Sorry, No Hate Mail
I don’t get any anymore. Gee, I wonder why.
On the other hand, Jennifer had this to say:
When I saw the title of this week’s column, the first connection I made was to the “unwomen” in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. However, as I read your column, I realized my mistake. You make some key points about how various ethnic groups are treated, but I was disappointed that you did not include women as unpersons.
Enlightened writer that you are, I’m sure you’re aware of how women are routinely marginalized in the media, which portray doctored-up images of women (e.g., Katie Couric minus ten pounds) or women who fall far outside the norm (models, actresses), propagates glib generalizations about “security moms”, relegates “women’s issues” such as athletic anorexia to the New York Times Styles section, tokenizes the few who make it almost to the top (Nancy Pelosi, Carly Fiorino); and then there are the medical studies that test on males first, even for problems such as Rett Syndrome, which primarily affects females … I could go on ad nauseam.
Nowhere are women represented in a way that accepts us as whole humans rather than a one-off version of men. Never are our concerns treated as human concerns. Always we are treated as the exception, the strident bitch, the me-too whiner.
If we are elided even from your column, then we truly are unpersons.
Sincerely,
JenniferPS – Don’t forget the elderly, and also the children about whose interests many claim to care, but look at the crappy world we’re leaving for them.
I replied that she was absolutely right. One could write a (long) book on the topic of this week’s column, which barely scratches the surface of a topic with enormous import.
24 Comments.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm betting the reason that you don't receive any hate mail these days is because people know you too well and just realize there's simply no point in writing to a Socialist jackass who simply seeks the destruction of America. We've already seen that shit before, man, forty years ago when your kind operated as stooges for the Soviets. Of course, now you operate as stooges to a dead ideology – like some sort of Star Trek villain that keeps on marching to the beat handed out by a dead spacestation.
I still like writing to you just because I enjoy calling you a jackass, but it's not really hatemail. It's pitymail. It's taking sad pity upon a man who actually delights in the fact that we have a dumbass President who has incompetantly waged a good war that could have been won and still can be won, if we just get somebody else in office, and if we just keep nodding and smiling at the suicidal doomsayers such as yourself.
But, in short, that's why you don't get hate mail. Why wrestle with a Socialist pig?
Ah yes, how dare Dubya foul up the neocons' splendid little war. Really? You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that if we put you in charge, you could "win" in Iraq, whatever winning in Iraq means? How's it feel to be part of the 9% who still think Iraq was a good idea? Oh wait, it probably feels a lot like it did to be one of the 9% who already thought Bush was a dumbass on 9/12. Except that they were right.
Excellent, Matt. You've further explained why it's pointless to argue with the Ted Ralls of the world. "Whatever winning in Iraq means?"? Already it's over. You've taken the path of least resistance. You've decided that we can't win because winning is contrary to your political beliefs, and – more importantly – you've decided that nothing will count as a victory. Setting up a government, setting up a policeforce, nothing. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe we've come near any true victory yet, but I'm open for the possibility – you've closed down your brain and decided nothing's going to be good enough. So why argue?
Notice how Ranja doesn't answer the question "How's it feel to be part of the 9% who still think Iraq was a good idea?". It furthers explains why it's pointless to argue with the Neocon morons of the world. They take the path of least resistance and never answer the tough questions. They never stay on point because it's contrary to their political beliefs. So why argue?
Well, it was kind of a silly question. I actually thought it was rhetorical. It feels pretty nice to be in the group that still thinks it was a damn fine idea to go into Iraq (I'm not sure where you got 9% – please do tell). My decisions aren't based on the opinions that other people have. Even if 99% of the people in America thought Iraq was a bad idea, I'd still be happy to be in the group that thinks it was a good idea. So that's not really a tough question, my man. Sorry if it is for you.
Also, I believe it requires more than supporting the Iraq War to make somebody a neocon. For one thing, I believe you have to have voted for a Republican for President at least one, which I've never done. But that makes it a lot easier for you, though, doesn't it? You really need to get out more.
Is Ranja someone just pretending to be a right-wing nut? The posts are almost too comical to be legit. I suppose he would have lapped up the Red Scare and loved the Vietnam War too. Just goes to show these neocons have no sense of history. Just another mindless, foaming-at-the-mouth chickenhawk who is happy to see our economy destroyed and other people sent to die in a pointless war.
