Robert: Advocating not invading Iraq might be a
consequence of one's being a true pacifist; but
saying that this is the 'wrong war, at the wrong
time, in the wrong place,' is to advocate
prudence, not pacifism, unless one is a pacifist
making a bad joke.
Eric: Another alternative is that people say
whatever they think supports their views, whether
or not they believe in them. One could say this is
the 'wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong
place' merely because it supports one's
emotionally-based convictions.
Take Pinter's bizarre Nobel Prize speech--an old
coot venting ahistorically and nonsequentially as
though he were a military historian rather than a
playwright. Pinter obviously doesn't know more
than any of us--he merely makes contentions that
support his emotional bias.
And you have no idea how many literary folk have
sent me copies of his speech--as though the
judgment of Pinter on recent history were any more
valid than Andy Warhol's opinion of quantum mechanics.
People want things that confirm their views.
Doesn't matter if they are ignorant of the
subtleties or innocent of the research.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
