Patterico's Pontifications

3/11/2004

Ted Rall: Patterico is a “Generic Warblogger!”

Filed under: Morons — Patterico @ 8:58 pm

In this whiny post, Ted Rall calls me a “generic warblogger.” Rall also blatantly misquotes an observation I made the other day, in my post titled “Ted Rall, Crybaby.” According to Rall, I said:

I don’t have any right to have my speech printed in the New York Times and neither does Rall.

What I actually said was this:

I don’t have any right to have my speech printed in the New York Times, and I haven’t even made fun of the families of murder victims.

To remind you what I am talking about, here is the cartoon in which Rall mocked widows of terror victims. Particularly vile is his portrayal of Danny Pearl’s widow Marianne Pearl, as a publicity-seeking woman who frivolously says: “Of course it’s a bummer that they slashed my husband’s throat — but the worst was having to watch the Olympics alone!”

Words cannot express how contemptible this is.

After misquoting me in his post from today, Rall then bloviates:

Of course, no one has the “right” to be published anywhere. But only a simpleton, or a right-wing blogger typing in his parents’ basement in Tennessee, would fail to see the danger to a free media in an editor who caves into rank political pressure when making editing decisions. An independent press must be responsive to its readers, but that doesn’t mean running scared of a creator some 13 years after you started running his work because some people oppose his politics. If opinion mongers have to worry about getting fired every time they venture off the political mean, the next thing you know, the entire op-ed page will be covered with nothing but bland, middle-of-the-road moderates.

Sorry, dude, but your bid to make yourself into some kind of First Amendment hero just doesn’t wash. You penned the single most disgusting, repulsive editorial cartoon most people have ever seen, by a longshot — at least in this country. And then you paid the price. End of story. Stop whining already.

There is a difference between venturing off the political mean, and mocking the survivors of murder victims. And I think deep down, you realize this — which is why you didn’t bother to quote me accurately.

P.S. I hardly ever blog about the war.

17 Responses to “Ted Rall: Patterico is a “Generic Warblogger!””

  1. You do know about Rall’s sterling rep as a defender of free speech, and of the struggling artist – right?

    I won’t even publicize the tool by blogging about him any more, and Ted, I do hope you’re reading this, you pretentious, hypocritical, waste of oxygen.

    A.L.

    Armed Liberal (653cd1)

  2. Yeah, I know about it. Back in 2002, before I had a blog, I had no outlet for outrage other than sending angry e-mails. I sent Rall an angry e-mail about his terror widows cartoon.

    My first sentence was: “Of all the cartoons I have seen making fun of people whose relatives were murdered, yours was the funniest.”

    And I ended it by saying:

    “Hey — do you know where I can send a big cash donation to Danny Hellman?”

    It’s much better having a blog.

    Patterico (f7b3e5)

  3. I noted as well that you really don’t blog about the war (the LA Times is obviously your favorite obsession), so the “generic warblogger” comment missed the mark.

    As I always say, if you’re running down Patterico, you’re walking on the fightin’ side of me.

    Jackie (5d52df)

  4. First off, some cartoon Rall did 2 years ago is hardly relevent to the recent decision of the NYTimes. You really think they pulled his work because of that? Maybe you guys should get out of the past and start looking around at the present. When you or someone you care about gets hammered by this form of censorship you can thank yourself for allowing it to prosper. The truth for many of you and your type is that you don’t care about freedom or the Consistution, you are just so full of hate that you would let the whole planet slide into oblivion just to see one person get burned along with it. I can’t think of a better partner for the terrorists, maybe they will send you a medal, you morons.

    As for the ‘Terror Widows’, tasteful or not I for one got sick of seeing people cashing in on the deaths of others surrounding 911. The wife of Mr ‘Lets Roll’ has whored her husband’s story (a story that doesnt even seem all that plausible given evidence that the plane was shot down) out so much that it has all the credibility of a fast food commercial. Same with many others who whined about only get 1.4 million, while victims of the Oklahoma bombing got nothing. There was a atmosphere of greed after 911 as all that money got donated and I am glad someone had the guts to point it out.

    Acer Vartan (3954a2)

  5. First off, some cartoon Rall did 2 years ago is hardly relevent to the recent decision of the NYTimes. You really think they pulled his work because of that? Maybe you guys should get out of the past and start looking around at the present. When you or someone you care about gets hammered by this form of censorship you can thank yourself for allowing it to prosper. The truth for many of you and your type is that you don’t care about freedom or the Consistution, you are just so full of hate that you would let the whole planet slide into oblivion just to see one person get burned along with it. I can’t think of a better partner for the terrorists, maybe they will send you a medal, you morons.

