This Week's Cartoons



This week's cartoons will be posted online on Monday due to the Thanksgiving holiday. On Monday you'll be able to view Saturday and Thursday's cartoons in the archives by clicking "previous cartoon."

More Various



Owen asks:

Thanks for your book "Wake Up America, You're Liberal". It's a very thought-provoking and encouraging read. As a Brit with more interest in US than British politics -- blame `The West Wing' for starting me

off on that -- there's sadly not that much I can do once encouraged! Still, I'll be keeping an eye on the Democrats in case any of them show any sign of having read it...

One thing, though: in your proposed policy platform for a revived liberal Democratic Party, you suggest minimum wage reimbursement for Congressmen and Government officials. It's a nice soundbite, but surely this would exacerbate the current situation where only the independently wealthy can afford to campaign for President and Congress? Wouldn't it further lock in small-c conservativism?

That could occur, of course. I remember that, when I was a kid, Ohio state legislators earned nominal salaries that had to be supplemented by other professions to pay a mortgage on even a modest home. As a consequence, only wealthy people could afford to serve in the House of Representatives. But the big expense these days isn't living; if you're a politician it's the ability to raise enough funds to run a campaign. That means you have to have rich friends even if you're not friend--but, for the most part, only rich people have such buddies. So it's already a rich man's game. It just seems more than a little galling that the taxpayers have to provide healthcare and other benefits to Congressmen who don't support the same benefits for them.



Perhaps my proposal should be supplemented by a "maximum wage" for politicians, to make sure they live just as poorly as a minimum-wage worker without benefits, regardless of where their salary comes from.



R writes:

I am amused at the condescension of Ultra Liberals towards those with whom they disagree. They think that insults takes the place of intelligent and rational arguments in the marketplace of ideas. You are on the way of becoming as useful as a buggy whip! Irrelevant due to your vitriol aimed at those who you should be trying to persuade to your viewpoint. I am a registered Democrat and see the hypocrisy of the Republicans who send off other people's children to war while they hold their coats.

A diatribe of expletives is no replacement for sound rationale thinking or policy. You are alienating more of those who would consider your ideas Ted. Get a clue. Your anger is getting in the way of your message.

I get a lot of these emails, mainly from Republicans. Which makes me wonder: why should you care about my message being more effective? More to the point, what "diatribe of expletives" do I employ in my work? None. I can be snotty, sure, but my worst, most vicious slurs against the Republican liberals (you can't call such big government, deficit-spending nation builders "conservative") pale in comparison to the stuff Rush and Company crank out every day. I'm trying to, in my little way, counter a tide of BS running the opposite direction.



Sid asks:

I have read your last five pieces and I am convinced that you are French. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I would love to live in a world without violence, in a world not rife with insane religious positions, in a world where the political opposition is not hated. I would love to see two, or more, candidates for the presidency of the United States, actually debate issues rather than repeat talking points. Alas, I live here, on Earth.

Yes, I do have a point. You are extreme. Your words invite insane opposition, rather than intelligent discussion. You can influence people, that fact incurs responsibility. Could you please rethink your presentation?

I am French. I am also American. I'm a dual national, born here with a French parent. Anyone who wants to make that an issue is welcome to do so, with the caveat that there wouldn't be an America if France hadn't saved our butts from the British back in 1781. But I'm curious: How do my words "invite insane opposition"? All I'm doing is saying out loud what many Democrats say and think in private. And I'm totally, utterly unapologetic about being politically progressive. I am so damned tired of wishy-washy liberals constantly trying to reason with assholes who have no desire to be reasoned with. Jesus, people, grow a spine. We're getting our asses kicked out there; let's play as rough as they do.



Mark shows how it's done:

Ted,

I sent the following message to the ombudsman of the Washington Post after reading his editorial today...



Dear Ombudsman,

Your handling of the Ted Rall controversy troubles me. In my view, you have cow towed to those who don't really believe in free speech (much less dissent). As you are probably aware, there is a well organized campaign (crusade) on the right to squelch the voices of people like Mr. Rall. Thanks to organizations like yours, it appears they will succeed. Please at least be honest and admit to yourself that your actions regarding Mr. Rall were motivated as much by fear than by fairness.

Various and Sundries



Daniel asks:

I'm a long-time reader (only about three months, actually, but I've read the entire archive, including one Ann Coulter article I accidentally clicked on and was very confused by), first time writer, and I was moved to ask you a question after reading the absurd attack mail you recieved after the H&C interview. I didn't see the interview myself, as we don't get Fox News here in Canada (yet), but I can't imagine you doing anything to warrant that kind of a response. You mentioned that you do recieve civil correspondence from conservatives that disagree with you, but rarely print them because they lack comic value. I was wondering what the rough split is between the reasonable and the insane. Of course, I'm also curious about just how a reasonable attack would look. Do they point our percieved flaws in your reasoning or facts, use irony (which, as the accusations of treason against you prove, can be misread in print) or do they just respectfully disagree and occasionally promise to pray for you?

Conservative hate mail runs about 10-to-1 in favor of the "fuck you, sperm drinker" genre. The other tenth typically wonder whether I really believe the things that I write (well, what do you think?), where I grew up or what happened to me to make me so bitter (I'm not), and yes, the random promise to pray for me (which I appreciate because hey, you never know). I'm sure right-wingers receive hate mail; I wonder how many threats of violence and sexual-orientation comments they receive from liberals compared to reasoned discourse. If you're one of my many readers among the rightist blogosphere, please email me and let me know.

Full Text of This Week's Column



A technical glitch affected this week's column, effectively cutting roughly half the words. Here's the complete version.



IF IT'S 2005, IT MUST BE TIME FOR ANOTHER WAR

Bushies Gear Up for Invading Iran

NEW YORK--You've heard this song before. There's this country, see, and they hate America. They'd nuke us if they had the chance, you bet they would. Damn Muslim religious fanatics! Guess what? They have weapons of mass destruction! Either that or their scientists are about to develop them. Whatever--we can't let that happen. We've gotta hit them before they hit us! What's that? Of course we're sure! Our intelligence says so. Huh? No. We can't show you the proof. We'll say this much…a little bird told us. A little exile bird that wants to run the country after we overthrow the current regime. They wouldn't lie, and neither would we. And while we're at it, can we borrow your son for the next few years?



Colin Powell, disgraced by his 2003 fictional anthrax speech at the U.N., is closing his run as Bush's poodle-in-chief with a bravura repeat performance. His last big PR project: conning us into war against Iran.



The Administration's sales pitch for "Attack on the Ayatollahs" reads a lot like the one for "So Long, Saddam." There's a supposed "grave and gathering threat"--a nuclear-capable, America-hating Iran. Even as presented, the intel is sketchy. Iran, Powell says, has "been actively working on delivery systems"--missiles that could carry nukes. During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK went on television to show us the satellite photos. Powell thinks we should believe him just because. "I have seen intelligence which would corroborate what this dissident group is saying," says the outgoing Secretary of Rationalization. Not that there's much there there: "I'm talking about information that says that they not only had these missiles, but I'm aware of information that suggests they were working hard as to how to put the two [missiles and nuclear weapons] together." Bombs haven't even started falling on Tehran and the WMDs have already become WMD-related programs.



Powell's intel is enough to make a 2005 gold star mother pine for George "Slam Dunk" Tenet. First, it's ancient. The Iraq WMD info ended in 1998 and was proven wrong in 2003. Powell's claims that Iran obtained schematics for an atomic bomb from Pakistan are even older, dating to 1996. Moreover, the Iran sourcing--the National Council for Resistance in Iran (NCRI)--makes Ahmed Chalabi look like a Boy Scout. The NCRI, a front organization for the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), is a bizarre, Shiite, pro-Baathist (yes, you read that right) guerilla army infamous for crushing the 1991 Kurdish uprising on Saddam's orders. Better yet, it's designated as a "known terrorist organization" by Powell's own State Department.



