Lawrence O'Donnell reports on the Republican debate that devolved into a circular firing squad, with Rick Perry right in the middle.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Can I just mention how much good it does my heart to watch the Republicans beating each other up?

I wish I could start EVERY morning with something like this.

Sarah Palin trots out new serious political pundit image, as illustated by her new serious political pundit wig.

To watch the video just click the picture. Warning, it does take you to a Fox News site so take your Maalox first.

According to Klondike Kardashian now that CNN has hosted this "Tea Party" debate they have moved from "Lamestream" media to the Teabagger ass kissing media, which greatly pleases this insignificant political prick teaser. Good job CNN!

Palin has a favorite new term that she just learned, "Crony Capatalism," which she uses repeatedly during this interview to essentially smear the whole group of GOP candidates at one time or another.

However she really brings out the long knives when Greta mentions Rick Perry, the HPV vaccine, and the suggestion that the reason he went with the program was due to possible payoff from the manufacturer of the drug. Here Palin goes for the jugular and starts throwing charges of, her new favorite term that she just learned about, "Crony Capitalism" all over the place like a Ninja star.

She even compares Perry's decision to make the vaccination semi-mandatory to HER decision, around the same time, to NOT go with the program.  Essentially creating as much space between Rick Perry's policies and hers as possible, which is a complete turnaround to how she described "Governor Good Hair" only  few short months ago. You know BEFORE he threw his Texas sized hat into the ring and rustled all of her Teabagger support away from her.

At the end of this interview Greta asks the question that she is apparently contractually obligated to ask concerning whether or not Palin is still considering throwing her wig hat into the ring to run for President? I almost feel sorry for Greta who appears to be very tired of this dog and pony show, but Palin leaps on the question like a feral Wasillian and implies that she LOVES the fact that by staying out she can still influence the subjects that the OTHER candidates take on, including her favorite new term she just learned about, "Crony Capitalism."

This interview was just as bizarre and full of misinformation, attacks on our President, and barbs thrown at her own party as usual, the only REAL news seems to be that she is now blatantly, and aggressively, attacking Rick Perry, which seems to suggest that the sources who have said she is angry with him for very personal reasons are probably dead on.

Oh and of course the OTHER news from this interview is that whatever was on Palin's head from her LAST interview has clearly escaped and is undoubtedly still at large in the greater Wasilla area.

Residents should remain vigilant!

Rick Perry shows what a man he is by bullying 76 year old Ron Paul!

These are pictures taken during a commercial break in the Republican debate.

Notice that he has grabbed hold of Paul's wrist.

What do you think he needed to lean in so close to say? I doubt it was reasonable.

Jon Huntsman decides to step in between them to protect Ron Paul.

I fucking hate bullies!  And though I am not sure what was said here, I can certainly tell from Perry's body language that he was trying to intimidate Ron Paul, who might be a nut, but he is a harmless nut, and does NOT deserve to be disrespected in this manner!

(Big Hat tip to Market Ticker Forum.)

Update: I have no idea if this means I have slipped into an alternate universe or just eaten a batch of bad mushrooms, but somehow I found myself in agreement with the Sea O'Pee on Rick Perry and his bullying techniques.  I will try to make sure that NEVER happens again.

I mean talk about "jumping the shark!"

Just in case you missed it, here is the ENTIRE Republican debate from earlier tonight. With a side order of tweets!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I have to say that I actually had fun watching this.

I really like watching Republicans go for each others jugular.

I tweeted my fingers to the bone during this debate, so rather than write up a whole long post concerning my opinion about who won, who lost, and who said the stupidest thing, I will just let you read my highly informative, truly inspired, and potentially libelous tweets. (And remember, I MAY have been drinking during the debate.)

Perry is talking. I am pinching myself to remind me I am not having a nightmare about George W. Bush. 

Matthews should be happy. Romney is trying to kick Perry in the balls. He is missing, but he is trying. 

Okay Romney landed one. Does Perry believe he is responsible for the oil in the ground in Texas?

Wait is that Santorum? Here let me Google him to make sure. 

Herman Cain is going for the applause lines. Why do I crave deep dish pizza all of the sudden? 

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! It is "Crazy time with Bachmann!" I LOVE this show! 

Is she blaming the economy on "Obamacare?" Uh seriously?(Which by the way does not even start to kick in until 2013.)

