Comments Invited
I received this email this morning:
How are you?
I must admit it’s been a long time since I read your column (and news in general come to think of it). I used to be very interested in world politics and news, but found that I only got more frustrated the more ‘news’ I read. I love your work (editorials, never got around to your other work, so many things to read, so little time, etc). I just happened to be iddly sitting at the pc tonight, finishing a glass of beer, and thought ‘hey, I miss Rall’s stuff, let’s check it out’. And I did.
Now, either I’m becoming more dumb as days go by, or something in your writing style changed.
Let me explain: I really do think I’m slightly above average when it comes to reading, understanding, and just generally being on the level when I read things. I’m not saying I’m brilliant or anything, but usually, I believe I understand an author’s point of view well enough. But I have to say, your last three pieces (I read them on Yahoo, the vegetarian thing, the pretzel, etc), I really cannot follow you! I’m reading, and I’m sitting at my pc thinking “Man, I must’ve really gotten dumb in the last months or so, because Rall, my favorite anti-republican, anti-conservative –I’m Canadian– doesn’t make any sense any more!”. I really, really didn’t get the vegan thing… What are you going on about? Damn man, I’m not getting you! I know you’re a class apart from that nutcase Coulter, but I think you need to make your writing (and your point in general) a bit easier to follow. Seriously. Americans now have this wonderful show “Are you smarter than a 5 year old”, and honestly, the only country in the world where that could happen is the U.S. Now, I can -usually- follow you, but now, you’ve lost me, and I’m Canadian! So I guess what I saying is this: for the sakes of Democrats (and by proxy Liberals in Canada) make you editorials count, and make ’em easier to understand!
I know, I know, this might not be making a lot of sense, but I really ‘feel’ like something has changed in the way you write your stuff. Reeves? Yes, I expect him to be long-winded and relatively bizzaro, but you, I peg you as the People’s man… (I hope you won’t be insulted by this statement)… You need to make a difference, and that means reaching people. I have a hard time following you (or at any rate your last 3 pieces) and I’m afraid that only helps the ‘enemy’… We need a good, level-headed, educated person like you writing good pieces exposing the rot going on in North America, but you need to be ‘user-friendly’. It’s the only way I can put it. I’m sure if I go back to your pieces tomorrow, read them again, stop, think, it’ll be clear as day, but I’m not sure the average person will go through this exercise…
Peace, and I hope this makes a modicum of sense to you…
E.L.
Canada
Here’s my reply:
Hi E.L.,
I appreciate what you’re saying. I’ve always believed in writing in an accessible style. Writing, after all, is about communication. Showing off your ten-cent vocabulary words isn’t the point. The point is to express an idea as easily and simply as possible in the hope of stimulating discussion (and maybe, possible, you never know…change?).
This week’s column about vegetarianism attempted to express my distaste, not for vegetarians, but for the kind of sloppy thinking that justifies hurting other living things simply because they’re different than we are. I’m sorry it fell short of what you’ve come to expect from me. But I hope you’ll keep reading!
Best,
Ted
So, how about it? Is E.L. right or wrong? Please post a comment. I’ll be reading them and maybe even–you never know–reacting!
38 Comments.
Hi Ted,
Yes, E.L. is right. The proof lies in the final paragraph, in your own words: "The point, of course . . ." If the point were clear, you wouldn't have needed to spell it out. I still love you anyway.
Mark
I wasn't a huge fan of this week's column, but I think you've written some really good ones in the past few months (the health care one from Jan and last weeks on Iran come to mind)
I like the attempt to discover why we rationalize killing other beings, plants and animals alike. You give some good info, pose some good questions, but never jump to some conclusion that 'proves' Bush is a warmonger/idiot, etc. You can only do that so much before it gets a little redundant. Too many opinion-page guys jump to conclusions and feel like they have to take a side, rather than maybe offering up an interesting question like Mr. Rall did here. Good work.
Yes, this week's column missed. I mean really Ted – going on about a beefsteak tomato? I've heard the nonsense about the "feelings" of plant life before and the pseudo-science surrounding it, but until a scientist can prove a beefsteak tomato has a nervous system it's a dead issue. (Get it? A "dead" issue! Har!)
Every once in a while you pen a column that makes your credibility questionable (but not to me), and provides ammo to tear you down. I'm not suggesting that you play it safe; on the contrary you should continue to push the envelope, because you do it quite well.
