No Ted Rall on Air America
As one of the few liberals to have worked as a host for AM talk radio for a major station (KFI AM 640, Los Angeles, from 1998 through 2000), I'm getting deluged with email asking whether I'll be part of the new Air America leftie radio syndicate that debuts tomorrow.
I haven't been asked.
As I describe in my upcoming book WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL, I had discussions with the predecessor to Air America, AnShell Media, but the new Air America has decided to take a less partisan, less overtly liberal political stance than the "left wing Rush Limbaugh/Clear Channel Communications" approach originally conceived by AnShell. That may be why they've excluded progressive voices.
Their roster includes some brilliant comedians--I'm a fan of both Al Franken and Janeane Garafalo--and it seems that that's the direction Air America management wants to go: the leftism goes down easier with a dose of humor. While my KFI show did include a lot of humor, including Dave Eggers' "Brooklyn Traffic", "Dial a Dump" and the infamous "Stan Trek 2000" reality tour of Central Asia, my approach really was to attempt to be the left-wing Rush--aggressive, unfair to the Republican right, and unabashedly unashamed about promoting a liberal agenda. If Air America ever heard my aircheck tapes, they probably thought I was a little too strident for their tastes.
I wish them well, but to be honest, I believe that Air America is doomed.
First and foremost, political talk radio is a difficult medium, very personal and different than televised and stand-up comedy. Listeners to AM talk radio crave honesty, straightforwardness, the ability to think on your feet when dealing with callers. You also have to know your shit, backwards and forward. It took me a year to find my legs on the air; the Air America hosts won't have that much time. If I'd been a member of the management, I would have eschewed the big/expensive names in favor of lesser-known liberal hosts with on-air experience in the medium.
Second, moderation is death. Like many Democrats, I listen to Rush and Hannity because they piss me off. It looks like Air America wants to convince Republicans by becoming their friends. That won't work. Democrats want to hear a strident voice echoing their opinions; Republicans want to throw something at those Goddamn commies. Putting soft liberals on the air--Franken, I read somewhere, favored the war in Afghanistan--doesn't accomplish that.
Third, the distribution model doesn't make sense. Air America is only on six small stations. Here in New York, their WLIB is currently the home of obscure Carribean hits (yes, really). If you're going to buy a station outright or take over its programming, you need to make a big splash. Here in New York, that would have required buying a big 50,000-watt talker like WABC or WOR, where an audience already exists for talk radio. Granted, that would have been prohibitively expensive. A far more intelligent approach would have been the slow build model. Right-wing talk radio, after all, didn't spring up overnight. It started in the late 1970s. If Air America were serious, it would have begun acquiring stations in smaller markets, using their airwaves as a farm system to develop on-air talent for future national syndication. Buying small stations in big markets is an attempt to make a big political splash during an election year, not build a radio network.
Lastly, what happens if Kerry wins? The real test for leftie talk radio, as I can attest from my experience during the Clinton era, is whether it can attack a Democratic president from the left. Right-wing talk radio hosts like Rush often attack Bush from the right; they lose credibility when they suck up to authority. One suspects that Air America's milquetoast approach won't allow for that sort of thing.
Air America was a good idea, but its execution sucks.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
They're Socialists
When the French Socialist Party swept elections a few days ago, one of the notable aspects of American media coverage was a reluctance to call them what they are: socialists. Fox News called them "the opposition party." The New York Times called them "the left."
This is what it's come to: Now that the political pendulum is swinging left in Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, France and elsewhere, corporate/state-controlled media outlets hope the trend will starve due to lack of coverage. It's a strange tactic, unlikely to succeed, but it's worth noting nonetheless.
When the French Socialist Party swept elections a few days ago, one of the notable aspects of American media coverage was a reluctance to call them what they are: socialists. Fox News called them "the opposition party." The New York Times called them "the left."
This is what it's come to: Now that the political pendulum is swinging left in Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, France and elsewhere, corporate/state-controlled media outlets hope the trend will starve due to lack of coverage. It's a strange tactic, unlikely to succeed, but it's worth noting nonetheless.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Save the Date: Huge NYC ATTITUDE Book Signing Party
More than a dozen cartoonists—David Rees ("Get Your War On")(, Mickey Siporin, Tom Tomorrow ("This Modern World"), Mikhaela Reid ("The Boiling Point"), Neil Swaab ("Rehabilitating Mr. Wiggles"), Ruben Bolling ("Tom the Dancing Bug"), Emily Flake ("Lulu Eightball"), Jason Yungbluth ("Deep Fried"), Peter Kuper ("Eye of the Beholder"), Scott Bateman, Ward Sutton ("Schlock 'N' Roll"), Jen Sorensen ("Slowpoke"), Tim Krieder ("The Pain—When Will It End?") and yours truly ("Search and Destroy")—from the ATTITUDE 1 and 2 compilations will be on hand on Thursday, April 29, 2004 at New York City's "Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art" to celebrate the release of ATTITUDE 2: THE NEW SUBVERSIVE ALTERNATIVE CARTOONISTS.
There will be food, drinks, milling around, gossiping, cartoons on the wall and, of course, your chance to get copies of ATTITUDE 1 and 2 signed by the cartoonists, who will also have their own books on hand.
Time will be either 6 or 7 pm, more details to be posted here as they become known.
P.S. Actually both books are the same size. Why they aren't in the above images, I don't know. I blame the Clinton Administration.
More than a dozen cartoonists—David Rees ("Get Your War On")(, Mickey Siporin, Tom Tomorrow ("This Modern World"), Mikhaela Reid ("The Boiling Point"), Neil Swaab ("Rehabilitating Mr. Wiggles"), Ruben Bolling ("Tom the Dancing Bug"), Emily Flake ("Lulu Eightball"), Jason Yungbluth ("Deep Fried"), Peter Kuper ("Eye of the Beholder"), Scott Bateman, Ward Sutton ("Schlock 'N' Roll"), Jen Sorensen ("Slowpoke"), Tim Krieder ("The Pain—When Will It End?") and yours truly ("Search and Destroy")—from the ATTITUDE 1 and 2 compilations will be on hand on Thursday, April 29, 2004 at New York City's "Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art" to celebrate the release of ATTITUDE 2: THE NEW SUBVERSIVE ALTERNATIVE CARTOONISTS.
There will be food, drinks, milling around, gossiping, cartoons on the wall and, of course, your chance to get copies of ATTITUDE 1 and 2 signed by the cartoonists, who will also have their own books on hand.
Time will be either 6 or 7 pm, more details to be posted here as they become known.
P.S. Actually both books are the same size. Why they aren't in the above images, I don't know. I blame the Clinton Administration.
