You thought it was done, you thought the virulent truth had been spread. You were wrong. The following truth covers what Bill Clinton said before the South Carolina primaries through the Giants “ticker-tape” parade following their victory at the Super Bowl.
From: Scott
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 9:16 AM
To: Jordan; Sean; Eric; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
This is from Bill Clinton and ties directly to our debate just last week:
“Voting for president along racial and gender lines is ‘understandable, because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time,' the former president told a Charleston audience Wednesday while campaigning for his wife, a role he has played all week.”
Appropriate or inappropriate? Or rather is this intelligent or unintelligent?
I'm not trying to bask in my dominate win from last week or beat this thing into the ground I am just surprised that our debate turned out to be so topical just days after we discussed it.
From: Jordan
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 10:40 PM
To: Scott; Sean; Eric; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
Bill Clinton did not tell anyone to vote for anyone in that quote you provided. He said a certain behavior or action was understandable. Maybe I'll give you that he's condoning it. You're spinning things to suit your beliefs -- instead of forming your beliefs around empiricism and reason. Might as well have this debate with Tucker Carlson or Bill O'Reilly or Cardinal Richelieu.
Fact is that, you're right, racism and sexism are wrong and dangerous. However, "generalism" (or profiling) is not. As Wilson was trying to explain to you, that's exactly what helps us survive. And if you
fight that natural instinct and, I don't know, visit a family's home for dinner in Fallujah without knowing that foreigners are not welcome BY THE COMMUNITY (regardless of what the family says) then that's imprudent, unintelligent on your behalf. And you're going to die.
Like Chris Rock said: "You know, l was just in my hotel, a little while ago, on my way here... and l got in the elevator, right? l'm getting in the elevator... and these two high-school white boys try to
get on with me...and l just dove off. l said, ''Y'all ain't killing me!'' l am scared of young white boys. If you white and under 18, l'm running for the hills." It's funny cause it's true. He's still alive. (Right? Chris Rock is still alive, right?
From: Josh
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008 9:15 AM
To: Jordan; Scott; Sean; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
Scott, confusing people to a point where they just give up is not a debate, it's a fillibuster.
When we work together to make generalizations everything becomes easier, I now no longer need to visit Tampa , thanks to Sean going there and telling us all about it last week. I now believe that a Tampa mans own rational self-interest and his own happiness involves not graduating high school and deep frying anything he can find.
From: Eric
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008 10:02 AM
To: Josh; Scott; Jordan; Sean; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
Hahahaha. Man, I'm so tempted to go to Tampa now.
From: Scott
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008 10:13 AM
To: Josh; Jordan; Sean; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
Cigar Dreams
Whether a person tells people to vote based on Race or Sex versus just "condoning it" is of no moral difference to me. You'd have to be a simpleton or a "Stupid Voter" as defined in the last email to not see through such political double speak. I understand that Bill did not say it directly, but that's the whole point of political double speak; to get away with saying certain things. I'm not "Spinning" anything; Consider me a translator of the political double speak when I summed up his core beliefs towards the use of race and sex as voting criteria.
You honestly think that it is ok that Bill condones it but did not say it directly? Am I taking crazy pills? Or have I not taken the Bill Pills? I know you all love Bill Clinton and have dreamed about being Monica Lewinsky on that fateful day, but can you not just once admit that he has a flaw in his moral code? And that what he is promoting in this instance is WRONG?!
Thugs and Bears
On generalizations...listen to yourselves; you say that generalizing is a matter of survival. How is voting for someone based on race or sex a matter of survival? How is deciding whether or not to visit Tampa a matter of survival? How is determining whether someone can use chopsticks a matter of survival? Knowing that there are dangerous places in the world and avoiding them is not generalizing either.
Further, Jordan , you said that I can scream for them to change all I want but I'm not screaming for them to change. I have said many times before that the only thing I can control is myself, therefore all I can do is lead by example. If people see and understand my moral code (the right to my own life, and respect that right of others) then that's the best I can do. Somehow I've been pegged the asshole because I believe people should have the right to there own life provided they respect that of others; if they don't, then perhaps force is necessary.
I Just Vomited in my Mouth
Jordan , serious? I haven't gotten awkward tingles that bad since I watched one of Michael Moore's great films, Bowling for Columbine. In that filmed he interviewed Marilyn Manson and asked him, "What would you say to the kids of Columbine?" and Manson replied, "I wouldn't say anything.....(severe dramatic pause).....I would listen to what they have to say........(more dramatic pause).......Nobody has listened to them." Just an awkward cliche all over.
Lets sort it out though, listen to who exactly? How do I listen to "them"? Tell me how it is literally possible to "listen" to a group of people, and then tell me how it is practically and morally plausible to generalize what "they" have to say.
Listen to yourselves for the love of god!
P.S.
I title my thoughts now...just in case someone decides to publish them.
From: Jordan
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008 11:02 AM
To: Scott; Josh; Sean; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
On Bill Clinton: Great. I'm glad you understand he didn't say it directly. However, "translating" (or whatever you want to call it) is spinning.
On generalizations: I don't believe anyone here would dispute that basing your vote on race or sex is unwise. (I also don't think anyone thinks you're an asshole because you think a person should have a
right to his own life.) However, I'm not going to concede the utility of generalizing and categorizing. Without those abilities, it'd be impossible to make sense of our world.
On change: I put that in there because, if I didn't, you would have said something like, they are ignorant and shouldn't be xenophobic because that's unintelligent and I don't care about what unintelligent people think because they're as moral as bears.
On listening to a group: I'll stipulate that a group cannot literally speak together (unless the group is a choir or a chorus in a Greek tragedy). However, here are a couple of questions: Do you consider the senate a group of people? And is the statement, "The Senate passed a bill on water control today," a valid statement?
