August 10, 2005

All the Letters That Aren’t

All the Letters That Aren’t Fit To Print

Perhaps we’re simply naïve, dear reader, but we were under the impression that The New York Times receives a goodly number of letters from its readers each day. With a circulation even larger than “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” the Times must certainly get a colossal batch of epistles every morning.

And yet, dear reader, a recent perusal of the good ole’ letter section of the Gray Lady has left us wondering whether anyone bothers to scribble a message to this beacon of the mainstream media any longer. If the Times actually takes in a sizeable batch of letters, why would it print such an inane assortment of them? If the paper receives, say, 10,000 missives per diem, can’t its staff find 20 of them that weren’t composed by inveterate nincompoops?

You would think so, wouldn’t you? But our recent check of the Gray Lady’s op-ed page suggested otherwise.

On July 22, the Times published another soulless rant written by Thomas Friedman—the paper’s déclassé version of Tom Bosley. Said rant, entitled “Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide,” offered typically dull reflections on denouncing hate speech, which offered the misleading impression that the West is as soaked in this poison as are the Islamists.

You know the kind of bunk we’re talking about: Sure, several Arab countries advertise militant anti-American and anti-Semitic tracts via their state-run media, but a few Jewish settlers have said some intemperate things too. Even Steven, eh?

It was also notable that Mr. Friedman, in a column entitled “Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide,” never mentioned this humble “weblog.” Boy, is that guy behind the times or what? Talk about a flat-earther.

Anyway, in response to this tepid column, the Times saw fit to publish the following inane response:

To the Editor:

I agree “we need to shine a spotlight on hate speech,” but I don’t think Thomas L. Friedman takes his nondiscrimination far enough.

If the State Department or other branches of the United States government were to initiate a “War of Ideas Report,” to be taken seriously the report would have to include words spoken by our own citizens and government officials (think of the effect of the phrase “axis of evil”).

Otherwise, it would be only a condescending, patronizing or arrogant evaluation of how the rest of the world doesn’t live up to our standards. How will that help end the hate speech?

Lynnae Ruberg

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t like to be condescending, but we feel as if Ms. Ruberg’s letter did not live up to our standards. In fact, it’s a piece of complete twaddle penned by a chucklehead.

Apparently, the enlightened Ms. Ruberg believes that the chilling phrase “axis of evil” has done more worldly damage than, say, the Palestinian love-affair with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. What kind of a lame-brain is Ms. Ruberg? “Axis of evil” is downright pleasant in comparison with the nauseating rhetoric that flows from the mouths of terrorists and their supporters.

In addition, we must note that the “axis of evil” phrase was employed to describe the governments of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran under the Mullahs, and North Korea under Kim Jong-il—not the people of said countries. Does Ms. Ruberg honestly believe that the thugocracy that runs North Korea is all gumdrops and happiness?

But maybe President Bush, to live up to Ms. Ruberg’s concern for decorum, should have declared: “The government of North Korea is simply peachy. I love the way it starves its own citizens.” Wouldn’t that be a tad patronizing?

Posted at August 10, 2005 12:01 AM | TrackBack