Only the Bushiban know whether they plan to invade Iran. But, as Time magazine reports, "the neoconservative hawks who championed the Iraq war have long advocated an aggressive pursuit of regime change in Iran." Washington kremlinologists are waiting to see whether Bush will promote anti-Iran neocon John Bolton from Undersecretary of State for Arms Control to Deputy Secretary of State. A Bolton ascension, goes the word on K Street, probably means a third war. At bare minimum, writes centrist New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, "the United States will discuss whether to look the other way as Israel launches airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites," a move that could easily lead to a broader conflict if Iran retaliates by attacking U.S.-occupied Iraq or Afghanistan, or Israel itself.



Does Iran pose a threat to the U.S.? The rejoinders are obvious. If Bush cared about real threats, he'd go after North Korea, which has at least six nuclear weapons and an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that can hit the U.S. Of course, North Korea isn't the second biggest member of OPEC. Iran is, with 10 percent of the earth's proven oil reserves. Besides, no one with sense believes Bush about anything.



But enough snark.



Iranian nukes, minus a high-precision long-range delivery system, can't do us much harm. Iran's Shahab-3 missile has a maximum range of 800 miles, far enough to hit Israel. But that's Israel's problem. Iran has no ICBMs capable of traversing the Atlantic and accurately hitting an American target--and no immediate prospect of developing one. Besides, the Iranian government has repeatedly made overtures to the Bush Administration to talk about their nuclear program, only to be rebuffed. It would be truer to say that the U.S. is a threat to Iran.

I Was Waiting For Someone to Ask



MIKENOMGI@aol.com writes:

I get a kick out of you saying you will report all threats to appropriate law enforcement agencies. There aren't enough law enforcement officers in the world to investigate all the threats you must get. Besides - what officer in their right mind would go after anybody who threatened a worthless piece of shit like you? Jackass!



and



Sorry Ted. I forgot in my last email to tell you to go fuck yourself. Please accept my apologies.



and

Hey Fuckface! Oops., Sorry. fuckface shouldn't be capitalized when referring to you. I notice you post the email addresses of those of us who despise you, and would love to meet you on a street corner, preferably in Pat Tillman's home town. Tell us, Jackass; why don't you post the addresses of the few sick fucks who agree with you. Anyway, keep on posting. You are giving all us Rall-haters a forum to see who hates you the most. How does it feel to be the most despised human bein.....oops, again - I meant piece of shit - in the whole country?

Angela writes:

I was reading your blog and was just sickened by those nastly e-mails that you were bombarded with. I couldn't help thiking that a bunch of 12 yr olds had e-mailed you. I can't beleive there are adults that talk like that - just sad.



Anyway, the reason I'm writing though is I saw an unfair patter in that post. All the nasty e-mails you received, you posted their e-mail addresses. And the nice ones, you only posted their first name. I don't know if you did it on purpose, but it seemed like you were saying, "go ahead and tell these assholes what you think, but leave the good guys alone." Yeah, they were immature jerks, hardly worth talking to since you can't reason with such, but it wasn't fair at all. And I've come to expect better from you.

I publish the email addresses of those who show no respect or courtesy when they write. Right-wingers feel no accountability when they write hate mail to liberals; well, that stops here. It's my website and my email address; I make the rules. Is it unfair? In the same way that Sean Hannity treats his Republican guests with deference and his Democratic ones like Abu Ghraib torture victims, sure it is. I'm nicer to liberals because they're nicer to me. Pretty simple, and it's high time that Democratic legislators start treating their Republican counterparts the same way: Act like a pig, get treated like one. Act civilly, so shall we.



Don't want your email address posted here in the Rallblog? Don't write things you wouldn't want the world to see.



Speaking of which, tlv822@yahoo.com writes:

If you post an e-mail public....You will continue to solicit those of us that are decent enough to recognize slime for what it is.Look forward to me and many many others to fill your box with our special kudos you asshole.

Sharp-eyed Republicans will note that I don't print the email addresses of conservatives who disagree with me in a civil fashion.



And Rita writes:

Ted, I'm thrilled to hear from you. Sincerely. Since you're in an advice-taking mood, may I offer another piece? Post more positive responses. I've sent a few. The illiterate morons do not deserve

disproportionate representation, hilarious (scary) as they are.

Yeah, think I'll do that. Though it seems a tad immodest, no? Anyway, Randy sez:

I did not see you on Fox last night. I stopped watching that channel long ago. I used to watch O'Reilly quite regularly; some of his comments are right on the mark. But more and more it became apparent that he was mainly there to toot his own horn rather than calmly and intellectually argue a point of view. I'd get pissed just listening to his rude interruptions night after night. Hannity wasn't much better. He interrupts and offers no intellectual rebuttal, just emotional retorts that often have no persuasive substance.

Interestingly, most of these anti-Rall bloggers you have posted tonight are impressively vulgar and threatening. Hmmm, so these are the righteous and moral God fearing/respectful patriots that have delivered us another 4 years of the Bushiban regime? I notice they don't have a command of the English language, either.

Exactly so. So amusing that these are the so-called Christians. What happened to turning the other cheek? Where are their precious moral values?



The Washington Post Dropped My Cartoon, Yet Ran This



www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000725897

Hannity Fallout



So last night I did "Hannity and Colmes." The topic, as sold to me as well as the viewers, was whether editorial cartoons by Pat Oliphant, Jeff Danziger and Garry Trudeau about Condi Rice went too far and whether they were racist in their depictions of the Secretary of State Designate. Unfortunately for anyone who had to sit through what must have been pretty dull television, Sean "Johnny One Note" Hannity resorted to his now old schtick of yelling about "offensive" cartoons that *I* have drawn--terror widows, Pat Tillman, etc.--and barking at me to apologize. Thanks to Hannity's continuing obsession over cartoons of mine that date back more than two years (!), we never got to discuss Condi, whether black conservatives are sellouts, or whether those cartoons in question were in fact racist.



'Tis sad. I was longing to get the chance that race is a legitimate subject of cartoons about Rice. After all, she serves a "president" who gave a key speech at Bob Jones University and a vice president who called Nelson Mandela a communist terrorist and voted against sanctions on apartheid South Africa. Bush's father voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a small town to which he had no tied save for the race-baiting message of symbolism: it was where the four "freedom riders" were murdered in 1964. The Republican Party is racist to its core and Condi's skin color shouldn't innoculate her from criticism for serving people who hate people like her.



Instead, we got Hannity yelling. Oh, well. Now, on to the post-Hannity mailbag. And you wonder what kind of people vote Republican? Well, here they are:



PLigeti@aol.com wrote:

you are one of the most arrogant shitheads I have ever seen in my life.

jerryfenimore@msn.com wrote:

Rall is. in my opinion, the most disgusting excrement masquerading as a human being. Jerry Fenimore Littleton, CO

ddonley@hot.rr.com wrote:

I cant believe you on Handy Combs, and what you said about Tillman, you are one SICK sonofabitch

Whatever you say, Handy Combs.



beck1932@cox.net wrote:

I agree with Sean your the most despicable excuse for a human being I've ever

seen! Your human garbage..... I hope your mother has had her tubes tied.... Bob

Cch4m@aol.com (a regular stalker of mine) wrote:

My My what a stinking litlle asshole....has little teddy rall had his diaper

changed today. Boy teddy I'll bet you really shit your pants the wednesday

after the election huh? What a disgusting piece of shit............

Phillip wrote:

Having just watched you on Hannity and Colmes, I'd like to ask you

if you'd still believe Pat Tillman to be an "idiot" if he had died serving

in Haiti, or Somalia, or Kosovo, or Bosnia instead. Sincerely, Philip Prindeville

Portland, OR

No.



Many Republicans, who are obviously closeted gays themselves, are obsessed with homosexuality. dwimmer@sc.rr.com wrote:

You are an absolute piece of gay shit. More people than you think voted for George Bush. HE DID WIN. You are a dumb idiot. You and Michael Moore would make a "cute couple". Pathetic.

dhildreth82@yahoo.com wrote:

Looking at you on TV, im sure you have never had sex. You are very fat and very ugly, and sound like a whiney little baby. You are a ugly, fat snot nosed weasel.

Does this mean our date is canceled?



