Re: age is relevant

On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 04:02:57PM -0800, court court muttered something about:
> 
> Kendall:
> 
> Kendall, have you ever fought in a war?  No?  I didn't
> think so.  

Why are you asking questions you already no (or think you know) the answers
to?

What difference would it make if I had? Are you suggesting that only
veterans have the right to criticize the president for passing racist slurs
and refusing to apologize for doing so?

That's an oddly antidemocratic view.

  You're just another of the many people who
> feign moral outrage over nothing, but will never act
> on their beliefs.

Hmm, you need to make up your mind: either I am really morally outraged, and
use that outrage as a barometer of other people's intelligence, as you
suggest below; *or*, I'm only *feigning* it in order to have something to
complain about.

Neither is true, even remotely, but you really should decide on one or the
other and then make your case; they are mutually inconsistent.

And, no matter which of these bad explanations of me you choose, *writing*
about what the president has done, answering people's mail (about 20 or so
pieces so far) to explain my position, does count as acting on my belief.

> Here's my question:  Was the cowardly, murderous
> attack of September 11th wrong at all?  Or was it
> simply something we backward Americans need to learn
> from in order to more fully appreciate the alleged
> grievances of Islamic radicals?  Given your lazy
> leftist Weltbild, I suspect you think the latter.

Ooh, you used a fancy German word. That plus your PhD and Jeopardy
appearance must make you right about everything.

As for my views, I've taken written public stands about lots of stuff, most
of which is easily locatable on the Monkeyfist.com site. I won't spend my
time repeating that stuff; if you're really interested, go look it up.

> Age is always relevant.  It relates to experience and
> maturity.  You're clearly a tad young.

Blah blah blah.

> Instead of fretting about a perceived slight, you need
> to encourage the folks in Pakistan and Afghanistan to
> stand up and take a little responsibility for
> themselves and their governments.  Have they been
> doing that?  Nope, they've been sheltering -- or not
> stamping out -- cowardly terrorists.

No. I'm an American citizen, a voter, and my job is to speak out where I
have some hope of influence. What they do in Pakistan and Afghanistan are
things better left to Pakistanis and Afghans. As for sheltering terrorists,
if only the world were *that* simple; and this from someone who accused me
of having a simplistic view of things.

> Do you really think Bush offended millions of
> Americans?  Good heavens, nobody I know is even
> slightly offended by one silly, offhand, little
> remark.

Again, Pakistani Americans simply don't count in your universe. That's too
bad; though it is quite predictable from your ethnocentric, arrogant
dismissal in 'brackish backwater' terms.

How about this: what if the president had said "hebs"? Could we assume some
Jewish Americans were offended? I think so. Though you'd probably defend him
for saying that, too.

> The basic assertion of your article is that you,
> Kendall, are alone able to discern an ethnic slur. 

Nonsense. It's *clearly* a racist slur. That has nothing to do with me.

> And that you, Kendall, are alone capable of rendering
> moral judgments and determining who should feel moral
> outrage at what.  That is indicative of a young
> person.

No, it really isn't indicative of anyone's age, and that isn't what I've
done. But, come on, this is really boring; if you're going to criticize me,
how about putting your PhD and Jeopardy credentials to work and actually
saying something of substance?

Did they give you a PhD for this kind of vague blathering?

> No, you simply need to think me stupid because I
> disagree with you.  

Whether I think you are stupid is entirely  your issue; you're the only one
who's brought it up repeatedly.

Again, for the last time, I characterized something you said as "stupid"; of
course, that was probably a bit loose of me: I should have said that it was
arrogant, condescending, ethnocentric, and factually incorrect. I
shortcutted all that by saying 'stupid'.

  When you're older, you'll learn
> that intelligence is not gauged by people who share
> your moral outrage over nothing.

No, I won't, since no matter how much older I get, that won't be a lesson I
need to learn. If you'd have left off the 'over nothing' bit -- again,
you're conflicted about how to criticize me! -- it might have made for a
coherent lesson that everyone needs to learn, and one which I learned like
most people very early on.

All the 'over nothing' stuff just begs the question: whether what Bush did
was worthy of criticism. I say president's using racist slurs and refusing
to apologize for them is *always* a matter for criticism.

Kendall Clark