Well who could possibly out crazy Bachmann? Mr. Paul, you are up. 

Oh Brian Williams is going to get some nasty e-mails tonight! How dare he confront the leprechaun of Libertarianism. 

Uh oh, I think Newt is working for the Perry campaign! 

Perry smells Romney blood in the water. "Did somebody say healthcare?" he drawls. 

Let's sum up Romney's defense. "MY healthcare plan good. Obama healthcare plan bad!" 

"Why are people uninsured in Texas?" Perry "Federal government." WTF? 

I think Bachamnn just said something smart. I am looking out of the window for locusts and fiery rain. 

Newt is attacking the moderators! Quick load up the tranquilizer guns! (Yelled at Brain Williams and that Politco guy to not attempt to make Republicans disagree with each other. I am not sure that Newt understands the concept of a "debate.")

The journalists are "protecting" Barack Obama? When did that happen? 

Santorum is speaking in the third person again. 

Holy crap! Rick Perry just looked through my television at me. Yeah, I don't like that! 

Romney will not say that Bachmann crazy. Pansy! 

Paul just kicked Perry in his "Hillarycare" supporting balls. 

Ron Paul just jumped the shark with his condemnation of Reagan policies in the eighties. I guess he was ALWAYS on that side of the shark. 

Yeah Rick Perry, why do you hate old people? (Called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme.")

Perry attacks Karl Rove? Ooh that is going to leave a mark! 

Romney found chink in the Perry armor. 

Oh NOW Perry does not want to fight. Yeah, that is how bullies ALWAYS respond. 

Herman Cain is talking about the Chile model. Why is that man always making me hungry? 

Funniest line thus far. Ron Paul saying "I as President." 

I think I have to agree with Perry about the HPV vaccine. I hate myself for it, but I do. 

Romney is supporting Perry on the HPV vaccine. Crap I hate it when they stop fighting! 

Why is Newt talking about WMDs again? Somebody get the man a calendar. 

Paul hates people affected by natural disasters. What did people do before FEMA? They died. 

Huntsman wants to talk about something important. And his tan is VERY Presidential. He wins points with me. 

Newt offers solution to education. "Get rid of public education!" So simple, why didn't anybody else think of that? 

Hey! How come the Hispanic moderator does not get a chair? 

Romney wants a border fence. That is just for YOU Teabaggers. Romney loves you, don't forget. 

Wow, Romney just went full Teabagger! 

Santorum punts the immigration issue concerning the illegals already in the country. 

Hispanics wants us to stop helping illegal aliens? "Screw you Uncle Jesus, get your green card!" (Bachmann claimed to have spoken to Hispanics who did not want Federal dollars spent on illegal immigrants in this country.)

Wow everything is so simple for Herman Cain. He is either a genius, or Herman Cain. 

Paul going after the drug laws. The stoner voting block is his for the asking. 

Ron Paul said that those border fences might keep us from vacationing in Peurto Vallarta. I KNEW those fences weren't for the Mexicans! (Ron Paul had said the border fences are to keep Americans in.)

Romney says he IS member of Tea Party. Baggers say "Nuh uh!" 

Bachmann is trying to channel Reagan. Nancy looks doubtful. 

Huntsman says no to pledges and immediately starts to lose his voice. Somewhere Grover Nordquist is choking a voodoo doll. 

Bachmann: "Obama is weakening our military." Yes because killing terrorists makes the rest of the world think we are push overs. 

Huntsman defends science? I thought he was a Republican? 

Perry grabbed the scientists by the scruff of the neck and throws them under his big ole Texas bus. Now that is a Republican!  (In response to Perry saying that the findings on climate science are not agreed to by most scientists.)


(I did correct a few spelling mistakes, but for the most part those are my tweets as tweeted in the heat of the moment.)

Rick Santorum believes that allowing women to terminate the pregnancy which resulted from their rape would be to traumatize them twice. Wait, what?

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:

"Would you allow no exceptions for cases of rape on incest?" Fox News host, Byron York asked. "Polls have shown that large majorities of Americans support some exceptions for abortion. Are your views too much, even for many conservatives to support?" 

"That child is an innocent victim," Santorum replied. "To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing. It is an innocent human life, genetically human from the moment of conception. We in America should be big enough to try to surround ourselves and help women in those terrible situations who have been traumatized already. To put them through another trauma of an abortion, I think is too much to ask. So I would absolutely stand and say that one violence is enough."