PayneDA@msn.com wrote:

I think you the worst human being in the world. You are an animal. I hope

that all the horrible, hateful, discussing comics you have drawn are visited

back a 1000 times over. May God forgive you, America will not. You discuss

me. You write and draw garbage and you are garbage. I will continue to write

any and all newspapers to hammer you until you are finished in my country.

You are an animal. You are a hateful, ignorant, animal. Thank you, David A Payne PayneDA@msn.com

ka3kzh@adelphia.net wrote:

I just watched you on Fox and I don't know of your cartoons but if you said something about Pat tillman , a hero in my mind , you are a piece of shit . Someone has to protect this country and I'm glad its not you . If you don't like this country move to Canada like your friends .

Yeah, good thing Tillman went to Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11. To, um, "protect" us. I wonder if he found the WMDs before his own comrades shot him.



neuro1953@yahoo.com wrote:

You are a female.Your estrogen level is quite high and you have 0 testosterone.I would bet that you have sexual problems.i would gladly diagnose and treat yor hormonal problem which is quite obvious.Sincerely.Dr.Tom Moore

BassmanNFL@aol.com wrote:

Dear Ted, I am a Democrat and even you made me sick. As a Viet Nam vet you

do not get it. We at war, you big dummy. Ever hear of 9-11 and all the

assaults of terrorism since 1979. I'll bet you never served a day in the

military. Every GI that has served has made it possible for you to spill you

garbage. And your comment and cartoon regarding Pat Tilman was below the belt.

I'll bet your mother and father are ashamed of you. If I had been there on

the show, I would have kicked your sorry ass. Take that, you punk.

nutclub@yahoo.com wrote:

You are a DISGRACEFUL low life to shun a great American like Pat Tillman.

In case you forgot, Pat Tillman died (A HERO) in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

You're so out of touch that you probably think we shouldn't have even gone

into Afghanistan.

I can't believe Hannity and Colmes gave you this much face time push your

propaganda.

Doug Duncan

Evansville, IN

Actually, Tillman volunteered in the spring of 2002 to go to Iraq. That's where we went first. Then they rotated back for another tour of duty to Afghanistan, where he died tragically, another young life lost for BushCo. But yes, I do think we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan. Pakistan, on the other hand...Saudi Arabia, on the other hand...maybe even Egypt.



antmanv1@yahoo.com wrote:

i know you won't read this, but if given the chance I would punish you for your homo shit.I would love to meet you boy, oh boy , would I...my name is pain and you can report me fag, but you can go to hell! you are a loser in a loser party with a loser future. bye, bye. maybe I'll see you on a street corner soon...

michael_g_b@hotmail.com wrote:

Hey, I was wondering. Do you have a birth defect that causes you to speak out of the corner of your mouth? I mean, I just want to know. You're pretty much the goofiest looking guy I've seen on television in a while, and I'm really interested to know how someone so ugly got to be a guest on Foxnews. You're an inspiration for all the closet freaks! By the way, will you be making any appearances in Texas any time in the near future? I'd really love to meet you face to face!

Thanks for asking about my facial disability. Yes, it's true--I suffer from Dick Cheney Syndrome.



Paulcamaro5@aol.com wrote:

I saw you last night on Shawn Hannitys show!,you are the most

despicable,loathsome,and detastable waste of protoplasm I have ever encountered.A pox on

your house.I hope you and your family are killed in the next terrorist

attack.The only good thing about you panty wearing linguine spined liberal scum is that

you abort your own crack babies.Oh, by the way asshole, before you refer to

me as a bible thumping idiot FYI I am an atheist.I wish I could have been there

to see the look on your face when Bush won the election.Remember asshole we

have political capital and we are going to spend it :).

DRUMDETEC@aol.com wrote:

well? aren't you? adam/ohio...red state conservative

Why? Are you hitting on me?



bobjones77@gmail.com wrote:

Saw ya on Hannity & Colmes tonight. Great job. Thanks to the wonders of television, I now think you are queer in addition to being a liberal idiot asshole.

jespada7@juno.com wrote:

You are one of the sorriest son-of-a-bitches that I have ever seen.

You're nothing more than a really sick bitch-ass bitch. F U sick bitch!

reckstam@yahoo.com wrote:

I seldom see Alan Colmes go after liberal guests. When you get him saying you don’t represent his views in the Democratic party, you are really out of step w/ America. To be left of him is a LONG ways left. And your 9/11 widow cartoon and others discussed were out of line and disgusting.

Ron

Best laugh of the day so far! Alan Colmes doesn't go after liberals? To be left of him is a LONG ways left? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha



Juan wrote:

I really was disturbed by your comments at the Hannity and Colmes show, as well as your cartoons. I believe in freedom of expression but not like that. Death is the end of one's life, and it must be treated with the utmost respect. You are treating it as a diversion. Death is not to be mocked. Are you compelled to apologize to the people you have offended? Do you have a conscience? Please revisit your heart!

Either you believe in freedom of speech or you don't. And yes, death is the end of life. But life can seem like death when you're sitting between Mssrs. Hannity and Colmes.



sierraview@charter.net wrote:

I saw your appearence on Hannity and Colmes, and I just wanted to sent you a

heart felt fuck you. You are scum, and a real ass hole. May death find you

soon you coward.Matt Minden, NV

jer.lyn@verizon.net wrote:

I was watching Fox earlier, and heard you make the comment that "Michael Moore Is A Patriotic American", among other comments.As I watched your mouth open, I could see soft streaming shit pouring out. The more you spoke, the more shit spewed out. You are a worthless punk, and you should really be shot for treason. Maybe you are motivated by sexual frustration. Perhaps you and Michael Moore butt fuck each other while your mother watches.Have a nice day!!

Gerald B. Braverman

P.S. You have my email address. Please look me up if you ever come to Pittsburgh.

Fortunately, not all Fox watchers are assholes:



Ted wrote:

Good job on Hannity and Colmes last night.  The lack of dialogue is frustratrating. I wanted like never before to grab Hannity by his ad hominem and tell him to shut up and let you talk. You kept your cool, something I couldn't have done.

Jeremy wrote:

Just bumped into you on some Fox "news" show and wanted to give you kudos for your courage for being on the program and the way you handled yourself. Well done!

Zack wrote:

I just viewed you on some horse shit news program, and I found it strikingly

ironic how i had just gotten out of a long conversation with my father about American policies. My father did the exact same type of jumping on thoughts that those bigots did to you! I think its another type of brainwashing that the news provides, I was just looking up the word hypocirit dehumanization and brainwashing. Its insane how hypocritical America is, they first dehumanize others, then kill them, then say that America loves them by giving them schools. And you are not sick as the guy is calling you now,

Stick to your principles, above all else. Mainstream Republican news programs just don't understand that there are other ideas out there besides their own. Do not say you regret making any of your comics, they are out of humor, and because a few people are offended for some reason, they should consider those whom they offend, such as you or I. So I commend your bravery of subjecting yourself to that! So yea, it would be cool if you emailed me back some of your political ideas, I would be very greatful.

-Zack

(sorry its kinda nonsensical, I was trying to watch T.V. and think at the

same time)

Chris wrote:

Thank you for (all) your cartoons! I saw you once again on Hannity's show tonight and thought you did well once more. I think you are a fine American and are speaking the truth in your cartoons and trying to get the message out that what is happening in Iraq is a national disgrace. Each time Hannity accuses you of being a sicko I love the way you respond by telling him he is helping to kill Americans in Iraq. He and his type are trully leading America down the wrong path!I also 100% understand and agree with the cartoon about the football player. once again, thank you,

Deirdre wrote:

Watched H & C tonight with the hopes of actually HEARING what you had to say. So much for "fair and balanced"...

Robert wrote:

I don't usually watch Fox news channel, but here I am in Boston on business, flipping through the hotel channels, and there you are being insulted and attacked by Sean Hannity and Michael Reagan.

I heard some words about you representing Condi Rice in fat lips and using "jive talk" but when I checked out the cartoon I didn't see either of those - I guess it fit their plan of attack, like the non-existent WMDs for which reportedly 1227 Americans and approximately 100,000 Iraqis, mostly women and children, have lost their lives over.

Kudos for keeping your cool in the face of intolerable rudeness.

I also got up-to-date on your blog and saw the stuff about the developmentally disabled metaphor.

