Pat, to quote your ownself back at you:
"It'd be a much better law that says departure from reality automatically loses whatever argument was in progress and guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length.. That one certainly has happened, and will
happen, many times in various forums and discussions."
--Pat Byrne, March 2004
You had me going there for a bit. I was wondering what I was on what I wrote that until I looked it up. It may have read better to know that it was a comparison to something called Godwin's law, and it may again have read better if I had put "departure from reality" (that's the part I contributed) in quotes and noted that Godwin's law said the same thing but had "comparisons with Hitler and Nazis" in the same place. Anyway I still don't like Godwin's law.
So, saying that I think Randy has authenticity, and also gave an inspiring talk yesterday, was a departure from reality? And because it was a departure from reality, any argument or comment being made was, what, a lost cause? Or wrong? Ok, I'm confusing myself, again. Actually the previous post today was a one line shot at humor when you compare it to the subject title I used. It was suppose to be a bit of irony but I'm not that good at it.
Sometimes I wonder what a poor schmuck like me is suppose to think about politicians. Most of the time I don't believe there is a lot of difference, when you think of what could have happened, if there was just one different person in power; that it's a team effort to screw something up, or a team effort to make something succeed.
Sometimes when it comes to a politician I need to look at their character, the parts that are important to me. Sometimes I wonder about the relative importance between whether a mayoral candidate endorsed Bush or Kerry or whether they are honest or not. Sometimes I wonder about how rhetoric (especially in a political advertisement) can be more important than actual experiences. Sometimes I wonder about the relative importance between authenticity and electability, and what we are saying to impressionable people when we decide we'd rather have electability. It seems short sighted. Not a way to build a base for growth. I have this fear that this weekend we're going to go for an appearance of electability as the main issue. I could be wrong. Maybe we'll go for both.
----------------------------------
By the way I did go to hear Randy's speech yesterday. I did like what I heard as it concerned the vision for the future. It did sound a lot like election year talk, but it was still good talk. I'm not sure about the theater that was there with the candle lighting, but I've seen worse.
The really good part about it however was that any number of candidates can and will say the same and mean it also. And I hope they do.
I like the emphasis on volunteering, both for tutoring and for assistance to homeless. I'm not that impressed with the feasibility of street trolleys, but if they want to see how it works, all they need to do is be historians. I did like the attempt to have specific recommendations, even if I do recognize we need all those 10 year plans. I'm ambivalent about the artist market that's suppose to be similar to the farmer's market. And it will be interesting to again see a movement this year, before the election, on wages in St. Paul.
Pat Byrne St. Clair and Lexington Parkway Neighborhood.
-------------------------------------------------
JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY:
http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/
-------------------------------------------------
POST MESSAGES HERE: [email protected]To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