To Declassify or Not to Declassify
Republican Congessmen are threatening to declassify Richard Clarke's closed-door testimony from 2002 in a bid to show inconsistencies between his analysis of the events leading up to 9/11 then and the story he tells now. Of course, Washington insiders say, there are no such inconsistencies--it's merely a Republican smear campaign to discredit Clarke in retaliation for telling the truth as he sees it.
As the debate over Clarke's book rages, why aren't Democrats focusing on the obvious retort? Namely, that declassifying classified information solely for partisan politicans is unpatriotic and potentially, since it would jeopardize national security, treasonous. Then, if Republicans say that the information isn't really all that secret, Democrats could fault them for using classification to keep secrets from the American people. It would really be quite beautiful; too bad no one in Washington has any imagination.
Like everyone with a brain, I can't help rubbing my hands with glee at the sight of Clarke's revelations. The fact that he's a loyal Republican, extremely hawkish and articulate helps sell his story (and his book). But I would caution progressives not to fall in love with the guy.
First of all, he's still a hawk. In his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke boasts that providing the Afghan mujahedeen with Stinger missiles was his (good) idea--even though the Soviet defeat it created led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia. And he continues to spread the all too widely accepted lie that, while Iraq was an illegitimate war based on lies about WMDs and imminent dangers therefrom, Bush's invasion of Afghanistan was a logical and justifiable response to 9/11. Nothing, as I and others have written to the point of exhaustion elsewhere, could be further from the truth. Afghanistan, like Iraq, was a distraction from the real threat (in Pakistan). Like Iraq, it made things worse rather than better from the standpoint of eliminating terrorism--Al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan is greater now than before the war. And like Iraq, Afghanistan was motivated by access to energy resources. So Clarke isn't exactly a wise man, but rather a disgruntled Republican operative with a book and a story to tell that, with luck, will contribute to Bush's defeat this November.
Republican Congessmen are threatening to declassify Richard Clarke's closed-door testimony from 2002 in a bid to show inconsistencies between his analysis of the events leading up to 9/11 then and the story he tells now. Of course, Washington insiders say, there are no such inconsistencies--it's merely a Republican smear campaign to discredit Clarke in retaliation for telling the truth as he sees it.
As the debate over Clarke's book rages, why aren't Democrats focusing on the obvious retort? Namely, that declassifying classified information solely for partisan politicans is unpatriotic and potentially, since it would jeopardize national security, treasonous. Then, if Republicans say that the information isn't really all that secret, Democrats could fault them for using classification to keep secrets from the American people. It would really be quite beautiful; too bad no one in Washington has any imagination.
Like everyone with a brain, I can't help rubbing my hands with glee at the sight of Clarke's revelations. The fact that he's a loyal Republican, extremely hawkish and articulate helps sell his story (and his book). But I would caution progressives not to fall in love with the guy.
First of all, he's still a hawk. In his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke boasts that providing the Afghan mujahedeen with Stinger missiles was his (good) idea--even though the Soviet defeat it created led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia. And he continues to spread the all too widely accepted lie that, while Iraq was an illegitimate war based on lies about WMDs and imminent dangers therefrom, Bush's invasion of Afghanistan was a logical and justifiable response to 9/11. Nothing, as I and others have written to the point of exhaustion elsewhere, could be further from the truth. Afghanistan, like Iraq, was a distraction from the real threat (in Pakistan). Like Iraq, it made things worse rather than better from the standpoint of eliminating terrorism--Al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan is greater now than before the war. And like Iraq, Afghanistan was motivated by access to energy resources. So Clarke isn't exactly a wise man, but rather a disgruntled Republican operative with a book and a story to tell that, with luck, will contribute to Bush's defeat this November.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Gone to Bed in America
All of the copies of WAKING UP IN AMERICA are gone. This also means the end of the Bourgeois Offer concerning the two books and original artwork.
I still have some copies of ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED left, so if you want one now's the time to pipe up.
COMING SOON: The moving sale continues! I'll be auctioning off some Ted Rall-related rarities.
P.S. For those who've asked, "Terror Widows" is still on tour, and it goes to whoever offers the most cash upon its return. High bid so far is (gasp) $4,000.
All of the copies of WAKING UP IN AMERICA are gone. This also means the end of the Bourgeois Offer concerning the two books and original artwork.
I still have some copies of ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED left, so if you want one now's the time to pipe up.
COMING SOON: The moving sale continues! I'll be auctioning off some Ted Rall-related rarities.
P.S. For those who've asked, "Terror Widows" is still on tour, and it goes to whoever offers the most cash upon its return. High bid so far is (gasp) $4,000.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Thursday, March 18, 2004
More Reviews of ATTITUDE 2 Alternative Cartoon Anthology
The ever-prestigious Sequential Tart gives ATTITUDE 2 a 9 out of 10 score:
My pals at Seattle's Eat the State! have this to say:
The ever-prestigious Sequential Tart gives ATTITUDE 2 a 9 out of 10 score:
Sadly, I think this is the last review I'll be writing for Tart. Perhaps it's appropriate that the book I'm reviewing is about attitude, subversion, and alternatives to the mainstream in a section of graphic art. Just as Tart was once the "new subversive alternative" web site, the cartoonists interviewed in this book are true radicals in a very conservative world.
Lavishly illustrated with some of the funniest, most honest, and provocative cartoons you're going to see anywhere, the book featured some of the cartoonists I read most regularly and admire most. The mix of interview subjects is diverse, both in terms of gender and race. I was so grateful to see some of my favorite female cartoonists featured that I just about cried. Emily S. Flake (Lulu Eightball), Alison Bechdel (Dykes to Watch Out For), and Marian Henley (Maxine — I adore this cartoon series!) are just some of the women featured here. So many creative women in one setting! Things are changing! Slowly. But changing, they are.
I should also mention that I also like a lot of the men featured here, too. Keith Knight (The K Chronicles), Shannon Wheeler (of the classic Too Much Coffee Man), Aaron McGruder (Boondocks, the best comic strip of its kind since Bloom County), and David Rees (Get Your War On, the comic strip collection that helped me come to grip with the insanity of the post 9/11 world) are all featured here.
I was rather pleased to find that I've read the work about 2/3rds of the people featured in the book and am fans of most of them. On a personal note, it choked me up a bit to find that Tak Yoyoshima is now an alternative cartoonist, as I remember his name from back in the day when Tart started. I mean, how many people called Tak do you know?
You need this book. If you don't support works like this, you're hopelessly mainstream, square, unhip, and reactionary. Bad things to be, folks. Blow your mind open with Attitude and Attitude 2. The mind you save may be your own.
