I keep seeing less and less value in my subscription to the L.A. Times; fortunately they keep dropping subscription prices fast enough that it just doesn’t quite seem worth it to cancel.
Then I open yesterday’s editorial pages and see a cartoon by loathsome slug Ted Rall (sorry, I’m not linking to him).Ted is notorious most recently for circulating his perverted sexual fantasies about returning veterans (in fact, I think Googlebombing “Ted Rall perverted sexual fantasist” might be fun). And seeing him in all his glory on the editorial pages tends to tip me toward dropping the subscription.
But then I had a better idea. As I understand it, much like television has “sweeps week” newspapers have periodic circulation audits.
So why don’t we do some research, find out when they are, and publicly drop our subscriptions for a month?
It’s a free country, and Rall is free to trail his slime, and the Times free to print it. And I’m free to organize boycotts to try and change their mind.
Rall is loathesome, but is it wise to silence him? Does he repulse more people than he convinces? He is a window into a foul and perverted universe. Part of my conservatism is knowing that there are stupid and evil people and they need to be watched carefully. How better to watch Rall than to have him in a daily paper?
Fred’s got a point.
The Right Wing desearately needs enemies to galvanize supporters of their political movement. Whether its Rall, Hillary, or the War Against Christmas, you just gotta have that bogeyman otherwise you’re giving up on the most powerful motivating force behind the movement.
Hatred.
Keep fanning the flames, brothers.
When it comes to Ted Rall, my motto has always been “Don’t Feed the Troll”
Perhaps Babs would renew her subscription if she knew he was getting op-ed page prominence.
My good friend Uncle Guido once told me: “A small dab of Krazy Glue goes a long way when introduced into the latch of a newspaper vending machine.”
“Hatred.”
It’s interesting that you should attribute hatred to being the basis of the political movement, since it is Ted Rall’s seething hatred which makes him so repulsive. Likewise, its Ted Rall’s seething hatred which so easily discredits his views and potientially makes him a ‘useful idiot’ to the conservative movement.
Apparantly, the fact that we are replused by displays of hatred is greater proof that we are motivated by hatred, than the open displays of hatred by our political opponents?
Amazing.
In any event, I agree with Armed Liberal on this. It’s not that Fred is incorrect – Ted Rall is more useful to the causes he opposes than to the ones he defends. Much like Michael Moore, Ted Rall is an albatross around the neck of anything that he supports because he drives the ‘middle’ into the ideological arms of the other side.
However, the goal here is not to make Ted Rall an anathema to more people. I would presume that Ted Rall is considered disgusting and offensive to most everyone, and the few that do not find him disgusting and offensive are probably unreachable through any sort of rational debate.
The goal is twofold. One, to elevate the level of debate amongst those that are rational and reasonable. Second, to get the real motivations and beliefs of as many people in the debate on the table as possible. A major contrivery over Ted Rall is worth more than Ted Rall’s continued debasement of liberal arguments, because it will inevitably force a great many of Ted Rall’s secret supporters into the open to defend him. Far better than having Ted Rall in the LA Times discrediting everything he holds sacred with his bad art, seething hatred, and vile obscenities, would be to have the LA Times telling everyone how strongly they believe the LA Times should be the organ through which Ted Rall communicates his perversion.
“…since it is Ted Rall’s seething hatred which makes him so repulsive.”
Oh really? I’m not familiar with all of his work, but I’d appreciate it if you point me in the direction of any of his pieces that clearly illustrats this contention. And even if there are some I’ve not seen that I agree are tasteless (or worse, in your view), I’ve seen enough to know that his opposition to Bushco is very sharp, and frequently funny IMO.
And is his alleged hatred suppposed to justify hatred against him, and what he represents? You clearly don’t see the danger of being played the fool by your Right Wing brethren who keep throwing meat into the Shark pool you like to swim in.
“I would presume that Ted Rall is considered disgusting and offensive to most everyone, and the few that do not find him disgusting and offensive are probably unreachable through any sort of rational debate.”
I find him neither. He is a political satirist. He can make his points as he sees fit. Whether you agree with him or not is clearly reflective of your political bias. Interestingly, you seem to think that your view is the majority view (and I would predict that you would define “rational debate” as any argument not predicated on this bias, which is ironic to say the least). I suppose that is the danger of making presumptions when your head is filled with bias. Or hatred.
(BTW, I’m looking forward to the righteous fury this is going to unleash from you, “celebrim”, as a further illustration of my points).