Ted,
I had no problem understanding your point. Maybe we've all spent too much time together. Although the thought of Ted Rall giving up meat is surprising to me. My God man, do I even know you anymore.
Anyway, I thought it was a nice change, and as well thought out as any head-on political statement you make.
And I'm a fan of anyone who will go on about a beefsteak tomato.
just wanted to say that I missed your column, but totally LOVED your new toon! again, that's EXACTLY what I thought when I heard about it myself!
get out of my mind, man!
thx,
Ted,
I loved the column and feel like I got the point, though I did notice that it wasn't as direct as you usually are. You know, the sort of directness/frankness that gets you into trouble.
And I just finished Silk Road to Ruin. Great job with that (and email me back, fucker!).
Jared
Ted,
We already talked about this with my comments to you, however I didn't address this particular question. I'd like to join the conversation with your other readers and say that I think your op-ed piece this week raised a very valid point, and one worth exploring. I recognize that it is obscure to some, and as a person who is making a career out of studying this stuff I'm bias, but it really gets at the heart of who we are, what we care about, and how we justify it to others.
Dave
Your columns are generally logical, and I have occasionally felt, brutally honest. The vegan/vegetarianism one though seemed to meander a round a bit. I did get the idea; that some people use weak justifications to commit crimes, but I felt you had not argued it in a clear manner with clear examples. However, the Taliban/Russian journalist cartoon was a stark and thoroughly clear piece of work.
Hey Ted,
'I posit that your most recent article had, beyond cavil, more than a modicum of verbiage!'
(Or, to put it another way, 'I really think your latest column was quite wordy' – do you see the difference?)
You do go off on a quasi-intellectual, esoteric topic every few months and I must admit I do not like when it happens, but, on the whole, your writing is sensible, learned and, as such, appealing, so I can more than tolerate your occasional oddball work.
Remember, if you are trying to reach mass appeal, most people are not doctoral-level alumni and do not care about complex philosophical issues. Make them understand basic-level Prison Industrial Complex ideas and you are doing much more than most.
Anyway, cheers
Please add me to the "I got your point" column.
Evil Kumquat
Being from Michigan, I need to say that Canada,some of the best beer in the world. Molson XXX is a personal favorite. Next to people in the U.S.A. i'll take the Canadiens any day. Even those snooty French Canadiens. E.L. needs to keep up with the articles. No one hits the nail on the head, or drives home as many points as you. Cheers, eh?
Mmmmm, veggies was a bit too personal almost bloggish, but that's okay. Sounded to my Gen-Y ears like another Gen-X attempt to demand an "authentic" experience. We 1980 babies fall into that one too now and then. No worries.
Unpersons was another "authentic" type cry but this one didn't seem so bloggish cause African American leaders debate this one. I didn't like the columns thrust because I feel African Americans "don't be white" attitude is incredibly distructive for black males and is keeping them from applying to college at the rate their female counterparts do.
As for Iran. All that "distrust" is phony Congressional BS. Americans believe Bush for exactly the reasons you gave. We're also not interested in a for for exactly the reasons you gave. Democrats are just trying to get some legs from this. They're as phony as the Republicans. One wishes they'd just come out and say, "Yeah, Iran is supplying weapon? So what?"
Anyways, I never agree with any of your stuff 100%. But I never agree with anything anyone says 100%. Whatever. These three columns were still interesting and perfectly clear.
Not to stray too far from the subject, I just hope that with all the atrocities being committed in Iraq, our troops don't follow rock-legend-and-avid-hunter Ted Nugent's rule that we must "eat what we kill".
Hi Ted,
You’re great, and your article about vegetarianism, xenophobia, and xenophilia was just fine—no quibbles there.
What I want to know is how the HELL an advertisement for the air force—”Cross into the blue!”—got stuck into the middle of your article.
Do you charge them and arm and a leg (or should I say a stalk and a leaf?) for the advertising space? Or do they think your readers are xenophobic enough to join up and bomb strangers? Please clarify.
Peace,
Zoltan
I sometimes have a problem following your cartoons as well. A recent one involving spiders went right over my head.
Dear Mr. Rall,
Your argument that we need to kill other creatures in order to survive is accurate. The human body destroys many types of pathogens without us even being aware of it. We wash our hands and kill millions of virii and bacteria.
