Re: Bush - speaks out

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, B&B Microscopes, Ltd. wrote:
[snip]
> >***President Bush is certainly not my/our saviour. In light of the 
> >alternative I am pleased with who is in the White House. I discount Mr. 
> >Jacksons support - for anything - as he will support anything,

So public figures you do not support aren't public figures? Jackson isn't
the *only* one, just one of the more prominent. Can you not even correct
your false or, at best, hyperbolic statement?

[snip]
> >Nice, dispicable baiting by the way.
> >***You did not answer the question. Nice deflection away from the point.

You wish me to go on record, such as this record is, on opposing
anti-semitism? I am happy too. Anti-semitism is a dispicable, typically
extremely violent form of racism/religious bigotry. I condemn Jackson's
anti-semitic remarks. I think the problem of American Black and Jewish
inter-group hostility is a serious and difficult one.

However, opposition to Israeli policy is not
(necessarily) anti-semitism. That there are those who support, say, a two
state solution *because* they think it will further their anti-semitic
desires is both undeniable and deeply unfortuneate, and clearly one of the
reasons contributing to the problem.

[snip]
> ***Suggesting the President supports violence against Arabs who are not 
> Americans is child like in logic and scope. Will the President allow the 
> USA to go after and kill the groups who are responsible for and support 
> terrorism? Yes. Will some innocent people be killed in the process? Yes. 
> Unfortunate and hardly exclusive to America or present day.

I never said, or implied, that it was. I now understand why you attribute
certain deficiencies to *my* reading of people's words.

[snip]

>  > > >>Your writing ability is excellent,
> >Thank you.
> >***Your welcome - egos do need fed - some more than others.

You choose such an *odd* way to feed yours.
[snip]
> >***President Bush was speaking on the telephone with New Yorkers, to New 
> >Yorkers - in this context he was addressing this audience.

New Yorkers especially need to be cautioned about anti-Arab racism? My
sense is the opposite.

> The media made 
> >it national. 

I take that as a good thing. Perhaps you're seriously confused about my
aritcle? I think Bush's remarks are to be commended, with the reservation
that they should have come sooner.

> >The President has repeatedly spoken out in support of and 
> >against attacks against Americans who happen to be of, Muslim, Arabic, 
> >etc. descent.

Yes, since those first remarks the federal government has gotten it's act
much more together. Bush visited a mosque and said helpful, if somewhat
incoherent, things. Ashcroft and the justice department have gotten into
the act (though there seem to be some problems with the FBI and racial
profiling). The Senate passed a resolution that is much better than
nothing even if I have specific problems with much of it. And there have
been between 40 and 200 (perhaps more) reported attacks on "Araby" people,
including some deaths.

> > You need to get your current information from something 
> >other then CNN or the New York Times. Try something honest without the 
> >political "spin"(lies).

Does whitehouse.gov count? Plus, I hardly get anything from CNN or the New
York Times.

Reread (or read for the first time) my article. Bush said nothing for the
first few days. Giuliani did. The first time Bush spoke out against
anti-Arab/Muslim violence *in the wake of the attack* was in his phone
call to Giuliani.

If you have evidence showing otherwise, please send it along. I'll happily
post it.

Note that clearly if he *did* say something earlier then either he didn't
say it clearly or forcefully enough, or the mainstream media screwed up
hard, again.

You seem to be confused about context. I'm sure Bush has made noises in
the past along the lines you suggest. He also bombs Iraq.

> > > >Sen. Clinton is a disgrace, IMHO, but not out of line with most senaters.
> *** i.e. Sen.Clinton is a liar and cheat.

Hardly the worst I can think about her.
[snip]
> >***Your hatred of anything which is not your way. The Middle East in whole 
> >(yes Israel also) opresses the rights of others and has for CENTURIES.

Well Israel hasn't done it for centuries. If I were like you, I'd take
this opportunity to talk about "your anti-semitism".

> >Would it help you if I said "Sharon's arrogance"?
> >*** Replace "Sharon's" with any leader(?) in the Middle East.

Yep.

