Mon, May 10, 2004
Three parts bile, one part boredom—3:24 PM
If, amidst all the fluffy Survivor coverage, you've been missing the harsh, hate-filled rants on this site, today's your day. I wasn't trying to be mean to Jim Treacher and (thanks, tone-of-voice-less Internet!) I don't know if I offended him or if he was just being a good boy and clarifying, but that was nothing. I'm on a tear, and it's one of those no-research all-vitriol rants that the Internet was created for, damn it! Anyway, keep your hearts and sleeves inside the vehicle.
Someone I don't know named Ted Rall writes little snarky political comic strips, and about a week ago, the "blogsphere" (as I like to call it in order to further distance myself from it, perhaps entirely fruitlessly) apparently went nuts (as it does) about one of his strips. I'm not going to bother to dig around and find the strip, I found this single panel and here it is.
It was included in an anti-Rall post on A Small Victory, which is run by this woman named Michele who may or may not be Michelle Malkin (probably not, with the different spelling and all) but she may as well be, as she is another humorless, hate-filled, Right wing tool of the Anne Coulter variety that I can't stand. I'm basing this on having skimmed a couple of her entries on A Small Victory, and that's enough for me. Disagree? Splendid. I wholeheartedly agree with whatever quote is misattributed to Voltaire on the subject. However, I think she's a smug hypocritical bitch and it disappoints me because I thought all women were smarter than us and I was kind of counting on it. (Hillary '08! Who's with me? [crickets...] Fine!)
My point was going to be this: Yes. "Never mind the fine print. Will I get to kill Arabs?" is a tad incendiary. And certainly it's a little disrespectful to someone who lost his life in a sincere and good-hearted pursuit of America's wayward aims (or its president's wayward aims). But it's meant to be satire and it's meant to be incendiary, and I for one thought it was a little crude for the media coverage to imply that Pat Tillman's sacrifice was somehow greater than that of the other 500-odd dead American servicemen because he had the NFL on the line before he went over. Use him as an example of sacrifice and patriotism, but don't act like he's the only one coming back from Iraq in a casket.
(Quick aside: I'm guessing they aren't manufacturing those caskets over there. It would be a very depressing job to be the guy who's in charge of transporting the empty caskets to Iraq, especially when you get that call from your boss that says, "We underestimated a little. Order some more.")
So, if Rall was intentionally getting personal by implying that Tillman enlisted for reasons of knee-jerk racism, then that's contemptible, but it's also his choice. It's his cartoon and you can hate it but it's still up to him to decide what to say. What I think should not be overlooked is whether it's funny. Because, within limits, that should overshadow how mean it is. And I think "ARMY. We're Looking For Guys Who Don't Read the Paper." is very funny, and not just because I agree with it. I think it's funny satire and it's funny writing. So, when I saw the panel on ASV, I giggled first and then thought, "Aw. I'm sorry if a nation who randomly and disproportionately posthumously worships Tillman might get offended by seeing him skewered in a cartoon."
I don't know what my point is. My point is that funny is funny. My point is that art and social commentary and satire are usually hurtful to someone and my point is that Michele from ASV is unable to recognize irony in any form and loves to fly into a frenzy and call for people to get fired over every little thing, which is just the worst example of empty partisan bickering that you can come up with. (I dislike when lefties do it, too. Even if you're correct, you shouldn't hypocritically froth like that because it just makes your cherry-picking that much more obvious.)
[I]t has to be hard to be happy when one carries around so much bile and rage. It's tiring. Anger wears you down, especially when your anger doesn't seem to accomplish anything.
Another blogger (James Lileks, expect to hear a lot more about him in this space because I love him, thanks Arksie) said the above. He said it about Rall, but I think it applies universally, and I apply it to ASV's bloodcurdling vixen of snippery.
Anonymous Coward — Tue, 5/11/04 2:40pm
Yeah. I saw the whole cartoon; it ends with Rall asking what words come to mind when you think of Tillman; two underlings suggest "Idiot" [for sure] and "Moron" [I'm not sure about that one; it was either "moron" or something similar], but a newspaper editor, holding a front page with the headline of same, says, "Hero!"
"ARMY: We're Looking For Guys Who Don't Read the Paper" isn't a bad joke, but the rest of the thing is just stupid. It's hard to be funny about politics when you care TOO much (right, Dennis Miller and Janeane Garofalo?), although it's not impossible (see James Lileks and Al Franken). I don't know Rall's work, but, he's not much of an artist (not that that's a crime; neither was Gary Larson) and he just comes off as a hateful, delusional narcissist. Which is more than perfectly fine with me, if that's the way he wants to be. As long as he's not hurting anybody.
