Re: [Fwd: WHY GUNS? -- by L. Neil Smith --]
Randall R Randall (email@example.com)
Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:20:07 -0500
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:54:57 -0500 Harvey Newstrom <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Subject: WHY GUNS? -- by L. Neil Smith --
>> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 00:57:20 -0500
>> From: "L. Neil Smith" <email@example.com>
>> Subject: Please Pass It On ...
>> People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue
>> thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've
>> chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to
>> focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably
>> demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is
>> made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
>> Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every
>> issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is
>> use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their
>> empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you.
>> And that, of course, is why they hate it.
>Ignoring the argument about guns, I find this attitude frightening and
>cultish. Ignore all fact, don't do any research, just make all your
>decisions based on a single binary question. At lease religious
>fanatics have to interpret their beliefs. This sort of commandment
>requires no thought at all.
Well, adopting it certainly requires thought, and given that you can't
know everything that's relevant about each and every politician, you must
limit your fact-finding in *some* way. And of course you still have to
do enough research to find out what the politicians involved in your
election have voted in the past re victim disarmament, which might be
quite a chore in and of itself. I notice, btw, that to make your point,
you had to cut the entire argument, and leave only the bare assertion...
Dream if you will, but remember there are iron laws.--Johnny Clegg.