Now ladies I might need all of you weigh in here, because I am just one of those pathetic creatures burdened with a "Y" chromosome, but is there really ANY comparisons between the feelings associated with terminating an unwanted pregnancy and being forced to carry your rapists child to term?

Personally I would have to imagine that every day of those long nine months could potentially add layers upon layers of trauma to the initial pain of the assault.

It sounds as if Santorum, who believes that life begins as conception, feels this same way about the "morning after" pill. As if taking a precautionary medication to ensure that the potential of fertilization resulting from a violent insemination does not further burden the victim, can be compared to the act of rape.

Does Rick Santorum not have a wife, or sister, or daughter?

What is it about these people that makes them place the rights of a cluster of cells above that of every other already living person on the planet. 

They demand that the fetus be protected, yet they support the death penalty.

They demand that the fetus be protected, yet they have little problem sending our troops to kill people all over the world.

They demand that the fetus be protected, yet they argue against sending aid to places like Africa where famine is killing thousands of innocent people.

I will just never understand why the protection of a POTENTIAL life, can take precedence over the protection of an ACTUAL life.

And perhaps it is better that I NEVER understand that.

Talking Points Memo has a MUST SEE highlight reel of the Republican debate from last night.

Just in case you thought I exaggerated with my earlier post.

By the way I just have to say I that I think Bachmann won the debate when she reminded the panel that SHE introduced the "Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act."  I mean seriously, which one of THEM has done anything even remotely as important?

(I know a lot of you have asked me to post the bit from the Daily Show about this Ames poll, and I will later, but I really thought that this video was actually funnier and more entertaining. Which is especially humorous because this bunch of nincompoops actually thought they were convincing Americans that they could be President.)

"I'm the worst possible choice for this country! No, I am! I hate this country! I hate it more!" Last night's GOP debate in a nutshell.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I was only able to watch a little of this three ring circus, because I have a doctor's note that excuses me from watching too much Fox news since it dramatically impairs my ability to engage in rational thought.

However what I did see was MORE than enough to convince me that we need to work our little progressive asses off to make sure that President Obama gets reelected, and that not ONE of this simple minded douchebags should be allowed anywhere near the White House!

Seriously I don't care HOW disappointed you are in this President, or how frustrated you are that he did not wave his magic negro wand and solve all of the nation's problems like you convinced yourself he would, from what I saw last night he is this country's only hope of not ending up looking like a real life version of a "Mad Max" movie.

These are the scariest bunch of lunatics I have seen gathered on one stage since I watched patients at the Alaska Psychiatric Institute put on their version of a "Midsummer Night's Dream." (Not bad really.  I especially enjoyed the part where the actor playing Puck forgot his lines and kept asking if anybody in the audience had a copy of Shakespeare with them.)

Hearing these slack jawed candy asses claim that they would NOT raise taxes even if they were promised ten spending cuts for each tax hike made my frontal lobe scream for mercy.

I know these people are smarter than that (except for Michele Bachmann who is only about six brain cells away from having to have a cork stuck to the end of her fork) and yet they refuse to stand up to Grover Norquist and the Teabaggers, and tell the voters the truth about what it will take to fix this nation's economy.  That was a shameful display.

There were a FEW glimmers of intelligence, such as Jon Huntsman saying that he would repeal NCLB, but for the most part this appeared to a contest to see who could act like the most ignorant man on the stage.

In fact these wannabe leaders of the free world had dumbed themselves down to such a degree that having Sarah "all you need is common sense" Palin and Rick "I can't figure it out so let's pray for a solution"Perry join them onstage might actually have RAISED the combined Intelligence Quotient.

Yeah, it was THAT bad! 

Now if you will excuse me I have to write a check to the Barack Obama reelection campaign.

An Open Letter to Conservadems

¡Hola! Everybody...
No, I didn't watch, listen to, or pay much attention to the “Whitestock” parade of fools that occurred this past Saturday. Suffice it to say that ignorance was on parade for the whole world to see and right now, I’m not taking any phone calls from my European friends, who have had a field day (at my expense) for at least the last ten years, what with Dumb Fuck Bush and now the Teabaggers*.