However, when it comes to feeding, it is not necessary to destroy in order to survive. One can eat fruits,nuts or grains without destroying the plant.
It's up to the individual to believe whatever he wants to believe. Life and death are intertwined, ying-yang, nor good nor bad, just is.
I got your point(s) in the column, and English isn't even my first language.
Hey Andy, it ain't the "don't be white" attitude that keeps Black men out of college. A little research on the topic might be in order.
Also, good article Ted.
I normally enjoy the columns and understand your point, but the veggie one seemed odd to me also, especially the conclusion, which seemed strangely right-wing and anti-progressive: you seemed to conclude by saying that you're happy to be xenophobic and it's fine to exploit/kill foreign/different life for one's own selfish reasons.
Anon:
Okay okay. I was being simplistic. Incarceration rates having something to do with it.
Poor education also has something to do with it, although black woman attend the same school as black men. Across the board, woman attend college in greater numbers the men. Racism has something to do with it. Althopugh I don't believe tests like the SAT are racist, a lot of life is lived before one takes the SAT.
Many things are causing of American men and black men in particular to shun education. Address one of the causes won't solve the problem but it will help. Is fear of "acting white" causing people to shun education. Maybe not directly, but does make life harder for people that want to go to college and their life is already pretty hard.
How does telling people with dark skin that they need to come from poverty or they aren't "real," how does that help solve poverty? It doesn't.
I thought this week's column was very thought-provoking. I felt it seemed to reflect my disgust with the way Americans so often tend to view the lives of non-Americans (particularly non-whites) as being of inherently less value. For example, the whole "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" mentality.
That said, it was a bit abstract and meandering, and at times hard to follow. The parts questioning the morality of eating vegetables seemed a bit over-the-top, almost to the point of weakening your point by taking it to extremes. Besides, most fruits (in the botanical, not cullinary sense) that are eaten by humans are "designed" to be eaten, so that after passing through an animal's digestive tract the seeds are deposited at a distance from the parent plant. But I digress…
I think abstract, philosophical pieces such as this are perfectly fine, now and then, but only in moderation. As E.L. said, you should try to keep MOST of your columns more easily understandable and user-friendly.
You let people on the internet dictate what you can and cannot write, you are in deep deep trouble.
And hell, one of the things I like about is that you are non-rabid, i. e. you manage to write about something other than El Busho & Co, not that you stuff about the Bushmeister hasn't been spot on, but you know what I mean?
Someone should tell E.L. about sampling error. Your last two columns were atypical of your usual work, which is immediately relevant to current politics and down to earth. I suppose if he just started to read three columns ago after a long absence he might have gotten the wrong idea. This seems like a good time to vary subjects anyway, since everyone has already pretty much agreed that the Bush administration is a horrible failure, but has no real ideas as to what to do about the mess, since Cheney/Rice are still firmly entrenched as the conductors or our foreign "policy". Since (also because of the disinterestedness of the Democrats at really obstructing anything) anyone outside the Cheney/Rice circle is reduced to passive observers for the next two years, one might as well wait out politics until the '08 Presidential field becomes clearer.
The vegetarianism article wasn't unclear per-se, it was just an open-ended essay on a diffcult philosophical topic (or set of topics). So it was no shame that it failed to come to any conclusion. You might be interested to track down MK Ghandi's argument for vegetarianism (in his autobiography), which also had to do with caring for creatures different from ourselves. He simply takes it for granted (at least as a psychological fact) that animals are more distant from us than other humans and plants more distant than animals. In a nutshell, his argument is that by habituating ourselves not to harm the animals, we will condition ourselves to be nonviolent to beings that are in the next closest category to us, as compared to the animals–namely, humans of a different "tribal" or ethnic background. This argument has some echos of Aristotle and other Western ethicists, though they are probably unintentional (though also probably not coincidental).
There are also unrelated more modern ethical arguments for vegetarianism (such as ecological footprint, factory-farming issues), which clearly didn't fit into the framework of the article.
Comment on letter from E.L. of Canada:
I suspect E.L. wasn't just finishing one beer (spell checker helps clean up crying in one's beer) when it wrote the letter on being confused. A reader can't be up on every newsworthy item, so, sometimes a cartoon won't make sense. One time, Rall explained that he was just having fun. There you have it, case closed, game over! Canada! America's Switzerland.
