Mamet described his journey to conservatism, many different aspects of it. NPR pro-Palestinian stance was only one thing his eyes became open to.
You, not me, not Mamet, singled it out as the most important fact. You, Natchez Hawk, wrote about Mamet that This ‘born-again conservative’ is more driven by Zionism than American patriotism. Out of the whole article you said The only line I think that matters: “NPR: National Palestinian Radio.” You read his long article, and that was the only thing worth your comment.
You, ladyjane, agreed with that assessment. So true, you said. And you commented on nothing else at all.
Mamet revisited many of his previously cherished views. The article is, as I and others pointed out, long. He dumped on us lots of stuff, both emotions and his thinking, sometimes deep, sometimes not. While he is trying to paint a larger, philosophical picture, he is, IMHO, still confused on good number of issues. But instead of welcoming him in, you accused him in double loyalty. He calls NPR: National Palestinian Radio. Vast majority of freepers, as far as I've seen, do the same (on that rare occasions when NPR is still discussed over here). You leap from here to conclude that he puts Zionism (he never mentions it, btw, only that he is a Jew going against the grain in his liberal congregation) above American patriotism. Nothing else is in this, did I mention it - long article?- examining his believes why and how people live their lives, a fundamental approach to life, nothing else at all was important?
And its amazing that you see nothing wrong in doing so. Who is projecting here?
I dunno, you tell us Tolik.