Just got this little note via e-mail:
From: mark@gorhams.com
I will just get right to the point.
You are such a liberal piece of shit anti – American ass hole!
There I said it……….Fuck you.
Hugs and kisses fuck bag!!!
Mark Zink
Proud American
Yes, it’s true. Amazingly, this fascist wrote from his work e-mail address. I wonder if his bosses know he’s using his work email to send hate mail full of obscenities?
26 Comments.
You must have done something wrong to get a patriot all riled up like that, Ted. You apparently don't know your place as a liberal who needs to bow his head in shame, and preface every statement he makes with "this is just my lowly opinion, as a liberal."
I guess Mr. Zink is voting for McCain.
From a glance at his website, it appears he is the boss.
Not only must he be the boss but, he obviously commands the local constibulary. Why else would he be called a,Gorehams? Unless he's screwing the local police union?
Ted, i'm uncomfortable with your new web. It's very kool, but, please change it back so I can more easily use it.
P.S. Mark, FUCK YOU. YOU RIGHT HANGING BALL SAC!
I will just get right to the point.
You can practically Mark Zink (Proud American) hunched over in front of his computer, typing with the index fingers of each hand like some overgrown man-child. Only the "internet handicapped" can produce sentences like those.
You are such an awkward spacing ass hole!
If everyone who reads this blog replaces "liberal" with conservative and emails
mark@gorhams.com
rita@gorhams.com
gorhams@gorhams.com
we can, at least, significantly inconvenience and annoy them.
(use business-related subject headings)
Hah, it's worse than that.
The little idiot looks like he's the boss's SON.
A quick search on the Illinois Sec of State's website gives all the pertinent information.
Stephen & Helen's little boy should grow up and learn some manners.
I think his point might of been less abrasive if he put it on a mug or fleece jacket
If I wrote you hate email, would you post them, Ted?
Hey, Aggie, I haven't rejected any of your posts. So if they're not making it up here, it's a tech thing. It ain't me.
Wait, he didn't call you a commie homo faggot. Amateur!
While the guy is clearly a tool, I don't see how he's a fascist. At least according to any definition I've read. Or has that definition been changed to "anyone who disagrees with Ted Rall's politics"?
Seriously, the guy's an ass but I'm pretty sure conservative bloggers get hate mail from liberals and so-called progressives that would read almost word-for-word like this one. Are they then fascists too?
Clownstotheleftofmejokerstotheright:
The word "fascist" DOES get tossed around pretty loosely these days–the true definition of fascism describes an autocratic state supported by a privately controlled industrial sector. One of the surface features of historical fascism has been a hyper-nationalist (and often xenophobic) pandering to the uneducated working class. Ted is referring to this surface feature of fascism.
When "liberals" write hate mail to wingnuts, they generally don't take the "more patriotic than you" stance, which European fascists used to take control and advance the secret interests of the business class.
Do you understand this?
–Dave
When "liberals" write hate mail to wingnuts, they generally don't take the "more patriotic than you" stance, which European fascists used to take control and advance the secret interests of the business class.
When "liberals" write hate mail, or hate posts, they profess to be smarter and more enlightened. And they will use their enlightened status to tell you what's best for you. Don't believe me? Read Aggie's posts.
Ted,
So which of the four pissed you off most? You're liberal, a POS, anti-American or an a hole?
When "liberals" write hate mail, or hate posts, they profess to be smarter and more enlightened. And they will use their enlightened status to tell you what's best for you.
Yes, I agree–that's how they roll. But often the "liberals" are smarter and more enlightened. Not that that's saying much when you consider the 'tard base that considers Palin one of their own.
My guess is that 'POS' pissed him off the most. By definition in America, all of us liberals are anti-American a-holes.
Grouchy;
I'm sure they used hair-splitting and shaky rationalizations too. So maybe you're all not so far apart as you think.
Ok clownstotheleftjokerstotheright, if you think my definition of fascism is a "hair-splitting and shaky" rationalization for Ted's use use of the term, I'd be curious to hear a contradictory definition that you understand–one that doesn't include hyper-nationalism.