P.S. Nice titles.
From: Scott
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008 1:15 PM
To: Jordan; Josh; Sean; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
Quick Change
I don't think all the questions are asked correctly, or rather, they don't isolate the issues as best they could but I think this tool is pretty interesting:
www.electoralcompass.com
You just answer questions and it shows you where you stand compared to the candidates. What's cool, at the end you can narrow it down by each issue, so you can compare how you stand on each issue. Obviously I am closest to Ron Paul, furthest from the Dems, but of course, the interesting comparison is issue by issue.
The Answer:
And Jordan, so as not to avoid your direct questions (which so often occurs when I ask them), I do consider the Senate a group of people, and I do consider the statement, "The Senate passed a Bill on Water control today..." to be a valid statement. This is because the statement references an action taken (the passing of a bill) consistent with the purpose of the group.
Not only is it their job to pass (or not pass) bills, by knowing the make up of the senate and its intended function (which should be common knowledge for US citizens), I inherently know that this represents a majority opinion, or vote rather. But ask yourself, what is the function or purpose of white or black people, Asians or Hispanics, Americans or Brits? Since "they" do not have a set function, or set purpose or even set beliefs, generalizing "them" neglects any function, purpose or belief that an individual within that group may have created for themselves. By generalizing them, you assign them value. Not cool.
The End
Shortest email by me ever!
From: Jordan
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008 2:15 PM
To: Scott; Josh; Sean; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
I appreciate the short email. Well done.
I pretty much hit the bull's-eye in that electoral game (slightly more on the democrat side); none of the candidates are in the oval they created for me. Being in the center, I'm also (strangely) closest to Ron Paul, if you take out your protractor. I, too, don't like how they wrote the questions.
Anyway, back to the senate. You agree that they were a) a representative of a larger mass and b) the statement was valid even though only a majority of those in the senate said something, not ALL in the senate.
Same thing with black people, white people, Brits, Asians, Hispanics and penguins. A majority of British men liking soccer allows me to say, Brits like “football” (so does Eric, now). I realise (as they say in Britain ) that not ALL Britons like football, but that doesn't prevent me from starting a conversation with at Briton with “So, you for Arsenal?” Or with a senator with, “So, you voted for the war?” Maybe he doesn't like football and maybe she didn't vote for the war. I ascertain that after knowing them as an individual, and we move on.
Sure, maybe if I was to start a conversation with an Asian with, “So, do you like chopsticks,” it would be offensive. But that's an inane example. And not the point.
The point isn't whether or not I'm going to offend someone. The point is that an Asian person probably does like chopsticks, and, in that, lies the utility of generalization. It allows a psychiatrist to actually help a certain victim by asking, “Did your father rape you?” Probably. It allows an Army General to anticipate how citizens of an Arab nation will react to a certain action, “Are they Muslim?” Probably. It allows a criminal profiler to find a serial killer by asking, “Is he a white male in his thirties?” Probably. By generalizing them, we assign them value. Pretty cool.
Sorry for the length of this email.
From: Scott
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008 2:15 PM
To: Jordan; Josh; Sean; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
Yeah those questions were the same questions I had issues with. In fact, whenever questions are not objective it should raise suspicion, my guess is that it is a marketing tool for Ron Paul b/c everyone that I know who has taken it has tended to have him as their closest candidate. Plus he has a huge on-line presence as well as a "Nerd" following. Don't hate him for such tactics.
Spin Class
I never said, "[The Senate] [are a] representative of a larger mass." Just as you agreed that a "group cannot literally speak together," a representative cannot literally represent another individual. No matter if I voted for our Senator or not, they cannot represent my values, thoughts and feelings. A senator can only represent their own values, thoughts and feelings with their votes. I said that they are a group with a specified function so when a statement is made such as "the senate passed a bill on water control," it is valid based on the function of the Senate not on the group the "represent."
Now of course I understand the voting process by which "Representatives" are elected and further what they symbolize; I further understand that a Rep can vote with someone else's "Values" in mind.
A true democracy could work if people accepted the fact that they have the right to their own life, and respect that right of others. Then common sense would take over when dealing with other humans. A true democracy could work because there would be less votes for people to vote; government workers would be facilitators of the votes, not representatives.
Anyway...
Social Notes (FUN!)
Josh, I met your best man Ricky last night at BB's party, good guy. I also met several other Tory classmates of yours, one of which was named Samantha who also went to USC with you. Apparently she has a friend who you guys may have gone to middle school with (or High-school as well, I forget) who works as a PA or AP at The Courtney Show. I forget her first name, but Jordan , be on the look out for a girl you work with, with the last name of Silver, I forget her first name.
From: Josh
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008 2:33 PM
To: Scott; Jordan; Sean; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
I am loving the email headings.
Glad you met Ricky, had no idea he was in NYC. The Samantha you are referring to is Samantha Triplioni, good peeps, I believe she works for Sports Illustrated now, Jeff maybe she can hook up a free subscription to the remaining 1 or 2 Time Warner publications you don't get.
Jordan , if it's Gretchen Silver that Scott is referring to, no need to be on the lookout.
From: Scott
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008 2:35 PM
To: Josh; Jordan; Sean; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
Why is there no need for Jordan to be on the lookout?
From: Josh
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008 2:37 PM
To: Scott; Jordan; Sean; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
Cause she's voting for Ron Paul. Kidding. Is he still running?
From: Sean
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008 2:33 PM
To: Josh; Scott; Jordan; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
At the parade today a sign said:
OBAMA
CLINTON
√ MANNING
Ha.