> On 8/4/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>> Seems to me there's a difference between saying that Israel cannot be
>> allowed to win in Lebanon, and the U.S. in Iraq and that Hezbollah
>> and the Iraqi resistance are the only available agents to make that
>> happen, and writing love letters to them.
> Yes, there is a difference -- the former is analysis without emotion
> (whether due to simple absence of it or active suppression of it),
> whereas the latter is analysis of emotion. Two different genres, and
> both are valid -- it all depends on what you want to say, whom you
> want to address, and how you want to say it.
============================= That is a good way of putting it.
In my own case, I have and have always had strong feelings about the social and political issues I choose to comment on. Few find their way to the left who are not empathetic and crave justice.
However, the question is whether it is more poliitically effective to try and persuade people outside the Middle East who are not inclined to support demonized movements like Hezbollah and Hamas and states like Iran by "analysis without emotion" - or controlled emotion - or by flamboyant professions of love for a Persian Prince which can have no other purpose, it seems to me, than to shock and provoke. People are rarely shocked into changing their minds.
But I'll admit you've succeeded in shocking me. Your infatuation with Ahmadinejad, wrapped in what you call irony and humour, is inconsistent with the cool analysis I've come to expect from you, even when we disagree.