I keep wondering: How far can a newspaper go in political bias before its executives would be considered to be violating their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders? A public corporation is supposed to be run for benefit of the shareholders, after all, not for propagation of the personal political beliefs of the executives.
I’d hypothesize that as long as it’s kept to the editorial pages, they’re pretty well protected, but when bias becomes blatant in news coverage..and when it can be shown to have driven away readers..there might be some vulnerability there.
Any lawyers want to comment on this?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m afraid all that elicits from me is a shrug.
You claim that you can’t see any hatred in his peices. I don’t suppose that your and my definitions of what is vitriolic are ever going to agree then. OK *shrug*
You don’t seem to find any irony in the language of your responces, “Bushco”, “justify your hatred of him”, “played the fool”, “throwing meat in the Shark pool you like to swim in”, and “righteous fury”. Nor do you notice the inherent irony in the claim that I’m narrow minded. OK *shrug*
You seem to believe that the majority of Americans don’t or wouldn’t find Ted Rall’s work offensive. OK. *shrug*
There’s not alot I can do about that. I have an aunt who believes that aliens regularly visit the Earth. There’s not alot I can do about that either.
IANAL, but I’ve sat in a few board rooms.
I believe the answer to ‘how far can a newspaper go…’ is ‘a very long way’. Given the downward spiral of the newspaper biz, and the whole long tail specialization phenomenon, one can construct a reasonable argument that becoming a media outlet specialized in one political view, i.e., a party organ, is a possible way to retain the loyalty of some of the subscriber base, and staunch the bleeding. That leaves unanswered the question of what happens when almost all of the MSM choose one side of the political spectrum on which to specialize, but I believe the decision to do so would fall within the bounds of ‘reasonable business judgment.’ Or put another way, it’s within the very broad category of business decisions that qualify as dumb, but perfectly legal.
Net net, this is a situation that calls for redress in the market, not the courts. The old fashioned measure of cancelling your subscription – and mentioning it to businesses that you patronize and which advertise in the paper – remains the best retaliation.
“There’s not alot I can do about that.”
Perhaps not, but you could start by providing links to support your claim that Rall is filled with “seething hatred”, like I asked.
Otherwise I would think you are conceding my point. My reaction to that is like your’s—shrug. Ain’t my credibility on the line.
The cartoon linked to at the top of this post does not satisfy this criteria. It is a satirical view of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, common in war vets. Nothing more. Neocon war supporters are too quick, IMO, to lock in on presumed targets of dissent or “Anti-troop” thinking and begin firing before taking the time to see what it is they’ve taken aim at.
“I have an aunt who believes that aliens regularly visit the Earth…”
I see delusional thinking runs in your family… ;-).
“Perhaps not, but you could start by providing links to support your claim that Rall is filled with “seething hatred”, like I asked…The cartoon linked to at the top of this post does not satisfy this criteria.”
You seem to think that it is my credibility at stake. I’m well convinced that it is not. I figure you can just keep talking, and I will gain increased credibility with every exchange.
I feel as if I made a statement such as, “The Itchy and Scratchy cartoon contains grotesque violence.” and I have been challenged to provide an example to defend that claim. My inability to provide that person with an example that they will concede as grosteque violence does not discredit my claim. Rather, it discredits the other person’s definition of what consitutes grosteque violence.
As I said, clearly you and I have no common definition of what constitutes vitriolic and hate filled behavior. You think that you have discredited me in some fashion because I’m not providing links to hateful behavior. I think that I don’t have to. I simply have to put the above cartoon above the quote: “It is a satirical view of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, common in war vets. Nothing more.”, and I’m done.
Wait … people still read NEWSPAPERS? Huh, wonders never cease to amaze me.
Fine, I can’t and won’t stop you from running away from your views when challenged, and trying to obscure the fact with smoke and mirrors.
If you won’t provide an example to support your claim in this type of forum it can only be interpreted to mean either that you don’t think you can, or don’t think you have to.
Either way, you lose; so I see why cutting and running is your response.
Arguing from ignorance is always a poor tactic.
Visit Rall’s site. Read Rall’s materials. He’s a public figure and even has a blog; it’s not as though he’s hiding, after all.
Rall, IMO, is morally bereft and has been for ages. As a failed social worker, he took up his pen and found a niche. Good for him; bad for humanity.
Well, I’ll end by saying that if the LA Times sees fit to publish the Neocon propoganda of Jonah Goldberg, then Tedd Rall should stay as well.
In fact, I think I’ll write a letter to the editor telling them how much I like Rall’s cartoons…as you see utility in him, so do I.