My pals at Seattle's Eat the State! have this to say:
Aaron McGruder is just one of the cartoonists featured and interviewed in Attitude 2: The New Subversive Alternative Cartoonists, edited by Ted Rall. Others include Max Cannon (Red Meat); Keith Knight (The K Chronicles, [th]ink); Alison Bechdel (Dykes to Watch Out For); David Rees (Get Your War On); Marian Henley (Maxine!); Brian Sendelbach (Smell of Steve, Inc.); and Stephen Notley (Bob the Angry Flower)--21 artists in all. Rall interviews each cartoonist about their craft, providing an interesting inside view of the life of alternative cartooning, and offers a few pages of selected strips by each one. Attitude 2 follows on the success of Rall's first Attitude anthology, which was slightly more focused on political cartooning; the second anthology is slightly more eclectic, but the political content is still strong. Many of these cartoonists are only published in a few alternative city weeklies around the country, so this anthology does a great service by bringing together the cream of contemporary cartooning that most of us never get to see. The large-format book is available for $13.95 from NBM Publishing, http://www.nbmpublishing.com. --Lansing Scott
Sunday, March 14, 2004
First Review of ATTITUDE 2 Appears
James Heflin gives the anthology the full treatment in the Valley Advocate:
James Heflin gives the anthology the full treatment in the Valley Advocate:
Forget the Lasagna
Attitude 2, Ted Rall's compilation of alternative cartoonists, goes beyond Garfield
by James Heflin - March 11, 2004
The real news is usually found on the comics page. Doonesbury , Bloom County and Boondocks have all been torchbearers for higher truths than the often-constricted views of mainstream news copy, and that's just the comics page in daily newspapers.
If you couldn't care less that a cat likes lasagna or that Cathy's having a crisis about what freaking bathing suit to buy, peek between the covers of alternative weeklies, and you'll find plenty of comics that refuse to play dumb. This Modern World often brings news stories into play that get short shrift in the mainstream press; Ted Rall casts a harsh eye on the Bush administration with his crudely drawn strip. Rall, also a writer whose work can regularly be found on alternative news sites, compiled the book Attitude, a fine introduction to the world of "alternative cartoonists."
Rall continues the project with Attitude 2 , which features interviews and a sampling of work from 21 cartoonists whose work is regularly found in alternative weeklies. Many of them may be familiar -- Alison Bechdel's Dykes to Watch Out For, Marian Henley's Maxine and Eric Orner's The Most Unfabulous Social Life of Ethan Green, among others, have appeared in the Advocate.
The cartoonists range from merely being alternative because they feature gay characters to being downright disturbing. Neil Swaab's Rehabilitating Mr. Wiggles pushes the envelope more than most, focusing on a pedophile teddy bear who leaves far too little to the imagination. The non-pedophilia Mr. Wiggles strips are often gruesome or explicit enough to embarrass a sailor. Swaab says his strip is about "laughing at the darker aspects of life, finding humor in the sickest regions of the human psyche." So it's not Family Circus , then.
Unusual styles are on offer, too. Greg Peters uses clip art, photos and drawing in combination to produce Suspect Device, a strip that takes on the eternal circus of Louisiana politics in grand style. His deft combining of styles makes for the most visually impressive strip in the book. David Rees also uses clip art to great effect, providing a dissonance between a strait-laced look and adolescent-voiced skewering of the logic behind current political moves (Clip art guy with necktie #1 -- "Oh my God, this War or Terrorism is gonna rule! I can't wait until this war is over and there's no more terrorism." Clip art guy with necktie #2 -- "I know! Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War on Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore? It'll be just like that!").
If you like your cartoons to focus on humor rather than political fire, two major standouts are evident. Max Cannon's Red Meat ("miasmic molasses for the masses") plies a strange brand of humor that's either immediately funny or just plain inexplicable. His drawing style is somewhat like Rees's clip art, plainly drawn, iconic and decidedly un-dynamic, usually featuring three frames of the same drawing with different dialogue. His very Bob Dobbs "pipe-smoking Dad" character happily espouses some unusual notions. In one strip, he offers someone an "odd job": "You know ... I'd happily pay you four dollars to thrash around on a vinyl tarp covered in melted butter while I throw oranges at you." In another, he goes trick or treating naked for UNICEF. He also gets up at five and enjoys the "sublime anticipation" of waiting for an apricot to explode in the microwave.
Jennifer Berman makes a major play for the "funniest" crown as well, offering single-panel comics that rely on a peculiar variety of humor somewhat akin to Gary Larson's Far Side . Sometimes it's gut-splitting (though just the words without the visual don't make quite the same impact): the Dalai Lama gets excited at his birthday party -- "Wow! Nothing! Just what I always wanted!" A male dog eyes a comely female: "I wonder what she looks like with her collar off!"
Rall's entire book is a fascinating break from the tired, expected lightness of the daily comics page. The humor here takes far more risks, and the politics move far beyond the safety of journalistic attempts at objectivism. Attitude 2 would be worth a look just for the interviews that reveal intriguing glimpses behind the actual strips, but the book also serves as a useful starting point for further explorations of these cartoonists whose work is often harder to find than Garfield, if far more worthy of print.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
"Real Americans" on eBay
I don't vouch for this seller or anything, but I noticed that there is a copy of the freshly out-of-print Real Americans Admit: The Worst Thing I've Ever Done! for auction on eBay. Just trying to be helpful.
I don't vouch for this seller or anything, but I noticed that there is a copy of the freshly out-of-print Real Americans Admit: The Worst Thing I've Ever Done! for auction on eBay. Just trying to be helpful.
I Don't Know Whether Ann Coulter is Out of Her Mind...
...but she sure writes like it. This just in from Editor & Publisher:
This is hardly the most outrageous thing Coulter has written, but CAIR's response--to call for economic censorship of her work--is a call for the same kind of rancid right-wing tactics we rightly deplore when it comes, say, courtesy of the New York Times or Clear Channel Communications. Shutting each other up will only makes our currently polarized nation more so.
...but she sure writes like it. This just in from Editor & Publisher:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today asked newspapers to consider dropping Ann Coulter after her March 3 column that implied Muslims "smell bad."
None of Coulter's approximately 50 clients have complained about the column so far, according to Universal Press Syndicate Director of Communications Kathie Kerr.
In the column, Coulter wrote: "Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed')."
