<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Free the radicals]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by David Roberts</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/free-the-radicals/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:23:04 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/free-the-radicals/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Framing, propaganda, vision, tomato, tomahto<p>Todd, excellent post. &nbsp;Very well said.<p>
(One side note: Will &amp; Grace was not meant to stand as an example of effective gay activism, or any kind of gay activism, or any kind of "model." It is safe, non-threatening, middle-mind-friendly pap. But that's my point: It's now possible for a show about gay people to be anodyne. That doesn't cause progress, it is not in itself progress, but it reflects progress.)<p>
I think this talk about "moving left" or "moving right" or "moving to the center" is misleading -- it's certainly not what I'm advocating. I don't think the old left-right political spectrum is very effective any more in helping us understand where we are as a country or as a movement. We live in a postmodern, post-ideological age. &nbsp;(I highly recommend everyone read </p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Framing, propaganda, vision, tomato, tomahto<p>Todd, excellent post. &nbsp;Very well said.<p>
(One side note: Will &amp; Grace was not meant to stand as an example of effective gay activism, or any kind of gay activism, or any kind of "model." It is safe, non-threatening, middle-mind-friendly pap. But that's my point: It's now possible for a show about gay people to be anodyne. That doesn't cause progress, it is not in itself progress, but it reflects progress.)<p>
I think this talk about "moving left" or "moving right" or "moving to the center" is misleading -- it's certainly not what I'm advocating. I don't think the old left-right political spectrum is very effective any more in helping us understand where we are as a country or as a movement. We live in a postmodern, post-ideological age. &nbsp;(I highly recommend everyone read </p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by gormanme</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/free-the-radicals/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:33:22 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/free-the-radicals/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Radicalism</strong></p><p>Sometimes it helps to get back to the basic meaning of words when discussing whether a term, or in this case a movement described by a term, is relevant in today's world. &nbsp;The original meaning of the word radical comes from the latin word for root. &nbsp;So the term really refers to someone or something rooted. &nbsp;In the case of environmental "radicalism" I would suggest that a true radical is rooted in the truth of what it means to live connected to the earth and to other creatures, including the rest of humanity (Will and Grace included). &nbsp;I would think that Aldo Leopold would be a good example for us of a "radical" in the original sense of the word. &nbsp;If we switch the framework of the discussion to promote the "rooted" nature of radicalism, then radicals are not the ones far removed from reality. &nbsp;Rather, radicals are those rooted in the basics or ecological connectedness, and it is society as a whole that is moving away from our roots toward ecological disaster. &nbsp;-- &nbsp;Mark Gorman</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Radicalism</strong></p><p>Sometimes it helps to get back to the basic meaning of words when discussing whether a term, or in this case a movement described by a term, is relevant in today's world. &nbsp;The original meaning of the word radical comes from the latin word for root. &nbsp;So the term really refers to someone or something rooted. &nbsp;In the case of environmental "radicalism" I would suggest that a true radical is rooted in the truth of what it means to live connected to the earth and to other creatures, including the rest of humanity (Will and Grace included). &nbsp;I would think that Aldo Leopold would be a good example for us of a "radical" in the original sense of the word. &nbsp;If we switch the framework of the discussion to promote the "rooted" nature of radicalism, then radicals are not the ones far removed from reality. &nbsp;Rather, radicals are those rooted in the basics or ecological connectedness, and it is society as a whole that is moving away from our roots toward ecological disaster. &nbsp;-- &nbsp;Mark Gorman</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>