"…There are also unrelated more modern ethical arguments for vegetarianism (such as ecological footprint, factory-farming issues)…"
Kudos to that! There ain't enough planet for all of us to eat meat. Far too many resources go to waste in the procuring of animal flesh for consumption by the very few.
But seriously, write about any damn thing you want to.
A comment about the ecological footprint and factory farming argument – They're both philosophically different from the argument Rall was discussion. Just to clarify, they are both out of the environmentalist strain, and don't require giving up the consumption of animal products (the industrial production of vegan food can be environmentally destructive as well).
The tie between animal rights and environmentalism is based on the legal history of the United States, in that farm animals are under the jurisdiction of the EPA, not the USDA, as point-source pollution issues related to CAFOs in the 1972 Clean Water Act.
Forgot to mention that plants generally take less energy to produce than animals. After all, the animals we eat survive on plants.
I did think your vegatarian/meateater article was a bit unfocused and meanadering, but they can't all be winners.
While with the Iran article, you were clear enough, but wrong (I feel) on one important point: it's true that even Bush (probably) knows that the US doesn't have close to enough ground troops to invade Iran. The air force, however, is still intact, and two carrier groups are already in the area. If the attack goes down, BushCo will "just" send in the bombers.
Don't get too hung up trying to be the "people's" commentator. The greatest thing I can say about your work is that you push me slightly (or more than slightly) beyond my comfort zone to think about things in a way that I would not have otherwise. Sometimes I don't get it, but you need to express things as you see fit. It took me a few minutes to relate to your vegetarian article, but it was good to try and figure out what you were saying. If you write the same thing every week, no matter how much I agree, I will eventually stop reading. It's like having a radio station that plays only Cajun music all day, or a restaurant that serves only Tandoori chicken. Delicious as the chicken and cajun music are, I will eventually look elsewhere for nourishment. Your calling the neocons a bunch of assholes is as as satisfying and familiar as a great tandoori dinner (that's meant as high praise). Your writing about vegetarianism and what that says about us as a culture was unexpected, provocative, and the kind of thing that keeps me reading your column and cartoons several times a week, as opposed to just when I'm in the mood to get a particular viewpoint. Pardon me if this answer is too rambling.
The difficulty with making things too explicit (well, one difficulty) is that certain people stop paying attention to the argument as a whole and start to fret at the formulation of sentences. Any logical slip, whatever its relevance, invites the barely-educated fisker to perform the usual intellectually vapid parts-of-speech breakdown, and sit back smugly once they've found something that won't compile on whatever software they have in place of empathy, idiom and good judgment.
But by the very nature of the discourse you've dropped yourself into, you have been set up as someone with a responsibility towards their readers. This puts you in a double bind, because on the one hand you have to strive towards clarity, but on the other hand it has to be a watertight clarity. You're fighting opponents who frequently (for whatever reason) misinterpret irony and rhetorical exaggeration as the true and naive intentions of their targets in order to misrepresent and discredit them.
Mostly you seem to get the balance right for the slightly smart-alec satirical switchblade you're reputed to be. The hardest parts to digest, I find, are simply ones where your paragraphs run together, or there's a minor grammatical typo. If I'm picking up on that sort of thing then the actual content must flow pretty well. But then I would say that, as I'm as pinko-liberal as they come.
(ps: coming from your RSS feed, your blog archive and home links are broken. You need to add a "/" to the start of the links.)
Ted,
Let me put it this way. The two things that vex me the most in the media are the tendency to report "the almost right story" and the tendency to not do the research.
The simplest case of the first is the plethora of "isn't this tragic" stories with lots of quotes and tears from relatives. We get those in abundance.
The current version of this is the Walter Reed fiasco. The story is not that Walter Reed is filthy and run by disinterested assholes. The story is that it went on being filthy and run by disinterested assholes for so long.
Am I seriously to believe that of the thousands of people (and the tens of thousands of their family members and friends) not one of those people tried to get through to the media, the senators, the representatives, etc.? That is the story, and it's being lost in the race to cover the easy, cathartic story of (cue the music) all the suffering of our heroes and the heart-rending testimony of the (sob, sob) people telling their stories in front of the cameras.