Ted, excellent column. I agree with it wholeheartedly, but I wonder if a modern government can ever tackle the matter. My case in point: I'm a Jain Indian American. I take my religion very seriously and I have major objections to a large part of US policy and society on everything from the death penalty to animal rights to wars. But, most modern nations are fairly Hobbesian. I'm not sure that in that model, an outlier (even with useful voices) could ever be considered. The collective will and weight of the masses seems to be too strong unless you force a message out.
Put differently, we should expect this country to take directive from those who wield political and media control (read: 25-60, male, usually white, usually straight) for the forseeable future. It's unfortunate for many, including myself.
Does the word "Neocon" actually have any meaning, or is it just a term that you people use to describe those who disagree with you?
And now it appears that I'm talking to somebody who refers to all mentions of Soviet intervention in America during the Cold War as the "Red Scare", and who then tells me that I have no knowledge of history. That is indeed shit that is just too comical to be made up. No doubt quite the fan of "Good Night and Good Luck".
Also, our economy is amazingly powerful at the moment. So I'm actually arguing with a man who has no knowledge of history or economics. Why the hell do I keep doing this when it's so totally pointless? It's not as though one of you nutjobs is actually going to study something that isn't put out by editorial cartoonists.
Mr. Ranja, please enlighten us: What would you use as indicators of having "won" in Iraq? And how would you get there?
Speaking of basic economics, anyone can see the US dollar is overvalued and the country is in insane levels of debt. Just because the US keeps pumping out paper money to prop itself up hardly makes it a vibrant economy.
Only the US dollar's status as the international currency is keeping it alive but that won't last forever as countries change out their cash reserves in favour of a heavier Euro load. One day oil will start trading for Euros and then it is truely over. Maybe you have an intelligent, non-inflammatory opinion on that? Or would you rather keep ranting?
Alternative opinions would be great, but who needs a insecure guy complaining because people dont agree with him? I certainly dont care if you dont agree with me.
Mr. Rall,
Perhaps if you made a greater effort toward being wrong most of the time, you'd have a fatter bank account like so many conservative commentators.
You think you can collect a big speaker's fee for telling it like it is? Don't make me laugh.
You seem to not understand that always being right makes clueless conservative cry. Do you enjoy the thought of Thomas Friedman waking up every morning on a tear-stained pillow?
The absence of bigotry and gay-bashing in your writings is simply appalling! And I'll bet you've never even called anyone a "Godless liberal". Until you can learn to be more self-righteousness and mean-spirited, I'm afraid you'll never get anywhere in this business.
You should also be aware that your satirical wit is liable to be harmful to the tiny minds of Neocons. A leading scientific study has shown that sarcasm causes brain hemorrhages in laboratory mice and Rush Limbaugh listeners.
My advice: Lose the sense of humor and start making death-threats against public figures. It works for Mr. — uh, I mean Ms. Coulter.
We are going to win in Iraq just like the Soviets won in Afghanistan and the French won in Algiers and Vietnam and just like the USA won in Vietnam! They showed those commies! It's going to be all hugs, kisses, and fuzzy puppies once the socialist pigs get behind our troops and really get over there and kick some ass. Oooh-rah! I can't wait!
Ranja
Wow, Jordan, you are a piece of work. Are you and Mr. Rall in some type of competition to see who can be the bigger jackass? I don't know how a "rant" is defined over on your side of the pond, but over here I view it as something not unlike when a fellow simply ignores reality and plasters on top of it a doomsday scenario that he practically admits he has just concocted out of his own hopes and dreams.
You see, I view a good economy as being one that has low unemployment, low inflation and a high GDP/GNI. America has that right now. You can try your hardest to find a flaw and make the absolute most out of that flaw – since the economy is not a perfect one and flaws can always be found in imperfect creations – but that just makes you look sad and terribly biased.
And to you, Anonymous, I would consider creating an ally in the nation of Iraq – something not unlike what we did with Japan – to be the ultimate indicator of a victory over there. I would never pretend that I have the necessary knowledge to put forth a real plan that could take us to that goal. That's what separates me from jackasses like Ted Rall.
Winning isn't against my political beliefs. Starting illegal wars, on the other hand, is.
Dear ranja : my understanding is that you have unfortunately no idea what foreign policy is all about. You talk about "winning in Iraq" and I'll tell you why you aren't using the right vocab. Iraq can't be "won" as such, with a victory celebration, a parade, a war ship etc. Iraq can only be "owned back" by the Iraqis. Who in your right mind can you imagine an Iraqi saying : "a Western power came in, toppled our dictator, killed scores of civilians just like any army is supposed to do, tortured prisoners, put in place a regime that was only replaced through sectarian voting. But I'm fine with that, this Western power has more credentials than I do in my own country. You see, I have no dignity at all. All you need to rule me is a tie and an office. And there! I'm yours!".
