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!

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,
Jennifer

PS – 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.

Obama’s First Gaffe

Hillary Clinton should be denied the presidency for voting like a neo-fascist: for the Iraq war, for the Afghan war, for the USA-Patriot Act (twice). Barack Obama, on the other hand, should be denied for being a pussy.

During a campaign stop in Iowa over the weekend, the Illinois senator told a crowd: “We now have spent 400 billion dollars and have seen over 3,000 of the bravest young Americans wasted.”

Fair enough. Except it’s more than $400 billion. And he forgot the Iraqis.

Then he apologized for his “slip of the tongue.”

Here, let me help: Those lives were wasted. Every last one of them. They all died for nothing. Well, they died for lies. Their mission made things worse, not better–both for America and for Iraq. And it’s a national outrage.

The sooner people start accepting the truth, that these sacrifices are all in vain, the sooner we’ll stop throwing even more lives away on an illegal, immoral and unwinnable endeavor.

Terrorists

The above photo from the front page of today’s New York Times tells more than just the story of, as the caption reads, “An Iraqi man” who “comforted his mother, who collapsed yesterday after he was questioned by American soldiers under a new security plan for Baghdad.”

“Questioned”? Note the plastic handcuff still on his left wrist, obviously cut to allow him to tend to his mother.

I couldn’t help notice the fact that these asshole soldiers are wearing their boots inside this Iraqi house. We’ve occupied Afghanistan for six years, Iraq for four, and our troops still think it’s OK to wear shoes inside? It’s not just Muslim Culture 101–taking your shoes off at the door is standard in most countries. Is there actually not one single Army officer who pays attention to local sensibilities and teaches local mores to their men?

Look at this guy’s face. If I was pro-American before, I’d sign up for the local insurgency the second these automatic weapon-toting shitkickers violated my home and terrorized my mother.

Back and Forth

I Fisk a letter from one Stephen, who says he’s a “long-time reader”:

I’m a college student and while I’m not really religious I have a generally conservative political stance; somewhat like a guleini. Although I often disagree with you – – you should know that I greatly respect your opinion.
Being critical of America is fine — in many ways its an American tradition. The biggest problem that people like me [average, middle-American, good ole’ boy] have with people like you is that you never seem to “go after” the terrorists and insurgents the same way.

There are three reasons you might think that. First, I try not replicate sentiments I hear widely expressed. For instance, I don’t write about how disgusted I am by child molesters because, well, duh. That’s well covered in the media. I agree, but I have nothing to add to the subject. Nodding in assent makes for boring writing.

Second, you have to separate “terrorists” from the insurgents fighting off occupiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. The former are loathesome. The latter are to be admired, for they are patriots. There may be times when insurgents become terrorists. However, merely being an insurgent does not make one a terrorist, no matter how often Bush and Fox News claim otherwise.

Third, I am a million times more concerned about the shortcomings of the American people, their system of government and their political leaders than those of other countries. I live here, not there, and there’s a lot more I can do about what goes on here in the United States. Did I think the Muslims who burned embassies over the Danish Mohammed cartoons were idiots. Yes, obviously, and I said so when asked. But they worry me a lot less than people who shoot abortion doctors.

For instance, you hate the whole Bush wire-tapping thing (and so do I). However, if you love civil liberties so much, wouldn’t you be even more pissed off about what the North Koreans do to their people?

No. I wouldn’t. Because liberation cannot be imposed from outside. Freedom will come to North Korea when the people there rise up and overthrow their oppressive dictatorship. What I think about North Korea’s leaders is irrelevant. Besides, as far as I know, the regime there may well be very popular. On the other hand, as an American, I know enough about basic American values to know that listening in to our phone calls is un-American.

Or consider how much you hate discrimination ( I hate it too, I think its great you call the American government out when it crosses the line)… but if I was going to write about unfairness in the world I’d have to start with how women are treated in Islamic governments – and how Islamic governments deal with free speech and everything else.

See above. It would be great if women in oppressive Taliban-style regimes like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (incidentally, close allies of the Bush Administration and the US) were to rebel and fight for equal rights. I would be very, very pleased if they did. But it won’t change unless and until they do. Women’s rights in Muslim countries is for women–and, well, for men–to decide there.

Also see above on the redundancy thing. Others have said it. Why repeat it over and over?

This is the editorial that I want you to write:
American Foreign policy: How Ted Rall would deal with terrorists that want to kill Ted Rall.

I’ve already written about how I would fight the war on terror in columns and books.

You wonder why Americans have been going down the same path since Reagan, and I’ll tell you the answer.

WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN A BETTER CHOICE. complaining and calling bush a killer is not a solution. I voted for Bush because he had the only plan, it wasn’t a great plan but it was a plan, he said he’d fight the terrorist on their own crummy ground and that’s what he tried to do.

I suspect you’re right. Voters like their candidates to seem certain, and Democrats don’t project that same arrogance. But it’s one hell of a way to choose a president or a Congress.

