[lbo-talk] Susie Bright on Foley etc

[ravi]

At around 3/10/06 6:01 pm, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Charles A. Grimes wrote:
> 
>> Anyway, there is an ethical issue here. If you find nothing wrong with
>> Foley or his boyfriends, is it really a valid ethical position to
>> castigate him? See, I have this conflict. I hate jerks like Foley who
>> have made use of homophobia and some indistinct public
>> fear/fascination with sexuality. It would great fun to destory him and
>> the Repugnants with such faux scandals. But somehow that is just as
>> perverse a use of the political realm as the Right---which has
>> succeeded in destorying any political discourse, just as they did with
>> Clinton and Monica.
> 
> Yup, exactly. That's why I posted that Dem press release from the other
> day with the subject heading "shameless pandering." It's crap. I can
> understand, from a purely opportunistic point of view, why they're doing
> it. But it's unprincipled crap.
> 
> It's so good to see someone pointing out that 16-year-olds aren't kids,
> too.
> 

It would only be unprincipled of the Democrats if they agree with you
two (in thought or action) that 16 year olds aren't kids. Since most of
America does believe (and act as if) 16 year olds are kids, and since
the Democrats subscribe to that belief, it seems to be an entirely valid
criticism coming from the Dems and from the general public. Yes?

WRT CG's quandary, it seems even if you believe that 16 year old are not
kids, you still have the option to hoist him by his petard ... though it
is possible that the public may not understand such subtleties.

Also, is it possible for one side of a fight to stay principled? I guess
a close-to-100% pacifist like me shouldn't be asking that question ;-).

	--ravi

-- 
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA:       http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/