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

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, oohandy wrote:

> OK, I'll wrap it up.

By addressing the many points of substance? Or, perhaps, you mean to
apologize for your rather nasty remarks about me?

Ah, no.

> You know the moment that I was referring to in the oval
> office Sept.13, when President George W. Bush was referring to the people
> who lost their lives in the attacks.

I do? You have *such* amazing mind reading powers.

> Before he said "he had a job to do" 

An all time great line...not.

> he
> said that he had thought about the children that lost their lives, which led
> to the emotional moment.

The emotional moment of having a job to do?!?!? Sorry, for *me* the
emotional moment is thining about the kids. And the moment after that
doesn't immediately turn to *myself*, but to thinking about their
parents. And the moment after that doesn't immediately turn to, well, me
again.

What Bush has is called "egocentrism", and it's generally not considered
an admirable quality.

>  That moment of spontaneous inspiration

Y'know, it would help if you didn't waft the "i" word around so
vacuously. Who was inspired? Was Bush inspired by thoughts of dead
children to remember that a speechwriter told him to say, "I've got a job
to do"? So what. It's a moment that gives you strength to get through the
day...well, ok. Good for you.

> has helped
> define this man.

Oh, it inspired him to definition?

I'll remember to look up having a job to do in the future Collected
Scripted Sound Bites of George W. Bush.

I find the making fun of a person he executed (in the most *grotesque* of
manners) far more defining.

Y'know, we generally judge people on more than a few little slices of
scripted events. We learn about their character by the things they say and
do. You've continually described events where it's trivial for an *ORGE*
to jerk the heart strings. Where's the merit in that? It says more about
the events than the person.

I'm more struck by his continual disregard for the sovereignty of this or
any other country.

I'm struck by his refusal to apologize in the most trivial cases. By the
fact that he made it our *foreign policy* never to apologize for anything.

I'm struck by his delight in being executioner.

And so on.

> Certainly not a moment that made you "snicker or shake your
> head in disbelief",

How do you know? Why can't you believe simple facts, or, at least, refrain
from inventing ones about me. Please answer this.

Is your regard for the man so fragile that you can't *CONCEIVE* of anyone
not sharing your admiration? Or doing so on fair and reasonable grounds?

You have a disconnect with reality.

> even if you were not inspired.

Actually, i didn't "see" that "moment", but your description leaves me
repelled. I would more likely be *furious*.

> Finally, I actually met President George W. Bush,

So? Did you actually engage with him over a lengthy period of time?

> back when he was candidate
> Bush, at Safeco Field here in Seattle, WA.  He shook my hand, and addressed
> me by name - my first name 

Ah, no. So you're basing your entire attack on me on 30 seconds of
political flesh pressing.

You have more experience with *me* (directly) than with him.

But I'm not surprised that you would make rash generalizations about Bush
on scanty "evidence"; you certainly did so with me.

Why can't you even admit that you did this? And apologize? Seek
inspiration from your hero to do the right thing...

...oops, he's not all that good for *that* kind of inspiration, is he.

>(It was on a nametag that we were wearing at the
> fundraiser)

So, Bush sucked up to you at a fundraiser...at this point, I really have
to judge you almost terminally shallow. But then, perhaps that makes Bush
a fit model for you.

> He seemed like an old friend in this setting,

The better to get money from you.

> and he seemed
> quite nice...very nice indeed.

So? Evil people can be charming (though i do not at all see bush's
charms).

So explain how it's "nice" to mock people you are executing. Please. I'd
love to see it.
 
> He has my admiration, my loyalty, my support, and my vote in 2004.

Getting back to *some* sort of point, that has nothing to do with whether
he owes apologies, uttered slurs, or, most importantly perhaps, is worthy
of criticism.

Just because *you* are uncritical toward him does not mean that *I* have
to be. Indeed, you should strive to be fairer toward criticism because
your admiration and loyalty makes you more likely to dismiss them
unfairly.

> So I suppose I am biased

Indeed, you certainly have firmly established that.

> in your eyes.

No, you just *are* biased. Beyond the reach of reason, of civility, of
common humanity. I'm sorry for you.

> I can live with that.

I absolutely believe that. But I am grateful to the stars in heaven that I
am not you.

Y'know, I never argued that the "paki" thing was a reason to give up
supporting Bush (on it's own, given other counterbalancing factors that do
not actually exist in the current case, it's not). So why are you so
threatened? Can your hero admit of *no* flaw whatsoever?

That suggest to me that you're *completely* in love with an icon, rather
than the person that he is. I would suggest that you open your eyes and
think critically for a bit, but evidence suggests that that would not make
you very happy.

Challenge remains. Show me that being admired means that no one ought to
criticize you for failing to apologize for accidentally (I'll grant
that) uttering a racial slur while addressing a delicate, world
significant diplomatic situation, when you're the president.

That's the intellectual challenge (you can vary it, but use that as a
model.)

The moral challenge: Acknowledge the false, misleading, and insulting
things you've said about me, and apologize for them.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.