My understanding of fascism comes from studying history, specifically, Griffin's The Nature of Fascism.
Other readers: I'm trying to figure out if clownstotheleftjokerstotheright is either ignorant and uninterested in ideas, or a disingenuous troll. Maybe he's both?
No discussion of fascism is complete without Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism." Highly, highly recommended.
Ah yes, the "Troll" meme. Famous web-wide for use against those who dare (DARE I say) to disagree with someone.
Still, Grouchy, I _do_ concede your point about the nationalism. You are absolutely correct in pointing out that that is, indeed, a part of the definition of fascism. I apologise for my mistake on that account.
However, said nationalism is but only one part of the definition of fascism I find in my copy of Websters (which has gotten me all the way from freshman comp to Assistant Professor). The primary meaning of fascism, as I read it, has more to do with oppression founded upon or taking advantage of(but not actually requiring) such nationalism.
The asshole, Zink, who wrote to Ted is clearly of the ultra-nationalist bent, but I doubt very much he could actually oppress Ted or anyone else.
(And, while I'm at it, kudos to Ted for letting him, you, me, and all of us have our say here — Ted may be many things, but suppressive of the opinions of others ain't one of them!)
Never forget that liberals are just as capable of (at least expressing the desire for) oppression and censorship as conservatives. After all, after John Voight wrote an anti-Obama piece for the WASHINGTON TIMES, at least one "liberal" blogger wrote that folks in Hollwood should deny him roles based upon his political opinions. I'm sure Ring Lardner and Dalton Trumbo would have hesitated to argue that, no matter how much they disagreed with Voight politically.
In my (less than dictionary-quality) definition of fascism, ANYONE who would suppress the voice of others (regardless of what side of the BS fence we all are forced to find ourselves on) is a fascist. Thus, while he is, again, an a-hole, please do note that nowhere in Mr. Zink's diatribe does he suggest Ted stop voicing his opinions. I'll bet he love for that to happen, but I can't know that for a fact based on what he wrote (and neither can you or Ted).
My inital point, which has now been lost among the name-calling and rallying cries from Grouchy, is that merely writing hate mail does not a fascist make.
In other words, I was simply trying to make a (largely facetious — and thank you Grouchy for proving that liberals can be just as bereft of a sense of humor as conservatives) point about labeling and name calling.
I'm not going to resort the cheap questions to the board, but some questions that confront me here are these: Are such tactics only wrong when used by those with whom "we" disagree? Are they only right when "we" use them? And, if the answer to both of these is yes, then are "they" not just as able to justify their use of them by the same argument? And, if both sides use the same tactics, how, exactly, is one side better or worse than the other?
So, to again state (more clearly for the humor-impared out there) my original point: Aside from his nationalism, there is nothing in this jerkoff's letter to Ted to imply fascism. So why call him one? Especially when so many other labels (profane or otherwise) are not only available but more appropriate.
But, perhaps, accuracy (or, heavens forbid, empathy) isn't important on either side of that fence after all.
And so we have little but the level of political (and public) discourse so aptly demonstrated by Mr. Zink and Mr. Grouchy. They are, sadly, but two sides of the same name-calling, ad hominem-attacking coin.
Sigh…
So you're saying I don't have a sense humor since I didn't get your belabored "joke." You just used a couple hundred words to explain it. Is it possible the joke wasn't funny?
No,"writing hate mail does not a fascist make." But using "proud American" rhetoric does remind one of European fascists. Zink's email was belligerent and nationalistic–and yes, he sounds like a fascist. That's the key point. It's easy to imagine Zink falling in line behind a Mussolini or Franco.
If Zink was calling Ted a "class trader" or a "bourgeois pig," then it wouldn't have been correct to call him a "fascist." The word "communist" would have perhaps been more accurate. It is possible to write hate mail without being a fascist. Ted used the word for a specific reason, and those with an understanding of history knew why he used it.
