The trick with O'Really is to figure out if there is a useful point to make, in light of why you are being invited, then go in there and keep bringing the conversation back to it. You won't get an chance to equivocate or make a subtle point. The best Corn could do was say the masses attending the demo were innocent of whatever the WWP was guilty of. Or they were 'using' the WWP. Not helpful.
For instance, what about the loons in the pro-war coalition? What up with G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter, and similar manifest nut-jobs? Who's going to disavow them?
Or: invading Iraq is such a bad idea, people will go to any lengths to register opposition to it. And here are all the fine groups that have done so. Isn't that more important than the WWP?
mbs
On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 12:07 PM, Nathan Newman wrote:
> Actually, in substance nothing Corn said was wrong or inaccurate. The
> venue
> sucked, but as Chuck notes, the truth sucks more.
<snip>
> But it's far easier to trash Corn and Gitlin then deal with the
> problem.
> <snip>
i just don't understand how what corn is doing is supposed to actually help, either. seems to me it's far easier to trash the wwp than deal with the problem. and i told him i thought as much, for whatever that's worth.
j