    As for the ‘Terror Widows’, tasteful or not I for one got sick of seeing people cashing in on the deaths of others surrounding 911. The wife of Mr ‘Lets Roll’ has whored her husband’s story (a story that doesnt even seem all that plausible given evidence that the plane was shot down) out so much that it has all the credibility of a fast food commercial. Same with many others who whined about only get 1.4 million, while victims of the Oklahoma bombing got nothing. There was a atmosphere of greed after 911 as all that money got donated and I am glad someone had the guts to point it out.

    Acer Vartan (3954a2)

  6. I assume you followed a link from Ted Rall’s page. I can tell you are the sort of person who goes in big for Ted Rall’s brand of “humor,” including mocking the families of murder victims.

    You and people like you are welcome to read his disgusting crap in your local alternative weekly. Neither the NY Times nor any other responsible paper has a duty to run such insensitive garbage.

    Censorship? Hardly. It’s editorial judgment, and for once, it’s sound.

    Patterico (f7b3e5)

  7. How can Rall possibly “misquote” you when he doesn’t even quote you at all?

    he takes you as an example, bundles you with the rest of what he calls “generic warbloggers” and presents their main argument, which is what you already used

    “I don’t have any right to have my speech printed in the New York Times, and I haven’t even made fun of the families of murder victims.” (So Rall, who did in fact make fun of them, has even less right than me)

    doesn’t take alot of computing time to realize what you meant

    twit (dbc25b)

  8. I leave it to the reader to decide whether Rall purported to quote me. He says:

    The generic warbloggers have the usual argument:

    I don’t have any right to have my speech printed in the New York Times and neither does Rall.

    Of course, no one has the “right” to be published anywhere. [etc.]

    He includes a link to me, sets off the quotation with an indent (a traditional way to indicate a quotation), and quotes the first part of my sentence. But leaves off the part about how I haven’t made fun of the families of murder victims (as Rall indisputably has).

    You’re stretching, twit.

    Patterico (f7b3e5)

  9. An perspective from a different country…

    you, Patterico, are so deeply stupid that you will never understand how deeply stupid you really are.

    If only you were a little smarter.

    Rupert Fastido (d63f42)

  10. Rall linked to your site. He thereby allowed people to make their own minds up already. You are desperately pathetic.

    Blurg (d63f42)

  11. By the way, Acer Vartan, Rall himself says: “My trouble with the Times website dates back to the ‘terror widows’ controversy.”

    And that’s an accurate quote — unlike his purported quote from me.

    Patterico (f7b3e5)

  12. I lot of people are deeply uneasy about the behavior of some of the relatives of the 9/11 victims, but open criticism is difficult because of the sensitivity of the issue. A great editorial cartoonist could have made his or her point without being gratuitously offensive. Because the subject is almost taboo, an incisive treatment of it would have had all the more impact. Here, the cartoonist’s problem is not that he picks the wrong topics, but a lack of talent. That is not remotely a First Amendment issue.

    Jackie (ef51d5)

  13. Jackie, Rall also made fun of Marianne Pearl. What about her behavior made people uneasy?

    Rall is not merely talentless, he is scum. And, as Armed Liberal points out in the comments above, he is all for free speech until it harms him. Then he comes down on free speech like a ton of bricks. Follow the link in Armed Liberal’s comment above for details.

    All the NYT did was drop Rall. Rall sued Danny Hellman.

    Patterico (f7b3e5)

  14. Hey Patterico, when did you move to Tennessee? 😉

    Uttering the names of entire states with scorn, as if every person in that state is of the same persuasion, is not a sign of great intellect.
    I lose respect for the writer’s overall argument pretty fast when I see things like that.

    steve M. (5e79fd)

  15. I think that might have been a snide reference to Glenn Reynolds. Inside blogball, er, baseball.

    Patterico (f7b3e5)

  16. “All the NYT did was drop Rall. Rall sued Danny Hellman.”

    And is STILL suing Danny Hellman, I might add.

    danny hellman (feb365)

  17. Well, I guess the previous comment answers the question I posed to Rall two years ago, regarding where you can send a big cash donation to Danny Hellman.

    Patterico (f7b3e5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1932 secs.