a prison record you’re a pariah. Unless you are rich and white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on. Come ON. This guy up there acting like he’s discovered water is wet. Is this a joke? People facing consequences for their words and deeds is not something new ffs. Unless you’re a white dude I guess.

Half of you are amd at me because I pointed out a subjective social change that I don't like and the other half are mad because they don't think anything has changed.

Meanwhile, my prior answer to you was deleted for using a normal english word that happens to sound like a racial slur. That's a part of this change in itself, but now I can't even talk about it.

I guess you don't see it. That's ok. You don't have to.

OP, what I think no one ever wants to admit is that there will be “innocent” victims of societal standards.

There will be, just as there have always been consequences for people of color for falling out of line. And that’s something that happens when we make progress.

Do you think that the fact that Neera Tanden is a brown woman has nothing to do with the fact that she couldn’t get a position in the administration over MEAN TWEETS? Like mean tweets ever stopped the nomination of a white man.

People of color and women are always punished for the most minor of indiscretions, and now that white people are getting a taste, it’s cancel culture.

Maybe the larger problem is that our society is so punitive in general. Everything is your own fault, everything is your responsibility. No one’s apology is accepted, no one is reformed, once you have a prison record you’re a pariah. Unless you are rich and white.

Yes, that's true. And pretty much what I'm saying, although from a somewhat different perspective. We do need a more forgiving society. And to the extent that the powerful are now more aware that we need to be more forgiving, that's a good thing. On the other hand, our social structures are not well designing for forgiveness and we don't know yet how to make it better. So as this process goes forward, I ask those who are not able to forgive their enemies, to consider forgiveness in their hearts, even if you do think they deserved their punishment. You can do both, and if you do we will be that much closer to a more forgiving society for all.

Once again, you don't have to agree with me. But I think you can agree that there is nothing wrong with thinking this way other than you don't like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on. Come ON. This guy up there acting like he’s discovered water is wet. Is this a joke? People facing consequences for their words and deeds is not something new ffs. Unless you’re a white dude I guess.

Half of you are amd at me because I pointed out a subjective social change that I don't like and the other half are mad because they don't think anything has changed.

Meanwhile, my prior answer to you was deleted for using a normal english word that happens to sound like a racial slur. That's a part of this change in itself, but now I can't even talk about it.

I guess you don't see it. That's ok. You don't have to.

OP, what I think no one ever wants to admit is that there will be “innocent” victims of societal standards.

There will be, just as there have always been consequences for people of color for falling out of line. And that’s something that happens when we make progress.

Do you think that the fact that Neera Tanden is a brown woman has nothing to do with the fact that she couldn’t get a position in the administration over MEAN TWEETS? Like mean tweets ever stopped the nomination of a white man.

People of color and women are always punished for the most minor of indiscretions, and now that white people are getting a taste, it’s cancel culture.

Maybe the larger problem is that our society is so punitive in general. Everything is your own fault, everything is your responsibility. No one’s apology is accepted, no one is reformed, once you have a prison record you’re a pariah. Unless you are rich and white.

Yes, that's true. And pretty much what I'm saying, although from a somewhat different perspective. We do need a more forgiving society. And to the extent that the powerful are now more aware that we need to be more forgiving, that's a good thing. On the other hand, our social structures are not well designing for forgiveness and we don't know yet how to make it better. So as this process goes forward, I ask those who are not able to forgive their enemies, to consider forgiveness in their hearts, even if you do think they deserved their punishment. You can do both, and if you do we will be that much closer to a more forgiving society for all.

Once again, you don't have to agree with me. But I think you can agree that there is nothing wrong with thinking this way other than you don't like it.

I think you missed my point a little bit, OP.

Were you so "scared" and "worried" when Colin Kaepernick lost his job over a silent protest? People of color are "canceled" all the time without a rousing defense from "worried" white people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on. Come ON. This guy up there acting like he’s discovered water is wet. Is this a joke? People facing consequences for their words and deeds is not something new ffs. Unless you’re a white dude I guess.

Half of you are amd at me because I pointed out a subjective social change that I don't like and the other half are mad because they don't think anything has changed.

Meanwhile, my prior answer to you was deleted for using a normal english word that happens to sound like a racial slur. That's a part of this change in itself, but now I can't even talk about it.

I guess you don't see it. That's ok. You don't have to.

OP, what I think no one ever wants to admit is that there will be “innocent” victims of societal standards.

There will be, just as there have always been consequences for people of color for falling out of line. And that’s something that happens when we make progress.

