"If you were actively against (the CDA), why weren't you using your public
position to anathematize the California senator who was a major initial
proponent of the CDA? Why didn't you spearhead a movement for her
recall?"

Real simple. I'm very much aware that the nature of my work gives me a
platform, a soapbox...and I tend to look to that famous Greek philosopher,
Peterus Parkerus, who opined, "With great power comes great
responsibility." That platform is accorded me by people who have come to
trust that I have no personal agenda underlying my storytelling, that I'm
slogging my way through to try and find out what the hell the right thing
to do is, and to do it. That trust is hard-won and not lightly to be
exploited.

When and if I should use that soapbox, it has to be something bigger than
the CDA, bigger than something that might be self-serving...rather than
using up that resource on one cause or another that's best dealt with in
other ways. Otherwise, why just that one cause, and not the many others I
feel strongly about? Should I be here with twice-weekly sermonettes about
violence against women, the need for improvements in schools, and a
hundred other issues? This ain't the Let's Hear JMS's Latest Political
Rant Forum (though sometimes it does tend to become the Gharlane's Latest
Political Rant Forum, but that's another topic for another time). I tend
to get into these things (and always with subsequent regret) only when
poked or prodded or otherwise poked in the eye.

There's only one thing I'm currently considering using this limited
platform to address, something that should get support from every side of
the spectrum, and would be a worthy legacy of this show, apart from the
storytelling and the series itself. But I'm still pulling my thoughts
together on this, because if I get into it, it's going to take a lot of
work. So we'll see.

As for the rest of your message...it's more of the usual liberal-baiting
Gharrolousness that reduces everything and everyone involved down to the
most basic stereotypes and eliminates discussion by replacing it with
scarecrow logic, demonizing, and rhetorical dead-catting...so really,
what's the point?


jms