I’ll let you go, I know you’re busy.
Thanks for taking the time to read my rant.
I may be just one guy – but I represent the thinking of millions.

Please consider writing the editorial I mentioned.

German Courts Issue Arrest Warrants for CIA Kidnapper-Torturers

Leave it to the Germans to call us to account for our evil actions. How we mighty have fallen.

Dinesh Correction

Professor R from Stanford writes to correct me:

Point of clarification: Dinesh D’Souza is a fellow at the Hoover Institution (as are former Attorney General Ed Meese and former Secretary of State George Schultz), which is located on the Stanford campus, but he is not affiliated with Stanford University. He’s certainly not an academic, what with only having a B.A. from Dartmouth. He’s simply an opportunist like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh who found an easy way to make a lot of money by pandering his ravings to the right wing.

The fact that he lives in San Diego should have been a signal that maybe he does not teach at Stanford, which is about 475 miles away, and would make for a nasty commute, even in a maroon 1192 Jaguar XJS.

Love your work. Keep it up.

I should have caught that one, having spent a lot of time in California.

Cool Stuff From Ye Olde Mail Bag

Dave writes:

I have an enormous respect for people like you who can dissect the lunacy of the right wing argument in a systematic way, and it escapes me that I used to have the focus and engagement to do that, and I can’t anymore. I now study agriculture and all I can do whenever I try to engage in this political stuff is get really angry, pissed off, depressed, paranoid, and so frustrated that I can’t even get my current work done. I don’t know how this happened or why, but I’m wondering if I’ve just gone insane at this point (my conservative southern family thinks so) or if there is something you do (whether it be the people you surround yourself with, having a hobby, etc) that allows you to continue to focus your energies constructively and not just blow up, then go get drunk.

Hell, dude, it was even difficult for me to get through your most recent piece without getting wound up. At the same time I’m an addict, just ‘staying away’ from it doesn’t work either.

If you consider those around you who do what you do, and yourself, what traits or characteristics separate those who succeed in tackling the beast again and again, and those who get burnt out and can no longer remain productive?

A saner man would just throw his hands up in the air and walk away. I’ve always been a stubborn S.O.B. and I’ve never backed away from a righteous fight. It makes for interesting times but if I ever hit the big-time financially there’s a Caribbean beach house with my name on it.

Joy wrote:

Hi Ted, I read your article ” Republicans shut up etc. I like your style, and although I am a Republican, I try to keep up with both sides. The complaint I have about your article is you went from Regan to Bush – I think you forgot someone in between, who I feel had a great deal to do with our present situation in the world. I’m tired of everyone making Republicans sound like we love the war – we hate the war, but support the war and our brave young men and women, in their courage to keep our homeland safe.

And K Morgan wrote:

Was the country “doing things the Republicans’ way” when Bill Clinton was in the White House and the Democrats controlled both houses of congress? what a moronic simpleton you are.

I don’t think I forgot Clinton in this week’s column. Au contraire, I mentioned him by name. One of the most galling aspects of the Clinton presidency was that it was a study in squandered opportunity. Everything he accomplished—NAFTA, welfare reform, GATT/WTO, even balancing the budget—was a Republican idea. Clinton was not a liberal, not by a long stretch. And what was the point of balancing the budget? Look at where we are now. Clinton should have busted the bank on healthcare and left the Republicans with no money to spend.

Oh, and Clinton didn’t have a Democratic Congress after 1994.

Steve writes:

Okay as a Republican who thinks we should keep fighting in Iraq I will shut up. I only ask one thing on you. Since we can’t win and we have no worries if we lose in Iraq I await the next cartoon from you depicting Mohammed. You have nothing to worry about right, its not important that we win. I can’t wait to see what witty cartoon you do. Why not have him talking to Pat Tillman. You seemed to weather that fiasco okay. So Ted put your pen where your mouth is and draw that cartoon publish it and then if you survive tell me why this war is not important.

If I had a reason to mock Mohammed, believe me, I wouldn’t hesitate. As for the war against Islamofascism or whatever they’re calling it this week, allow me to paraphrase Osama bin Laden: If they hate decadent Western societies so much, why haven’t they attacked Holland? Radical Islam is not in the least interested in changing our way of life, only that of those in the Muslim world.

There’s a case for fighting them, but claiming we’re in danger of Sharia law being imposed on Americans is simply a lie.

Mike writes:

I read “Shut Up” and can’t agree more. I believe I could write an argument stating why we should try to “win” in Iraq and make it come off convincingly. I don’t really believe it but I could do it, mainly because we were so wrong in going to war in the first place we are obligated to make it right (if we can make it right is another question). There are probably lots of reasons why we should stay but I haven’t heard one proposed by a conservative that didn’t subscribe to the same circular logic the White House has been spewing for years. They just can’t seem to think outside of the bubble GW is living in, let alone outside “the box”.

I have seem glimmers of hope in some congressional Republicans but they are not neo-cons. Neo-cons remind me more and more of Nazis who even after 50 years of evidence still deny there was a holocaust. (see, I can say that because I’m not a national columnist).

