In this case, the _ad hominem_ is quite relevant. If you want to understand the Bush team, the fact that it's centered on someone whose had "every advantage in life handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, inherited money and position - and he's still a provincial ignoramus" says something about their policies. The Bushwackers do absolutely everything for those with every advantage handed to them (tax cuts, etc.) while expecting the great unwashed masses to do their dirty work for them (including fighting and dying in Iraq). Bush's arrogance -- and that of his team -- reminds me of the preppies I encountered at Yale, who thought that the world was their oyster.
------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:29 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Rush Limbaugh > > > On Thursday, October 2, 2003 at 16:13:28 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: > >... > >Oh come on. What's wrong with a little ad hominem, especially with > >such a gang of thugs? Here's a guy with every advantage in life > >handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, inherited money and position > >- and he's still a provincial ignoramus. Marx never had any problem > >with making fun of his enemies. > > My difficulty with ad hominem is that it is something I can't share in > conversations with others who do not share my viewpoint about the > behavior of these thugs; and usually the ad hominem is led with, not > used as the concluding exclamation point on a set of well-reasoned > attacks on someone's behavior. > > Besides, I'm a provincial ignoramus on any number of fronts myself. > > > Bill >
