Sorry fella's but there's nothing "nasty" about Pete's
optimism. Unless of course you use the term like in the Black \
Community where good is "bad", like that Bad Boy Pete Seeger.

Here's a problem. Where do you separate the rhetoric
from the intentions of the man? "Nasty" means to me
angry which is not Pete. The "bastards" reference of Springsteen are
as yet undefined. Can we acheive anything by name-calling?

It seems in some circles it's liberal chic to start
blaming those you disagree with. Let's dimiss them
as "bastards". It doesn't work. You don't convince anyone
that way.

Pete's optimism is beyond "nasty" or any other term
derogating it. I still think it was a poor choice of
words.

I've known Pete for over fifty years, now. I've seen
him charm the pants of a Young Republican Club. If he were
to perform in front of the Southern Citizens Council,
he probably would do the same thing.

Pete has been around long enough to warrant a better term like
"constructive optimism" or "socially-changing optimism."
I would not like to see him presented as a ranting
ideologue but more as who he really is, a tolerant
humanitarian who recognizes the value of life. That's why
he is Pete Seeger.

That's my take anyway.

Frank Hamilton