Posted February 20, 2002

Not 'Ad Hominems'

Justin, please pay as little attention as possible to those correspondents urging you not to devote your energies towards "ad hominems" against the neo-con savages bullsh*tting the world ever closer to Megiddo's Hill. One of the truisms of Bizarro World is that The Few Rule The Many -- when those Few are full-time propagandists angling for employee badges and corner offices in the Permanent War State -- and the Many have 200 channels transmitting interchangeable pablum over 60-inch TV screens -- they're not "ad hominems" any longer, they're wake-up calls. Get yourself an atomizer of throat spray and one for Joe Stromberg, cos if anything, you need to get even louder. Keep it up, guys.

~ Lou M., New York

Deleted Statement

This is directed primarily at the editor(s) of the "Backtalk" page. My most recent letter to Justin Raimondo, published 15 February, contained an assertion that his column was unable to show any evidence of an actual smear campaign on the part of anybody, only possible motives for such a campaign. I would think that since this engages the central theme of the column which prompted our discussion in the first place, it would be a pertinent thing to have displayed, even if it may have been necessary to truncate it somewhat to save space. So, I'm curious as to why you deleted that statement in its entirety. I'm further curious as to why you did so without even the customary ellipsis to indicate the deletion to your readers.

~ Daniel Basken

The "Backtalk" editor replies:

We viewed the deleted statement as a repetition of your statement (which was posted) that "if you've actually read those Jacoby columns [about the Saudis . . . ] then you'd see a rather disturbing pattern, much more compelling than your 'evidence' of smear campaigns on the part of the oil companies."

Our policy is to always indicate where words within sentences have been omitted, and to use ellipses to make transitions more logical, but, in the interest of aesthetics, to not necessarily indicate all omissions of full sentences and paragraphs. "Backtalk" readers and letter-writers should be aware that most letters, especially those hundreds of words long, are not posted in full.

Lambasting

Hey, What's up with Justin? His once thought-provoking editorials now reduced to irrational lambasting of everyone from fellow columnists to airline pilots. It also seems he is paying a lot of attention to flight attendants as well, has he been rejected by one? The written assault that he constantly wages on any poor soul who happens to cross his path is starting to wear thin.

~ DB

Spirit of Machismo

I read this in Behind the Headlines, "The Olympic War":

"Anonymous telephone calls? Really? Either this lady has a persecution complex, or else the spirit of machismo is much more alive and active in France than anyone ever suspected."

Knowing quite a bit about France I answer Yes! the spirit of machismo is much more alive and active in France than anyone could ever suspect. It is enough of a nightmare for me to have decided to come back to Montreal so I could breathe freely as a female. From a North American point of view, France is not friendly to women. By the way, feminism is dead and buried in France. The word is intended to be an insult and it is OK to see women naked, leashed and walking on all four, on a big poster add for a department store. This is only the public side of machismo français. It is still viewed for a majority as OK to submit subordinates to sexual behaviors, what Frenchmen call "droit de cuissage". Whenever a woman protests, she is taxed of "lack of second degree". Been there lately? The backlash is terrible, go see (and hear) for yourself.

~ Louise B., Canada

The 17%

Does anybody know where the White House gets its approval ratings? And where we might be able to cast our vote in these policy shaping polls? This administration is so steeped in corruption and secrecy that I think we should know where it gets its "83% approval rate," which is so convenient as a blank check. People I meet, of all ages and backgrounds, all think the same thing. Surely we couldn't all fit the remaining 17%.

~ Alex N.

Debate

[Regarding Joseph Stromberg's column of February 16, "The Debate We Never Have":].

...Can we really fight imperialism without investigating our colonial heritage? If we cannot, how do we avoid what Stromberg describes as the mistake of the Left during Vietnam of using "broad-gauge attacks on all aspects of American life [...]"? The basic thesis is that by painting each opportunity for Imperialist expansion as a "new" threat, the establishment has hoodwinked the US public, who has not heard a continuous anti-imperialist voice. Unfortunately, it is not sufficient to oppose imperialism when it goes to war . . . because by then it is far too late. With some honorable principled Libertarian/Conservative exceptions, the only continuous organized opposition to militarism and foreign adventures (including those in Central and South America) has been Pacifist, Socialist and Communist organizations (and more recently Greens) -- all of whom agree with the Libertarian view that increasing the power of the government to wage war abroad threatens the liberty of people at home. I seriously question whether the US public has been fully hoodwinked in the sense described. It actually supports, more or less consciously, the basic tenets of the Imperial creed: "We are better than other people and have a moral right to instruct them in good behavior, especially since it keeps our cost of living down." Of course Cheney and friends have more to gain than your SUV owner, who has more to gain than your New York subway commuter. What we need to do is to educate them (or at least the last 2 groups) on the full moral, social, economic and political implications of these policies.

~ Nat S. Lerner, Salinas, California