for 17 March 2000. Updated every WEEKDAY.
|
|
RU4ME or 8GNSTME? Amazed that, in your otherwise shrewd coverage of the "Choose Life" license plates, you missed the clearest sign that advocates were more interested in PR than in substance. Almost a year ago, leaders of the Florida state legislature offered backers of the plates a compromise: same children's drawing, new motto: "Choose Adoption." After all, the stated goal of the plates is to encourage more people to adopt, no? No. The compromise was rejected. The same people who support the plates, by the by, also oppose adoption by single people and gay couples, while thousands of kids remain trapped in orphanages and foster care, dreaming desperately of an adoptive family. When you care enough about one "truth," mere demonstrable facts are irrelevant. There's a reason the Pope did not apologize for protestants! Harry Matthews <matthews@panix.com> You're right: such an offer was declined, for the vague, feet-shuffling reasons one would expect. Further proof that the concept of politicizing license plates is ludicrous is that "Choose Adoption" doesn't really make sense as a slogan, either. In fact, I'm pretty sure if my father had seen a bunch of "Choose Adoption" plates during our family's 1976 packed-car trip to Disney World, I'd have a different last name now. Tom  What an issue. What's next, regulating bumper sticker makers? More directly, regulating the U.S. mail system so that no political literature may pass through those sacred walls. Victim of CrimeThink, Pablo Money <homeopape@yahoo.com> I'm holding my breath for commemorative stamps. Tom Fabulous. Absolutely fabulous. I'm tempted to take a few moments to ask you why I should care what some Floridian puts on the back of his/her car, but I have a much more pressing question. How did Polly find her way onto Utah's license plate? Sucking up, Ben Levin <blevin@ziplink.net> I think she was put there to distract sharp readers like you from asking potentially embarrassing questions like "Why should I care about this issue?" Tom The ruling I would issue, were I at the bench (and I'm not), would go as follows: "The whole problem with the question of abortion is the gross oversimplification of the issue, by the power-grubbing extremists on BOTH sides of the proverbial fence. "Pro-lifers would expect a victim of rape or incest to carry the product of that hateful act fully to term. Pro-choicers would have you believe that the unborn child, right up until exit from the womb, is not even a living thing, much less a human being; and that abortion is not even killing, much less murder. "Until reason prevails at last, the State shall encourage and, where appropriate, even sponsor open debate on the question of abortion. However, the Division of Motor Vehicles will NOT be the forum for that debate." Case dismissed. Alan Augustson <EvlGenius1@aol.com> You're definitely not going to get that bench appointment after this sees print. Tom Hit & Run Sucksters, I couldn't help but notice a certain irony in your piece on the pro Confederacy rally in Alabama this week. It stuck me as odd that you would choose to use that piece to follow the interview with Starchild, Libertarian candidate for the California State Assembly. If you folks could, just for one moment, get off your "holier than thou" stump and check the facts of history, you would realize that the War Between the States was not about slavery, but was instead a secession based on irreconcilable differences based on economy. Please read the following for a layman's view of reality: http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/ vs000227.htm http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/ ns000227.htm Please note that both L. Neil Smith and Vin Suprynowicz are Libertarians, and the last time I checked, neither owned slaves. I would also defy you to paint Murray Rothbard as a racist. It is possible to have differing views on the states right to secession from the union without being a racist as well. Were some of the protesters in Alabama there because they fear progress for minorities? I'm sure they were. Are some of the people who misguidedly choose to lump all of the protesters into one group of racists and bigots with sentences like: "League officials insist, of course, that the Southern heritage they're talking about isn't racism but states' rights and Christian morality, leaving us to marvel at the sheer force of will necessary to believe in a history made up of only those things that went on between lynchings." Ignorant stooges of government school systems regurgitating the victor's view of reality? I'm sure they are. One more note: Neither the Rampart squad in LA nor the Diallo incident took place in Alabama. Seems like you jerks have a few toothless assholes in your own backyard. Clean up your act and stop taking cheap shots at the South out of ignorance. Jefry Allen <jef.allen@mindspring.com> Oh please, Jefry. If I wanted to hear the same old song for the millionth time I'd listen to my local classic rock station. What always puzzles me when I hear this familiar refrain about how the War of Northern Aggression was actually about states' rights and economic differences — aside from the fact that the people making the argument seem unaware that we've all heard all of this many times before — is why it always ellides the two obvious followup questions: 1. States' rights to do what exactly? and 2. On what peculiar institution was the South's distinctive economy based? By not answering these questions, the little intellectual mentors whose sites you link conveniently manage to keep their discussion on the real and imagined foibles of Lincoln and the Union, rather than on any acts of volition by the Confederacy, as if it were not Southerners who fought to maintain the slave-owning way of life, who chose to secede even before Lincoln's inauguration, and who fired the first shots of the war. Those of us who can hack it in the real world are less concerned about Abe's moral character or the unsullied virtue of the Union than you guys always seem to imagine. The important