Lee Corbin wrote:
> P.S. Standing challenge to any of you liberals out there .... Confess how
you have articulated to yourself something as explosive as "Fred Reed's
piece is racist" but with the shoe on the other foot, and how you, even
though it was exceedingly painful, had to give huge aid and comfort to your
ideological opponents.
I not only fought, I switched. The "huge aid and comfort to my ideological
opponents" in my case was already given, when, as a young adult (having
grown up in a Republican, White Russian monarchist, religious family) I
evolved into an nontheist and liberal. There was purpose and reason behind
that decision, and liberalism is where I feel at home, and where I hear my
"sweet voice of reason."
But, as the old Bob Dylan song goes, I'm a liberal, but to a degree. I am
not
an advocate of bi-lingual education, for instance, although teaching
languages in school (which is a different animal altogether), and the
earlier the better, is commendable IMO.
> (P.P.S. I don't think any of them will.)
Lee, Lee, Lee ... and you accuse other people of being arrogant, sometimes,
tsk,
tsk. Don't put all liberals into the same box. We all lead complicated
adult lives, and I have hardly ever met anyone who is "100% this" or "100%
that." I have liberal friends with whom I disagree (about environmental
issues - I think ecoterrorists are criminals; about the rights of animals -
I eat 'em; about certain feminist issues - I believe in gender equality,
period; and, furthermore, I'm not a post-modernist). I don't read something
or hear about something and then figure out if I'm for it or against it
after consulting the crystal ball of my ideological inclinations. There are
often gray areas. There are inconsistencies, sometimes. But I'd rather be
inconsistent, at times, than inhuman at any time. When in doubt, do the
loving thing, if possible.
Olga
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:02 MDT