Some interesting discussion topics

* Universal ID --I don't see how we can get a grip on who's in this country without this. We also need it to prevent ID theft. There are many technical issues, but new technologies offer hope. I notice that the far left and the far right are unanimous in loathing this idea. That's a recommendation in my book.

* Finding neutral debate terms. Every emotionally charged debate going on in this country is flooded with emotionally charged language in which one side or another--or both--try to tilt the playing field in their direction. I'd like to see a discussion in which people tried to find neutral terms for the debates. I find the media to be almost criminally negligent in this area. They just use whatever term has the most vigorous promotion behind it.

Terms that should be replaced:
>"Pro life," "pro choice," "unborn baby"
>"people of color," "African American"
>"atheist," "people of faith"
>"undocumented worker," "illegal alien."
--I think "illegal alien" is actually denotatively accurate, but I'm open to another term. "undocumented worker" implies that the person has no documents, but they may well have documents from their home country; "worker" doesn't imply that all illegals are worker--it states it; likewise "immigrant." But a person isn't a worker if they're a criminal or a dependent or plan to live off welfare/food stamps/begging etc. A person is only an immigrant if they plan to stay permanently. Some do, some don't. Many plan to return after earning some money. Those aren't immigrants.
>"war on terror" --it's not a war in the conventional sense of country-on-country armed conflict; it's not terror--that's a tactic, and we're not pursuing the Tamil Tigers, ETA in Spain, or any other terrorist group except for the Islamofascists who are trying to kill us. It's a multidimensional conflict with the Islamofascist movement and certain elements in certain countries that support this movement. Now--how about a pithy term from that that isn't actively misleading, as "war on terror" is?

Neutral terms might make dialog actually possible instead of the shouting matches we normally see in forums and on the air.
-----------------------------------

* underlying assumptions. Conservative people focus on the individual's responsibilities towards the group; liberal people focus on the group's responsibilities towards the individual. So when either makes a point he thinks is quite telling and the other dismisses it, the point-maker sees the other as a traitor to all that's good & holy. They talk past each other. I'd like to see a discussion about this fundamental issue, using actual conflict issues to tie it to reality--illegal immigration, universal ID, the draft, the conflict with Islamofascists, abortion--all provide numerous examples of this talking past-ing.

For example, in the abortion debate, anti-abortion people invariable say at some point that "life beings at the moment of conception," and this is rarely challenged. But that's not a definition of "life" any biologist worth his salt would accept--unless you agreed that your nose is also alive but your hair is dead (outside the follicle).

I think the anti-abortion people are actually proposing that we're ensouled at the moment of conception, but they've learned not to make this explicit. Biologists start raising uncomfortable points otherwise, such as the fact that identical twins and chimeras are not formed at the moment of conception. And real theologists will add that there's nothing biblical in the assertion either.