Editor, Times-Union:
Mr. Eisenbraun, I find your public discourse letter addressed to Gary to be absolutely amazing. Whereas we totally agree that the “malarkey” (whoops, sorry) bill is ill-conceived, won't pass and is a bad idea, is illogical and a stupid idea (whoops, isn’t “stupid” pretty much ad hominem?) I’m afraid (whoops, emotional comment) that we pretty much disagree beyond that. For clarity’s sake ad hominem is defined as appealing to the emotions and not to reason or logic.
I would hate (sorry, ad hominem again) to be in a public position whereby each work I produced must be better than all of my previous works. That would be so intimidating. Can you foresee the limitations on the number of paintings, operettas, ballets, etc.? Once a person bowled a 300 game they would dare not ever bowl again. Pretty silly, isn’t it?
Since I suspect I know from whence you come I am driven to (whoops, sorry, ad hominem again) comment on the current administration that was created, accepted, is tolerated and will pass, never departing from ad hominem decisions and actions. After all, “Hope and Change”? How can anything be based more on emotion and less on reason or logic? Our entire federal government has operated ad hominem for several years. The Democrats are successful candidates for office because their arguments are nearly always (and intelligently so) based on ad hominem utterances.
Ad hominem discourse is totally accepted by the ill-informed, non-informed, and apathetic which collectively constitute nearly 50 percent of our population. How else could Obama be elected for a second term? Certainly not on his accomplishments beyond those actions that are strictly ad hominem in nature.
In closing, Mr. Eisenbraun, I suggest you never read the N.Y. Times and concentrate instead on the Wall Street Journal which is attempted devotion to reason and logic.
Respectfully, with my low level argument and presentation of argument,
Greg Smith
North Webster, via e-mail