Dirty Politics: The Mail
Last week, a few readers sent scathing letters; they were upset with me for an advertisement that appeared the week before that had some mildly unkind words about the Bush political family. All in all, the four letters I ran (and the 2-3 others I got that I didn't run) represent a VERY tiny minority of my readers -- only about .0068 percent, if I did my math right. But they were so danged entertaining that I couldn't resist running them (and then responding by pouring some cold water on the hotheads). After all, True is about the stupid things people do; my own readers are not exempt from being featured here if they do something idiotic themselves! Subscribe for Free As I expected, a much higher percentage of readers responded very positively after reading the letters. Out of the scores that came in, I'll just choose a few of the most interesting. Randy in Texas: "I am a hard core Bush supporter and that ad took me back, but I knew it was an ad. Years ago I turned off a radio show I didn't agree with. I asked myself why I ran from that show and realized I was afraid they would change my mind. Then I realized that if they did change my mind, maybe my view or argument wasn't right. I have never run from a different point of view since. If they can't stand an opposing view, maybe their convictions are not as strong as they would like." John in Michigan: "It's ironic that you were accused of being a communist. I realize most folks in the U.S. have no clue what 'Communism' is. Even so, to accuse you of being a communist because (A) you accepted a paid advertisement (which is clearly a capitalist thing to do), (B) represent a free press, and (C) didn't censor a political statement -- that's just breathtakingly moronic. I find it more than mildly ironic that, generally, the people who throw 'communist' around as an epithet are the same people who currently want to consolidate federal power, limit civil rights, let the government dictate lifestyle and religion, censor the media, and use the military as a police organization. What other nations does that bring to mind? Hmm? Iraq, Iran, the USSR, the People's Republic of China. Not exactly U.S. Constitution-kinda places." Mary Ann in Texas: "I thought the ad you ran was tasteful. It initially appealed to me, but not for the reasons the advertiser intended. The advertiser's web site is also tasteful and well organized. They go to lengths to explain their [anti-death penalty] position and offer what they consider evidence to persuade you to see their side of the issue. I applaud you for accepting an ad from a company that caused me to think and giving me the opportunity to know what they were about and why they were selling a particular item. I have my reasons for initially liking their bumper sticker and could not, in good faith, order their bumper stickers to support a cause I cannot side with. My reasons do not matter. What does matter is that I actually took the time to educate myself on what the advertiser was saying and selling. And, in True Randy fashion, intended or not, you accepted an ad that caused people (those that were open minded anyway) to read it, educate themselves, and take responsibility by either supporting or walking away from the advertiser." Geoffrey in California: "I find it quite sad that even an intelligent, thoughtful publication like yours incites the ire of unthinking morons who claim to enjoy what you do without really understanding it." Jane in California: "After reading about the brouhaha about the Bu$h stickers in the latest True, I dug out the old issue and ended up buying a sticker. Maybe you should charge the advertisers extra for printing those emails!" Actually, Jane, I look at it as encouragement to advertisers to come up with more interesting ads. Today's is no exception -- it was placed after the advertiser saw the ruckus last week! :-) Blog Updates
|