I will say this much: last Saturday’s “Restoring Honor” epic failure was nothing but pure unadulterated ignorance being manipulated by some crafty people (and no, Beck nor Palin are crafty). They will be gunning for us this November, and taking into consideration that the Obama administration has thrown progressives under the bus, and has spent most of its time heeding the advice of the corporate wing of the DNC, be prepared for major losses. Consider the teabaggers as a final fitful death rattle from a demographic pining for the Stone Age of Jim Crow, xenophobic anti-immigrant fervor, forced closeting of the GLBT community, perpetual war, and the subjugation of women. And they will get their last gasp, even if it means destroying the very freedoms they claim to hold sole ownership of...

The following is something I picked off a comment thread. It's been altered to suit my purposes, but if you’re an intelligent progressive (professional or otherwise), if you believe that going back to a time that never was to values that pertained only to 9mostly male) whites is the wrong way to go, then pay heed and pass it around. It needs to be heard.

* * *

-=[ An Open Letter to Progressives and conservadems ]=-

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
~William E. Gladstone, 1866

This is for Liberals and progressives for when the fuckin “clowns” come around. BTW, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to send this to the corporate wing of the DNC. They’re sucking major dick and throwing progressives under the bus (again).

Grow a pair. A huge pair. A huge pair of balls (Testicles) or Eggs (Ovi). Let the Goobers know we ain’t playin'.

Confront conservative propaganda! Their polices have been utter failures. Mention that fact often (and forcefully). It’s easy to support. Whether in education, economics -- almost every social policy sphere -- conservatives are epic failures. To the Conservadems: If you really want to run a successful campaign to win re-election, you need to denounce the lies that the American public has been subjected to by the extremists on the right (and essentially all conservatives). Why vote for a fake conservative Goober when there many real goobers waiting to take over?

1. When a dumb teabagger/ conservative/ troglodyte calls you a “liberal,” it’s time to let the world know that progress is not a dirty word. Progress is moving forward. It’s in synergy with evolutionary forces -- what got us out of caves and made life more enjoyable, convenient, and comfortable
2. Conservative is another word for the desire to live in the same caves mentioned in #1 above.
3. When the wingnuts claim Democrats are the “tax and spend” party, you need to nail home the concept that republicans are the “Borrow and spend” party. Every record deficit of the modern era has been the result of wrong-headed conservative ideas. Again, this is easy to support. Mention it often (and forcefully).
4. Liberals need to be ballsy about stripping away the lies of conservatives. The Democratic Party, if they are to be the party of the common people, needs to get behind that idea.
5. Do you really feel the need to cater to morons that think President Obama is an “elitist,” a Muslim, and un-American? Those people are not going to change their racist minds -- no need to bother attempting to alter the minds of people that belong in an asylum. Conservative ideology is all about authoritarianism. It’s taking us to certain utter failure. If you don’t believe me, then check out if wages for the middle class have kept up with the times. Then after you do that, take a look at the wealth gap between CEOs and the common worker.
6. While on the topic of racism, it was the Texas republican organization that was selling “Obama Waffles” at their convention in 2008. It was a right wing conservative group that portrayed Michelle Obama as a monkey in a photoshopped photo, as well as the Obama White House with a foreground of a watermelon patch. The wingnuts are a bunch of racists -- time to call the goobers out. You have little time to do so; I suggest you get on the ball. Historically, conservatives have fought tooth and nail against every progressive ideal, including the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and struggles of the LGBT movement for equality.
7. For some bizarre, inexplicable reason, liberals and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party just allow this stuff to become reality by not denouncing it on an hourly, daily basis.
8. Call a spade a spade or, a “moran” a moron. People will stand up and listen when you have the fuckin cojones to call someone out. I mean, “death panels”? Are you serious? Who in the world would ever believe America would have “death panels,” other than a fuckin inbred idiot that couldn’t find his own asshole with two hands? But you allowed the republicans to control the conversation. Which brings me to point #9
9. Control the Terms of Debate. Do not let a conservative set the terms of the debate. Question their played out metaphors; for once you frame the debate. You define the terms. The Democratic Party has allowed the goobers from the right to hijack the agenda and have failed miserably on this count, so expect significant losses come the November elections. Not to fear, grow a set/ few and we’ll get it back -- if we vote for liberals with BIG BALLS and BIG EGGS.

