>
> as offensive as you and others found doug's question (i admit that i
> gasped when i read it), "why did you come to the US?", i suspect that it
> had a theoretical basis.
>
kelley, thanks for your detailed response to which i shall add some thoughts shortly. this post is to catch the 12pm EST deadline (i kind of presumed EST since doug is out here in the east) to squeeze in a message today so i have my full quota of posts tomorrow ;-), and also to note that i did not at all find doug's question offensive (mina kumar did i think, and in a recent post she suggests she has covered those reasons in detail before, so i will have to hunt the archives and see if i am being naive) and said as much in a long and boring response which it would seem you had the good sense to ignore ;-). if a conservative had asked me that question i would have found it offensive (though it still remains to be addressed). in this instance, i found the question important to reflect on (if not for any other reason, at least to overcome it) - i will avoid repeating my detailed response here. i suspect that mina kumar's objection comes from a strong theoretical position also (and perhaps is similar to the objections raised by carrol cox recently when pressed to answer the question "what would you do if you were in charge?") and i would have learned much if the discussion had not turned boisterous! but in these days when doug seems to be taking it on the chin on a regular basis on this list and pen-l, i must reiterate that his question was thought provoking and his position is not offensive to me.
--ravi