2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Your first paragraph is your opinion about something you know about...I accept that, and whether I agree with it or not does not matter.

In your second paragraph, when you describe the play as "subjective fluff" and close with "don't call it something profound" you are passing judgement on a play you have not seen.

Several scenes in the play can be perceived as a reason to intervene in Iraq. Several are the opposite. Several do not deal with the war at all.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Have you seen the play, scottmil?

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context