You see, while I do think that reflexive anger and a lynch-mob mentality is important for your political movement, I also view it as your potential downfall.
Jonah is actually one of the only things (besides firing Scheer) the LA Times has done right in years. I cancelled the day after President Bush was re-elected when the Times hemmed and hawed about the Bush victory (not clear even yet, I suspect they maintain!). They’d have to pay “me” the subscription fee to re-sign (and I’d only look at the Sports section anyway)!
Read: http://www.patterico.com/
and find out how poor their journalism has really been in recent years.
You see, while I do think that reflexive anger and a lynch-mob mentality is important for your political movement, I also view it as your potential downfall.
Speaking of seething hatred, Josue, tell us how you feel about “neo-cons”.
Josue reminds me of a discussion that I followed — perhaps on this blog — regarding the satellite composite photograph of the Earth at night. Of particular note, N Korea is particularly dark compared to S Korea, China, Japan, etc.; one damfool commenter insisted that it was not. Repeatedly. It’s like taking a trip into the looking glass, talking with these people.
At any rate, Josue, no, Rall is NOT discussing PTSD. He’s smearing the vets. If he WERE discussing PTSD, he’d be more likely to reference an actual instance of a returning vet with behavior problems. I’m sure that distinction is lost upon you, but oh well.
A.L. – you’ve been waffling over the Times’ despicable leftist stance for a year or two now. I seem to remember that the last time you threatened to unsubscribe you decided the coupons were worth it to keep your subscription alive.
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly if you feel that you *must* read what the LA Times prints and calls “news”, it’s available for free on the internet.
This is not a free-speech nor a pro- or anti-Ted Ralls issue. It’s a capitalism issue, and by maintaining your subscription you are helping to fund the LA Times, and keep it in business. And frankly, I can see absolutely NO good reason for the LA Times to exist. At all. Ever. Unless it totally changes its editorial staff and everyone who writes for it, and hires someone like Roger Simon to run the damned thing.
Cancel now. And cancel permanently, and not for a weaselly, waffly month.
“It is a satirical view of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, common in war vets. Nothing more.”
Wow. That took a whole lot of creative interpretation. It looked to me like just another of Ted’s lame and juevenile smeers of those who serve.
The little manhattan milksop has never been part of anything he considered more important than himself. He has no idea what it means to struggle and sacrifice, and in his arrogance and snobbery he seems to imagine himself better than those poor sadistic brutes who wear the uniform.
Whatever. It’d be more interesting if he was at least funny.
Honestly, why is everyone getting so worked up about a CARTOON? It’s harmess.
And at any rate, I actually agree more with the idea that it is PTSD, not anything else. I guess since I don’t read Ted Ralls’ comics regularly and think they’re biased, I’m not pre-disposed to see it the way may of you Pro-war folk do.
I actually think it’s kinda funny when the vet is using Abu Ghraib torture techniques to “talk” with the parents or when he employs a combat fighter to “breakup”. Sarcasm, get it! And political commentary, all at once!
AND, on top of that, I actually think he’s expressing concern for the mental well-being of vets by making an extreme illustration of the psychological toll of war, thereby raising awareness of it within the confines of his art form.
The fact that it provokes such a reaction in the jack-boots here is just another reason to like it! It’s amazing that no one can even muster anything approaching a coherent defense of your hatred of this guy…it’s all “if you don’t understand, you’re not worth the air you breath” kind of crap…how lame.
Get a friggin’ sense of humor.
Get a friggin’ sense of humor.
Does Dennis Miller make you laugh? How about Ann Coulter?
When she said, “We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too – Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors” didn’t you laugh?
come on, it’s a joke.
The pro-totalitarian “anti-war” Left have all gone jeannine garofalo on us. It’s been years since they were funny.
Josue — I am not surprised you like Ted Rall and find him funny.
Which cartoon did you like the best, the one making fun of Danny Pearl’s widow, or the one making fun of the 9/11 widows? Yeah I guess Danny Pearl’s beheading was a barrel of laughs, and so was 9/11.
That’s pretty much the Left. Ted Rall speaks for the Left when he celebrates 9/11 and believes it was deserved (supporting the “little Eichmann” theory of Ward Churchill). OF COURSE WE QUESTION YOUR PATRIOTISM. By refusing to condemn Ted Rall’s picture of vets as depraved rapists and torture murderers, your silence reads as assent.
I’m no fan of GWB but with enemies like these it’s no wonder he won re-election.