[snip]
> >Shoe Shine boy?
> >***Sad~am - the shoe shine boy.

er..ok. I don't get it, but no, clearly I don't support Saddam.

> >My Iraq?
> >***Not mine.

Why mine, then?

[snip]
> >***Not at all. However, I am not willing to let Israel be destroyed 
> >because the world borders USED to be a different way.

One might write: "But you're willing to let it be destroyed for some other
reason?" No, I don't believe you are, but this is the kind of thing you've
been saying about *me*. Which is, really, beyond the pale. Let's not do
that.

I don't want Israel to be destroyed, *espeically* (but not solely) if that
entails death, destruction, etc. etc.

But, I don't want the Palestinean's to be destroyed either. Right now, the
power imbalance is rather in one direction.

This attack is among the *worst* things that could have happened against
Palestinean aspirations. Perhaps even more devestating, is that the way
Israel's power to oppress seems most likely to be diminished (through a
falling out with the US) is likely to increase the violence on both sides.

Even if it would have clearly and unambiguously help the general cause of
peace, I can't bring myself to approve, in any way, of the WTC attack.

> > Nor am I willing to 
> >let terroist actions and those who support this murder, to go unpunished.

Hmm. I would *like* for the people responsible in various ways to be
appropriately punished. I'm afaid I would be willing to let them go
unpunished if, for example, we had to nuke them to "get" them. More
strongly, I'm willing, though perhaps not happy, to be bound by
international law, just as I would be willing to be bound by US law in a
relevantly similar case.

This is not an easy line to take or to expouse. But I presume you too have
*some* limits on what you're willing to have happen. 

[snip]
> >Which hatred? I'm certainly annoyed by garbled blather. You certainly
> >supply it. Do better.
> >***Hatred blurs the senses 

Hmm. And Bush clearly hates the terrorists (as is appropriate, yes)?

> - which may account for the "garbled blather" 
> >which makes it to your mind.

I think my ISP and yours are more reponsible.

[snip]
> >***Argument does not mean it makes sense to me or anyone else for that 
> >matter.

Clearly not. But you seem to be unwilling to be clear or strive for
clarity.

If you thought I was saying or implying or suggesting that Bush *never*
made public statements against racism, or against anti-Arab racism, before
his phone call with Giuliani, then you are mistaken. You are correct that
that would be an entirely lunatic position. Especially as it's easily and
trivially refutable...even using "tainted" sources like CNN.

It never occured to me that you thought that I held such a view. You
certainly didn't come right out and say it. If you had, the confusion
would have been quickly, and perhaps, amicably, resolved.

The assertion that Bush is the first public figure to speak out against
anti-Arab racism, even since the prior election, is a similarly lunatic
position, trivially refutable. Jackson was just one example. If you supply
a list of people who don't count, I'll happily try to find someone not on
that list.

> > we look at the world from different worlds.

I take your meaning, but you have to admit that this is a somewhat
humorous expression of it :)

> > Mine is right and I 
> >assume you believe yours is right.

I believe that much of what I write and believe is fairly well supported
by the evidence available to me, but that much of it needs to be held open
to refutation. My views have changed enormously over the past 20, 10, 5
and even 2 years. I went from voting for Clinton twice (however
reluctantly) to thinking that I had voted for a war criminal (among other
things). I went from endorsing sanctions over war rather uncritically to
seeing sancations (of various sorts) as a form/continuation of
war. (Though bombing itself is still war, and an illegal one.) The list
goes on.

I sometimes get the feeling that you don't think I'm human or reasonable
and I'm very curious as to why you thing so. I respond to barbs, slander,
meanness etc. with ire *and* with discussion, consideration, and
evalution.

> > Do not have such "ire" that you dismiss 
> >anothers point of view.

I certainly dismiss that which seems to be mere raving unconnected, as
far as I can tell, from any sense. Note that I don't *kill* file it...I do
try to figure out what's going on or to elicite clarification.

> The chasm grows wider and deeper.

The chasm of your desparation?

BTW, is something wrong with your mailer? Why the weird quoting
conventions?

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.