Kakki
Perhaps I should clarify....
I wasn't implying that there remained a debate about what Scheer wrote. Anyone
remotely familiar with Southern
California politics knows exactly where the guy falls on the spectrum. (As an aside,
in reading his article, I think he
was implying that the money was going to support the Taleban because it was supporting
the Afghan economy and
that it was a veiled quid pro quo. Quite a stretch and definitely reckless. He
really should have framed it more
clearly as being his opinion, but I think that was supposed to be inferred by the fact
that it was a column piece and
not a news article. The guy's sole purpose in life is to inflame. I don't really
merit his opinion pieces as anything
more than that.)
I also understand fully your view about openness in the room. As a Republican working
in the music industry (I had
been Republican since I turned voting age until after the last election, and no I am
certainly not a Democrat or a
liberal now), I often found myself as the sole voice on a particular side of an issue.
Imagine what my life was like in
that world (let alone the dinner table at Thanksgiving with three generations of
Democrats) as an African-American
female Republican -- all the conversion discussions and "how could you"'s . . . I was
treated like a heathen at a
revival.
I was simply picking up on the topic and Kate's mention of being a liberal in that
particular context. The mention of
it and the absence of partisan discussion generally led me to ponder the efficacy of
partisanship - not just now, but
going forward. It's an issue I've been thinking about since the election result
revealed us to be an equally divided
nation.
Thanks for writing,
Brenda
On 20 Sep 2001, at 16:29, Kakki wrote:
> Brenda,
>
> I have also wished to see no partiansan debate here at this time. The
> Scheer piece was dangerously inaccurate regardless of who he was trying to
> slime and I don't think there is a "debate" involved as to whether or not he
> was right. Sometimes it really does seem around here that there is only
> room one one slant of opinion or FACTS despite all the people who claim to
> be so open. I'm not trying to flame you or anyone else, but really, I think
> this needs to be acknowledged if one wishes to claim fairness, liberalism
> and sensitivity. Kakki
