Warranted Outrage vs. Comic Attitude

Edappel8@cs.com Edappel8 at cs.com
Fri Dec 22 17:51:42 EST 2000

I have egg on my face, I know.  It's not the first time for me in this venue, 
of course, but it's still a bit embarrassing.  What's the embarrassment?  
Taking Herb Simons seriously in his most recent post.

I don't mean Herb was not serious on any level in what he had to say about 
the Supreme Court's argument and machine- vs. hand-counted ballots.  He was 
quite seriously intent on what he was doing.  I just didn't "get it" until I 
was driving home from a Christmas party late this afternoon.  I'll make 
excuses for my naivete by saying I'm distracted by the season of the year, 
the comings and goings of family members, and by my emotional involvement in 
the issue we've been discussing.

What Herb was doing, and perhaps still is, was conducting a seminar in 
"persuasion dialogue" or the "ideal conversation."  To get from "primal 
outrage" to "warranted outrage," we have to talk things through, especially 
with persons who hold different, or diamentrically opposite, viewpoints.  One 
of the disciplines to be practiced in such an ideal exchange is to make the 
case for THE other, or ANother, side of the coin in the most telling way we 
can, put the best face on the other side's case.  That's what Herb was doing, 
I'm 98 percent certain.

Now, Herb has sounded the challenge.  How should I respond?  What's the best 
case I can make for the Republican spin and the Supreme Court decision?  Am I 
smart enough, ingenious enough, AND honest enough to come up with a line of 
argument that I can post on this web site without gagging or disgracing 
myself further?

I don't know.  I'll have to think about it.

Sleighbells are ringing.


More information about the KB mailing list