points are that from 1776 to 1861 slavery was an overwhelming burden on the country, that it was a big enough problem to divide the nation in a war, and that in the end the war had the best possible outcome. What troubles me even more is that, by endlessly repeating their unsupported assertions, the Confederacy's apologists have actually had some effect, so that many Northerners, who already feel guilty about everything else, now even feel guilty about the Civil War. Well I have no such conflicts. I've got Bluebelly dead on both sides of the old family tree, and I'd happily kick your ass for doubting the value and nobility of their sacrifice. But since the Hit and Run you mention was written by a first-time Suckster who hails from the Heart of Dixie, who dayjobs at Tuscaloosa's most distinguished weekly Koupon Klipper, and whose work we look forward to publishing again in the future, such patriotic showboating is unnecessary. But just to reiterate, the Civil War was about slavery, and the fact that some guy who calls Abraham Lincoln a Bolshevik says otherwise does not change that. As for the overall secession issue, you're more right than you deserve to be. There isn't a single state in Dixie I wouldn't be happy to see leave the Union. But you and your pals need to find a fresher casus belli than the one you're using now. The Confederate cause was undermined by the overwhelming force of Federal arms, the overwhelming logic of history and now by the overwhelming majority of Southerners themselves. Move on already. You guys are not only dull but a cause of dullness in others. yr pal, tim "League officials insist, of course, that the Southern heritage they're talking about isn't racism but states' rights and Christian morality, leaving us to marvel at the sheer force of will necessary to believe in a history made up of only those things that went on between lynchings." This is pretty poisonous. Are you sure your state has an impeccable record with regard to racism? <KevinRolfe@aol.com> The hit and run in question was written by an Alabaman. Sucksters Hello from post-antebellum Alabama. I'm still trying to pry myself out of the instinctive cringe I curled into after the Southern League march to git back our Confederate flag. Like most southerners with uppity book learning, I'm always torn between (1) trying to defend my home state, which has some good points, no really, and (2) slack-jawed horror at how we seem able to shitcan even the simplest good PR opportunity. That said, I have to offer thanks for the velvet glove over that all- too- well deserved fist in Hit & Run. The Southern League exemplifies the absolute worst fecal pit of southern culture, and if I could jab a lit cigarrette in the eye of each League member, I would gladly do so. But at least you were nice enough to leaven the mockery we earn with a little bit of sympathy. Some of us down here in the cracker trenches are still trying to improve the place, at least by cultural osmosis, and we can live for a month on a scrap of appreciation. And oh yeah, Roll Tide and all that shit. chris m <cmohney@menasha.cncoffice.com> If we seemed to insinuate that the great state of Alabama was lacking in good points, this was purely unintentional, and we apologize. We are confident that the Camellia State has many good bragging points — not least among those that it is the home of the great painter Thornton Dial, and that it incited the pissing competition between Neil Young and Lynyrd Skynyrd with which the free trade zone is still rockin'. Sucksters Dear Sucksters, I appreciate your interviews. Your hard-hitting, hardball interviewers have the capacity to show up fakes, flakes, and frauds as well as occasionally showcasing the hidden power and beauty of well reasoned thought given a forum. On first look, I'd have supposed Starchild a flake. But he mocked my preconceptions (and yours too, I dare say) by having quite a bit to say for himself and his party. Whether you agree with the libertarians or not, give him his due — Starchild is an eloquent and unpretentious spokesman for their point of view. As usual, your interview was both forceful and gracious, asking tough questions but giving your subject room to respond. Chris Matthews could learn from you. I appreciate Suck's beach-combing approach to cultural exposition. Occasionally, your efforts result in a rare find, such as today's political "exposé." Faithfully yours, Richard Banks <richard.banks@cpa.state.tx.us> Would you expect anything less than hard- hitting, hardball interviews from a bunch of hard- ons like ourselves? Ineloquent, pretentious spokesmen, Sucksters Um, not to be too blunt about it, but your "elephant in the room" piece has some stunning similarities to the "500 pound gorilla" article that ran in The Wall Street Journal a few years back. <CyberPSoft@aol.com> Yeah, but they shamelessly stole our "Ten pounds of shit in a five pount bag" article from a few years back. Sucksters Thank you for doing the piece on Libertarian candidate Starchild. The Party needs all the exposure it can get. Good job! Tom E Thomas <Tom.Thomas@doa.state.wi.us> Mega-shazbots to you, Comrade. Sucksters THANKS! Hey, I don't know how it happened exactly that my team and website ended up on your site but our hits quadrupled yesterday! Thanks Laurie (I'm one of those women up on the ellie) <laurie@elephantpolo.com> We needed some interesting ellie sites, and you gals were the winners. And I'll bet they told you elephant polo skills weren't marketable! Sucksters |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
   |
||||||||||||||||
 |  |
|||||||||||||||
 |   | |||||||||||||||
![[Tim Cavanaugh]](/fish/staff/images/tim.gif)
![[Copy Edit]](/fish/contributors/images/gies.gif){kind=small}
![[Phillip Bailey]](/fish/staff/images/phil.gif){kind=small}
![[yes, it's
a plunger. i'll l
eave the rest up to your imagination ... ]](/fish/staff/images/erin.gif){kind=small}
![[Brian
Forsyth, " we're just spanning time "]](/fish/staff/images/brian.gif)
![[the fixin'
pixie... ]](/fish/staff/images/emily.gif)
![[Ian
Connelly]](/fish/staff/images/ian.gif){kind=small}