This is hardly the most outrageous thing Coulter has written, but CAIR's response--to call for economic censorship of her work--is a call for the same kind of rancid right-wing tactics we rightly deplore when it comes, say, courtesy of the New York Times or Clear Channel Communications. Shutting each other up will only makes our currently polarized nation more so.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
New York Times Cartoon Censorship Story - as seen by the right
You might expect conservative commentators to set aside rank partisanship in the face of rank censorship--especially when a "liberal" paper like The New York Times carries it out. And since I've always come out against campus "hate speech" strictures and other attempts to censor right-wing speech, you might expect to see a little gratitude coming from my fellow pundits--even if we don't plan to vote for the same Yalie this fall.
You might expect that members of the media would be concerned when one of their own is silenced as the result of a concerted campaign of harrassment and intimidation by political ideologues. The same thing, after all, could happen to them.
You might expect--but you'd be wrong. The pro-war, Bush apologist New York Press favors censorship--and says so on Page 2 this week.
The generic warbloggers have the usual argument:
Of course, no one has the "right" to be published anywhere. But only a simpleton, or a right-wing blogger typing in his parents' basement in Tennessee, would fail to see the danger to a free media in an editor who caves into rank political pressure when making editing decisions. An independent press must be responsive to its readers, but that doesn't mean running scared of a creator some 13 years after you started running his work because some people oppose his politics. If opinion mongers have to worry about getting fired every time they venture off the political mean, the next thing you know, the entire op-ed page will be covered with nothing but bland, middle-of-the-road moderates.
Oh.
Anyway, it's more important than ever that those who believe that singling out a creator for censorship simply because he opposes Resident Bush speak out. If you haven't done so already, please write the Times:
Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital
New York Times Letters to the Editor
Ombudsman Daniel Okrent
If the shoe were on the other ideological foot, if a strident conservative had been shitcanned from the Times website simply because liberals didn't like him or her, you can be damned sure that I'd still be urging you to speak up.
You might expect conservative commentators to set aside rank partisanship in the face of rank censorship--especially when a "liberal" paper like The New York Times carries it out. And since I've always come out against campus "hate speech" strictures and other attempts to censor right-wing speech, you might expect to see a little gratitude coming from my fellow pundits--even if we don't plan to vote for the same Yalie this fall.
You might expect that members of the media would be concerned when one of their own is silenced as the result of a concerted campaign of harrassment and intimidation by political ideologues. The same thing, after all, could happen to them.
You might expect--but you'd be wrong. The pro-war, Bush apologist New York Press favors censorship--and says so on Page 2 this week.
The generic warbloggers have the usual argument:
I don't have any right to have my speech printed in the New York Times and neither does Rall.
Of course, no one has the "right" to be published anywhere. But only a simpleton, or a right-wing blogger typing in his parents' basement in Tennessee, would fail to see the danger to a free media in an editor who caves into rank political pressure when making editing decisions. An independent press must be responsive to its readers, but that doesn't mean running scared of a creator some 13 years after you started running his work because some people oppose his politics. If opinion mongers have to worry about getting fired every time they venture off the political mean, the next thing you know, the entire op-ed page will be covered with nothing but bland, middle-of-the-road moderates.
Oh.
Anyway, it's more important than ever that those who believe that singling out a creator for censorship simply because he opposes Resident Bush speak out. If you haven't done so already, please write the Times:
Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital
New York Times Letters to the Editor
Ombudsman Daniel Okrent
If the shoe were on the other ideological foot, if a strident conservative had been shitcanned from the Times website simply because liberals didn't like him or her, you can be damned sure that I'd still be urging you to speak up.
Sneak Preview
Coming in May/June from Soft Skull:
Galleys will be available starting next week. If you're a Big Important Media Personality (book critic, radio talk show host, Winona Ryder), drop me an email and I'll send you one.
If you're a reader, of course, you're far more important than media types scoring free books they'll sell to the used bookstore next week. But life is unfair. Which means you have to pay. But if you really want to make your purchase count, please pre-order WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL: HOW WE CAN TAKE AMERICA BACK FROM THE RIGHT now. You'll save a few bucks, get your book before anyone else (April) and, best of all, increase sales during a critical time when stores are placing orders.
Coming in May/June from Soft Skull:
Galleys will be available starting next week. If you're a Big Important Media Personality (book critic, radio talk show host, Winona Ryder), drop me an email and I'll send you one.
If you're a reader, of course, you're far more important than media types scoring free books they'll sell to the used bookstore next week. But life is unfair. Which means you have to pay. But if you really want to make your purchase count, please pre-order WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL: HOW WE CAN TAKE AMERICA BACK FROM THE RIGHT now. You'll save a few bucks, get your book before anyone else (April) and, best of all, increase sales during a critical time when stores are placing orders.
Update: WAKING UP IN AMERICA & ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED
Some people reserved copies of my first book WAKING UP IN AMERICA (1992) but flaked out on sending their checks. (If you've sent me a payment but haven't gotten your book yet, don't freak out--I wait a week for checks to clear before Priority Mailing them.) Therefore there are still 9 copies left--and their flakiness is your reward!
ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED are going fast: I've got 13 left.
If you want either or both books, please (1) email me at chet@rall.com to say so, (2) send $35 for each book (includes shipping within United States, more if abroad) to PO Box 1134, New York NY 10027 and (3) include your mailing address and how you'd like it signed with your payment.
As I wrote earlier, when they're gone, they're gone. No more.
SPECIAL BOURGEOIS OFFER: I normally charge $400 and up for my original cartoons, but I'll send you an original cartoon (choose any from the last year--provided, of course, that I still have it), and bothWAKING UP IN AMERICA and ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED for $300. Same procedure as above applies; offer expires when I say so here.
Some people reserved copies of my first book WAKING UP IN AMERICA (1992) but flaked out on sending their checks. (If you've sent me a payment but haven't gotten your book yet, don't freak out--I wait a week for checks to clear before Priority Mailing them.) Therefore there are still 9 copies left--and their flakiness is your reward!
ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED are going fast: I've got 13 left.
If you want either or both books, please (1) email me at chet@rall.com to say so, (2) send $35 for each book (includes shipping within United States, more if abroad) to PO Box 1134, New York NY 10027 and (3) include your mailing address and how you'd like it signed with your payment.
As I wrote earlier, when they're gone, they're gone. No more.
SPECIAL BOURGEOIS OFFER: I normally charge $400 and up for my original cartoons, but I'll send you an original cartoon (choose any from the last year--provided, of course, that I still have it), and bothWAKING UP IN AMERICA and ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED for $300. Same procedure as above applies; offer expires when I say so here.
Tuesday, March 9, 2004
Tell Them We Won't Shut Up!
Right-wing bloggers are at it again. It wasn't enough to get my cartoons pulled from The New York Times--now they say my "whining" about it is unseemly. Of course, the warbloggers like to keep this tactic to themselves, they're so damned good at it. But to hell with that.