Do you think that the fact that Neera Tanden is a brown woman has nothing to do with the fact that she couldn’t get a position in the administration over MEAN TWEETS? Like mean tweets ever stopped the nomination of a white man.

People of color and women are always punished for the most minor of indiscretions, and now that white people are getting a taste, it’s cancel culture.

Maybe the larger problem is that our society is so punitive in general. Everything is your own fault, everything is your responsibility. No one’s apology is accepted, no one is reformed, once you have a prison record you’re a pariah. Unless you are rich and white.

Yes, that's true. And pretty much what I'm saying, although from a somewhat different perspective. We do need a more forgiving society. And to the extent that the powerful are now more aware that we need to be more forgiving, that's a good thing. On the other hand, our social structures are not well designing for forgiveness and we don't know yet how to make it better. So as this process goes forward, I ask those who are not able to forgive their enemies, to consider forgiveness in their hearts, even if you do think they deserved their punishment. You can do both, and if you do we will be that much closer to a more forgiving society for all.

Once again, you don't have to agree with me. But I think you can agree that there is nothing wrong with thinking this way other than you don't like it.

I think you missed my point a little bit, OP.

Were you so "scared" and "worried" when Colin Kaepernick lost his job over a silent protest? People of color are "canceled" all the time without a rousing defense from "worried" white people.

Yes, I was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on. Come ON. This guy up there acting like he’s discovered water is wet. Is this a joke? People facing consequences for their words and deeds is not something new ffs. Unless you’re a white dude I guess.

Half of you are amd at me because I pointed out a subjective social change that I don't like and the other half are mad because they don't think anything has changed.

Meanwhile, my prior answer to you was deleted for using a normal english word that happens to sound like a racial slur. That's a part of this change in itself, but now I can't even talk about it.

I guess you don't see it. That's ok. You don't have to.

OP, what I think no one ever wants to admit is that there will be “innocent” victims of societal standards.

There will be, just as there have always been consequences for people of color for falling out of line. And that’s something that happens when we make progress.

Do you think that the fact that Neera Tanden is a brown woman has nothing to do with the fact that she couldn’t get a position in the administration over MEAN TWEETS? Like mean tweets ever stopped the nomination of a white man.

People of color and women are always punished for the most minor of indiscretions, and now that white people are getting a taste, it’s cancel culture.

Maybe the larger problem is that our society is so punitive in general. Everything is your own fault, everything is your responsibility. No one’s apology is accepted, no one is reformed, once you have a prison record you’re a pariah. Unless you are rich and white.

Yes, that's true. And pretty much what I'm saying, although from a somewhat different perspective. We do need a more forgiving society. And to the extent that the powerful are now more aware that we need to be more forgiving, that's a good thing. On the other hand, our social structures are not well designing for forgiveness and we don't know yet how to make it better. So as this process goes forward, I ask those who are not able to forgive their enemies, to consider forgiveness in their hearts, even if you do think they deserved their punishment. You can do both, and if you do we will be that much closer to a more forgiving society for all.

Once again, you don't have to agree with me. But I think you can agree that there is nothing wrong with thinking this way other than you don't like it.

I think you missed my point a little bit, OP.

Were you so "scared" and "worried" when Colin Kaepernick lost his job over a silent protest? People of color are "canceled" all the time without a rousing defense from "worried" white people.

Yes, I was.

Really?

Then why post about Dr. Seuss and not Neera Tanden?

I’m sorry, op, I’m just sort of skeptical of your whole premise here.

[Anonymous]

JOE WAS BAD IN THE SENATE.
JOE IS BAD AS PRESIDENT.

JOE WAS BAD IN DELAWARE.
JOE IS BAD EVERYWHERE.

-Dr. Seiss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on. Come ON. This guy up there acting like he’s discovered water is wet. Is this a joke? People facing consequences for their words and deeds is not something new ffs. Unless you’re a white dude I guess.

Half of you are amd at me because I pointed out a subjective social change that I don't like and the other half are mad because they don't think anything has changed.

Meanwhile, my prior answer to you was deleted for using a normal english word that happens to sound like a racial slur. That's a part of this change in itself, but now I can't even talk about it.

I guess you don't see it. That's ok. You don't have to.

OP, what I think no one ever wants to admit is that there will be “innocent” victims of societal standards.

There will be, just as there have always been consequences for people of color for falling out of line. And that’s something that happens when we make progress.

Do you think that the fact that Neera Tanden is a brown woman has nothing to do with the fact that she couldn’t get a position in the administration over MEAN TWEETS? Like mean tweets ever stopped the nomination of a white man.

