Once again catching up on way old mail, courtesy of yet another 4 or 5 inches of snow... <<Political positions (in my opinion; this could make a good debate) are basically amoral I may be jumping the gun here (perhaps I will find a few posts on that you did address this, but if I wait until I read them all, well .... ), but I'd like to hear you expound a little on this statement. My knee-jerk reflex is to profoundly disagree, but I think I need to know more about what that sentence means to you. I'm suspecting my understanding of it isn't you intent of it. Julie Krueger cold ========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Redecker Date: 1/22/2007 2:51:09 P.M. Central Standard Time From: _eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on: >>. . . this little statement of Eric's makes no sense. People do not choose their colour, so one would expect both good and bad. But they do choose their political persuasion, so we need have no such expectation. I do note your smile, Eric. Just making a point about groups and groups. However-- :-) continuing -- unless the groups in question are primarily representing moral issues, like a Satanist After School Club or something, one could expect both good and bad. Neocons represent a political position. Political positions (in my opinion; this could make a good debate) are basically amoral, so one's moral expectations of them are also broad. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html