Absolutely, without question, someone who lost a limb or an eye or a chunk of his brain fighting in Mr. Bush's Daddy War deserves to get proper medical care. But you know what? Absolutely, without question, an eight-year-old deserves to not die of a brain infection because his mother couldn't afford to get him a dentist. That happened in Maryland just a few days ago, and I don't see anything like that level of outrage. I don't see any reports of anyone losing their job because a little boy died from a bad tooth.
Similarly, your vegan column is, well, the almost right story.
Who cares you're giving up meat, besides you and a few friends? That's blog-writing. You could have used the space in your column far more effectively by describing what goes on in a meat-packing plant. (Ask the PETA people for some juicy details.) I realize it's your column, but it can't just be navel-gazing.
Secondly, the failure to do research (which I suspect aids and abets the first problem).
QUOTE: Do plants have feelings? Since the mid-19th century, some scientists have claimed, for example, that plants respond to music and speech. "The Secret Life of Plants" was a bestseller in the 1970s. The truth is, no one knows.ENDQUOTE.
Ted, I call bullshit. Plain and simple. That paragraph belongs right next to Bush's idiotic "teach the controversy."
Do plants have feelings? No one knows? There was a best-seller in the 1970s? Oh for god's sake, Ted, step into the same universe as those who understand there were no WMDs in Iraq. Ann Coulter has several best-sellers, should I believe what's in them?
Feeling is a complex emotional state. You need a brain for that. Plants do not have brains. And for the hard-core skeptics, fine, if plants do have brains, please show them to me. Develop a double-blind experiment that demonstrates the capacity for feeling in a plant.
The media does this all the time and it infuriates me. Elevating pop culture or moods or "how I want things to be" to the status of fact. That's not how fact is assertained. You don't assert that plants have brains or that an intelligent designer made the universe because in neither case can you show any evidence. When you advance an idea that contradicts everything that is currently known, you — the one making the claim — have to demonstrate why it's a better claim of how things are.
And saying that plants might have feelings and then pulling "no one knows for sure" out of your ass? Oh, Ted, come on. You can do better…
I think our fine liberal friend from the North was drinking a lot more than one beer to get so fuddled by your writing. Inaccessible R NOT Ted Rall.
The existence of vegetarians will solve the ecological footprint problems stemming from human overpopulation.
After a few generations of training their offspring to be veges too, they'll devolve back to pre-hominid herbivorous levels of intelligence. Just wandering around eating grass, farting, panicking en masse, becoming totally chilled as soon as they can't actually smell the danger, voting Republican. Then, when we feel like some meat protein, those of us who continue on the human omnivorous evolutionary path can just duck out onto the nature strip and shoot ourselves a sheeple!
Wow, I never thought Ted would've put 'me' on his blog. The email was just meant as a simple comment, nothing more. I did go back to read the piece a second time, and it still didn't do anything for me. As someone pointed out, it was mostly just luck (or bad luck), that after neglecting to read the column for a while I should fall on that story first. I am certainly not trying to dictate what Ted or anybody should be writing about, but merely commenting on my feelings about this particular editorial. Also, to you who say I had more than one beer that night, I say this "I had a Canadian beer, 'nuff said." 🙂
I am, if anything, slightly to the left of you in politics, and I will be the first to admit that, in the days following 9/11, I thought you sounded a little too crazy and alarmist. Well, your predictions regarding the Bush administrations reaction to 9/11 turned out to be, if anything, conservative (sorry to use that word in this context) and I began paying attention to your stuff in earnest.
I would have to say that, in general, there is one cartoon a week and one column a month where I think "Geez, I like this guy, but I don't even know what he's trying to say with this one." Maybe you put out too much stuff, maybe the current state of affairs makes it so you can't think clearly (I know I couldn't if I had your job), but yeah, I know where E.L. is coming from. And I commend you for opening this up for discussion.
Hey Ted. I love all your stuff and used to listen to your radio show til I got busy. I want to say that both she is right, and that you should keep on trucking. If the vegetarian column was vague, most people should have gotten the point around the final paragraph when you wrapped up, but there's no denying that your style has changed through the years–you got more cynical. Like today's Supreme Court cartoon (and many recent ones), you're not attacking things directly anymore, but rather pointing out how ridiculous various things are. I think it shows further maturity in your expression skills.
As a fellow collumnist (I write for a bimonthly sports magazine), I appreciate the occasional musing on a topic. I know I do it all the time. I actually like your "change-of-pace" pieces that aren't going off on the week's outrage from a-hole in cheif.