Ted Barlow sent me a great e-mail about how not all hate mail is from lefties. The righties are just as capable of thoughtless, hateful barbs. I agree. He makes an excellent point over at his blog, and even quotes a disgusting letter that was sent by a right wing nutjob to Michael Wolff.
I'm grateful to Mr. Barlow for pointing out my unfairness. He's the perfect example of the kind of person I was writing about earlier; I don't necessarily agree with all he says, but I can't argue that he says it without intelligence and forethought.
A left-leaning friend of mine criticized me last night for being too harsh toward liberals and liberal ideas here. He objects to my supposedly equating "lefty" with "stupid". Let me make something clear to him and to anyone else who makes their way in here: I don't think all left-wing people are hopeless dummies. Certainly some of them are. But so are a lot of right-wingers. Like my friend, a lot of liberals are intelligent, well-read people whom I simply disagree with. I don't think less of friendly, warm people just because they don't share my views. I've made up the following for his benefit:
caring about animal welfare = good
throwing paint on fur coats and vandalizing fast food restaurants = bad
caring about human rights = good
caring about human rights only for people who share your political views = bad
objecting to violence = good
objecting to violence under all circumstances = stupid
caring about the environment = good
thinking that living in a tree for two years will help the environment = retarded
objecting to corruption and greed = good
thinking all corporations are guilty of corruption and greed = bad
being concerned about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay = good
believing the hysterics of silly European op-eders that hate America = reminds me of something David St. Hubbins said in This is Spinal Tap: " I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human, than someone who doesn't believe anything."
Grossly over-simplified, but I do have a day job, and I'd best get to it before I get fired.
Dr. Frank over at Blogs of War wondered if the letter below was real or not. I half wondered myself if someone who could write something like "people who like war are bad and have the blood of the world on their shoulders" was doing so in all seriousness (note: not very many people like war. I don't. Certainly the brave people who have to fight them don't). To this, the doctor replied:
No matter how much blood I put on my shoulders, it just rolls right off again. It lands on my feet, and on the parquet flooring. Now I've got the blood of the world on my living room rug. Now I'm tracking it into the kitchen, while I get another beer. What a mess. Yuck.
It's kind of like putting food on your family, I guess.
I'm still laughing at that one, doctor.
And an Air Force major wrote, saying "For crying out loud, If you're going to argue with the pacifist left over the value of force and combat, don't just slap them with school-yard wit amounting to 'so there'. Crush them." Ouch. Good point, major.
I've gotten more comments from readers about that letter than anything else I've written so far. As I wrote Juan Gato, I've decided that the woman (girl?) who wrote it was either:
b) exceptionally stupid
c) very young
I'm hoping for either a or c, or a combination of the two. I'd sleep a little better at night.
I've gotten another piece of lefty hate mail. This one was much more civil than the first one I received, but just as intellectually challenged. For starters, the subject line read "Hugs can heal the world."
The author then proceeded to lecture me on what a terrible person I was, barely stopping short of declaring "war is unhealthy for children and other living things". Here's a sample:
It is true that Osama Bin Ladin would be a happier person if he had more love. Hugging the Taleban is exactly what they need. Maybe they wouldn't want to kill and hurt people as much if they experienced the joy of love.
Look, from all accounts I've read about life at Spahn Ranch in the late sixties, the Manson family was doing quite a bit of hugging, and experiencing the "joy of love" frequently, if not daily. It hardly stopped them from chopping people up. And the only concern that I have regarding Osama bin Laden's happiness is that he never experiences a moment of it again as long as he lives.
Wars are only fought to make money for rich people and to opress weak peoples and take their land and kill their children.
Yes, that was Rummy and Company's plan going in to the war. Let's steal Afghanistan and murder as many kids as possible. And if Bill Gates can get a new villa out all of this, that'll be great, too.
Maybe if you open your heart and mind you might relise that people have feelings and that the earth is made up of different kinds of people that should be respected.
I think it's noteworthy that in the current poll over at Little Green Footballs that asks "Who should the U.S. attack next?", France is in the lead at 34%, followed by Geraldo Rivera, coming in a close second with 33.8%. Froggie-ville and the Crock-meister beat out Iraq, Somalia, the PA, and Saudi Arabia. Impressive.
So what's the deal with Canadians and masochism? First, Damian Penny sends me an e-mail lamenting the fact that, unlike me, he's yet to receive bonafide hate mail (surely some of you folks out there can muster up some vilifying twaddle for Mr. Penny's sake, no?). Now the BC Monkey wants to be called vile.
