Randy Cassingham's Blog

I continue to be astounded at the number of people who choose to be offended by things that don't exist. I refer this time to a story in the 31 August 2008 issue about the Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin:

Free Weird Newsletter

Our once-per-week weird news newsletter. Your address is safe with us.

Enter your e-mail address here:

Please let us know how you heard of us (optional):

I very purposefully chose not to slam her -- it would be inflammatory, sure, but who in the world hasn't wondered what the heck the V.P. does, other than incessantly check on the health of the President? Rather than jump on some bandwagon pounding on someone I hadn't even heard of when she was named (just two days before I wrote the story), thus adding to the boring piling on of an unknown person, I chose instead to commiserate with her.

So what does that bring? Accusations (from people who choose to be offended) that I'm "bashing" the woman.

More specifically, there's Bill, who signed himself a Partner in a marketing firm in Minnesota, who wrote:

Since you have decided to lead with this article and condone and perpetrate this agenda of destroying this woman, I will NEVER EVER read or subscribe to this trash ever. I am not a conservative, I am a husband, father and brother of many women.

Remove me from this email subscription and I hope, like US WEEKLY, you get what you deserve

Shame on you and I truly hope your antics get the results YOU deserve.

(All emphasis, including the underlined bold red, is from the original.)

I guess if I didn't write that particular story first (and thus "led with it"), it'd be fine?

So I replied, asking Bill exactly what he had a problem with. As for his demand that I unsubscribe him from my mailings, I pointed out that he agreed to manage his own subscription. One of many reasons I require that is (gee: guess what?!) the address Bill was writing from isn't on any of my distribution lists. In addition to having to figure out why he's offended by the article, I'm supposed to also read his mind to discover which address he used to subscribe to my newsletter? Uh huh.

Bill did in fact reply to me:

Come on, it's just a reinforcement of Liberal views to discredit her. Name ONE article the LA Times has ever written to support this person or any person that disagrees with their views.

Why not write an article about all people that have no idea what the VP does. Why not write about Rangel lying, cheating and getting interest free mortgages, not reporting income form investments and I'm sure he knows what the VP does and what his responsibility is to his people.

Your headline says it all, I will not support any magazine, blog...anything that tries to slant their coverage in order to discredit a person purely for support of their own agenda.

Your write is to write, mine is to not read it.

Enough said. I have unsubscribed

So, agreeing with the woman is part of some sort of vast Liberal conspiracy "to discredit her." Got it. No, he's not paranoid!

Apparently too, his dig at the Los Angeles Times is an implication that it made up the quote. Here's a video of her saying it:

Apparently the CNBC news channel faked this response in her interview? No, he's not paranoid!

Bill complained, "Why not write an article about all people that have no idea what the VP does." Yet that's exactly what I did. And as for my challenge to point to one specific thing in my article that's objectionable, he couldn't. Or wouldn't. Because I don't think there's anything there that is objectionable.

And my headline for the story ("Oh, What the Heck") "says it all", Bill says. Um, says what, again? It says that she essentially turned away talk of her being the nominee because she didn't know what the V.P. did, but hey, she wasn't doing anything else that day and accepted when offered the job. That's a slam? Boy, I'm guessing Palin isn't as thin-skinned as Bill, or she'd already be a quivering mass of melted jelly by now. Kind of like Bill.

I'm not sure what his point is regarding "US WEEKLY", a gossip magazine that I don't read. I checked Wikipedia, which notes "As of 2007, its circulation is over 1.85 million on average." So I guess Bill is wishing my circulation would increase by about 17 times -- I'm not sure. But I do agree I deserve a much bigger audience.

As for my "write" to write, Bill also has a "right" to shove his head up his ass, as he ably demonstrates. (Maybe that's why I can't understand a thing he says.) I'm sure he'd assert he also has a "write" to be offended by anything, including public agreement with women who mesmerize him.

Whatever. But there's a specific reason I decided to post this entry: I went to Bill's marketing company web site. On the front page is a link to his blog. I clicked it and found it has a pop-up warning to anyone who dares read his blog:

WARNING: Entry into Billville has been known to cause irrational behavior, hot-flashes, mood-swings, complete loss-of-words, excessive blinking, sudden tingling and in some more extreme cases, complete paralytic shock leading to full body unconsciousness.

Billville is not recommended to those who are not legal citizens of the United States, pregnant, under the age of 21 or under the influence of anything sobering.

And featured on the front page once you dismiss the warning is this graphic, complete with the caption shown:

Quit Yer Cry'n

Just the concept is astounding, isn't it?! But wait: it gets better.

The cartoon heads an editorial he has on his blog about why is it Americans are so unhappy. He notes, "Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here."

And that's when I realized it! It wasn't until I read Bill's blog that I fully and completely grasped it: just like I have my photo on my blog, his isn't a cartoon at all. It's a self portrait. It's the only thing that makes sense.

Anyway, because Bill never did tell me what address he used to subscribe, I couldn't look it up to see how long he has been reading True. Could be weeks, could be years. So I don't know if he simply missed some actual political stories that have been in True (remember the actual slams against a president?!)

The only other thing on Bill's blog was this:

My favorite personal quote is:

"I cannot think myself into acting....I must act myself into thinking!"

So he apparently understands the importance of thinking, yet can't quite bring himself to do it. How very, very sad.