Hello, Robert -
Robert Gustafson wrote:
<snipped>
> Mark appeared offended that I implied he was a
> "liberal mirror image of the Jesse Helms brigade." He
> is correct, I should have not made that analogy
> without knowing him better. I interpreted his thoughts
> expressed in one post to reach my conclusion that he
> was exhibiting a degree of "leftist" thought.
I sincerely apologize to both you and the other listmembers for taking
that too personally. I felt as though I'd been misjudged, and I took
your overall tone to be somewhat condescending. I think now though, as
I read more of your posts, that it was unfair of me to regard you that
way. The tone of my response to you was way out of proportion to the
circumstances, and I feel badly that I took it that personally.
> I do have a few comments for Mark however, to point
> out how I might have been led astray in my evaluation
> of his position. I know he doesn't like my cookie
> cutter categories, but then it seemed he was using
> them in his post as well. The title of the post
> concluded it was the "rich" (key word) that were going
> to the affair and his condemnation of those in
> attendance did not seem to leave a lot of room for
> rational response. Mark also thought I was confused as
> to how he thought one should protest the party but I
> thought it was clear when he closed with "Stay home
> and send a check, for God's sake. And with that check
> send a message....that the opening of a new jail is
> not something for any thinking, feeling person to
> celebrate." Mark concluded from Hawaii that the
> people going were "rich", and that they were not
> thinking, feeling people. I might have errored in
> judging his original position, but why is it all right
> for him to judge people this way?
But I'm afraid that I must plead "not guilty" to this one. I never
said anywhere in my post that the people who were going to this affair
were rich. You cannot say that I "concluded" that they were rich
simply because that was the title that the original poster decided to
put at the top of an e-mail to which I later responded.
Nor did I "conclude" that the people who were planning to attend the
event were not thinking, feeling people. What I said was that in my
opnion, the opening of a new jail is not something for thinking,
feeling people to celebrate. I won't argue one way or the other
whether the people who staged and attended this party were thinking,
feeling people, because I don't know enough about them.
I will say, however, that in my opinion organizing or attending a
party such as this are thoughtless and insensitive actions. Even the
most thoughtful and deeply feeling among us do things that are
thoughtless and insensitive. I wasn't judging anyone. I was, however,
expressing a judgment about some specific behaviors. I would never
judge anyone who was involved with this party solely on the basis of
such involvement. But I would be disappointed if someone I respected
and admired had been involved.
> Here is the hard part. Sitting in the middle, being
> accused by the Leftists and Rightists as being
> moderate, and "mushy" in our beliefs. They all want
> our votes but they are bothered that we do not embrace
> their orthodoxies. So what does one do? I guess the
> best route is to try and ponder the "riddle" until we
> too find enlightenment. Then pershaps we will
> understand.
Do you really see it quite that way, Robert? I sometimes wonder if the
zealots on both sides of our political system are the least bit
bothered that we centrists do not embrace their orthodoxies, or if
they in fact cultivate such clearly defined philosophical divisions in
order that they may more easily identify which issues to pander to in
pursuit of our periodic support at the polls. I don't think they
really care one way or another whether we embrace their orthodoxies,
as long as they can wring enough votes out of us to stay in office.
> I appreciate the attempt to explain the riddle, but
> the purpose of my original post was not meant to be
> about any specific "leftists" or "rightists. For those
> offended I apologize. It was meant to be about our
> government in St. Paul. A government whose leaders
> seem more intent on placing blame, demonizing
> opponents and scaring the citizenry then engaging each
> other in an intellectually rigourous debate with the
> goal of reaching some common ground.
And here, it becomes clear that despite what may be many differences
between us of philosophy and opinion, we share at least one deeply
held belief. That last sentence summarizes my opinion of the modern
American political system as well as I could have worded it myself.
You might consider moving to Hawaii, as I have done. It's as far away
as you can live from the center of the American political cesspool
without renouncing your citizenship. ;-)
Regards,
Mark Holtz
Kea'au, Hawaii (Formerly of Downtown Minneapolis)
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
