Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> >The reality is that those passing STATE restrictions on LOCAL powers,
> >usually white legislatures in places like Texas taking away powers from
> >black and latino-dominated cities, are based on a corporate-funded agenda.
>
> Why do you think I support that? Did I ever suggest that for a
> second? In NewmanWorld, one is either a hardcore union loyalist or a
> rightwing enemy of the working class; one is either a supporter of
> the right of noble hardworking communities to do urban planning or of
> nefarious corporate interests trying to take that right away from
> them.
I would more or less agree with this on this topic, but it is worth noting that Nathan's hard either/ors are more tightly tied to practice (albeit what I think is a wrong-headed practice) than is Doug's pluralism. It is easy to say that one doesn't have to go _either_ east _or_ west_; one may go ESE, N, NNW etc. But in a given case one _may_ be in a narrow alley, and if one moves _at_ all, one moves either to the east or the west.
Action almost always reduces the world of plentiful choice to a Yes/No binary. In practice, you either support the DP or you don't. Only in armchair speculation can one do both. Nathan has chosen to support it.
Carrol