If you want to take me on you should expect a proportional response. Letter to an OC has-been.
March 12, 2008
Commie Girl. You couldn’t leave well enough alone could you? You’ll never understand that your word is not the word of the Gods. I called a cease-fire in the blogs when indeed I was the victim, but then my mere allusion to your person prompted a nuclear response. So much for that. You’ve just sown the seeds of your own destruction, so you want the truth? “You can’t handle the truth!” But here it is:
Jotting down obvious observations about the shallowness of those in OC is not talent. You’re nothing but a hack, In fact, back east a ‘hack’ is a actually cab driver, but I doubt you’re even qualified to do that at this point. You’d better believe if I ever see another article of yours in a newspaper, I’ll lodge a complaint that makes your expletive-laden column look like it was inspired by Gandhi. Wow! You can swear. You’re so controversial!
Your final column, which in your final act of hypocrisy and with a complete disregard for professionalism you sent to press mere hours before quitting quotes a reader as saying, “Stick to writing your crap, and stop thinking you are an expert in anything other than pathetic, self-centered, pompous dumbasses like yourself. You will be forever doomed to writing your self-involved little bullshit columns on toilet-paper rolls in your cat-feces-infested motel room long after OC Weekly finally wakes up and fires you.” I just thought I’d throw that back up there because it’s so painfully true.
Sure, you quit, but only because you saw the writing on the wall and in fact if you ever asked me for a roll of toilet paper in an emergency, I’d probably not give you one in the fear that you may actually write something stupid on it and pass it off as some kind of exquisite art, because while the reader was wrong about you being fired, she was right that nobody else but the Weekly would put up with your arrogant bull. In fact, the last time I checked, and a year later, you were still without a voice in print.
Oh yeah, I’m sure the Weekly was really devastated when you left. Really. I mean, it all just fell apart. What would they ever do without you? They essentially promoted Gustavo, that’s what they did, and rightly so! He’s talented and edgy. You’re just plain crude.
When are you going to admit that it was your loss? When are you going to admit that, lo and behold, the almighty ‘Commie Girl’ (and by the way, what a stupid pseudonym in the greatest democracy in the world), makes any mistakes at all?
People don’t hate you because you’re, as another reader put it, “a Jew… a slut… (and a) selfish little wimp,” even if you happen to be all of those things, as well as a ‘terrorist’ as yet another reader put it. They hate you because you’re petty and jealous and hateful! When are you going to wake up and realize that?
You don’t like me because not only do I disagree with everything you stand for (and up until recently, respectfully, I might add), but I don’t just beat you at your own game, I improve on it. I don’t need to swear to make my point. Instead I use words that contain more that two or three syllables and proper grammar in an intelligent tone that you could never achieve. You just slammed anything that rubbed you the wrong way that day with the tact and writing skill of an elementary school student.
I don’t like you because I don’t consider having a voice in the media a game. It’s a very serious responsibility and in your heyday I’m sure you wielded a lot of (undeserved) power, but it’s time to face facts. You squandered your opportunity and then blamed it on everyone else, including your employer who never should have given it to you in the first place.
And you should realize that this comment is coming from one of your so-called peers! I’m a woman in her late twenties, a mom, a Democrat (not a socialist like you though), not at all wealthy, and usually considered ‘alternative’ (for whatever that really means). I’m not a Benz-driving junk bond broker from Coto de Caza and I didn’t get rich selling sub-prime mortgages to people who couldn’t afford the inflated payments and is attacking back in order to justify my lack of guilt for hurting people! In my case, I hope I hurt you, because you need to know what it feels like for a change.
Sure, those of us in the dying middle class usually despise greedy, self-involved people, but that’s the whole point! We never needed you to tell us what we already know. Columns about how yuppies suck aren’t exactly groundbreaking, but I guess if you throw in some swear words, then it’s suddenly controversial.
Interestingly, the idea of Communism in theory was supposed to be for people to work together for the common good. You tear people apart to inflate your own ego and conceal your lack of talent. Your comments aren’t pointed, they’re just nasty and self-serving. I hurt people with my accuracy, not blind rage or insanity as you claim in the blogosphere, and I hope to Gods you cry a river because it could end up being another dry summer… for your now-defunct writing career that is. Fucking loser. Go kiss Karl Marx’s rotting corpse ass you fucking pinko.
See? I can be ‘controversial’ too.
SMS
Sarah Michelle Spinosa
March 14, 2008 at 4:32 am
Sarah,
Wow. Great post! I don’t have your email address, but I would like to extend to you an invitation to join my blog team over at the Orange Juice blog. Several of my bloggers have their own blogs. Writing for the Orange Juice just gives them a chance to access a wider audience. If you are interested, please email me at apedroza@earthlink.net.
Thanks.
Art Pedroza
March 16, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Wow - amazingly immature, angry rhetoric. Let me get this straight - you call yourself a lesbian, but just got divorced and have one child. Was that a marriage of convenience, were just in it for the sperm, or were you actually in love with the guy who was “married to you just for your income”? You write “I’m currently partnered with a woman who married a man to get him into the country and recently divorced someone who only loved me for my income (which of course I no longer have) so I’m acutely aware that marriage is no longer sacred.”
