Remember the melancholic coming of age cliché about the father finally losing to his child in a fair game of basketball, in the same moment marking his decline and his son's or daughter's entrance into adulthood? I like this cliché — it captures so poignantly that moment of woeful joy when you realize that age is no longer the sole qualifier of skill and ability. Likewise, at some point in the ongoing process of our disillusionment (I mean education) we wake up and discover — to our surprise and disappointment — that age alone no longer makes a person more intelligent, understanding, wise or kind. An unfortunate truth, I think.

Mr. Smith, you are what, 50 years old? Would you turn to your outspoken daughter, or your niece, or even your neighbor's daughter, look them in the face, and call them stupid? Maybe you would, but there is a reason name-calling arguments go out of fashion as we grow up — because they accomplish nothing and encourage nothing except brawling.

As an older adult, you are in a unique and privileged position. Ideally your opinions are sound and firm. Ideally your understanding of life, the intricacies of the world, and even your understanding of the often whimsical ideals of youth, is at once greater, yet more sublime and sensible than someone half your age. And surely, from this vantage point you recognize the need to criticize youth, but also to encourage it. I say your position is privileged because with your great age and wisdom the role you play must be one of understanding and encouragement, and one of guidance. Guiding the wayward views of today's youth toward more realistic, more acceptable realities.

What I am saying is that if you call me stupid, you make me want to punch you. If you calmly, articulately explain why my views are inadequate, why my opinions are no more than half-baked reactions to bigger, more complex issues rather than angering me, you have a chance to change me. Maybe. It's worth a try, though, isn't it?

Also, racial politics aside, why not blame President Bush for everything?

Look at Michael Brown, the former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, appointed by Bush in 2003. After being caught off-guard by Hurricane Katrina, after wallowing in the disarray of his organization, and after being forced to confront his own inadequacy, Michael Brown did a remarkable thing — he resigned. In the aftermath of Katrina, the responsibility fell on him, and he accepted it. After all, as the head director of FEMA, that responsibility was his.

As the man who campaigned for and won the presidency of the United States, Bush has tacitly accepted a similar responsibility, similar in its precedent, much grander in its scope. When things are falling apart in Louisiana, or in the Middle East, why should I not blame the man who sought and won the responsibility of keeping them together? As an American, I would encourage Bush to follow Mr. Brown's example: accept responsibility, swallow pride, resign, hand the job over to someone who can get it done. I know that's not how it works. Fortunately, I can complain about it without just calling him stupid.

This viewpoint was published in The Marquette Tribune on October 6, 2005.