Actually, I’m thinking of writing a devil’s advocate column next week making a real case for remaining in Iraq.

Andy writes:

I read your 1997 article on Gen-Xers after you
mentioned it on your blog and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I just wanted to make one observation:

“Xers have proven a far more difficult nut to crack;
the latest wave of commercialism is hilariously
desperate. Car companies run generic grunge music as
background music to try to convince 28-year-olds that
sports utility vehicles aren’t really just the latest
version of the stationwagon. Nike sells its
slave-labor-made sneakers with the DIY slogan “Just Do
It,” while Xers roll their collective eyes. “No icon
and certainly no commercial is safe from their irony,
their sarcasm or their remote control. These are the
tools with which Generation X keeps the world in
perspective,” Marketing to Generation X author Karen
Ritchie tells Time. It’s almost enough to make you
feel sorry for the Fortune 500.”

I’m 27, and find it extremely fucked up that
consumerism has come full cirlce with my generation.
It seems that popular culture now is all about having
the most shit (“bling,” latest technology) and who
gives a fuck how you get it? It seems that all of my
friends are on a constant spending spree in terms of
houses, cars, flat-screen TVs. They don’t save a
dime, many of them are in debt, but they all feel
that it’s their birthright to have more, more, MORE!
Iraq war? Not really familiar with it. Voting?
Don’t know who the candidates are. XBOX 360? Oh
hell, you’d better believe I was first in line to grab
that swag.

I guess this is a long way of saying that it would be
interesting to see how the Fortune 500 did an end
around on Generation X, and completely duped my
generation.

In all fairness, Gen Y consumerism is largely influenced by parents—who were Baby Boomers. So it’s not their fault. (And it’s not like us Xers are particularly zen…check out my CD collection sometime!)

Connie writes:

I just wanted to say I really appreciate your articles (and cartoons)! Thanks, it is a relief to read something that makes sense.

Thanks!

And finally…

I can just see it now. On the back cover of D’Souza’s next book will be this quote:

“Stanford University’s D’Souza is one of America’s most–arguably the most–respected conservative thinkers. … one of the brightest minds of our current political establishment, representative of thinking at the highest levels of government…” — Ted Rall

You said it, not me.

It would be the best quote since genius illustrator/incompetent cartoonist Chris Ware used my negative review of his book on the paperback version, evidently because wallowing in negativity fits with his packaged image as a Sad Sack.

New Iraq Slogger Cartoon

I have a new cartoon up at Iraq Slogger.com. It’s a reaction to Bush’s State of the Union proposal to relieve overburdened US troops in Iraq with a volunteer Civilian Corps.

Why Barack Obama is a Boomer

Bruce was among several correspondents who questioned a recent cartoon, in which I stated that Senator Barack Obama would be, if elected, America’s first Generation X president:

I believe that the baby boom was 1946-1964, so I don’t think Obama qualifies as a Gen-Xer.

G.M. said:

As much fun as it is, Obama is still the end of the Baby boom. I mean, he graduated high school in the 70s. No Duran-Duran or Pearl Jam for him. You know, Toto and Fleetwood Mac don’t really make for proper Gen-Xing.

Back in the 1990s, before the rest of the world hated us and people cared about generational politics and magazine editors hired me to write a lot of lengthy articles, I published a lengthy treatise on the various definitions of Generation X for Link Magazine. As I noted in the article, there’s a wide range of disagreement on which birth years constitute the Gen X cohort.

Over the years I have come to accept Neil Strauss and William Howe’s definition of Gen X as running between 1961 and 1981. Americans born between these years tend to have certain cultural and economic touchstones in common. The traditional (demographic) differential, which marks the start of Gen X at 1964, doesn’t account for the fact that those of us born in 1961-62-63 (includes me) have nothing in common with Baby Boomers–whether it’s music or the ability to afford college or our first homes.

No one has thought or written more about American generations than Mssrs. Strauss and Howe, most ably in their stunning and bizarrely overlooked tome “Generations,” which literally defines generations and types of generations all the way back to the Colonial era.

Those of us born in 1961, 1962 and 1963 grew up listening to punk, disco and New Wave–for us, the Doors and Beatles were the music of our much older brothers and sisters, if not the old stoner dudes up the street (and obviousy FM radio). We became adults during the 1980s, into a world of diminished expectations and falling incomes. Boomers were already in their 30s, and had the jobs and incomes we wanted. Conduct a poll of those birth years and I guarantee you that very few of them would self-identify with the Baby Boom.

In a way, it all comes down to how someone “feels” to you. Does Obama feel more Boomer or Gen X to you? To me, he’s obviously an Xer, though perhaps barely across the finish line of our simultaneously alienated and happy-go-lucky cohort. In the end, of course, one must look to Douglas Coupland’s book “Generation X.” When it came out, Gen X = twentysomething. By that measure, I—and Barack Obama—were Gen Xers.