History has shaped our language. Words have meanings. Jokes aren't funny if they must be explained. (Remember this last one, Ted.)
Grouchy;
Don't know if you'll see this as its so far down on the page now. Sorry it took a while to reply but my week has just been nuts.
Some fair points there to be sure.
However:
First, and your "'proud American' rhetoric" line begs the questions: isn't it possible to be a proud American and not be a fascist? Or would you suppress such speech based on your own equally subjective political beliefs and rhetoric?
Also,if it's logical to make the assumptive leap from Mr. Zink's email to seeing him line up behind a Mussolini of a Franco, is it not just a logical to make a similar leap from your posts Grouchy to a vision of you lining up behind a Stalin or a Mao (or, for that matter, a Castro or a Chavez)?
And "those with an understanding of history" is rather vague. Words do, indeed, have meanings and I, for one, think we're better served when they're used accordingly and not plopped into a sentence to make a point based upon a supposed connotative meaning that not all may share or accept. I maintain that those with an understanding of English may very well prefer words to be used accurately in accordance with their denotative meaning.
Oh, and don't think you've zinged me by saying my joke wasn't funny and calling me long winded (I AM a damn Ph.D. after all. Long winded is where we live.). Better folks than you have told me my jokes aren't funny for a long looong time. Still keep making them though.
First, and your "'proud American' rhetoric" line begs the questions: isn't it possible to be a proud American and not be a fascist?
I believe that it is possible to be a "proud American" without being a fascist. (But you are right to suspect that I believe it's a slippery slope.) The genuine fascist aspect appears when Zink calls Ted "anti – American" [sic] while claiming such pride. Ted, I assume, was born in America. So he's an American. Does Zink mean that Ted lacks citizenship or is anti-himself? No. Zink's email implies a mythic rather than literal understanding of what it means to be an "American." That's one of the surface hallmarks of historical fascism.
Or would you suppress such speech based on your own equally subjective political beliefs and rhetoric?
Huh? Who's talking about suppressing speech? Not Me. Not, I think, Ted. For my part, I believe Zink has a fundamental human right to think and express whatever he wants.
Also,if it's logical to make the assumptive leap from Mr. Zink's email to seeing him line up behind a Mussolini of a Franco, is it not just a logical to make a similar leap from your posts Grouchy to a vision of you lining up behind a Stalin or a Mao (or, for that matter, a Castro or a Chavez)?
Suppose I wrote:
I will just get right to the point.
You are such a reactionary piece of shit anti – worker ass hole!
There I said it……….Fuck you.
Hugs and kisses fuck bag!!!
Grouchy,
Proud Soviet
If I had written such a belligerent letter, I think calling me such names wouldn't be unwarranted. Looking at what I've actually written, I think it would be fair to call me a "socialist," which, in much of America, is about as bad as being a "devil worshiper." In actuality, I don't subscribe to any strict ideology.
And "those with an understanding of history" is rather vague. Words do, indeed, have meanings and I, for one, think we're better served when they're used accordingly and not plopped into a sentence to make a point based upon a supposed connotative meaning that not all may share or accept. I maintain that those with an understanding of English may very well prefer words to be used accurately in accordance with their denotative meaning.
I agree. But I believe my definition of "fascist" is historically accurate and uncontroversial. I hate the way our media culture corrupts language by de-contextualizing political terms. Regardless of what Rush Limbaugh says (and I'm not saying that you're a Dittohead), "fascist" does not mean "someone who uses power to oppress"–for example, neither Stalin nor Mao were "fascists." Such a base and infantile use of the word prevents a real understanding of history and politics. "Fascism" refers to a particular political movement that was the polar opposite of "communism." In the early 20th century, Germany went one way, Russia another, and America took a middle ground. This history shapes the world as we see it today.
As I said before, "fascism" gets thrown around a lot, but Ted's use was correct, as it referred to a display of mythic patriotism attacking Ted's "Americanism." I think you conceded that "fascism," is, by definition, bound to hyper-nationalism.
By the way, I no longer think you're a either a troll or an ignoramus.