Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Jim, you've made some good points here. As often is the case, the negative responses to your post avoid those points and deflect with moral equivalence, nitpicking about verbal faults or moving on to other arguments.
|
Or, a lack of reading comprehension.
Quote:
|
To reflect on, and support, what you tried to point out as illogical and ignorant comments by Redford, maybe a closer analysis of his quoted text would help.
|
This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis.
Quote:
|
First of all, what does he mean by "the system"? Does he mean the system that was given to us by the Constitution? If so, which body of congressional people intentionally paralyze and destroy that system? If he means to imply that it's the Tea Party Republicans, he's certainly picking on the wrong folks. They're the only congressional body which is trying to preserve what's left of that system. As for the rest of the congressional body, it seems to adhere to an insider system of scratch my back of legislative wants and I'll scratch yours. Of course, the Republicans who play that game always seem to lose, getting very little, if anything, and giving up the house to the Democrats. If you're a progressive, which Redford seems to be, that's a good system. I can see how he doesn't want it paralyzed.
|
The "system" is obviously the entire thing. Not an academic perspective but the real world. My take on the Hollywood Reporter coverage is that he's frustrated with the obstructionist Right's position on Obama and how it's hampering our government from operating to the point of shutdown and real economic damage. Some of this is racism (or do we let Kenyan sensibilities dictate the behavior of Americans?) and some is a resistance to any change.
Does Redford think that basic ideological differences aren't also at play? I don't know, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't appear to have asked that question.
-spence