Is marriage only not sacred because your conclusion that the man you married “only loved me for my income” - which may be true, but doesn’t explain why you married him if you are a lesbian - if that is the basis for your conclusion that marriage is not sacred, maybe you should look at what you brought to your marriage - sounds like a lie, since you cannot have a legitimately committed marriage to a man if you are a lesbian. Or did the lesbianism occur afterwards, when you were trying to find yourself?
March 16, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Ohh.. bringing the fight to me huh? If what I wrote was angry, immature rhetoric, then perhaps you should read some of Commie Girl’s column. You’ll put things in perspective pretty quickly when you realize that I’m Plato by comparison.
In terms of my ‘marriage,’ I disclose personal information on a need-to-know basis like everyone else. How I got to where I am is none of your concern and is private. Argue the merits instead of being another hypocrite.
Is that all you got Rebecca?
SMS
March 16, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Sorry - not Commie Girl, and frankly NOT a fan of hers. But again, why don’t you try to address the issues themselves?
First, from an objective point of view your response is very angry in tone, and is an extensive personal attack. I can’t comment upon Commie Girl’s aspect of the exchange other than the part posted on your blog, but that was not comparable in tone to yours.
Second: As to the issue of your marriage - YOU used it to make a point in your post, and the inquiry certainly seems relevant to the foundation upon which you base the very ideas you espouse. If you do not want people asking about those things, don’t share them. If you act like you are an open page (where you are from, your families involvement in Massachusetts politics, your marriage and divorce, your religion, your sexuality/sexual preference, etc. AND use these to legitimize or support your opinion and/or cerdentials, well do not be surprised or shocked to have a legitimate inquiry, especially if it is on a hot button topic upon which you appear to vacillate. Marriage can be sacred, and sacred can be defined in may ways depending on one’s spiritual views. If you want to make the point that the state’s role in marriage should mean only a legal contract of civil union with associated legal rights, and should be totally unconnected to the term “marriage” which is strictly a religious construct and should remain so, than great - make the point. Make it clearly. You do not have to insert your personally history to make your point. When you do, and make it part of your “cred” for making the point, it seems ridiculous to complain about someone inquiring into your PUBLICLY SHARED “private” life.
And please expound as to how any of this is hypocritical on my part?
March 16, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Ok. You raise two good points. However…
What you see as an unprovoked overreaction actually started about a week beforehand. Rebecca called me all kinds of crazy simply because I got fed up with her ‘communastiness.’ If you haven’t read her attack posts on The Liberal OC yet then I suggest you do lest you come to this debate unprepared.
As far as an inquiry into my private life. I only feel obligated to disclose facts about my life that I deem appropriate. Sure, I agree that you have a right to ask, but I also have a right to decline to answer.
It’s usually OK to ask someone who they’re sleeping with, but usually not OK to ask what positions they use, how long it lasts, etc, unless you’re a close friend. Under the circumstances, I can’t exactly say I’m among friends.
Moreover, do you value your own privacy? I thought you might.
SMS
March 16, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Could not readily find the posts - guide me and I will read them. I was not meaning to inquire who you are sleeping with, rather, I was attempting to make the point marriage can in fact be sacred, for those of any sexual orientation. I respectfully think that your shared experiences toward marriage between you and your present partner have obviously skewed your view on the issue of sanctity of marriage. I was probably being too cute with my “for the sperm” comment, so I apologize for that, but it was a legitimate inquiry predicated upon your apparent view that the marriage failed because he only cared for your income. That and your current partner, who married a man simply to get him in the country - a truly jaded ( and dishonest, may I add) way to circumvent the law that says nothing about marriage, but a lot about your partner (again, not intended as an attack, bit to use her as an example of why marriage is not sacred - she was abusing the concept to get someone she apparantly did not have any intention of committing to for life something that is offered under the law solely to reflect a social honoring of that very commitment.
Marriage - lifetime commitment of love, for better and for worse, is a sacred thing, inside or outside of church. Our social laws should not discriminate based on sexual orientation, and legally recognized bonds, whether called marriage or “civil union” should not be parsed out in a discriminatory manner. However, the values underlying the marital/civil union bond should not be taken in a less than sacred manner, or you lose the entire purpose of the concept of a marital commitment in the first place. THAT would be a horrible result for all.
Not as much of an attack as you imagined, I’ll bet.
March 16, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Actually I can’t really say I disagree. I just value any privacy I can’t spare in order to make a point.
And I’m actually rather civil. I love debate and I hate argument. I admit when I’m wrong, but I don’t accept half-baked evidence. I’m sorry if I come across as argumentative, but I’m still on edge from the ‘Liberal OC’ incident. Search on ‘homophobic’ on that blog and my comments are in some of those articles relating to privacy on the internet and gay marriage.
SMS