Okay, guys. You're both a couple of rotten bastards. If you died tomorrow, I bet even your own mother wouldn't shed a tear. Not only are you vile, you're also stupid, your feet smell bad, and you can't dance. And if that weren't bad enough, you're Canadian, for goodness' sake. Maybe some day scientists will have you studied. Until then, sod off.
"It would be great if all the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow."
-Bruce Friedrich, PETA Spokesperson July 3, 2001
And it would be even better if PETA headquarters exploded right now.
“I openly hope that it comes here.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, PETA Co-Founder, on her desire for a USA hoof-and-mouth epidemic
Holy steak tartar! I thought these folks liked animals. Curious, aren't they?
Who on earth sends these people money? Probably dumb college kids who manage to put the hooka pipe down long enough to write a check drawn on daddy's account, wasting obscene amounts of cash on putrid organizations like PETA, when they should be spending it on something useful, like beer.
UPDATE: Let me stress this point again for the benefit of the humorless and overly sensitive: I don't really think Canadians are vile. Certainly not the one over at Banana Counting Monkey. I like that site. Also, please note that the BC Monkey was not posting those quotes in support of what was said, but rather, in disgust.
Here's some drivel from the Guardian. "America's Imperial War"? I don't think I've heard one person suggest that we make Afghanistan the 51st state, or some sort of satellite territory like Puerto Rico or Samoa. Besides, there's very little that irks me more than being lectured about the horrors of imperialism by a Brit(aside: actually, I don't know if the writer is, in fact, a Brit, and I'm too lazy, and frankly, not interested enough to find out if he is. Either way, the Guardian's a British newspaper, so he's guilty by association at the very least).
Author George Monbiot says "the dangerous and illiberal people who control the US military machine have won". Damn straight, George. Is that a bad thing? Make the military harmless and liberal, and you no longer have a military machine. You have the Peace Corps.
I received the following exceptionally thoughtful e-mail a few moments ago:
The British Army had been present in the Colonies for a number of years prior to the outbreak of the Rebellion. One of the "root causes", expressed by the statement 'No taxation without representation', was the demand by His Majesty's Government that the Colonies pay some portion of the cost for these troops. Interestingly, some of the commentary of the time implied that the Colonies deserved to be defended but should not be required to pay for being defended.
I don't think the problem lies with underestimating the enemy, but with overestimating the value of technology. Ultimately, if you wish to win (or kick them back into the Stone Age), you have to put soldiers on the target with fixed bayonets.
I found this one via Mr. Gato. When is that windbag of a pepper pot, Helen Thomas, just going to move to Florida and take up bingo and shuffle board like normal American old people do? It seems to me that she's got nothing relevant to say anymore.
You know, I remember saying to my father, a career Air Force officer, shortly after we entered Operation Toast Afghanistan, something to the effect of "how can they possibly think that we won't kick their asses out of the 21st century (or out of the 9th century into the 5th century, if you think about it) ?"
He made a rather good point: you should never underestimate your enemy. All wars are hard fought and hard won.
I can't help but wonder if we had something of that cocky attitude when we entered Vietnam? Or maybe that's what the Brits were thinking when they showed up at our shores at the beginning of the American Revolution (which is probably referred to as something like "Treasonous Rebellion of the Ingrates" in British history textbooks)?
Either way, my point is that I hope the American people, and especially American policy makers, are not entering Operation Wipe Out the Axis of Evil with the same kind of assumptions. Let's be cautious and smart. Especially if the rest of the world isn't necessarily backing us up.
Huh? What? I mean, for goodness' sake, does Maureen Dowd ever make sense? I don't understand quite what she's trying to say here. So, the Vice President is operating under wraps during war time. To Maureen, this is bad. I think it's smart.
So, I guess it's official. Scary stuff. In spite of all my hawkish tendencies, I'm terribly frightened of the prospect of entering a war like this. I hope our boys and the suits at the top have the balls and the resolve to see it through.
We have yet another criticism of the whole "axis of evil". This time from German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer who said "the international coalition against terror does not provide a basis for doing just anything against anybody - and certainly not by going it alone. This is the view of every European foreign minister."
Well, thanks for saving me the time to have to look up the position of European foreign ministers by each country. Now I know they're all weenies.
