perfidy

Now that it's light out and the animal side of me is safely asleep until the next waning gibbous moon, I reread your post below and realize that you're just giving aid/comfort to your friends, who are not really the enemy! Good on me for being quick on the uptake.

Nevertheless, I stand by what I wrote. I have been talking to a lot of good people who neither think that the President is stupid nor think he stole the election, and who still don't agree with the decision to go into Iraq. That's not to claim that "if some people believe it, it must be true", or otherwise I would find myself defending pet psychics and supply-side economists, and that's just crazy talk. But, if a large number of reasonable, intelligent people with whom I interact, and not just in the Berklee East in which I live, do not feel persuaded by the arguments and evidence thus far presented, I feel compelled to investigate that.

I don't know. Maybe it's just my training as a "cultural historian." For years I have successfully fought the peer pressure to see every conflict as a struggle for hegemony, and to always favor the "subaltern" point of view against the erectile opression of the cryptophallocentric majority. (I studied "subaltern history" once. All it taught me was that Peruvian guano exports were the only way in which highland indigenous populations were tied to the colonial government of Peru. Guano. In Peru. Guano!)

But, in the interest of being fair, and owing to the fact that my hawk side has grown more feeble in the last two weeks, I want to hear what the hoopla is all about, from the quiet ones in the back who are being drowned out by the earnest mouth-breathers from the Popular People's Front of Interesting Facial Hair and the International Coalition For The Admiration Of Che's Sexy, Sexy Portrait.