If you're tired of losing every cultural and political battle, then please join me in mimicking the relentlessness of the right. Write to the Times to let them know how you feel about them pulling my cartoons in response (solely, as they admit) due to Republican pressure:
Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital
New York Times Letters to the Editor
Ombudsman Daniel Okrent
I don't stand to make a penny either way--this is solely about the First Amendment.
Right-wing bloggers are at it again. It wasn't enough to get my cartoons pulled from The New York Times--now they say my "whining" about it is unseemly. Of course, the warbloggers like to keep this tactic to themselves, they're so damned good at it. But to hell with that.
If you're tired of losing every cultural and political battle, then please join me in mimicking the relentlessness of the right. Write to the Times to let them know how you feel about them pulling my cartoons in response (solely, as they admit) due to Republican pressure:
Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital
New York Times Letters to the Editor
Ombudsman Daniel Okrent
I don't stand to make a penny either way--this is solely about the First Amendment.
Chart o' the Day
The above chart, which will be published in my upcoming book WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL, is one of my favorite things ever. It demonstrates that, on average, Republicans always preside over periods of increasing unemployment while Democrats usually preside over periods of economic boom. About the worst Democratic presidents ever do is under Carter, and even he only saw a tiny net increase in unemployment.
With luck Americans will someday notice that their best chance of making a living rests with electing Democrats.
The above chart, which will be published in my upcoming book WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL, is one of my favorite things ever. It demonstrates that, on average, Republicans always preside over periods of increasing unemployment while Democrats usually preside over periods of economic boom. About the worst Democratic presidents ever do is under Carter, and even he only saw a tiny net increase in unemployment.
With luck Americans will someday notice that their best chance of making a living rests with electing Democrats.
New Column to Add Exclusive Details to NYT.com Cartoon Censorship Story
My syndicated column this week will include new details about New York Times Digital's decision to censor my cartoons solely because right-wing bloggers deluged them with complaint letters. The column goes online late this evening and will be sent to subscribing newspapers this afternoon.
My syndicated column this week will include new details about New York Times Digital's decision to censor my cartoons solely because right-wing bloggers deluged them with complaint letters. The column goes online late this evening and will be sent to subscribing newspapers this afternoon.
Monday, March 8, 2004
False Alarm on Yahoo
Many of you have written to ask whether Yahoo! was joining the New York Times in its indefensible decision to censor my cartoons solely due to content (the paper's statement that my "tone" is incompatable with theirs falls apart when you consider that they've been running my work since 1991).
Not to worry.
Their tech people say that a glitch is responsible for bringing up a comic strip instead of my cartoons on the Yahoo! subscription page. It should be repaired shortly.
Many of you have written to ask whether Yahoo! was joining the New York Times in its indefensible decision to censor my cartoons solely due to content (the paper's statement that my "tone" is incompatable with theirs falls apart when you consider that they've been running my work since 1991).
Not to worry.
Their tech people say that a glitch is responsible for bringing up a comic strip instead of my cartoons on the Yahoo! subscription page. It should be repaired shortly.
Sunday, March 7, 2004
Thanks, More Please
Hundreds of people have written to the New York Times since the story broke in Editor & Publisher and elsewhere, including Tom Tomorrow's popular blog, about the paper's website's decision to drop my cartoons--a decision that they admit was in reaction to getting tired of dealing with reader (i.e., right-wing) complaint emails.
I don't know whether your letters will make a difference relative to getting them to pick up my cartoons again, but I do hope that it will make them think twice the next time they decide to do something similar. If censors face as many complaints from outraged readers as non-censors do from outraged nonreaders, the balance of power may begin to shift. In the meantime, I recommend keeping on the pressure. If you haven't yet written to the Times, please do so. And if you're just looking for a website that carries my cartoons, you can come here, or to the Washington Post, or any number of other sites.
Hundreds of people have written to the New York Times since the story broke in Editor & Publisher and elsewhere, including Tom Tomorrow's popular blog, about the paper's website's decision to drop my cartoons--a decision that they admit was in reaction to getting tired of dealing with reader (i.e., right-wing) complaint emails.
I don't know whether your letters will make a difference relative to getting them to pick up my cartoons again, but I do hope that it will make them think twice the next time they decide to do something similar. If censors face as many complaints from outraged readers as non-censors do from outraged nonreaders, the balance of power may begin to shift. In the meantime, I recommend keeping on the pressure. If you haven't yet written to the Times, please do so. And if you're just looking for a website that carries my cartoons, you can come here, or to the Washington Post, or any number of other sites.
Friday, March 5, 2004
NY Times Censorship: Please Tell Them To Find a Spine
If the usual pattern prevails, the New York Times website can rest assured that their cowardly and lazy decision to drop my cartoons as the result of a concerted right-wing blogger email campaign will go unpunished. People will move on, other issues will rise to the surface, my readers will learn to find my cartoons here on my website or at The Washington Post.
The Times has the right to cancel cartoons or columns for taste reasons, even for politics. But they admit that they're responding directly to specific complaints of right-wing readers (probably non-readers, but whatever). Kowtowing to a special interest group sets a dangerous precedent. The only way they'll reverse course is if you let them know. Please keep the pressure on by emailing the following addresses:
Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital
New York Times Letters to the Editor
Ombudsman Daniel Okrent
A reminder: I don't stand to earn a penny if the Times runs my cartoons again. They weren't paying me for them anyway. And I have never complained about being dropped before. This is solely about freedom of expression, and the Times' unique intersection of cowardice and laziness. The Times cartoon section has been censored, Soviet-style: even my archives, the last five years of cartoons that they specifically approved of, have been excised by the Stalinists at Times Digital.
If the usual pattern prevails, the New York Times website can rest assured that their cowardly and lazy decision to drop my cartoons as the result of a concerted right-wing blogger email campaign will go unpunished. People will move on, other issues will rise to the surface, my readers will learn to find my cartoons here on my website or at The Washington Post.
The Times has the right to cancel cartoons or columns for taste reasons, even for politics. But they admit that they're responding directly to specific complaints of right-wing readers (probably non-readers, but whatever). Kowtowing to a special interest group sets a dangerous precedent. The only way they'll reverse course is if you let them know. Please keep the pressure on by emailing the following addresses:
Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital
New York Times Letters to the Editor
Ombudsman Daniel Okrent
A reminder: I don't stand to earn a penny if the Times runs my cartoons again. They weren't paying me for them anyway. And I have never complained about being dropped before. This is solely about freedom of expression, and the Times' unique intersection of cowardice and laziness. The Times cartoon section has been censored, Soviet-style: even my archives, the last five years of cartoons that they specifically approved of, have been excised by the Stalinists at Times Digital.