Yours,

Eddie

* The original Tea Party crowd was not after independence but was willing to settle for a few seats in Parliament. If the Tea Party had been successful we would still be a colony of Great Britain.

Sunday Sermon [Intellectual Etiquette]

¡Hola! Everybody...
The Second Commandment of Corporate Christianity (right after Thou shalt prostrate thyself only before Market Ideology and before Thou shalt not enjoy sex), is: It’s a sin to allow a fool to keep his money (so give it to the rich, they know better).

I usually post the following once or twice a year.

* * *

-=[Intellectual Etiquette ]=-

Not to know is bad; not to wish to know is worse.

-- African proverb

I do not suffer fools easily. Fools like those who react rather than think. Fools such as the woman who came to my blog, read the term white racism and ran screaming that I was a bigot. I would venture that you could probably sharpen a thin pencil with her anal sphincter. Fools who react in anger rather than attempt to understand. Like the fool who comes here occasionally and mistakes insult for critical analysis...

Good riddance!

::cue in strains of the Twilight Zone theme song::

I’m very meticulous about my reading material. When I post here, I can guarantee you that I have taken the time not only to fully understand the material, but that I have constructed a logical argument. This is not mere personal opinion. Knowledge and opinion are not synonymous. In fact, the vast majority of opinion is worthless. If that sounds elitist, then, fuck it, call me an uppity spic -- I am an elitist if being an elitist means adhering to intellectual standards.

In any case, if you read me, you will note that there is a logical sequence to my writing. That, to me, is the greatest respect I can pay to you, the reader: that I have taken the time and effort to present a coherent and logical message.

In turn, I expect for my readers, if they’re going to engage me, to show me the same respect by attempting to understand what I have written. Some people have gotten their egos bruised because they have failed to attempt to understand before disagreeing with me. Some people apparently believe they can skim my posts and then engage me. People, I hate to break this to you, but there is no Santa Claus and you cannot agree with something you have failed to understand.

Yup, life sucks. And here? In my house? I’m going to hold you to... standards.

Honestly, I could give a flying fuck if you called me a muthafucka. You’re not that important in my life. You don’t blow me, engage in recipient anal sex with me, nor pay my rent. Therefore, if you think imma muthafucka, a bastard, or an asshole, it doesn’t rally matter that much to me.

::arches eyebrow::

If you have taken the time, however, to understand what I have written and demonstrate that understanding before you call me a muthafucka, we’re always gonna be cool.

Here is what I’m going to propose. It’s called intellectual etiquette and if more people observed it, the world would be a better place. For example, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today.

First, respect (as I define it) means understanding the material in such a way that you could restate the post in as briefly a manner as possible. Secondly, you should be able to come to terms with the author by interpreting his key words or phrases. Know the author’s arguments preferably by constructing them out of sequences of their own sentences. Determine which of his problems he has solved and which he has not. Also, note which problems the author knew he failed to solve.

I have skimped on the first two stages of Intellectual Etiquette because the following is most important:

One more thing: debate isn’t always pretty, or even polite. Debate can be passionate, disrupting, anxiety-producing, contentious, and maddening. It’s supposed to be that way. If you doubt me, then pick up any number of books and read about the great historical debates. Believe me, they weren’t “pretty” and polite, with pinkies held erect while sipping tea.

Nope...

The greatest debates were often contentious, mean, angry, but they all had that one thing in common -- at least the great debates did: they offered some measure of intellectual etiquette.

General Rules of Intellectual Etiquette

(Adapted from Adler Mortimer, How to Read a Book, pp. 164-165)

The following helps you answer the questions, Is it true? and What of it?

You cannot disagree with a point if you haven’t fully understood that point. In other words, you can’t say you agree, disagree, or suspend judgment, until you can say (and show), I understand.

Do not disagree disputatiously or contentiously. (Okay! Admittedly, I suck on this one. ::grin:: However, saying I think your point sucks, and demonstrating why, is different from saying you suck, ok?)

There is a difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion. Demonstrate that recognition by presenting good reasons for any critical remarks you make.

Special Standards for when Disagreeing (Being Critical)

• Show where the writer/ poster is uninformed
• Show where the writer/ poster is misinformed
• Show where the writer/ poster is illogical
• Show where the writer/ poster’s analysis or account is incomplete

If you fail at any of the last four, then you must agree, at least in part, although you may suspend judgment overall, in light of the last point.