No, Ranja, it just doesn't work that way. Other people (aka non-Americans) don't think that way. And that may come as a surprise to you, they don't enjoy or think that the USA know better than them what is better for them (especially when nobody knew the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, before, during and after the war). Do you know what pride is? Can you understand why this can't work as long as the USA is in? The best way to catch up for this is to apologize to the Iraqis and let them recover their dignity. Then they will start to create their own national lore, their own sense of a nation that they need to create themselves.
This reminds me of what happened in Europe just after WWII : the Americans were ready to take over and had already printed a whole new currency, in a colonial spirit. The European leaders had enough sense to say : "thanks for all you did for us, but please don't spoil it and don't stray from what your great founding principles are. Don't colonize us."
I wish there had been an Iraqi to say the same thing (even though this particular war is a farce compared to WWII, both in terms of rationale and means).
So, please, Ranja, study a little harder, get a passport and see how non-Americans thing, and please, please, I hope that you will find other, deeper, more adult analogies than those of "Star Trek".
Yours,
Rob
HOW DARE YOU BADMOUTH ONE OF MY STAR TREK ANALOGIES!!!!!
That's it! I'm done with you losers!!
GOODBYE!!!!
P.S. Where do I get one of these fancy passport things?
I'm definitely not on the side of the Ranjas, but I am always chagrined when a European person ridicules American colonial policies. Please look at… EVERY COUNTRY in Asia and Africa. We Americans ought to consider seriously the thoughts of other nations. But, I'm gonna bump Western Europe to the bottom of the list of useful advisors on how to not ruin nations. Right below the Sudan, in fact.
I'm talking about this war in particular : how do you expect a foreign operation to go well when you hear US elected officials say "We are like parents to the Iraqis. When they do bad, we scorn them. When they do good, we reward them." How well you think that plays? How would YOU like that?
Dunno, wouldn't enjoy that.
^ thats right, because if someone else did it then it justifies the US doing it! Just like when people complaining about US human rights violations get the response that "well China does it too". People dismiss US torturing in Iraq by saying Saddam did it too. Great role models we look up to. With that reasoning, we are pretty much doomed because there will always be some "other" group of people or country doing something bad to provide justification to our own miserable behaviour. As well, if being from a country that was involved in colonialism disqualifies people from making observations about another country's behaviours, it is going to be a very quiet debate.
Oh and just becasue the US has the largest GDP, doesnt make it's economy the strongest. MC Hammer made millions and produced tonnes of (crappy) products but still went bankrupt. Output is important, and the US has insane output (being at war only helps with) but its debt ratio is not the sign of a healthy economy no matter how much they pump out.
Can we please have debates with people older than 12 here, or at least someone who doesnt wail on their CAPSLOCK key like an idiot and who uses the insult "jackass" over and over again? It is like having an argument with Pauly Shore.
Jordan misses the point entirely. I have no issues with China, India, Japan, or any of the other nations. There's a tragic over-involvement of Europe in all matters over the last 1000 years. I'm just saying that America DOES need to change (don't pretend I'm ignoring that, regardless of your intent) but we'd do best to listen to people who did not cause nearly every modern war (beyond ourselves obviously). Simply put, listening to European advice (given the current problems and tensions Europe has racially and socially, let's say your skeletons aren't dead yet) is like taking your rehab advice from Gary Busey.
What about this for efficient foreign policy : if the US decides to disqualify any country with any actual history (please find a country where violence nor invasion never took place), why not quit going on messianic missions disconnected to any realities of the countries in question? How about learning about where you're actually going? The US knew how to do that, back when it was popular and knew how to talk to people.
Now, it seems that very few people take very important decisions in Washington about countries they know nothing about. Messianic ideology has completely replaced efficient strategy. This started happening with *guess who*. Disagree with that?
Totally unrelated, but seriously – "ARACHNIDEJHAD"!!
Thanks, Ted, for the funniest thing I'll see all week.
-jeremy
Totally unrelated, but seriously – "ARACHNIDEJHAD"!!
Funniest thing I'll see all week.
Ha, whoops. Damn automatic processes and confusing blogger thingie.