Tamar,

>>Tamar, I'd be surprosed to find that you're arguing for the elevation of stupidity. <g> Using "the mainstream" as a defense against someone is awfully weak don't you think?
>
>No, I'm not arguing for the elevation of stupidity. I just think that it's important to point out that books (or at least their authors) have a POV. When it comes to political books, you should identify the author's POV when you recommend it. For example, I really like reading Molly Ivins (and often agree with her), but when I tell people about her, I'm careful to point out that she's far on the left.

*chuckle*

No argument from me here! <g>

>
>>I don't want to be in the mainstream; I want to be above it and better than it. Not at its expense, mind you, but I think excellense is a far better goal than mediocrity.
>
>I think you know that by "mainstream," I didn't mean "average." The range of political opinions in this country runs from far left to far right. Most people's views fall somewhere between moderate left and moderate right - I would call that range the mainstream. Anyone out at either of the extremes is "out of the mainstream."
>
>Tamar

What was it that Barry Goldwater said... "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

It's interesting to me that my views, once considered 'mainstream' are now typically labelled 'extreme'. You may remember that I've mentioned before that my dad was a Democrat but in today's world he'd be right there with Rush. <g> IOW, I've just seen this steady slip to one side and I simply don't agree with many modern word definitions, as I'm sure you are quite aware of. < BG >

Still, and as always, I dearly love these discussions since they enlighten and instruct.