Tim — I don’t think the Long Tail explains the decline in American Newspapers. Rather it’s not providing value to readers. Detroit’s inbred semi-hereditary cocoon seems to have led to Japanese competitors eating their lunch; I see the same thing with Hollywood and video games; and Newspapers and Web based media portals. It’s not IMHO overly specialized fracturing of the readership but gigantic new media portals ala Yahoo or MSN or AOL that threaten the LAT and papers like it.
Ted Rall is the symptom of the problem (clueless semi-hereditary elite not keeping customers happy) instead of the cause. I mean WHY do you want to alienate conservatives and moderates who read your paper?
The big one is of course the Rolling Stone Magazine article which suggests that various editors and reporters for the LAT have been on Suge Knight’s payroll and slanting stories to aid his organized criminal enterprise (including covering up corruption reported by LAPD whistleblowers). LAT is a corrupt joke.
Sorry to jump in so late…long day at the office. Josue, there’s this cool thing called “Google”; go ahead and enter ‘Ted Rall’ and read your eyes right out. It’s not my job to show you things you can easily find for yourself, nor is it my job to convince you of the meaning of commonly-used images and tropes.
I had a professor once who was literally a student of Derrida; he commented that it was an interesting game, but that one risks sucking the meaning out of conversation when you require concrete proof of the concrete meaning of every word and phrase.
Ted Rall is a harmless humorist to you; great. That tells us more than we need to know about you. I think he’s vile scum (both in his cartooning, writing, and life). That tells you something about me.
Nice to meet you. Next?
A.L.
“Sarcasm, get it!”
I hate to go off on a tangent, but this has been bothering me for years.
I don’t know how many times over the years people have thrown the ‘sarcasm defense’ at me. Next to the ‘narrow minded’ gambit, its probably the most common and most lame rhetorical tactic. People play it like it was the rhetorical equivalent of a ‘Get out of jail free’ card. People use the ‘sarcasm’ defense in about the same manner that little kids on a playground use the ‘fingers crossed’ defense, as in “I wasn’t really serious. I had my fingers crossed.”
That word, you keep using it. I do not think it means what you think it means. It doesn’t mean that you get to indulge every purient, degrading or churlish thought that crosses your mind, spurt it out, reveal in it, toy with it like a fetishist and then afterward say, “I was being sarcastic. I’m not really like that.” The fact of the matter is that Ted Rall has a rather diseased imagination, and it doesn’t matter whether he calls it ‘sarcasm’ or as someone else in this thread did ‘satire’ or anything else, its still really diseased and destructive.
As far as satire goes, I don’t think that it is a coincidence that the really great satirists – people like Jonathon Swift, Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, etc. – write stories which are with few exceptions suitable for children. The really great satirists realize that if you revel to much in the crudities of the thing that you are mocking, you become an example of the thing itself. Worse yet, by demonstrating that you can add upon, invent, and exaggerate something, you demonstrate a degree of peversity that can exceed the peversity of the thing you chose to mock.
Morever, one of the qualities of a good satire is that even the targets of it find it funny. If sarcasm it to have any point at all it is to hold a mirror to someone’s face to reveal the ridiculousness thier in. Satire and sarcasm, when the joke is really funny, works because you realize that the joke is on you. As Homer Simpson says (speaking of good satire), “It’s funny because its true.” Satire gives people the gift of being able to laugh at themselves. But I can’t imagine American soldiers (to say nothing of soldiers actually suffering from PTSD) looking at Ted Rall’s work and going, “It’s so funny because its true.”
And frankly, I find it sickening to think that anyone thinks that’s a fair representation of US soldiery, exgeratted or otherwise.
No, Ted Rall’s stuff is hateful. It’s not only hateful, it’s purposefully hateful. Spreading hate is its raison d’etre. It is deliberately being inciteful, deliberately being disparaging, deliberately trying to provoke disgust. I think the best word for his work is not ‘satire’, but ‘vitriolifying’. He’s trying to hurt. He’s trying to demonize. That’s the whole point. He doesn’t even pretend otherwise. Ted Rall is about as funny as throwing bricks at people.
The only good thing about Ted Rall is that no one has to make him look like a pompous ass. He does a plenty good job of that all by himself.
Not defending the actions of the Russkies, but one must admit they have a non-monetary reason: We sold Stingers to the Afghan rebels back in the 1980s, which were used to kill a lot of Russians. So, not only do they get top dollar, they get a little payback. Now, it’s our turn. How about nukes for the Iraqis and Poles.