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

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, oohandy wrote:

> Fine.

That's rather ungracious.

> I apologize for calling you a liberal;

But do you apologize for accusing me of lying, in print, in an egregiously
stupid way?

> you apparently are not,

Well, I'm not a desperate Gore/Clinton supporter, who's so deluded and
burning with hate that I "make stuff up" because I "know I can't find
anything real to criticize."

In fact, there was a reasonable point of criticism and I made it. If
Clinton had done it, I woudl have made the very same point. It's not about
personality or person, it's about actions and principle. May I point out
that you've continually conflated the two, both in your accusations and in
your defenses.

> and not
> everyone who would criticize President Bush is.

And not everyone who *does* criticize Bush is just *dying* to critique
him. I criticize him when something worthy of criticism comes to my
attention and I have the time and energy and reasonable skill to do so.

If I critiqued *everything* horrid he did, I'd never be done.

I'm curious as to whether you still disagree with our criticism: Do you
think Bush should be more careful in his speech and apologize when he uses
racial slurs (inadvertantly) in delicate diplomatic circumstances? If not,
is it permissible for *anyone* to act that way, or only Bush? If only
Bush, *why* only Bush?

> Although I am for smaller government, and I am pro-life, I don't consider
> myself a member of any political party. It would be my greatest desire that
> we did'nt have political parties.

I don't know what my "greatest" desire is, but if we're wishing, no
political parties is way low. Less violence around the world would be up
there.

> Without them, their would be no hidden
> agendas, no "quid pro quo" election deals.

Sure there would. Hidden agendas are features of people.

> Just men and women who posess the
> ability to govern and lead, regardless of their race, creed, or economic
> background. And President George W. Bush is a perfect example of this type
> of leader.

What type? Having the ability to govern and lead? Barely. Almost anyone
could do the job the way he does it (did *you* get a *15* day vacation in
december? I didn't). *Regardless* of his race, creed, and economic
background?!?!? You mean you think that George W. Bush would have become
president if he had been Pakistani-American, Muslim, and poor!

Surely not. Bush is so tightly wrapped up in his race, creed, and economic
background, not to mention social position, that his personality is almost
non-existent.

> Oh, I'm sure he agreed to agendas, and even accepted a few deals to get
> elected.

Enron. Really, I think you're quite deluded. Bush is a party creature to
the core. It's hard to deny it. How could it be otherwise?

After all, he did have the *choice* to try to go it alone.

> But without the party system, he would not have had to.

Well, these are highly speculative statements about a person whom you
admire to the point that you're willing to deny manifest facts (like his
uttering of the slur). That makes them suspect.

> It was the headline "Bush's racist slur" that set me off .

What, the *accurate* headline?

> Using the term
> "racial" in the headline would have made it seem less personal.

What's personal about it? If we "softened" it out of *personal* regard for
Bush, *that* would have been personal. Indeed, that's what you continually
have been trying to push on me: personal considerations. Perhaps you don't
understand how bad 'Paki' is. It's closer to the Nword, as I
understand it, especially in having been closely tied to violence and
terror (it came from the term "paki-bashing" which was use by Brits going
out to beat up Pakistani immigrants).

Do you understand? Saying 'Pakis' can be *easily* heard by someone who
endured or witnessed such as a green light for India to go a-bashing (with
NUKES!)

We're lucky that nothing's come from it, thus far. I hope it continues.

If he had say "Japs", what would you think?

Substitute other racial slurs and imagine the results.

Remember, he just won't apologize. To anyone. Not even pakistani
americans.

Even if it's an honest slip of the tongue, shouldn't he stand up an
apologize for inadvertant harm *possible* done? I would. I like to think
that's part of being decent and considerate and *nice*.

> But I
> probably still would have objected...

On what grounds? Personal ones?

Because it makes Bush look bad? But *Bush* made Bush look bad.

Note how precise our headline is. It describes it exactly, without any
softening, but without any sensationalization. We didn't write, "Bush is a
racist pig!". But we didn't write, "Bush trips over his tongue
again." Neither is true to the event.

We could have written, "Bush accidently utters a racist slur", but,
actually, we don't *know* that he did it accidently.

Remember, it's Monkeyfist.com, not whitehouse.gov. It's not our *job* to
make Bush look good. But you should be honest enough to note that we
didn't go out of our way to make him look *worse* than the facts.

I will give you this much credit: You do seem to yield to reason,
somewhat. That's a hopeful sign.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.