My daughter has been a special education teacher for about a decade, and I think she would have seen the point of the cartoon and not been offended. I was a little confused as to whether you were comparing Bush himself or Bush voters to developmentally disabled kids. But I did understand that it was a metaphor, not making fun of developmentally disabled folks.

On the other hand, if I were mentally slow, I would be insulted at being compared to Bush and Bush voters.

Keep up the good work. Don't the let the bastards get you down. I enjoy Steve Bell's cartoons, too - got a bookmark for Guardian and Observer and Greg Palast and those dudes.

That's all for now, I've got to change the channel off of Fox before I vomit.

Mark wrote:

i am a 24 year old michigan resident. i just finished watching you on hannity & colmes, and i am not sure if i have ever wanted to choke sean hannity so badly. i honestly cannot stand him, or the obvious bias of the show format- but i watch regardless, just to know what they are saying. hannity is an obvious bully, nothing more, nothing less. i just wanted to congratulate you on a firm stance. sean's whole agenda was to embarrass and belittle you, and i think you should be proud of your appearance- you made the best of what he was trying to do to you. i appreciate what you have done and what you are doing. thanks for fighting the good fight.

Fox News, "Hannity & Colmes"



I'll be a guest tonight at 9:30 East Coast time. Topic of the discussion will be cartoons by Pat Oliphant et al. about Condi Rice: Is making an issue out of her race fair?

"Renewed Hope for Afghan Pipeline"



That's the headline from today's Asia Times, essential reading for South and Central Asia watchers.



Some highlights:

Renewed hope for Afghan pipeline

By Raouf Liwal

KABUL - Prospects for the trans-Afghan pipeline seem good, with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) indicating that it is set to launch a preliminary report on the US$2 billion project linking the vast gas field in Turkmenistan to Pakistan, through Afghanistan.

The earlier contenders for the project, first mooted in the 1990s, were US oil and gas company Unocal and its Argentinean rival Bridas. Both had initially agreed to pay $300 million to Afghanistan per annum as premium for using the land. But in December 1998, Unocal said it was withdrawing from the Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline consortium for business reasons and would no longer have any role in supporting the development or funding of this project. Bridas, too, withdrew from the project, analysts suggest for security reasons. But now, according to insiders, there are strong indications that Unocal could be favored by Afghan officials to return to the venture, though the company's role is not exactly clear in the ADB-led project.

Half of the 1,800-kilometer pipeline will pass through Afghan territory to supply gas from the Dawlatabad city of Turkmenistan to Gawadar Port of Pakistan. The trans-Afghan pipeline has been one of the most controversial issues among Western politicians, investors and major world gas companies, including Unocal and Bridas, since 1995.

ADB officials say the primary plan of the project will soon be released. Engineer Mandokhil, an advisor to the mines and industries ministry, told Pajhwok Afghan News: "ADB's technical and economic study will be completed and the three countries involved in the project - Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan - will hold a meeting in Islamabad at the end of November. The final results will be announced then." Gul Ahmad Kamali, head of the energy and road projects with the ADB, said his organization's part in the pipeline project was to assess the facilities, provide technical advisors, and conduct surveys.

Oil analysts in the region say whoever takes the project will reap millions of dollars each year from the venture. But Afghanistan's security has been a major concern for investors. Mandokhil added that should India participate in the project, it will give more momentum to regional business.

Turkmenistan, the world's biggest producer of gas, is desperate to get its huge gas reserves out to the market and boost its weak economy by presenting its energy supplies to South and Central Asian countries. The trans-Afghanistan pipeline will first go to Pakistan's Gawadar Port of Pakistan and then to India. The gas will then be transferred to Bangkok through ships.

Hakim Taniwal, the former mines and industries minister, now minister of employment and social affairs, told Pajhwok that the three partners discussed the pipeline's security at the seventh meeting in Islamabad, as well as India's role in the project.

Engineer Nazar Mohammad Mangal, acting minister of mines and industry, said the pipeline would give Afghanistan the opportunity to get involved in regional development and economic projects. "I've just returned from India, where I attended a conference of South Asian Energy [SAE]. Afghanistan joined SAE in this conference, so the windows of hope are open for us," Mangal said.

Salam Azemi, a former Unocal advisor, said the project was very important for Afghanistan in terms of economic and regional benefits and would provide jobs for many Afghans. Afrasyab Khattak, a Pakistan-based regional analyst, said the project would benefit both Afghanistan and Pakistan, despite past hiccups. "Our region is very backward in economic development. This project will benefit our nation tremendously. Though improper rivalry and some initial problems had impeded the business, it's a good time to seize the initiative," Khattak said.

The revised scheme, apart from the $300 million annual income, should pave the way for extension of a railway alongside the pipeline, provide jobs to thousands of Afghans, distribute free gas to the areas through which the pipeline passes, and should ensure construction of electricity and road facilities in these areas. Azemi says Pakistan-India relations should improve and the Kashmir dispute settled before the project comes into effect.

I Hate Being Right



A few days ago, U.S. and Iraqi collaborationist militia stormed a Baghdad mosque, trashing the joint. I called that entry "How to Win Friends and Influence People."



Here's today AP update:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S.-Iraqi raid on the Abu Hanifa mosque — one of the most revered sites for Sunni Muslims — spawned a weekend of street battles, assassinations and a rash of bombings that changed Baghdad. The capital, for months a city of unrelenting but sporadic violence, has taken on the look of a battlefield. The chaos has fanned sectarian tension and deepened Sunni distrust of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a Shiite installed by the Americans five months ago. It has also heightened the anxiety of the city's 6 million people — already worn down by years of sanctions and tyranny, then war, military occupation, crime and deprivation.

"Baghdad is now a battlefield and we are in the middle of it," said Qasim al-Sabti, an artist who kept his children home from school Saturday, which is a work day in Iraq. When he sent his children back to school Sunday, the teachers didn't show up.

In a sign of public unease, merchants in the outdoor markets, where most people buy their meat, vegetables and household supplies, say crowds are below normal. Many shops near sites of car bombings have closed. Adding to the sense of unease, U.S. military helicopters have begun flying lower over the city. The distant roar of jets has become a fixture of Baghdad at night. The latest escalation appeared to have been triggered by a U.S.-Iraqi raid Friday on the Abu Hanifa mosque in the Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah as worshippers were leaving after midday prayers. Witnesses said three people were killed, and 40 were arrested.

The next day, heavy street fighting erupted in Azamiyah between U.S. and Iraqi forces and Sunni insurgents who tried to storm a police station. The fighting, involving mortars, rocket propelled grenades and roadside bombs, raged for several hours and left several stores ablaze, according to witnesses.

Almost simultaneously, clashes broke out in at least five other Baghdad neighborhoods. In all, at least 10 people, including one American soldier, were killed throughout the capital Saturday. Lt. Col. James Hutton, spokesman for the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division, which is in charge of security in Baghdad, acknowledged that there has been an increase in insurgent activity in the capital. But he linked the increase to the fighting in Fallujah, where U.S. troops are still fighting pockets of resistance after recapturing the city last week, rather than the raid on the Abu Hanifa mosque.

I'm just a cartoonist and writer sitting on my ass in front of a computer. Maybe because I've spent a little time in the Middle East and talk to Muslims, I saw this one coming.



Why didn't the Pentagon?

FYI



I now accept PayPal for original artwork, books, etc.

Ted Rall on Air America Monday Morning



I'll be a guest on Air America's "Unfiltered" with Lizz Winstead, Chuck D and Rachel Maddow on Monday morning, at about 11:30 am East Coast time. The topic will be--what else?--censorship by the media. Case study: The Washington Post. But there will be, I'm told, other things to talk about as well. Set your RCRs!



For those who live in Jesusland, you may livestream Air America online through their website.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Today's Mail



Alex writes the Good:

I read your column religiously every week. Who says the Left isn't devout?

No journalist better articulates my hopes and fears about this beautiful country. Your writing has inspired me, and made me a better citizen. Armed with information and emotion from your work (and other progressive sources), I have spent the last few years engaging people in discussion whenever I can. Like loving and responsible parents owe it to their children to teach them right from wrong and let them know when they make mistakes, patriotic citizens owe it to their country and their leaders to do the same, and your writing plays a pivotal role in galvanizing this effort. While the mainstream media rewards passivity and complacency, your writing inspires action and commitment.

