It's safe to say that the last Outrage, "Hypocrite Bush", was one of the
least popular we've ever written - in fact, it seems like most readers
hated it. We got plenty of feedback - some reader comments amused us,
some surprised us, and some made us wonder what our readers really
think. In the immortal words of Joan Rivers, can we talk?
Some readers suggested that we should never condone violence, even in
jest. Is violence ever justified? If someone broke into your house and
stole your TV set, would you be justified in using force to stop that
person? If someone stole everything you had, what should the punishment
be? Should corporate executives who embezzle money be harshly punished?
But in none of these cases does the magnitude of the crime approach
taking $190 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money, and using that money
to secure political advantage. Since politicians make and enforce the
laws they can, in general, make sure that when they take other people's
money their actions don't violate the law. But is any legal action a
defensible action?
One might take the point of view that the greater the crime, the harsher
the punishment. If someone is convicted of stealing a car, they might
serve, what, two years? But if a politician such as President Bush
violates everything he has said about the virtues of free-markets, and
betrays the voter's trust, and misuses tax dollars to secure his own
political ambitions, should he or she not be punished?
Other readers accused us of not being sufficiently "detached" in our
commentary. Hey, if you want detachment, you can read bland pseudo
intellectuals like George Will. We're Outraged, always have been,
probably always will be. (With all its disappointments, one of the
virtues of the Net has been that it's a forum for ideas, and passions,
that lie outside the mainstream. If you want moderation, read the New
York Times.) Were the founding fathers "detached" when they wrote about
the abuses of British power during the revolutionary struggle? I don't
think so. Detached analysis is fine for think tank wonks, but it rarely
engenders the sort of passion that leads to real change.
As for those readers who defended subsidies as a way of protecting the
small family farm, we think you ought to look at who really gets most of
the money - big farmers, not small ones. Big farmers who live better
than you or I, my friend. And as to protecting the small farmer, are
you also willing to pay taxes to subsidize the small family owner
grocer? How about small, family run law firms? We know you're willing
to subsidize family political dynasties.
We also wonder what Outrage readers really believe in? Here at the
Outrage, there's no question about the matter - we believe in the
sovereignty of each individual: without harming others, each individual
should be able to spend his or her life, and money, in whatever way they
see fit, according to their own values. We don't really care about
political parties or politicians, except to the extent that they violate
our basic principles. But do you care about ideas, or people? If
you're a Republican, do you support George Bush, even when he violates
the ideals he was elected to represent? If you're a Democrat, do you
support Bill Clinton, even if he harasses, or even rapes, women? What
matters to you more, the person, the party, or the idea?
