On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Doug Henwood wrote:
> It's evading reality not to have an answer to the question - to
> dismiss the question from the first as "wrong!" with a
> McLaughlin-like epithet. The analogy would be avoiding the slavery
> question altogether, not avoiding an abolitionist position because it
> was unpopular. You have to have an answer to the question; it doesn't
> have to be George Bush's or Chistopher Hitchens'.
>
> Doug
You're missing my point: not answering the question as it is framed is in fact taking a currently unpopular political position. In fact, a person doesn't have to answer the question: again, if you ask me how many slaves a person should be able to own, I'll just reject the basis of the question rather than debating about 2 or 6 or 20 as an answer.
Sometimes a blunt dismissal of a question is the best strategy (ask any prof). Is this one of those times? I don't know. This is a difficult time to think and analyze; lots of ritualistic thinking across the political spectrum.
Hey, how about those Yankees, anyway?
Miles