When this wonderful nation behaves like a drunk driver, the mainstream media behaves like the bad friend who jumps gingerly into the passenger seat, while you try to do what a true friend should and take away the keys -- and yet it is responsible and progressive citizens such as you and I who get called "un-American" when we are the only ones actually trying to save America.

I was shocked to read about WashingtonPost.com's recent actions where you are concerned. I have already written them to express my total dismay. As I said in my letter to them, it is nothing short of shameful that they would dismiss their most intelligent, well-researched, courageous socio-political commentator, in the midst of the most censorship-heavy and repressive period in recent media history.

Ted, you have my unconditional support and gratitude, for everything you have done and continue to do for our great land.

If there is ever anything I can do for you, please let me know.

As I wrote below, I do have regrets about the cartoon that prompted the Post's (heavyhanded) decision. But Alex understands what I'm trying to do, conveying it perfectly with his DWI analogy. When this country that I adore goes off the rails, yielding to its worst impulses, it's the duty of patriotic Americans to speak up, to try to get us back on the straight and narrow.



Frequent correspondent Izzy writes:

My general feeling is, what the hell is the point at this stage.



I've spent most of my waking hours since Nov. 3 feeling physically sick and trying not to scream. I don't see any way out of this. Friend of mine says it's time to just let go of the wheel put the car in the ditch (metaphorically, scene from fight Club comes to mind...) and then go on from there. Considering the last few years, and the exponential growth in horror that we all expect to see (and are already seeing) from BushCo, what answer is there??? The game is rigged... There's no way out. As the Good Doctor (Hunter Thompson) says, "We are as doomed as shithouse rats". My signature line use to be, "Keep the faith" or "March or Die". Too late...

Yes, things seem grim. Things are grim. Our country is in the hands of a stupid, vicious dictator. He's already started sabre-rattling against Iran--talk of "regime change" is already being bandied about in D.C. We, the United States, run an extensive system of concentration camps around the world where thousands of innocent people are being tortured by our own government employees. Bushism is neofascism minus the cool uniforms.



The United States, not to mention the world, have been in far worse situations--and we've survived, even gotten better. It is our duty not to give up or give in, but to keep on fighting. This is all the more true when the situation looks bad. After all, do you want to be like the "fans" of a losing baseball team who only show up to cheer at the stadium when there's a chance of winning? Any liberal asshole can work to get rid of the Repugnicants when, as occured before November 2, we had a good chance of expelling them. What takes genuine commitment is to keep fighting now. Chin up, Izzy. And don't go to Canada unless they start rounding us up too.



MIKENOMGI@aol.com writes:

You're such a whacked-out lefty, even the NYT and Washington Post don't want you. Maybe you could do a singing gig with Streisand or that nutcake washed up hippie Ronstandt. Jackass!

This one stands for itself.

Stop Pro-Torture Lawyer Alberto Gonzales



I wrote about Gonzales in my column this week. He's a dangerous man, far worse than the departing John Ashcroft. A new website, www.StopAlbertoGonzales.com, contains everything you need to know--and can do--about the threat of his ascension to Attorney General. It's not too late--not yet--to do something.

How to Make Friends and Influence People



From today's Associated Press:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi forces, backed by U.S. soldiers, stormed one of the major Sunni Muslim mosques in Baghdad after Friday prayers, opening fire and killing at least three people, witnesses said. Another raid overnight at a hospital allegedly used by insurgents in Mosul led to three arrests, the military said.

About 40 people were arrested at the Abu Hanifa mosque in the capital's northwestern Azamiyah neighborhood, according to the witnesses, who were members of the congregation. Another five people were wounded.

It appeared the raid at Abu Hanifa mosque, long associated with anti-American activity, was part of the crackdown on Sunni clerical militants launched in parallel with military operations against the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

On Thursday, the Iraqi government warned that Islamic clerics who incite violence will be considered as "participating in terrorism." A number of them already have been arrested, including several members of the Sunni clerical Association of Muslim Scholars which spoke out against the U.S.-led offensive against Fallujah.

"The government is determined to pursue those who incite acts of violence. A number of mosques' clerics who have publicly called for taking the path of violence have been arrested and will be legally tried," said Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's spokesman, Thair al-Naqeeb.

U.S. troops were seen securing the outer perimeter of the mosque area and sealing it off. Some American soldiers also were seen inside the compound.

Witnesses heard explosions coming from inside the mosque, apparently from stun grenades. Inside the office of the imam, books and a computer were found scattered on the floor, and the furniture was turned upside down.

Say you're Iraqi--how can you not just love our troops and their local collaborationists?

I'd Love To Draw That "Crudely"



British national treasure, UK Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell, catches shit from American ideological turncoat and right-wing sellout David Horowitz here. (Scroll down a bit until you see the color cartoon.) Drawn "crudely"? Not only is Horowitz blind to the fact that he supports an Administration that uses "Mein Kampf" more as a self help book than a cautionary tale, he's obviously just, plain, blind.

E&P Covers Washington Post.com Flap



It's here.

There They (We) Go Again



If you liked the Rush to War Against Iraq, you'll love the Rush to War Against Iran(TM)! One different letter, twice the danger, all brought to you by the same colorful cast of characters!

Iran Trying to Fit Missiles for Nuclear Weapons

Powell Says U.S. Has Intelligence on Tehran's Plans

By ALAN CLENDENNING, AP

SANTIAGO, Chile (Nov. 18) -- The United States has intelligence indicating Iran is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

Wow, Colin! Do they have lots of anthrax too? Better call Kofi Annan and book another UN speech to let everyone know what a terrible threat we face!

Mohammad Mohaddessin, of the opposition group National Council for Resistance in Iran, displays an aerial photo of Tehran during a press conference Wednesday. The group says Iran isn't being honest with the U.N. about its nuclear activities. Powell partially confirmed claims by an Iranian opposition group that Tehran is deceiving the United Nations and is attempting to secretly continue activities meant to give it atomic arms by next year.

''I have seen intelligence which would corroborate what this dissident group is saying,'' Powell told reporters Wednesday as he traveled to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago. ''And it should be of concern to all parties.''

Thank goodness for those helpful dissident groups! After all, they have no motivation for lying. It's not like the National Council for Resistance wants to run Iran after a U.S. invasion or anything. Ahmed Chalabi, call your office.

Pressed by reporters on the intelligence reports, Powell said the intelligence indicates that Iran ''had been actively working on delivery systems'' capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.

Powell said there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has developed the technology to make a nuclear weapon, but suggested that the regime is working to adapt missiles for nuclear warheads.

'I'm talking about information that says that they not only had these missiles, but I'm aware of information that suggests they were working hard as to how to put the two together,'' Powell said.

Oh. Well. That's not exactly the same thing, is it? Yes, you can use a missile to launch a nuke. But you can also use it to carry conventional weapons. Or launch a satellite. I mean, heck, you could mail a nuke to New York. Would that make any country with a postal system a nuclear threat?

A senior official for the National Council for Resistance in Iran said Tuesday that a bomb diagram - along with an unspecified amount of weapons-grade uranium - was provided to Iran by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced former head of Pakistani's nuclear development which was tied to both Iran and Libya.

He said the designs were handed to the Iranians between 1994 and 1996, while Khan delivered HEU - highly enriched uranium - in 2001.

Once again, the same old story--ancient intelligence from a dubious source already caught lying repeatedly. All Powell has is a friggin' cartoon--and he's sabrerattling anyway. God, Colin, do you have anything left of your once shining rep?

Banned in the United States as a terrorist organization, the group was instrumental in 2002 in revealing Iran's enrichment program in the central city of Natanz, based on what it said was information provided by sources in Iran.

"Banned in the United States as a terrorist organization." Wow. Nice sourcing, Colin.

The opposition group says a facility at Lavizan-Shian northeast of Tehran was part of a secret nuclear weapons program. Powell declined comment on Khan, but said ''for 20 years the Iranians have been trying to hide things from the international community.''

Well, yes. Because the international community has imposed trade sanctions on them, attempted to overthrow their government and even bankrolled Saddam Hussein's invasion of them. If I were the Iranians, I might be trying to keep things discreet too. Hell, I might even be trying to develop nukes to save myself from what happened to Iraq next door. But who has more to hide from the international community than the U.S.? Since when do we open our doors to international arms inspectors? Yet we are by far the greatest danger facing the world today. We have more nukes, and we're the only country to ever have used them. Twice. On civilian targets.

OK, So Not Everyone is Negative



A number of Washington Post online readers dismayed that they dropped my cartoons in the aftermath of a write-in campaign have written to express their dismay. You can pipe in by sending your two cents to washingtonpost@mailnj.custhelp.com.



Marvin writes:

I have just heard that you have dropped Ted Rall’s cartoons. I am the parent of an autistic child, and I, like others, was annoyed by Rall’s cartoon depiction of a disabled child. But Rall was trying to make a point; he just picked an unfortunate, somewhat thoughtless way to do it. But one mistake should not lead to censorship. I hope you will reconsider your action and once again run Rall’s incisive cartoons.

Joseph wrote:

I can not believe that the esteemed Washington Post, home of the famed Watergate reporting, is caving in and canceling Ted Rall's comic. Offensive or not, one of the major reasons education is so lacking in our public schools is the policy of inclusion. Although that wasn't the primary target of Rall's cartoon, his point is well illustrated. My mother has FIVE mentally disabled children in her second grade class this year. Not only is it more than she can handle, it's a distraction to the other children in class and a serious detriment to their education. Teachers are not babysitters. Parents of mentally disabled and disturbed children often have very unrealistic views of what their children can accomplish (they're in denial) and what other people can tolerate in their children's behavior.

Rall once again had the guts to show people the ugly truth -- why do you think they're so offended? Do you honestly believe retarded children don't drool, shout nonsense and make a scene? Do you think the thousands of autistic, emotionally disturbed, and mentally disabled children aren't a cause of both fear and amusement to the other young children in a second-grade classroom.

This was another cowardly act of the media bending to the will of the bully -- be that politically correct bully or that of the Christian Coalition. You're a newspaper, not a greeting card company. You're supposed to report the harsh truth, foster debate and open minds, not shirk from things people find "in poor taste."

I'm sure the people who were offended by the doodles of Ted Rall were not motivated by his anti-war stance.

With contempt,

Someone else wrote:

do you understand how certain groups become "untouchable"...beyond criticism, and not only that, but beyond anything that can be interpreted as criticism? Do you see how a group of obsessive do-gooders can wield power? Your profession (you know, cartooning) is economically distributed...they can knock you off the Post without killing you. But what if you were a reporter? A reporter who told certain unpleasant truths, about certain untouchable groups..?



Your career could be ruined completely, just on somebody's dislike of facts. [And your portrayal was mild compared to certain true cases. For example, a family member of mine taught at a school in which a comatose boy was wheeled from classroom to classroom in a gurney. He had a full time nurse dedicated to him. If you said, "His parents are bilking the taxpayers in order to escape their own child during school hours"...imagine the outcry!]

Joe says:

It appears you have offended yet another cowardly newspaper afraid to publish hard line crticism of our government. Your editorial cartoons are no longer listed with the Washington Post online.

I am not affiliated wirth any political party because I consider myself an independent thinker. I try to look at all sides of an issue before I take a stand and form an opinion.

The severity with which you attack Bush brings me to believe you are disgusted with the direction our government has taken toward world domination.

American businesses used to rob third world countries of their natural resources by offering trinkets and glitter. Not any more; now they fight back. The destruction and death the United State Armed Forces are doing to Iraq and it's people is deplorable and unforgivable.

I know that Bush thinks he is on a mission from God to bring about the destruction of the Middle East in preparation for the second coming of Christ, but I don't understand how he can justify what he is doing to his God. Being raised in the Catholic faith, I can't make any sense of his purpose. Chritianity follows the philosophy "the end never justifies the means."

Once Bush had been re-elected, applications for emmigration to New Zealand and Canada increased one hundred fold. If all of the people who hated Bush but didn't want Kerry as president had voted for an independent candidate, we would have a new president!

Now they are all fleeing the country.

Your audience is shrinking as more papers drop your cartoons. Your wit is honest and hard hitting. How about offering constructive criticism? Maybe if editorial cortoons made suggestions to the readers along with the satire readers would start digesting what is printed and become more informed voters.

Constructive criticism? Pick up my book WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL. That's all about constructive criticism of both the right and the left.



C.S. writes:

I personally found the classroom analogy in your recent cartoon quite insightful. Upon examining it a second time, I do find your depiction of the disabled child to be overdone to the point where it is arguably offensive. But the context also makes it clear to me that by making the disabled child such a goober you were commenting on how you view Bush fans, not developmentally disabled children.

Moreover, I do not think you should have to apologize for making the perfectly reasonable argument that disabled kids don't belong in mainstream classrooms -- at least not all the time. Traditional schooling is barely tolerable for regular kids. The idea that special needs children can learn anything in such a setting is questionable at best. I have a younger sister who is disabled. As a child, she was a victim of adults who tried to force her into the mold of normalcy. She was "included" to the point where she never even developed basic reading, writing, and comprehension skills. Her learning needs were different from those of most children. She therefore needed a tailored curriculum, but she didn't get it.

In my view, you were merely saying with this cartoon that it is not conducive to learning for severely disabled children to share a classroom with non-disabled children. It's not like you were advocating that we relegate them to leper status or anything. It was a satirical cartoon aimed at a political faction that has never met a low blow it didn't like. Rather than fight amongst each other, I think we should turn our anger on those who truly seek to exclude our children from receiving adequate education. By that I mean Bush and his base (the "haves" and the "have mores," as he calls them).

More on Last Week's Toon



A write-in campaign by advocates for the disabled (they took offense at last week's cartoon in which I compared the results of the presidential election--wherein a bunch of uninformed morons in the red states demonstrated their ability to get their way at the expense of people who actually pay attention to current events) continues



One of the hazards of this profession is that it requires fearlessness mixed with perfection. Draw 200 cartoons a year that people enjoy and you'll get few if any thanks. Certainly no one conducts a write-in campaign of praise. Draw 1 that goes astray--intentionally or otherwise--and everybody calls for your head. No wonder so many cartoonists don't take risks in their approach or in their politics. People are negative; they only react negatively.



When I wrote earlier that I intended to research the subject of mainstreaming in the public schools--now called "inclusion." I will. But I'm confused. If your goal was to educate me, to convince me that I was wrong to depict disabled children the way I did with a view towards (presumably) gaining an ally in the media...why try to censor me?



If I had to draw that cartoon again, I'd take a different tack. I regret hurting people who I have nothing against. I do want to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, and I think I failed in that with this cartoon. Not to mention that the cartoon failed--too many people got bogged down in the analogy and the main point got lost.



No one bats 1.000. I sure don't.

More from the Overstuffed Mailbag



Steve writes:

With a wide grin, I read your editorial entitled “Confessions of a Cultural Elitist”. While I’m not in total agreement with all you said, it made some curious points. Unfortunately, in this society, there will always be a cultural gap between those who have and those who have no clue, those who can think and see reality and those who follow the herd. Though we shouldn’t gloat and make them feel less than they are, it’s difficult to imagine how their sub-society can exist in to the future. Sorry to see your type writhe in such obvious agony. Maybe the next 4 years will teach the “cultural elite” a few lessons.

Yes, it's true. Those of us voted against Bush--i.e., for Kerry--are in agony. I'm curious about the gloating, though. When Bill Clinton drove the right to distraction, I didn't reflexively laugh them off. I thought about it. What was it about Clinton, I wondered, that drove Republicans so batshit crazy pissed off? Most of it, I concluded, was style: his smug arrogance, though nothing on the order of Bush's, must have been grating to those who voted against him. But, especially after Clinton got caught lying under oath, a long-term pattern of sleazy misconduct rose to the level, in their minds, of impeachment. Again, what he did pales in comparison with Bush's crimes. Still, Clinton did deserve impeachment.



Back then, I broke ranks with fellow lefties by calling, repeatedly, for Clinton's impeachment. And part of what caused me to do so was the fact that Republicans hated him so much. Nowadays, as Democrats seethe over Bush's policies and style, it might behoove Republicans to consider why we despise him so much. You might not agree with all of our reasons. But if you really opened your minds, you might see that we have a point. After all, Democrats didn't hate George H.W. Bush this way. Not since Richard Nixon has a Republican president been hated this much; not since FDR has a Democrat--and FDR deserved the disdain for, among other things, running for a third term and trying to stack the Supreme Court.



Sean wrote:

I’ve decided to provide you some feedback on your OP/ED (Confessions of a Cultural Elitist) since I am one of the "Spectacularly Stupid" who supported president Bush. I'm not expecting a reply from you, only to provide you with another opinion.I live and work around the very blue city of Portland Oregon, so there is no shortage of people around here who would agree with your lefter equals smarter attitude. My support of George Bush was based 75% on common values and 25% on my impression of John Kerry's arrogance, weakness on defense, as well as his position on issues.

Come on. John Kerry MORE arrogant than Bush? Weak on defense? Surely you didn't believe those silly "John Kerry voted against defense systems 14,510 times" ads?

In light of our invasion of Iraq, I realize the idea Saddam had stockpiles of WMD’s or an active nuclear program was a mistaken one, but you’ll have to admit that George Bush was in good company on that assumption. Regarding Al Qaeda, I don’t think I ever needed to have a case made to me for collusion on 9/11 to support Bush’s decision on Iraq. The fact that Saddam allowed notorious terrorists in his country and provided support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was enough to know where he stood on terrorism.

Actually, the CIA told Bush before the war that there was zero evidence that Saddam still had WMDs, much less nukes. And terrorism is a tactic--one commonly used by outgunned combatants against a superior force, like the American revolutionaries against Britain in 1776--not an ideology. Saddam supported the Palestinians, that's true. But there was no evidence that he ever intended to, or could have, brought harm to the United States. And Bush knew that.



Bobby wrote:

As I read your article this morning, I was stunned by your apparent hatred of those of us that voted for President Bush. I can understand you supporting your candidate. I can understand discussion, debates, and even arguments about who is better suited to run our country. But, what I cannot understand is how you can insult, belittle, and demean such a large segment of the population for exercising their right to vote.

Let me make it simple. 59 million Americans with access to 100 channels and all of the world's news outlets online at their local public library, voted for a neofascist over the standard-issue American politician the Democrats put up. They voted for Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, the torture and murder of children by US troops in Afghanistan and the systematic genocide of more than 100,000 Iraqis for the sole purpose of securing access to cheap Middle Eastern oil. Not since Classic vs. New Coke has there been a more obvious choice, a simpler decision, a bigger no-brainer. But they chose, with eyes open, the absolutely dead wrong choice. It only seems natural for those of us who aren't that fucking stupid, mean and ignorant to say so.

Just because we do not agree with your assessment of Mr. Bush does not mean that we are uneducated. Personally, I chose who I thought to be the lesser of two evils.I believe that Mr. Bush is a detriment to our economy and to health care and the environment. But I firmly believe that he will do a better job of keeping this country safe from those that mean to do her harm. I believe that Mr. Kerry wanted to revamp health care, schools, and protect the environment. But at what costs? I firmly believe that we would have had higher taxes under Mr. Kerry. I also believe, that within the first year of his administration, we would have been targeted for another terrorist attack.

Dude: Dole vs. Clinton was a lesser of two evils choice. This was Dr. Evil vs. Wanker Man. Not the same thing.



Anyway, you obviously are ignorant--uneducated--on the issues and current political system. Faced with the certainty of a Republican Congress, Kerry would never have gotten healthcare reform or environmental protection enacted, nor increased aid to education. Taxes? Look at your tax bill now--it's already gone up when you add up local, state, and federal. That $10 trillion projected deficit over 10 years has to get paid off somehow...plus compound interest. As for terrorism--are you saying that Bush's close friendship with the bin Ladens would have protected us from another 9/11? Let's wait another five years and then we'll be able to judge whether Al Qaeda or its allies have been somewhat neutralized.



Mike writes:

I do admire your willingness to admit and defend the whole "we ARE smarter and superior and better and ......." Dem mindset. Most of the Dems I know are not willing to admit this to people outside of their inner circle. LIBERALS Smarter? NO. Perhaps better educated? Maybe, but there are many variables to the education equation since education extends well beyond the classroom instruction. Are Liberals educated beyond their intelligence? Likely.

Accept it and move on, or better yet, move out of this country. This country is and has been rejecting the Democratic "progressive" movement for a while now. Population movement and their electoral votes are "progressing" to the RED STATES. Objective WISDOM wins again. Long may it reign.

Sometimes the majority is right. Other times it is wrong. There is no relationship between winning and moral rectitude.



Jennifer writes:

I just read your article "Confessions of a Cultural Elitist" and I want to thank you for putting into words all the thoughts I've been having for the past several days. Why is the middle of the country supposed to be more American than those of us on the sides? Why did all the major cities, the ones that will probably be bombed first by Osama bin Laden, go for Kerry while all the flat middle of nowhere culturally bereft areas of the US--you know, the parts where no one would notice if it were annihilated--vote for Bush? And how presumptuous to think that people who use God in the name of political advancement are more morally accurate than the rest of us who choose to keep our relationships with God a private matter. Did the Puritans really leave England to escape oppression only so generations later we could live in country where we oppress ourselves? What morons we look like to the rest of the world, we fat-assed spoiled Americans shopping at Wal-Mart, drinking our 64 ounce Big Gulps, staying up all night playing Play

Station, making sure we know more about Paris Hilton than about Paris, France. It's an embarrassment to be an American these days, no matter who you voted for. The only difference is that the blue parts of the country are embarrassed to be attached to the red bits, and the red bits are too stupid to know any different. Anyway, thanks for revealing your disgust--it's good to not feel so alone in our loss.

Confessions of a Cultural Elitist



Unsurprisingly a lot of Bush voters from the red states wrote to take exception to this week's column. There were also a lot of positive responses. Here's a mix:

I must confess I check your website everyday in the hopes you've posted something new. You are America's BS detector and, in that capacity, you and the cartoonists like you are becoming our only real method of protest. Like you I grew up in a backwards facing red state (Arkansas) and I know the pain of living around a dull, intellectually-stifling environment and, as soon as I could, I got the fuck out of there. Maybe, what needs to happen is, we, as the intellectuals of our nation, need to begin to seep back into the red states and seed the heartland, or as I like to call it, the don't-have-a-heart-or-a-brain-land, with the intellectual spirit we have come to embrace. Maybe, within a few generations, we'll have changed America for the better and expose the ignorants of our society to the idiocy and the un-American-ness of their narrow-minded ideology. Well, it probably won't happen. Most likely, we'll all leave America soon and leave it for the racist bastards to destroy. Anyway, great work and keep it up!

This is a great point. It's a hell of lot harder to stay around in small town America than to flee, as I did. I have great respect for the liberals who fight the good fight in the Midwest and South. Anyone can be liberal in New York City, big deal.

If they are full of soft talent lacking people like you, no wonder Kerry lost.

I have read your spew many times and ALWAYS you come across as an inferior man who hates others who think differently.

Why would anyone keep reading something they hate? Well, I watch Hannity almost every night, so never mind.

I'm writing in response to your opinion column titled "Confessions of a Cultural Elitist." I read your opinion column regularly on Yahoo News. As an independent voter I enjoy the way that your column balances out the writings of Anne Coulter (another column I read weekly). I thoroughly enjoy both columns and would miss either if one were to suddenly disappear.

The purpose for this e-mail however, is to ask if you are taking the election results a little too personally. Your past two columns have had an almost vengeful undertone. Rather than the thought provoking writings that I

have come to look forward to, I am left with feelings of anger and remorse.

I realize that as the author of an opinion column you can clearly convey any feelings you wish. I may not represent the core group of your readers, but it sure would be nice to click on your name next week and leave with some food for thought rather than angry rants. If presented with an appropriate choice for president, regardless of party affiliation, don't you think the "right man" would rise to the top of the field long before

election day? Close elections should unite the country in search of better candidates, not divide it in a high stakes blame game.