Okay Muthafuckas! LMAO!

If you don’t use your critical faculty, you will lose it, or never fully cultivate it. Act the fool and I will call you on it.

Love,

Eddie

Intellectual Etiquette

¡Hola! Everybody...
So, if a single mother finds herself in a bad way (after being fired by, let us say Citigroup) and applies for welfare, she's ridiculed, called immoral, and she definitely has a cap on what monetary assistance she can expect. Why is it, then, that when a Wall St. CEO or corporate entity suckles on the public teat, we are not applying the same standards?

::blank stare::

I am gone all day...

* * *

-=[Intellectual Etiquette ]=-

“Not to know is bad; not to wish to know is worse.”

-- African proverb

I have several posts almost ready to roll on white racism. I will not suffer fools easily. Fools like those who refuse to read what I write and react rather than think. Fools such as the woman who came to my blog read the term white racism and ran screaming that I was a bigot. Go to her blog. I would dare say you could probably sharpen a thin pencil with her anal sphincter.

Good riddance!

Or the other fools who react in anger because they don’t bother to understand. One guy, beside himself at the notion of white privilege, asked in a belligerent tone that I furnish some material from peer-reviewed journals and when I gave him a link to a blog I wrote in which I synthesized material from a slew of academic journals, he refused.

Good riddance!

Or the dumb twat who took a cursory look at the same material and suggested that my sources were slanted, failing to notice that I had included tons of research from what I call racial conservatives. In fact, the whole post was dedicated to a logical dismantling of their flawed methodology. I think she also stated that facts don’t matter

::listens to strains of the Twilight Zone theme song::

Good riddance!

I’m very meticulous about my reading material. When I post here, I can guarantee you that I have taken the time not only to research the material, but that I have constructed a logical argument. This is not mere personal opinion. Knowledge and opinion are not synonymous. In fact, the vast majority of opinion is worthless. If that sounds elitist, then, fuck it, call me an uppity spic -- I am an elitist if being an elitist means having some intellectual standards.

In any case, if you read me, you will note that there is a logical sequence to my writing. That, to me, is the greatest respect I can pay a reader: that I have taken the time and effort to present a coherent and logical message.

In turn, I expect for my readers, if they’re going to engage me, to show me the same respect by attempting to understand what I have written. Some people here have gotten their egos bruised because they have failed to attempt to understand before disagreeing with me. Some people apparently believe they skim my posts and then engage me. People, I hate to break this to you, but there is no Santa Claus and you cannot agree with something you have failed to understand!

Yup, life sucks. And here? I’m going to hold you to... Standards!

Honestly, I could give a flying fuck if you called me a muthafucka. You’re not that important in my life. You don’t suck my dick, nor do you give me any ass, so if you think imma muthafucka, a bastard, or an asshole, it doesn’t rally matter that much to me.

What?

If you have taken the time, however, to understand what I have written and demonstrate that understanding before you call me a muthafucka, we’re gonna be cool.

Here is what I’m going to propose. It’s called intellectual etiquette and I have adopted these from the book by Mortimer Adler, How to Read a Book. If more people observed it, the world would be a better place. For example, we wouldn’t be in the economic mess we’re in today.

First, respect (in my book) means understanding the material in such a way that you could restate the post in as briefly a manner as possible. Secondly you should be able to come to terms with the author by interpreting his key words or phrases. Know the author’s arguments preferably by constructing them out of sequences of his own sentences. Determine which of his problems he has solved and which he has not. Also, note which problems the author knew he failed to solve.

I have skimped on the first two stages of Intellectual Etiquette because the following is most important:

• You cannot say you agree, disagree, or suspend judgment until you can say, “I understand.”
• Avoid disagreeing disputatiously or contentiously (doesn’t always happen, but try)
• Exhibit your recognition of the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion by presenting clear reasons for any critical judgment you make.

If you’re going to criticize and want to be taken seriously, you should adhere to these standards:

• Show where the author is uninformed.
• Show where the author is misinformed.
• Show where the author is illogical.
• Show where the author’s analysis or account is incomplete.

Please note, of these last four, the first three are necessary criteria for disagreement. Failing all of these, you must agree, at least in part, although you may choose to suspend judgment.

If you don’t use your critical faculty, you will lose it, or never really cultivate it. Act the fool and I will treat you in kind.

Love,

Eddie