Thursday, March 4, 2004
New York Times Ombudsman Replies to Your Complaints
NYT ombudsman David Okrent has posted the following statement at http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/danielokrent/index.html?offset=13&fid=.f555e99/13:
It's worth pointing out that Okrent disagrees with his paper's final "solution" to the perceived "tone" problem with my cartoons. (Interestingly, the print edition of the Times doesn't seem to have a problem with my work.) That said, if the Times prefers the "demure" language suitable for ten-year-old readers, it's nice of them to say so.
As for the examples they posted, I stand by them. And they've all been published by many, many other daily newspapers, which might prompt the question: Where does the NY Times stand on the ideological spectrum? As the most small-c conservative newspaper in the United States?
NYT ombudsman David Okrent has posted the following statement at http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/danielokrent/index.html?offset=13&fid=.f555e99/13:
On Tuesday, March 2, cartoonist Ted Rall posted this on his "Rallblog":
If you read my cartoons at the New York Times website, you may have noticed a hole on the comics page where my work used to appear. It seems that, under the dismally lame cover of 'moving in a different direction,' my cartoons were the only feature out of 10 (all supplied by Universal Press Syndicate) that the Times saw fit to drop.
Rall went on to assert that although he believes a newspaper (or, implicitly, a Web site) has the right to publish what it wishes, he feels that The Times has dropped his work from NYTimes.com because "they're annoyed by receiving so many e-mail complaints about my work -- all of them motivated by partisan politics."
The Times, of course, has a different story. Len Apcar, the editor responsible for NYTimes.com, issued a statement that explained his position. "After two years of monitoring cartoons by Ted Rall," Apcar said in part, "we have decided that, while he often does good work, we found some of his humor was not in keeping with the tone we try to set for our Web site."
Here is the full statement:
After two years of monitoring cartoons by Ted Rall we have decided that, while he often does good work, we found some of his humor was not in keeping with the tone we try to set for our Web site. As of late February, his cartoons are no longer available through our Web site. Readers wishing to read his cartoons can find them at www.tedrall.com.
While NYTimes.com and its parent company support the right of free expression, we also recognize an obligation to assure our users that what we publish, no matter what its origin, does not offend the reasonable sensibilities of our audience.
NYTimes.com is continually evaluating the tools and services we provide. We appreciate your feedback and will share it with our colleagues.
Separately, Apcar told me that "I enjoy cartoons and I certainly like to laugh but Ted Rall's work often didn't pass the laugh test. Worse, it was offensive too often."
On principle, I hold with Apcar. Although I happen to think that Rall, while ferociously partisan, can be absolutely brilliant, a lot of his work just doesn't fit in The Times's self-defined environment. If you look at some of the cartoons NYTimes.com chose not to publish in the months before pulling the plug altogether, and if you're familiar with the somewhat demure language and imagery the paper prefers, you will immediately see the disconnect. The following urls will point you to Rall pieces that Apcar and his associates objected to over the past few months, and whether or not you find them offensive (warning: you well might), they certainly aren't Timesian:
www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2004/01/12/
www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2003/11/20/
www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2003/12/01/
They are clearly at odds with the tone of a paper that shrinks from language that wouldn't bring a blush to the face of most 10-year-olds I know.
But I'm tempted to differ with Apcar's solution. Why not just continue what he and his colleagues have been doing, rejecting Rall cartoons that don't meet Times standards? It's worked up until now. Then again, I'm not the one who would have to make the choice every day, and sometimes things like this can just make your head hurt. It's not as if Ted Rall is disappearing from the Web; if you want your daily dose, go to www.tedrall.com. It's a choice you can make, just as Len Apcar has made his.
It's worth pointing out that Okrent disagrees with his paper's final "solution" to the perceived "tone" problem with my cartoons. (Interestingly, the print edition of the Times doesn't seem to have a problem with my work.) That said, if the Times prefers the "demure" language suitable for ten-year-old readers, it's nice of them to say so.
As for the examples they posted, I stand by them. And they've all been published by many, many other daily newspapers, which might prompt the question: Where does the NY Times stand on the ideological spectrum? As the most small-c conservative newspaper in the United States?
Editor & Publisher Covers NYT.com Censorship
Their story is here. There's also a mention on Jim Romenesko's media industry news.
Here's the lead:
Boilerplate denial language, but notice the key points. "After two years..." What happened two years ago? "Terror Widows." That controversial cartoon, which put me on right-wing hit lists, ran on March 30, 2002. "Reasonable sensibilities"?!? My work runs in numerous "family newspapers," including the print edition of the New York Times itself where, for several years, it has been the most frequently reprinted cartoon in the paper.
Truth is, the "tone" of my work is not at issue here. Content is--specifically political content. The ONLY reason they're dropping me is because they're tired of dealing with Republican hate mail--most of it from people who don't even read the New York Times, but fire off rote complaints against liberal bête noires as part of their daily regimen.
As I wrote before (scroll down), this isn't about money. New York Times Digital wasn't paying me any. It's not even about exposure--online readers can find my cartoons at other websites, including those of prestigious daily newspapers that don't have any problem with my "tone."
I have to hand it to the right. While progressives throw up their hands and wonder at the dismal state of affairs in this country, they're ceaselessly working to eliminate voices that try to move things in a different direction. That's why Clear Channel Communications, for instance, retaliated against Howard Stern's endorsement of John Kerry by dropping him. Had the same thing happened to Rush, right-wingers would have created a shitstorm, but not the left: Stern's callers urged him to fight back. As he replied, there's nothing he can do. In other words, it's up to US to fight.
There's nothing I can do either.
Their story is here. There's also a mention on Jim Romenesko's media industry news.
Here's the lead:
NEW YORK—NYTimes.com said it canceled the use of Ted Rall's editorial cartoons effective March 1 because they didn't fit "the tone" of the popular Web site.
When asked why the decision was made, New York Times Digital Spokesperson Christine Mohan said in an e-mail: "After two years of monitoring cartoons by Ted Rall we decided that, while he often does good work, we found some of his humor was not in keeping with the tone we try to set for NYTimes.com ... While NYTimes.com and its parent company support the right of free expression, we also recognize an obligation to assure our users that what we publish, no matter what its origin, does not offend the reasonable sensibilities of our audience."
Boilerplate denial language, but notice the key points. "After two years..." What happened two years ago? "Terror Widows." That controversial cartoon, which put me on right-wing hit lists, ran on March 30, 2002. "Reasonable sensibilities"?!? My work runs in numerous "family newspapers," including the print edition of the New York Times itself where, for several years, it has been the most frequently reprinted cartoon in the paper.
