Moody Amphitheater
Vance Cuts to the Quick: 'I'm Good; You're Not!'
RECEIVED Tue., April 10, 2007
Dear Editor,
Christopher Ringstaff’s response [“Postmarks” online, April 9] to my April 3 “Postmarks” online is a perfect exhibit of the moral difference between neo-leftism and neo-conservatism. My use of the word “existential” is in reference to a clear and present genocidal threat to the free world – Islamist fascist tyranny. Mr. Ringstaff’s definition revolves around the thoroughly discredited dogma of Thomas Malthus. My position is based on a real “existential” menace. Mr. Ringstaff’s is based on an intangible but fashionable viewpoint of today.
Neo-leftism is a social phenomenon driven by the herd and what is popular at the time. Conversely, neo-conservatism is based on intellectual honesty and the moral courage to focus one’s ideological positions accordingly.
Christopher Ringstaff’s response [“Postmarks” online, April 9] to my April 3 “Postmarks” online is a perfect exhibit of the moral difference between neo-leftism and neo-conservatism. My use of the word “existential” is in reference to a clear and present genocidal threat to the free world – Islamist fascist tyranny. Mr. Ringstaff’s definition revolves around the thoroughly discredited dogma of Thomas Malthus. My position is based on a real “existential” menace. Mr. Ringstaff’s is based on an intangible but fashionable viewpoint of today.
Neo-leftism is a social phenomenon driven by the herd and what is popular at the time. Conversely, neo-conservatism is based on intellectual honesty and the moral courage to focus one’s ideological positions accordingly.
Vance McDonald
