Re: [MF:Apes] bush slur (sure)... (via /contact form)

Interesting that you're still stuck on the poll and respond to *none* of
my substantial points, including failing ot use the Pakistani embassy's
spokeperson's words. Why do you avoid substance and still to insinuation
and insult?

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, oohandy wrote:

> Oh yeah, women did matter in that poll, 

So, who cares about the poll? Well, you do, obviously, but I don't see why
I should, and I don't see why if you do well in the poll you're immune
from criticism for things you *ACTUALLY DID*. I should refrain from
criticising Bush because a Gallup poll says 30 some percent of US citizens
*admire it*? Well, 100% of my American friends (an me, another American) 
think he's a total moron. How DARE you DEFEND him!!!!

I didn't say he wasn't admired, I said that 1) he uttered a derogatory
term, 2) he failed to apologize, and 3) that it was bad that he did these
things especially in combination. Where does being admired by some people
come into this? It can't affect 1, or 2, so it must be 3. But it's a very
*odd* principle that says that uttering derogatory terms and failing to
apologize is OK if you're Gallup's most admired man in the US.

And, of course, Most Admired Man (MAM) could do something right after the
poll that made him Least Admired Man (LAM). He needn't do *anything*,
something about him could be *revealed* or just become generally *known*.


> and among them, first lady Laura
> Bush was the most admired with 12%.

Er...and I care and this is relevant HOW?

> Surely not even you could criticize
> her

Er..why not? Because of the poll? I'd criticize her if there were
something that she'd done that was, well, worthy of critique and worth my
time critiquing. Recognize that 1) she's not in public as much and
2) she doesn't hold any, much less high, office. That makes a difference,
eh?

>...oops, forgot who I was talking about.

Laura Bush? Is she really so bad that EVEN YOU, despite her popularity,
admit that she's fair to critique? Wow, I didn't think she had it in her.

Ok ok, clearly you mean *me*. You want to "injure" me by basically
saying that I'm some sort of cad who would attack a popular woman
(again, I don't see how the qualities of being admired and female make
a difference). But I thought you knew nothing about me except that I own a
computer? Oh, *right*, you don't generalize :)

But you're correct, I would criticize her in a second if the conditions
were met. Ooo, you really tricked out something about me! I really hope
that this argument helps you whip up opposition to me in your circle,
because, let me tell you, it doesn't bother *me* a whit, and I hate to
think of you wasting your time on such insult ineptitude.

So, I still don't see you making any *substantial* headway, nor do I see
you even pretending to try anymore.

Sir, rise to the occasion! If you were to substanitally refute my article,
I'd print a retraction or even a follow up article BY YOU (well, assuming
it met higher standards than your letters). You already insinuated that I
made up the quote, which I amply refuted with citations, easily
found.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

[snip]
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, oohandy wrote:
> >
> > > sorry - I assumed incorrectly that you kept yourself informed.
> >
> > Since when is "who is the most admired american as determined by a Gallup
> > poll" was part of being "Informed". Does it show up in *Cultural Litercy*?
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0394758439/qid=1010877662/sr=2-2/ref=
> sr_2_27_2/104-9761366-4579925
> >
> >
> > FWIW, I don't keep track of who's in *Who's Who*, either.
> >
> > > Since 1948,
> > > Gallup has been polling Americans on the question "What man do you
> admire
> > > most?"
> >
> > So woman don't count? Why is this at all relevant.
> >
> > > This year's poll, now taken with the help of USA Today and CNN,
> > > George W. Bush was chosen by a record 39%. The previous record had been
> 32%
> > > by John F. Kennedy, in 1961. One interesting difference, however, is
> that
> > > today, tens of thousands more americans participate in the poll.
> >
> > Er...but do they take a larger sample *percentage wise*? Which is surely
> > the more relevant issue.
> >
> > And it's self selected? That seems odd.
> >
> > > Editor Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup poll said
> "Typically,
> > > the president wins, but he does not usually dominate, like Bush did."
> > > Steven Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, said
> "If
> > > the survey had been taken on Sept. 12, you could, in a sense, dismiss
> it.
> > > But when it is taken three months later, it is a much more accurate
> example
> > > of the support the american people have of his leadership."
> >
> > Er...really? That seems complete off. How does he determine this?
> >
> > Let's see what happens next election.
> >
> > > Make no mistake, I am a supporter of George W. Bush.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > > But aside from that, I
> > > have heard no one else other than you suggest
> >
> > We don't suggest, we state that he did.
> >
> > > that he made this slur, or
> > > even ask him to apologize for anything. Not one news organization has
> made
> > > this claim or observation.
> >
> > This could equally be a statement about the new orgs yes?
> >
> > But here:
> >
> > http://www.timesofindia.com/Articleshow.asp?art_id=426132774
> >
> >
> > > I have not even been able to find this quote
> > > anywhere else on the web or in a newspaper. If you could tell me where I
> > > could access this quote in a legitimate national media site or
> newspaper, I
> > > would like to read it.
> >
> > Sure:
> >
> >
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ucrr/20020109/cm/the_unintended_consequence_war
> _between_pakistan_and_india_1.html
> >
> > Here's a direct quote in a straight news report:
> >
> >
> > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020107/pl/southasia_bush_dc_6.html
> >
> > (Note this reporter doesn't catch the slur.)
> >
> > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020108/pl/bush_pakistanis_1.html
> >
> > "He did not apologize or withdraw the comment, but McClellan noted that
> > Pakistan is a key ally in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan."
> >
> >
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020107/pl/southasia_bush_pakistanis_dc_1.h
> tml
> >
> > """Asad Hayauddin, spokesman at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, said
> > he did not consider what Bush said to be an insult.
> >
> > ``I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was said in
> > passing. In all fairness, I would say it's not a racial slur,'' he said.
> >
> > He did, however, receive a number of phone calls from reporters seeking
> > the embassy's reaction."""
> >
> > Well, the spokesman, IMHO, seems a little confused. It *is* racial term,
> > even if Bush didn't mean it that way. "In passing" is weird.
> >
> > (Of course, the current Pakistani government wisely isn't going to make a
> > issue about it, considering how dependant they are.)
> >
> > (This quote is about the strongest thing I can find on your side. I hope
> > it helps.)
> >
> > Alas, I'm unable to find a transcript (again) of this press
> > briefing. (whitehouse.gov doesn't seem to have it, but they don't have
> > everything).
> >
> > (Note these likes are an easy Yahoo search away.)
> >
> > It's entirely possible that he apologizes somewhere in the remarks. If you
> > find such, please send me a pointer. I'll *happily* post a retraction.
> >
> > (I find having to do your web research for you a little funny given your
> > haughtiness about my being "uninformed" about trivial popularity polls
> > :) Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this earlier, but 5 minutes on the
> > monkeyfist site would have shown that I wasn't a Gore/Clinton
> > supporter. Clicking on the related link at the bottem would have shown you
> > me giving bush grudging credit where credit is due (about speaking out
> > against anti-Arab violence). So, you didn't do *ANY* research about me,
> > even the most trivial, and then say 1) you know nothing about me, 2) that
> > you know my political views and psychological motivations, and 3) that I'm
> > not well informed. I don't at all mind discussing this issue seriously,
> > but I think you owe a bit more courtesy and due dilligence.
> >
> > FWIW, I hardly think that this incident was the *worst* Bush has done
> > :) If I thought that my contributing to this column would *further*
> > tensions, I would have surpressed it. But as you said, George is more
> > known and popular than me. He has the tougher standard to meet. And he
> > was not an unwilling draftee...he sought the job.)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bijan Parsia.
> >
> 
>