[lit-ideas] Re: Ground Zero and Dowdophobia
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:49:36 -0500
*ERIC*: "In argumentation, it's an initial assumption that both sides share
a common goal -- resolving an issue in the best possible way.
"That used to be partially true in politics, but lately I've sensed that
political ideologues would be happy to see the US destroyed if it proved
their points."
*MOI*: I assume you're talking about the Fox News crowd and the Tea
Partiers. They certainly seem quite willing and eager to trash the First
Amendment. And who can blame them? The damn thing keeps getting in the way
of so many prejudices and bigotries and phobias.
*ERIC*: In other words, that initial assumption of a shared goal, the best
possible course of action, that all sides want what's in the national
interest, no longer seems to apply."
*MOI*: Eric's "initial assumption of a shared goal" is I suspect an
uncommon event in any nation's political life, especially in heterogeneous
countries like the US where different populations have differing cultures,
differing needs, differing beliefs, differing values, and at times differing
languages. All pursue what they perceive to be in their interest --
sometimes not very intelligently as with Southern Whites. I have no doubt
that many New Yorkers especially are offended by what they feel is a
desecration of the memory of loved ones lost, but sentiment is not a concern
of the Constitution, nor should it ever be. But is it wise to antagonize?
Depends, it seems to me, on what's to be gained, what lost? A position with
which the pragmatist Lawrence no doubt identifies.
Mike Geary
Memphis
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Eric <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 8/23/2010 4:52 PM, Lawrence Helm wrote:
>
>> There is no one on Frank Rich's list of Right-Wing demons that I read. So
>> to learn that Mike read's their Left Wing equivalent, and offers them up
>> with approval disappointed me, and perhaps Eric.
>>
>
>
> In argumentation, it's an initial assumption that both sides share a common
> goal -- resolving an issue in the best possible way.
>
> That used to be partially true in politics, but lately I've sensed that
> political ideologues would be happy to see the US destroyed if it proved
> their points. In other words, that initial assumption of a shared goal, the
> best possible course of action, that all sides want what's in the national
> interest, no longer seems to apply.
>
> Not trusting the motives of writers like Dowd, I see no merit in taking up
> their claims and counterclaims.
>
>
> E
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
Other related posts:
