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

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, oohandy wrote:

> sorry - I only mentioned the poll again because you asked "don't women
> count?" in your reply.

Ok. But why add on a perfectly gratutious, and somewhat incoherent, slam
on my person? I find that odd.

> I have read that he used the term "Paki's" 

Indeed, you read it on Monkeyfist.com first. You're welcome for our
efforst to keep you informed, both through the site and through personal
yahoo and googles searches by yours truely, on demand.

> and that the spokesman said that
> he did'nt consider it an insult.

That's not quite out I recall it, but whatever. I'm perfectly willing to
grant that he didn't *mean* it as an insult, but I don't see how that gets
him off of 1) having uttered it, and thus owing a rather easy apology, and
2) being somewhat inept or having a somewhat inept staff that he fails to
discipline. Surely these are the best we can hope for.

> The point I am trying to make is that this is'nt really as issue. 

Then why not apologize? If I were call someone a "git" but I use it
ironically and affectionately with my friends, but that someone doesn't
know it, or has a history of the term...I would apologize. How hard is
this either to do or understand. Note I'm not a world figure engaged in
trying to advert nuclear war. Plus, "git" really isn't all that bad, and
isn't racial.

> If there
> are people who are were offended, 

Y'know, even if my friend wasn't offended but told me that "git" meant
something really horrible in their native tongue, I'd apologize. Not hard,
is it?

I guess being admired means not having to say your sorry. I wonder if it's
my willingness to admit error that keeps me off the most admired list!

> and you choose to "fan the fire" 

Remember that bit about nobody knowing who I am? Even if my article were
entirely irresponsible (which it isn't, as you must believe or you
wouldn't spend so much time on it), it's not like *my* ill thought words
could make a difference in world affairs. Unlike, oh, say, Bush.

But jeez, Bush uttered a racial slur of great evil. I (and
kendall) critiqued him for failing to do the standardly honorable and nice
and well *standard* thing.

Yes, rabble rousers are we.

Interesting how you segue *again* into personal attacks. And rather
exaggerated ones. After all, if you had a *real* criticism, you would just
make it. I'm still surprised that you haven't mobilized the response of
the Pakistani spokesperson to your cause. While I don't think it damages
my view, it's *by far* the most plausible of *any* of the things you said,
and doesn't even have to invoke my alledge medacity, liberalism, fire
fanning, silly polls, the wrongness of criticing the admired, what have
you.

The fact that you repeated resort to specualtion about my beliefs,
motivations, and personality, speculation that is *easily* refuted with
just a little work on your part, is telling.

> and make
> it an issue 

Isn't it an issue without my help?

>to get an apology from the President,

Isn't the issue whether an apology is *owed*? I notice you never address
that. If a President owes an apology, but fails to give it, isn't that a
point worthy of criticsm (maybe not a lot, but I'm not saying there's a
lot to be had; indeed, our criticism wasn't all that serve.

Let me take a *wild* guess: you think we called him racist in our
title. Well, look, "paki" is a racist slur even if he didn't mean it that
way. I don't see that calling it what it is is unfair, espeically in an
opinion piece.

> that too is fine.

I'm glad you've come 'round to this view.

> But I
> don't see the need to insult a popular man 

Where's the insult? Truely, point to the insult.

Plus, is it better to insult an unpopular man than a popular man? You seem
to have no trouble insulting *me* so am I to presume that you hold that
principle?

Sorry, I find that rather grotesque. If the insult is worth it, only
prudence calculate would prevent you from hurling it at the popular
(although you may calculate that smearing the popular will better bring
noterity). I scorn such prudence unless I'm willing to be consistent about
holding back the insults. If I fear the result of insulting the popular,
it's cowardly and base to insult the unpopular because they can't harm me.

> to request an apology.

I'm not requesting an apology. I'm pointing out that Bush owes one. Surely
whether he owes one is entirely independent  of *my* requesting it. 

He owes it to me, as my president, to give an apology to those wronged.

Look, there's something *seriously* wrong with your picture where a
supposedly decent, humble, yadda yadda yadda guy can't do the trivially
right and easy thing. The more you bulk him up the more his failure to
apologize stands out.

> Two other points - you mentioned that he, in your words, was "far from
> inspiring". 

Certainly I don't find him so.

> Really.

Yes.

> When he put his arm around the firefighter and used the
> megaphone to say "and the people responsible for bringing these buildings
> down are going to hear from ALL of us soon..."

Gross. If it made the fireman and the crowd feel better, that's worth
doing. But surely this is the simplest of comfort tricks. Hardly inspiring
unless you desparately need inspiration and reach for whatever's handy.

I mean *really*, what was inspiring about that? There's nothing wrong with
it besides a bit of insipidness, but it's not like he rushed into a
burning building, utters something moving or poetic, or did anything other
than the standard politician rap.

What does it inspire you to *do*. To read. To write. To sing. To
live? Will you embroider it on cloth and hang it on you wall for all your
visitors, friends, family, passing acquaintence to see and draw strength
from?

I think not.

Plus, it seems that the people that have been hearing from "all" of us are
mostly innocent civilians. Woo hoo. I'd say that his actions do not live
up to his words but his words aren't all that much.

> When he tearfully said "I've
> got a job to do" in the Oval office two days after the attack.

I can't even satirize this one. Indeed, just reading that makes me either
snicker or shake my head in disbelief.

> When he held
> the badge of the officer during his speech to congress,

Er...yes? At best, it's the officer who was inspiring. Indeed, he was
inspiring Bush, but not to any great heights. Perhaps you're conflating
the people and things *around* Bush that he photo ops next to with Bush
himself?

> or when he declared
> that the United States wants Bin Laden "Dead or Alive".

Grotesque. A cowboy cliche for rougue actions of a cowboy
empire. Appropriate but hardly inspiring in my book.

> These moments moved close friends, families, and even democrats to tears,

Er...I'm happy for them. I have no idea about all these people's
psychologies, so I won't speculate exactly *why* they were moved to
tears. I'm not, at least by the Bush bits. And neither are my close
friends, families, and even republicans. I certainly was moved by the
deaths. But sheesh, Bush backed down on the money to New York. How cheap
and slimey can you get.

I prefer to look at the whole picture (i.e., "be informed"). There's more
to inspiration than staged photo ops. Or even the occasion spontaneous
moment.

Put it this way, if Bush were some two bit governer of Texas, would you
care what he did in response to the bombing? I'd be surprised. So, it
seems reasonable to speculate that it's the job and situation that move
you. Perfectly fine. Bush was reasonably non inept in much of this. That's
good. Good for him. Yay. But *inspiring*?!

His father was more personally inpiring. And he was legendary for being a
block of wood.

> and made them stick out their chests with pride.

Because Bush said, "The US wants Osama <dramatic pause/> DEAD OR
ALIVE"?! Well, really. I would think that all those people have much more
to be proud about than Bush being in the White House.

Maybe not. With all due respect, that sort of life is not one I'd like to
live. Sorry.

> He moved and inspired us
> all 

There you go, speaking for other people. Please don't speak for me.

>- it makes you no less of a critic to at least admit that. 

Of course not. Who said otherwise? Surely I don't need to pretend I have
feelings you think I do have in order to be a critic of, well,
legitimately critical things.

Or must all criticism be prefaces with: "And, remember, Bush is admired
most of all by *39%* of Americans." Surely we don't have to mention that
when, however grudgingly we *praise* someone. It seems fit that we don't
when we *criticize* someone. The criticism should stand or fall on it's
own.

(Of course, other things might be relevant, but nothing you raised has
been relevant. Racist men (and I've not said that Bush is, in his head,
seriously racist in this context; I allow that it could be an innocent
error) have been admired and popular. Racist men (current day and
historically) are *still* admired. How does being admired absolve Bush of
*anything*?)

This is Monkeyfist.com, not the Wall Street Journal or the New York
Times. We're an independant web journal, not a presidential cheering
section or propaganda arm of the state. What, there's not *enough* rah rah
around, we must include loads here, too? Ever hear of division of labor?

If I did find him inspiring, I might include *how deeply disappointed* I
was that my inspiration would be such a git. I'd muse about how he let me
down. I might lose faith.

Fortunately, I'm not inspired by him and think, with reason, that the
fault is his, not mine.

Read my article:  http://monkeyfist.com/articles/701. Ample reason not to
admire him, I think. All the psuedo-inspiring moments are made *all the
worse* by these sorts of incidents. And *all he has* is the repuation for
niceness. No wit, no grace, no charm, no principles, no achievment....and
he's not even nice.

(Does this convince you that I *genuinely* don't admire him? That he
doesn't inspire anything but diappointment, ennui, disinterest, rage,
etc.?)


> And if you
> honestly did'nt feel inspired, I really feel sorry for you.

Well, likewise for your being inspired, I guess. If you're *really*
inspired by *Bush* himself.

Of course, if you're moved by the circumstances and inclinded to be
chariable, weep away. I did when the buildings fell. But I ask you, who is
more inspireing, with reason: Bush, or a New York firefighter who died
trying to save other people's lives. I know who *I* find inspiring, and
who to admire, but apparently 39% polled don't agree. So?

> Lastly, we are talking about men. And women. Human beings.

Thanks for clueing me in.

(I'm not being moved by this rhetoric, sorry. Perhaps if you hadn't
continually trashed me and avoided the substance, I would feel
different. I doubt it though.)

> Capable of making
> errors.

Or being malicious.

> Guided by good intentions. 

Or bad ones. Or random careless impulses.

> George W. Bush wants the best for the
> United States of America. 

Well, what he thinks is best. But he's as little in touch with that, IMHO,
as he is cognizent of world affairs. Being deluded about your selfishness
doesn't make you altruistic.

> Do you honestly doubt that?

Even if he were, that doesn't make him competant.

> And you are calling for an apology 

Who called for it? We pointed out that he's a bit of pig if he doesn't. 

> because you know he is just the type to
> do so 

But he hasn't. He won't.

> if he felt he offended anyone.

Well, do you agree he's offended *me*? If so, please write him and change
his feelings about his offending noone.

If he felt he *didn't* offend anyone, why the statements? Basically, he
feels no one *should* be offended because, well, it's *him*. Maybe there's
some weird, if common, circut in his head going from "I shouldn't have to
apologize", to "People shouldn't get offended, thus making me have to
apologize", to "People (who count) aren't offended, thus I don't *have* to
apologize." This isn't a very appealing picture. I'm not inspired.

He doesn't have to bang his head on the ground and kowtow, y'know (though
he seems willing to do so to a pretzel ;)). A simple, "The president
regrets that a slip of the tongue caused him to abbreviate 'Pakistani'
into its inappropriate varient." Then the rest of the statement. Wow, I
don't even get *paid* for this! :)

As I said above, even if no one were actually offended, does it do harm to
apologize? Doesn't it help show respect?

Plus, remember the china spy plane incident. It's our *explicit* policy
never to apologize. Puts yet another spin on things.

You claim to be a man inspired at Bush, but look at your behavior in this
exchange. You insult me time and again. You fail to thank me for doing
research for you in response to a request, a request in which you
insinuated that I *lied*, IN PRINT, about what the president said. Indeed,
in light of all this, I now understand your "You just made up the
criticism". You were saying that I made up the QUOTE, and/or that
"paki" is a racial slur. Rather serious accusations. Indeed, you suggests
that I *deliberately* and with full knowledge, made them up. That would
have been libel on my part.

This is aside from all the "generalization" you put on me (including that
I would "generalize" or "sterotype" you). And what it comes down to, you
don't like that I didn't fawn on someone you admire.

I guess apologizing is too much for you, like your hero and
inspiration. Sorry, I don't care much for that sort of behavior.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.