Of course, Madeleine Albright had to throw in her two cents as well. She thinks the "axis of evil" was a "big mistake". Would she have been happier if he called it an "axis of concern"? And why in the hell is anyone listening to this broad anyway?
More hate mail. This time from Canadians, who, for some odd reason, are objecting to my description of them as "vile". Okay, I would like to state for the record that I was joking. I have nothing against Canadians, in spite of the fact that some of them are hell bent on taking over the world. Some of my best friends are, well, not Canadians, but if they were, I wouldn't think any less of them.
I have dealt with a few Canadians professionally, and I have to say that they have been some of the friendliest and most helpful people I've ever had the pleasure of working with. So please, Canadians, no more hate mail. I love you. Really, I do.
I'm really excited this morning for two reasons. The first being that the company that I work for has just announced that we will be closed on Monday for President's Day. This is a bit of a shock, since the corporate overlords usually have a sort of "Arbeit macht frei" attitude toward three day weekends, and I'm thrilled to have an extra beer day.
Second, I've just received my first bonafide piece of hate mail. I would repeat it for you here, except for the fact that the most intelligent sentence written in the entire letter was "You are a stupid F*****g c**t".
This is what really bothers me about the far left. They tend to be self-righteous and so sure in their belief that they are correct, that they think they are somehow above the human failures and fallibilities that make things like war an unfortunate necessity. Countries battling with each other are no different than two individuals who might exchange fisticuffs because, say, one calls the other a "stupid f*****g c**t".
As far as those of you who like sending e-mails peppered with four-letter words like "f**k", "s**t" and "Gore" are concerned, keep 'em coming. I can take it.
I'm not the only one who doesn't like House of Commons speaker Michael Martin. It seems he's come under fire since reprimanding Iain Duncan Smith and Tony Blair during question time last week. Martin claims he's restoring order and all that stiff upper lip stuff. Some guy called Lord Weatherill criticized question time, saying "It's become an absolute farce and a sort of gladiatorial contest."
Well...yeah. That's why most people watch it. That's certainly why I watch it.
And I think it's really silly that everyone at Whitehall walks around believing that the speaker is unbiased. Sure, his job description says he's supposed to be. So did Ken Starr's.
I'm no fan of the death penalty, but I think that Jack Straw should mind his own damn business. If some U.S. Senator went to the U.K. and criticized government policy, he'd be shouted down in a second and painted as an "ugly American" (first and foremost by the Guardian).
Academy Award nominations came out this morning. This means that we are all going to hear the word "Oscar" approximately 74.6 squillion times between now and the ceremony. I can't believe how seriously people take this stuff, and that hardly anyone has really caught on to how bogus they are.
Or maybe they have and they don't care. I do. I think they're an over-hyped load of crock.
Shucks, I'm blushing. Thanks to Damian Penny for his sweet words welcoming me to blogdom. I just discovered his site yesterday, and in spite of the fact that I suspect he is one of those vile things known here in the U.S. as "Canadians", I'm very impressed with his work.
It is perfectly possible that a President Gore would have responded forcefully to the attacks on the World Trade Center. He would have been mindful of the feckless Clinton policy and propelled by the sheer scale of the devastation we suffered to do something other than lob a couple of cruise missiles at empty buildings.
and goes on to debunk the lefty approach to war and wonder how "President Gore" (excuse me, I very nearly choked on the jelly beans I was eating while typing that...) might have followed through, as well as criticize the irrational concepts of the military that have dominated their thinking since Vietnam.
You know, it really amazes me that there are people over the age of twenty that think that we could have settled everything if only we sent an envoy to Afghanistan to hug the Taliban. And afterwards, we could all sit down in a circle eating soy-based organic muffins while talking about our feelings. Group therapy and psychodrama is not going to curb the sort of virulent hatred that is directed toward the U.S. from these people. Besides, that's so early nineties.
Yet another world leader jumping on the bandwagon, Beebs reported today that Vladmir Putin feels "any use of force by the US against Iraq 'should be justified' and have the backing of the international community". Call me blood-thirsty, but I always felt that cleaning the clock of a ruthless dictator viciously starving his own people and attempting to secure chemical and biological weapons in order to hold the entire planet hostage might actually be considered "justified". But more about Cuba later.
Anyway, Mr. Putin continues by saying "first of all we need to secure the return of UN monitors". Deja-vu, Mr. Putin. We tried that once, and the nefarious Mr. Hussein rejected the inspectors like Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on the door of a frat house. It's time to open a great big can can of whoop-ass on that bastard.