These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Hogarth Corrects Sipos

Thomas, you're confusing me and mdh (Matt).  Matt apparently didn't read where Susan wrote: "education, electoral work, lobbying, and other activities are not easily severed. To focus on one of these activities to the exclusion of the others might seem like a good way to use scarce resources, but it’s not. [...] this exclusionary focus on ‘winning elections’ (how’s that working out?) is what the current and recently past LNCs have been doing [...]". 

And Susan, with her talk of "exclusion" and "exclusionary", didn't read my word "primarily": "As Aaron Starr pointed out this weekend, it’s tax-inefficient to use a political party primarily as an educational vehicle."

Susan, to the extent you were talking about the 1992 mission statement instead of my paraphrasing of Starr, I tend to agree.  I still wonder if you disagree with anything at

Regarding Hiroshima, to disagree with my statement requires asserting its grammatical negation: "never in a war can the net savings of innocent lives be so great that it can justify efforts that themselves kill innocents despite all reasonable efforts to avoid it."  If you assert that without argument or qualification, then I'm happy for that to be the last word here on that.