Again, I think the point is Hitler's aesthetic sense leading his policy
development. The alternative is realism. It is a better alternative - far
less scary. In that sense the analogy is appropriate. I don't necessarily
fear aesthetically motivated "environmentalists", but their policy
development is a major worry.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Foster
> Sent: Friday, 21 July 2000 06:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The ad hominem: well, I was hoping for closure :-)
>
>
> At 12:29 PM 7/20/00 EDT, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >Not to rain on the parade or anything, but Hitlor
> >used to paint, landscape paintings, set aside parks
> >for preservation, and lot of other what we would consider
> environmental type
> >appreciation acts.
>
> Is this the analogy that Budiansky is making in his argument, that all
> people that paint landscapes are environmentalists?
>
> So what about Teddy Roosevelt? He did not paint landscapes, is he
> therefore
> not an environmentalist?
>
> What about Aldo Leopold. I don't think he painted, so he cannot be an
> environmentalist?
>
> Hitler tried to get into art school in Vienna, but he was not
> accepted into
> the school, and he made a partial living selling his sketches and
> paintings.
>
> If he had been admitted into art school. perhaps WW2 would never
> have happened.
>
> john
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|