If it had been my newspaper, I probably wouldn't have printed the cartoon, just because I don't see a reason to go and desecrate the names of recently dead soldiers. Call it censorship of you want; you'd be wrong and stupid, since in this hypothetical senario I'm a newspaper editor and not a government official (I wouldn't have run the cartoon that made fun of Rachel Corrie, that American college student who got accidentally run over by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to protect the house of a Palestinian terrorist, either, in case you're wondering, although I did agree wtih that cartoon's sentiments to an extent; i.e., it's stupid to side with terrorists).
That having been said, I can't get too mad at anyone who DID print the cartoon, since it's their right to do so. What I didn't like is the hubub; I've never liked hubub caused by people just trying to express themselves – be they cartoonists who shit on the defenders of freedom, arsits who shit on paintings of the virgin Mary, or people who decide that they'd rather not exhibit such things. I had no problem with peope who may normally run Rall's stuff and chose not to run the Tillman cartoon, and I have no problem with the cartoon's right to exist and be published by willing publishers.
Besides, we all know the best way to foil the plans of a doofus like Ted Rall is to ignore him.
Which, incidentally, I have now failed to do. So fuck me, I guess.
"Joe" — Tue, 5/11/04 2:41pm
Hey, I logged in before posting my comment! I am not an Anonymous Coward! I demand to be regognized!
"erica" — Tue, 5/11/04 2:59pm
Okay, sorry if this posts twice, but I'm not doing to well with the IE here.
Anyway, not to be picky but Tillman died in Afghanistan. I'm NEVER pro-violence, but a large part of me is calmy ecstatic that the vile women-hating Taliban is finished.
Anyway, my first reaction at hearing about Tillman's death was probably actually less sympathetic than I would feel upon hearing of a "normal" soldier's death (and as much as I hate war, I am very sympathetic for the families of soldiers, being a Navy brat myself). But the article at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/04/SPG5K6FD091.DTL convinced me that Tillman was a bonafide hero. And his brother's reaction just made me sob:
Tillman's youngest brother, Rich, wore a rumpled white T-shirt, no jacket, no tie, no collar, and immediately swore into the microphone. He hadn't written anything, he said, and with the starkest honesty, he asked mourners to hold their spiritual bromides.
"Pat isn't with God,'' he said. "He's f – ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f – ing dead.''
It's always good to have the other side of the story and although I realize it's intention was to shock, I'm still disgusted by that cartoon.
Anonymous Coward — Tue, 5/11/04 3:44pm
Not to totally belabor the point, but I just have one more thing to add to my mini-rant. I think I can safely say that the majority of soldiers in Iraq, and even those in Afghanistan, did not chose to be there. Yes, there was an influx of soliders right after 9/11 but many of the soldiers currently in both places are actually Reservists and probably never expected to see a war in their lifetimes. Yes, I know that our military is (thankfully) a voluntary one, but having taught Learning Disabled kids and being very aware of the job opportunties for people with only a high school education (hate to say it, but most of my kids weren't going anywhere NEAR a college) the military is probably one of the best of the lot, especially if you have a family to support. Again, I may be overly sympathetic to the soldiers being the daughter of a sailor, but I can say and 100% believe that most of those who signed up did not sign up to "kill Arabs."
Bee Boy — Tue, 5/11/04 4:10pm
Sorry to all un-Anonymous Anonymous Cowards – we were having a tiny problem with logins on the server earlier today; now fixed. e-mail me if you want me to attribute your comments to you and I'll fix it.
Bee Boy — Tue, 5/11/04 4:14pm
Also, even if it took a few days, I'm thrilled to have some real responses to this piece. I hope it comes across that while I defend people's right to be outspoken in stupid and inappropriate ways (because I love to do it myself) what I was railing against here was the hubbub. I blame ASV's Michele and those like her (on both sides of the aisle) for annoying, bilious noise like that.
Joe Mulder — Tue, 5/11/04 6:01pm
"I'm NEVER pro-violence..."
If I saw someone raping my wife, I'd probably try to get him off her. Even if I had to do it violently. Sorry if that makes me an ogre.
Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is way, way, way way way different. But, still, shit like "I'm NEVER pro-violence" makes me nuts. And I'm sure you're a lovely person; being "NEVER pro-violence" is, and I mean this, a lovely sentiment. I just don't think it's realistic. And I think people who say they're against the War on Terror would have a lot more credibility if they acknowledged that sometimes (Nazis, wife-rapings, etc.), violence is absolutely necessary. Regrettable, but absolutely necessary (though you've got the crowd that wouldn't qualify that by calling it "regrettable;" those are your kooks from the other side of the spectrum).
Anyway, I don't mean to piss anyone off; Erica, you're a thoughtful person and a good writer, clearly. Knee-jerk pacifism just makes me nuts. Like I said, I'm sure you're great. I'm sure we could have a beer and we'd get along. I'm a good guy; ask Jameson if you don't believe me.
Bee Boy — Tue, 5/11/04 6:53pm
This should be the title of a student film. And it would be directed by Jake Zabie.
"erica" — Tue, 5/11/04 7:02pm
Oh, I'm knee-jerk everything, I'll be the first to admit. Tree-hugging hippie freak, that's me.
But yeah, I can say I'm NEVER pro-violence. That's not the same as saying that there is never a time where it may be necessary. Just because it's a fact of life (I have pets, I can vouch for it being a fact of life) doesn't mean I ever have to like it or ever have to be happy it happens.
Joe, in the cases that you cited–rape, nazism–obviously violence was the root of the problem, it all started with violence. So, yeah, if violence didn't exist then violence would never be the answer. I'm obviously not dumb enought to believe that violence will ever cease to exist, but that doesn't mean I have to EVER be "pro" it.
Joe Mulder — Tue, 5/11/04 7:52pm
"I'm obviously not dumb enought to believe that violence will ever cease to exist..."
You should talk to my wife. She thinks that if there were no men, there'd be no war.
Anyway, I suppose the whole thing depends on if, by "pro-violence," you mean "looking forward to some good violence" or "reluctantly concluding that in this certain situation, violence may be the only recourse."
If it's the first, would never be pro-violence either, I guess. Well, unless you count any no-holds-barred, falls-count-anywhere match featuring Mick Foley. Those, I look forward to. But even then both parties are consenting, so we're right back to where we started.
"...if violence didn't exist then violence would never be the answer."
Granted. On this we can agree. One can use violence to a righteous end, but only if the other guy started it.
"erica" — Thu, 5/13/04 2:11pm
"One can use violence to a righteous end, but only if the other guy started it."
This is where it gets tricky and messy and ends up making me totally disgusted with human beings. There are cases–the afore-cited nazism and wife-rapings–where it is very obvious who started what. But in certain cases it isn't quite so obvious (say, hmmmm, the war in Iraq where it's pretty unclear what it was that was suddenly "started" and who "started it"). This is where the line is blurred and I personally think violence purely for the sake of reaction becomes something that can't always (or even usually) be justified.
Anonymous Coward — Thu, 5/13/04 6:43pm
"But in certain cases it isn't quite so obvious (say, hmmmm, the war in Iraq where it's pretty unclear what it was that was suddenly "started" and who "started it")."
As a Bush supporter and a Republican I have to say... absolutely. You're right. I can acknowledge that there's plenty of room for debate about the Iraq war, if ever plenty of room for debate there was. I think there's less room for debate in Afghanistan, although I'm sure arguments could be made.
The slaughter of Nick Berg sort of crystallized things for me a little bit, though; we're dealing with people, lots of them, who think that beheading an innocent non-combatant – and not quick; sawing his head off – is a fair trade for the (admittedly, obviously deplorable and inexcusable) hazing and abuse of some prisoners of war.
It is my perception that the Bush administration is, rightly, preoccupied with ridding the world of these people. It is also my perception that a Kerry administration might not be, not to the same degree.
I certainly don't begrudge anyone their view that I'm wrong about Bush, or Kerry, or the relative importance of ridding the world of radical Islamic terrorists. And, I trust that others don't begrudge me my opinion either.
[That's why Jameson and I get along so well, incidentally; we may agree on next to nothing, but we don't begreduge each other our opinions. You strike me as the same type of person, and I'm glad of that]
Anyway, this is fun.
Joe Mulder — Thu, 5/13/04 6:43pm
Dammit!
That was me, Joe, writing above.
"Jim Treacher" — Thu, 6/3/04 12:43pm
No offense taken!
As for Rall never hurting anybody, click here.