Truth is, the "tone" of my work is not at issue here. Content is--specifically political content. The ONLY reason they're dropping me is because they're tired of dealing with Republican hate mail--most of it from people who don't even read the New York Times, but fire off rote complaints against liberal bête noires as part of their daily regimen.
As I wrote before (scroll down), this isn't about money. New York Times Digital wasn't paying me any. It's not even about exposure--online readers can find my cartoons at other websites, including those of prestigious daily newspapers that don't have any problem with my "tone."
I have to hand it to the right. While progressives throw up their hands and wonder at the dismal state of affairs in this country, they're ceaselessly working to eliminate voices that try to move things in a different direction. That's why Clear Channel Communications, for instance, retaliated against Howard Stern's endorsement of John Kerry by dropping him. Had the same thing happened to Rush, right-wingers would have created a shitstorm, but not the left: Stern's callers urged him to fight back. As he replied, there's nothing he can do. In other words, it's up to US to fight.
There's nothing I can do either.
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
Editor & Publisher Magazine to Cover NYT.com Censorship Story
I don't know what comments the guys at New York Times Digital had for Editor & Publisher trade magazine, but I'm told that there will be a piece online tomorrow (Thursday) morning. I look forward to reading what they have to say, though I don't imagine that they'll come up with more than the usual "changing our direction" BS.
Meanwhile, thanks to those who have already written to the Times! The heat is on, but we have to pursue the same dogged determination as the Republican bloggers if we're to win this free speech battle. If you haven't done so already, please scroll down and email the Times Digital editors and ombudsman.
I don't know what comments the guys at New York Times Digital had for Editor & Publisher trade magazine, but I'm told that there will be a piece online tomorrow (Thursday) morning. I look forward to reading what they have to say, though I don't imagine that they'll come up with more than the usual "changing our direction" BS.
Meanwhile, thanks to those who have already written to the Times! The heat is on, but we have to pursue the same dogged determination as the Republican bloggers if we're to win this free speech battle. If you haven't done so already, please scroll down and email the Times Digital editors and ombudsman.
Tuesday, March 2, 2004
ALERT: New York Times Caves to Republican Pressure, Cancels Ted Rall's Cartoons
If you read my cartoons at the New York Times website, you may have noticed a hole on the comics page where my work used to appear. It seems that, under the dismally lame cover of "moving in a different direction," my cartoons were the only feature out of 10 (all supplied by Universal Press Syndicate) that the Times saw fit to drop.
My trouble with the Times website dates back to the "terror widows" controversy. That cartoon, which appeared in March 2002, became the target of a coordinated email attack by right-wing "warbloggers." These pro-Bush bloggers, coasting on a wave of post-9/11 patriotism, sent out emails to their followers (helpful souls forwarded some to me) asking each other to deluge the Times and other papers with complaints that purported to come from their readers. The Times, under the mistaken belief that hundreds of their readers had complained about the cartoon, dropped that particular piece.
As I said at the time, it's their paper. They can run what they like. And I still believe that.
Since that time, the Times website has been lackadaisical about maintaining my link to their site. Cartoons often went days without geting posted. It seems that the warbloggers consistent campaign of email harrassment has finally taken its toll over at Times Digital. Because they're annoyed by receiving so many email complaints about my work--all of them motivated by partisan politics--the Times has decided to drop my cartoons entirely.
Other cartoonists have decried the censorship of their cartoons over political (rather than quality) concerns, but never me. I've always believed that papers can run whatever they want--or not. But this is different. For one thing, no money is involved. That's right--I didn't get one penny from the Times for running my work online. The syndicate was giving them the content for free--for the exposure, as they say. So when I ask for your help, please rest assured that this isn't some cheesy financial appeal. If the Times picks me up again, it won't make any difference to my checkbook.
The fact of the matter is that what the Times has done here to me--and to you--represents a dangerous precedent for a free press (or, in this case, an online press). They've sent the message that political pressure works. It's one thing for an editor to decide that a cartoon no longer works for editorial reasons, or that it's not as good as it used to be. It's quite another to cancel it simply because you're tired of being deluged with hate mail. Dealing with feedback is an editor's job. If you don't like the hate mail, delete it.
If you agree that the Times' stifling of a progressive editorial voice sets a dangerous precedent, please tell them:
Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital
New York Times Letters to the Editor
Ombudsman Daniel Okrent
If you read my cartoons at the New York Times website, you may have noticed a hole on the comics page where my work used to appear. It seems that, under the dismally lame cover of "moving in a different direction," my cartoons were the only feature out of 10 (all supplied by Universal Press Syndicate) that the Times saw fit to drop.
My trouble with the Times website dates back to the "terror widows" controversy. That cartoon, which appeared in March 2002, became the target of a coordinated email attack by right-wing "warbloggers." These pro-Bush bloggers, coasting on a wave of post-9/11 patriotism, sent out emails to their followers (helpful souls forwarded some to me) asking each other to deluge the Times and other papers with complaints that purported to come from their readers. The Times, under the mistaken belief that hundreds of their readers had complained about the cartoon, dropped that particular piece.
As I said at the time, it's their paper. They can run what they like. And I still believe that.
Since that time, the Times website has been lackadaisical about maintaining my link to their site. Cartoons often went days without geting posted. It seems that the warbloggers consistent campaign of email harrassment has finally taken its toll over at Times Digital. Because they're annoyed by receiving so many email complaints about my work--all of them motivated by partisan politics--the Times has decided to drop my cartoons entirely.
Other cartoonists have decried the censorship of their cartoons over political (rather than quality) concerns, but never me. I've always believed that papers can run whatever they want--or not. But this is different. For one thing, no money is involved. That's right--I didn't get one penny from the Times for running my work online. The syndicate was giving them the content for free--for the exposure, as they say. So when I ask for your help, please rest assured that this isn't some cheesy financial appeal. If the Times picks me up again, it won't make any difference to my checkbook.
The fact of the matter is that what the Times has done here to me--and to you--represents a dangerous precedent for a free press (or, in this case, an online press). They've sent the message that political pressure works. It's one thing for an editor to decide that a cartoon no longer works for editorial reasons, or that it's not as good as it used to be. It's quite another to cancel it simply because you're tired of being deluged with hate mail. Dealing with feedback is an editor's job. If you don't like the hate mail, delete it.