People of color and women are always punished for the most minor of indiscretions, and now that white people are getting a taste, it’s cancel culture.

Maybe the larger problem is that our society is so punitive in general. Everything is your own fault, everything is your responsibility. No one’s apology is accepted, no one is reformed, once you have a prison record you’re a pariah. Unless you are rich and white.

Yes, that's true. And pretty much what I'm saying, although from a somewhat different perspective. We do need a more forgiving society. And to the extent that the powerful are now more aware that we need to be more forgiving, that's a good thing. On the other hand, our social structures are not well designing for forgiveness and we don't know yet how to make it better. So as this process goes forward, I ask those who are not able to forgive their enemies, to consider forgiveness in their hearts, even if you do think they deserved their punishment. You can do both, and if you do we will be that much closer to a more forgiving society for all.

Once again, you don't have to agree with me. But I think you can agree that there is nothing wrong with thinking this way other than you don't like it.

I think you missed my point a little bit, OP.

Were you so "scared" and "worried" when Colin Kaepernick lost his job over a silent protest? People of color are "canceled" all the time without a rousing defense from "worried" white people.

Yes, I was.

Really?

Then why post about Dr. Seuss and not Neera Tanden?

I’m sorry, op, I’m just sort of skeptical of your whole premise here.

I'm not the OP.
Sorry you are skeptical. If your standard for skepticism is "why didn't this anonymous poster say something on a different topic" you are probably much too "skeptical" to listen to anybody you don't like. No matter what I say, when, where, or how, there will always be much more I didn't say and you can always shoot me down for that. And I can shoot you down exactly the same way. Which is not really skepticism at all, but cynicism.

[Anonymous]

Who the hell is hurt by the publisher taking this book out of print? Good god. Don’t make this bigger than it is. The books are old, some people find them offensive, some don’t. Nothing sinister to wor er about. Concern troll is a concern troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on. Come ON. This guy up there acting like he’s discovered water is wet. Is this a joke? People facing consequences for their words and deeds is not something new ffs. Unless you’re a white dude I guess.

Half of you are amd at me because I pointed out a subjective social change that I don't like and the other half are mad because they don't think anything has changed.

Meanwhile, my prior answer to you was deleted for using a normal english word that happens to sound like a racial slur. That's a part of this change in itself, but now I can't even talk about it.

I guess you don't see it. That's ok. You don't have to.

OP, what I think no one ever wants to admit is that there will be “innocent” victims of societal standards.

There will be, just as there have always been consequences for people of color for falling out of line. And that’s something that happens when we make progress.

Do you think that the fact that Neera Tanden is a brown woman has nothing to do with the fact that she couldn’t get a position in the administration over MEAN TWEETS? Like mean tweets ever stopped the nomination of a white man.

People of color and women are always punished for the most minor of indiscretions, and now that white people are getting a taste, it’s cancel culture.

Maybe the larger problem is that our society is so punitive in general. Everything is your own fault, everything is your responsibility. No one’s apology is accepted, no one is reformed, once you have a prison record you’re a pariah. Unless you are rich and white.

Yes, that's true. And pretty much what I'm saying, although from a somewhat different perspective. We do need a more forgiving society. And to the extent that the powerful are now more aware that we need to be more forgiving, that's a good thing. On the other hand, our social structures are not well designing for forgiveness and we don't know yet how to make it better. So as this process goes forward, I ask those who are not able to forgive their enemies, to consider forgiveness in their hearts, even if you do think they deserved their punishment. You can do both, and if you do we will be that much closer to a more forgiving society for all.

Once again, you don't have to agree with me. But I think you can agree that there is nothing wrong with thinking this way other than you don't like it.

I think you missed my point a little bit, OP.

Were you so "scared" and "worried" when Colin Kaepernick lost his job over a silent protest? People of color are "canceled" all the time without a rousing defense from "worried" white people.

Yes, I was.

Really?

Then why post about Dr. Seuss and not Neera Tanden?

I’m sorry, op, I’m just sort of skeptical of your whole premise here.

I'm not the OP.
Sorry you are skeptical. If your standard for skepticism is "why didn't this anonymous poster say something on a different topic" you are probably much too "skeptical" to listen to anybody you don't like. No matter what I say, when, where, or how, there will always be much more I didn't say and you can always shoot me down for that. And I can shoot you down exactly the same way. Which is not really skepticism at all, but cynicism.

I’m sorry, pp, you just seem like a concern troll. With all of the things going wrong in this country, this should be so low on the list.