If you agree that the Times' stifling of a progressive editorial voice sets a dangerous precedent, please tell them:
Martin Nisenholtz, CEO of New York Times Digital
New York Times Letters to the Editor
Ombudsman Daniel Okrent
Monday, March 1, 2004
New Special Offer: The Last Signed Copies Ever of ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED
ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED (Rip Off Press, 1995, 128 pp.) was my second collection of cartoons. It compiled work from the earliest days of my syndication with San Francisco Chronicle Features, 1992-1995, as well as some weird side projects and a few really, really primitive toons from the mid-1980s while I was developing my current drawing style. Unlike WAKING UP IN AMERICA (1992), ALL THE RULES was a classy affair. The printing was done properly; there were comments to go along with the cartoons. Then editor of MIGHT magazine Dave Eggers helped me do the cover--it was my first exposure to Photoshop and Quark.
Unfortunately, Rip Off Press, the venerable independent that published the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, was caught up in the great comics industry meltdown of 1995. ALL THE RULES was, for all intents and purposes, never properly distributed. By some counts fewer than 1000 books were ever shipped. By the time the distribution problem was resolved, Rip Off was barely standing and the cartoons in ALL THE RULES were aging fast. The title went out of print.
Years later, Rip Off told me that, after pulping the print run to make room in their warehouse, they had found a few stray boxes in a corner. Did I want them? Of course I did, and I've sold them at public appearances since then.
Now there is just one box left. ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED remains incredibly rare, even more so than WAKING UP IN AMERICA, which sells for roughly $90 nowadays. As part of my cleaning out to prepare for a move to a new studio, I'm offering you, the Rallblog reader, autographed copies of ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED for $35 (includes shipping within the United States).
Here's what you do:
1. Send an e-mail to chet@rall.com to let me know that you'd like to reserve a copy.
2. Send your payment of $35 (check, money order, cash) to: Ted Rall, PO Box 1134, New York NY 10027. Includes shipping within United States.
3. Include a note with your payment telling me how you'd like me to sign your copy. Also tell me your shipping address.
4. I'll post a notice on the Rallblog as soon as they're gone.
MY GUARANTEE: I have no plans to reissue ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED nor to republish the cartoons therefrom. Once these books are gone, that's it.
ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED (Rip Off Press, 1995, 128 pp.) was my second collection of cartoons. It compiled work from the earliest days of my syndication with San Francisco Chronicle Features, 1992-1995, as well as some weird side projects and a few really, really primitive toons from the mid-1980s while I was developing my current drawing style. Unlike WAKING UP IN AMERICA (1992), ALL THE RULES was a classy affair. The printing was done properly; there were comments to go along with the cartoons. Then editor of MIGHT magazine Dave Eggers helped me do the cover--it was my first exposure to Photoshop and Quark.
Unfortunately, Rip Off Press, the venerable independent that published the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, was caught up in the great comics industry meltdown of 1995. ALL THE RULES was, for all intents and purposes, never properly distributed. By some counts fewer than 1000 books were ever shipped. By the time the distribution problem was resolved, Rip Off was barely standing and the cartoons in ALL THE RULES were aging fast. The title went out of print.
Years later, Rip Off told me that, after pulping the print run to make room in their warehouse, they had found a few stray boxes in a corner. Did I want them? Of course I did, and I've sold them at public appearances since then.
Now there is just one box left. ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED remains incredibly rare, even more so than WAKING UP IN AMERICA, which sells for roughly $90 nowadays. As part of my cleaning out to prepare for a move to a new studio, I'm offering you, the Rallblog reader, autographed copies of ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED for $35 (includes shipping within the United States).
Here's what you do:
1. Send an e-mail to chet@rall.com to let me know that you'd like to reserve a copy.
2. Send your payment of $35 (check, money order, cash) to: Ted Rall, PO Box 1134, New York NY 10027. Includes shipping within United States.
3. Include a note with your payment telling me how you'd like me to sign your copy. Also tell me your shipping address.
4. I'll post a notice on the Rallblog as soon as they're gone.
MY GUARANTEE: I have no plans to reissue ALL THE RULES HAVE CHANGED nor to republish the cartoons therefrom. Once these books are gone, that's it.
Vote Kucinich Tomorrow, Kerry in November
When I go to the polls in New York tomorrow, I plan to send a message to the Democratic National Committee by flipping the knob (we have those old 1950s voting machines and I hope they never change them) for Dennis Kucinich. Now Dennis didn't do much to ingratiate himself to yours truly, even turning down my invitation to interview him for my column about as rudely as humanly possible, so I'm not losing much sleep over his failure to catch fire with the electorate. That said, he's the only liberal on the Democratic ballot. A significant vote for Kucinich will be interpreted by DNC honchos as a desire for a more liberal candidate in the fall, which might shove Kerry (pro-Iraq war, pro-NAFTA, pro-WTO, probably won't get rid of Bush's tax cuts) a little to the left.
With Kerry's nomination a foregone conclusion, let's do what we can to convince him to work harder to appeal to the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Then, after we lose, let's work enthusiastically for Kerry to replace Bush. Then, if we win, we'll replace Kerry in 2008 with a real liberal.
When I go to the polls in New York tomorrow, I plan to send a message to the Democratic National Committee by flipping the knob (we have those old 1950s voting machines and I hope they never change them) for Dennis Kucinich. Now Dennis didn't do much to ingratiate himself to yours truly, even turning down my invitation to interview him for my column about as rudely as humanly possible, so I'm not losing much sleep over his failure to catch fire with the electorate. That said, he's the only liberal on the Democratic ballot. A significant vote for Kucinich will be interpreted by DNC honchos as a desire for a more liberal candidate in the fall, which might shove Kerry (pro-Iraq war, pro-NAFTA, pro-WTO, probably won't get rid of Bush's tax cuts) a little to the left.
With Kerry's nomination a foregone conclusion, let's do what we can to convince him to work harder to appeal to the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Then, after we lose, let's work enthusiastically for Kerry to replace Bush. Then, if we win, we'll replace Kerry in 2008 with a real liberal.
Something Stinks in Haiti
The mainstream media has been long on drama and short on details relative to the anti-Aristide coup in Haiti. Who exactly are the coup leaders? Who's providing their funding and arms? Why did the US and France cooperate in getting rid of him? What role did the IMF, whose efforts to subject Haiti to "structural adjustment" had been resisted by the ousted president, play?
Emails from those with insider information would be welcomed today.
The mainstream media has been long on drama and short on details relative to the anti-Aristide coup in Haiti. Who exactly are the coup leaders? Who's providing their funding and arms? Why did the US and France cooperate in getting rid of him? What role did the IMF, whose efforts to subject Haiti to "structural adjustment" had been resisted by the ousted president, play?
Emails from those with insider information would be welcomed today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