Some good points here. Unfortunately, this election was so crystal clear in the choice that it presented that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to consider anyone who voted for Bush a moron or racist or homophobe or worse. Hopefully I'll calm down. Next week's column is about something different.

Another whining rationalization from the king of pedantic polemic. Get over it you pussy, you lost because your side is wrong on the issues. Your candidate was a piece of tofu, taking any position he felt politically expedient. His supporters were mostly high-school educated entertainers who are just learning to spell their names. I voted for Bush, and I'm an Ivy league trained, well-published East coast cardiologist. Many of my friends are Ivy league blue bloods who were Bush supporters as well. Until you geniuses understand that you need to abandon your illusions of cultural and intellectual superiority, you're going to lose many an election.

Of COURSE Kerry was a (gulp) piece of tofu. Hm. So what? He wasn't Bush. Bush is a neofascist. Bush murdered tens of thousands of innocent people. Bush bankrupted the entire government. He opened concentration camps, for God's sake. And still hasn't even TRIED to go after 9/11 guys. Kerry or Bush? Gimme the tofu, man.

I appreciate your comics. Very clever, funny, poignant, even to a conservative like me. As far as your cultural elitist article, it was absolutely insulting. Perhaps your comics intend to say the same thing, but in a cartoon, there's a hint of grace attached. You insulted my intelligence, because of the priorities that I have as an individual. I suggest that you stick to your cartoons as a more effective way to convince the masses. And on an insider's note, my vote wasn't a moral issues over war vote. It was a vote to keep this nation as a nation under God. My, and a majority's priority is not to overturn Roe v. Wade or take away the rights of homosexuals, but merely to keep this nation based upon the hand of the only God who can truly make it succeed.

Come on, dude. You think Piehole Bush is a Christian? If that man truly believed that he would be judged for eternity based on his actions in this life, you can be damned sure he wouldn't be starting wars and picking on people who didn't chose to be gay.

I have been reading your stuff for a couple of years now. I am glad you exist, and that you publish. I find your voice refreshing in that there is at least one "liberal" out there that speaks for me, I don't know, are you a liberal or a radical? Anyone who jets off to Afghanistan to cover the war must be fairly nuts, either that or you just have huge testicles. I just read your piece on how "liberals" think that the Bush crowd is stupid. I think I know why I like you so much. You don't water down your Scotch, man. Just deliver that shit straight up. I'd say that most polite people would be turned off by you, but I actually agree with you most of the time. When I don't, it is because my interpretation of facts is slightly different. For the most part however, I just want to tell you that you should just keep telling it like it is. When the tanks roll into the city and the secret police start to take down the intellectuals, I hope you have an escape plan that includes forming the resistance, lol. Perhaps one day we will meet, it is unlikely, but if I ever met you in person, I'd buy you a beer and say "Thanks." The resultant conversation would explain why...

Thanks



Looks like I've nailed the Barcelona CD I was looking for. Thanks to everyone who wrote with links and suggestions and, of course, with the CD! My fans are the best.

Special Needs Cartoon



Last week I drew a cartoon about the election results. I compared the United States to a classroom in which "mainstreaming" mentally handicapped children is in force. It's one thing, I drew, to have such children—in this case, the Bush-supporting red states—share the class (the U.S.) with the brighter kids, i.e., the Kerry-supporting blue states. Seeing the Bush supporters—who are, to a man, dumber than rocks—in charge of our country, I said in my cartoon, is something akin to putting the special needs kids in charge of the class.



Evidently some websites or newsgroups for the parents of such children are conducting a write-in campaign concerning that cartoon. I understand why they are upset. They already face a tremendous challenge raising their kids, then this asshole cartoonist comes along and insults their kids. Or so it must seem.



It is true that I oppose the whole idea of "mainstreaming," a practice that was becoming in vogue when I was in school. I believe that "special needs" children are just that--they need the kind of special attention that "ordinary" classes can't give them without sacrificing the interests of the other children. Because I remember sitting in classes where one slow kid would plunge the rest of us into fits of boredom, I also favor "tracking" students by ability. Kids shouldn't have to teach other kids. I also believe that our educational system is woefully underfunded, especially in poor and urban areas, and that "special needs" kids are often neglected. That is wrong and unfair.



But that cartoon wasn't about that. It was about Bush, and the annoyance that those of us who actually read the paper have for those who plainly don't, yet are in the majority and have the audacity to turn up to vote--despite being totally unqualified to do so. To express that, I felt that the mainstreaming analogy worked well. I still do.



It's hard enough to draw political cartoons without having to consider political correctness while trying to make a point. The question for me is, and was, does the cartoon work? Does it express its point? In this case, I believe that the cartoon works. Every analogy offends someone. As a French-American, I am constantly disgusted and offended by anti-French jokes (i.e., a French military strategist? what's that? --Jay Leno, the other day). But I shake my head and move on.



Many parents wrote me to say that their kid is mildly autistic and is a great student in a regular classroom. To them I would say, my cartoon wasn't remotely about your kid. Others resorted to blind rage:

I want you to know that I, along with many others, think you are an inconsiderate prick. I think you are scum, slime, and otherwise, a bastard. I read your lame ass cartoon about how politicians are like "special needs" children. You are a heartless bastard and nonetheless, a moron. I read your "terms of email" and I don't want a response from you so don't bother as I will delete it promptly.

May you burn in hell for all eternity and God forgive me for hoping you have a long life full of agony and pain.

ps: if i ever see you, i will make a point to tell you in your face you are by far one of the worst comics ever...not only for the fact that you are an inconsiderate jaggoff, but that you are not even funny, or serious, you really actually suck at your job. May i suggest home decorating or maybe gardening? From the looks of your picture, you would be a lot better at any of this than at the horrible job youre doing now.

Burn in Hell Jackass,

eat me

By the way, a cartoonist isn't a comic. A comic does stand up.



Then there are the more thoughtful responses, such as this one:

I'm sure you have received numerous e-mails about your "mentally handicapped" cartoon that appeared in the November 8 edition of the The Washington Post. I must admit I was taken aback by the cartoon and the offensive portrayal of a special needs student in an inclusive classroom.



I looked at some of your other work and found I was generally in agreement with your philosophy so, rather than express outrage at this cartoon, I wanted to understand the message which, I admit, missed its mark with me.



Perhaps you could explain the cartoon to me. While I may still not agree the depiction of the student was appropriate, I would like to understand the motivation.



Individuals with special needs have such a difficult time fitting into the general population; I hope you understand why this particular cartoon would raise the hackles of those who work so hard to accomplish

inclusion and acceptance for their students and family members.

I've tried to explain the cartoon above. But parents of special needs children also need to consider that many, many Americans oppose "mainstreaming" because it can come at the detriment of gifted and other children. And a recent survey of special needs parents found that 24 percent believe mainstreaming is detrimental to their own children's education. So, while mainstreaming is currently in vogue, there is no broad consensus in our society.



Then there is this mystifying offering:

I am applauded by your comic 11/08/04.

Does she mean "appalled"? Or "I applaud"?



Anyway, I am sorry that I don't have the time, staff or energy to respond personally to all of the people who wrote to me. Unlike Republicans, the vast majority of angry parents wrote polite, questioning and/or disagreeing letters that deserve an answer. At last count I received about 400 such emails, and there's no way I can answer all of them and get anything else done. Moreover, my spam filter seems to be intercepting and deleting them, possibly because the subjects are similar.



I must say that my eyes have been opened about a struggle that thousands of Americans are fighting every day, to raise their kids as best as they can while faced with unusual challenges. I plan to research this issue in depth with a view, if not towards commenting further, at least towards becoming more aware of their concerns. The last thing I want to do is make life more difficult for them.

Shout Out from a Desperate Music Fan



I desperately crave a copy of a CD by the band Barcelona called "Zero One Infinity," from March Records. If you're willing to part with this CD, you will get:



-my undying loyalty (value priceless, or zero, which are the same)

-original artwork to any one of my syndicated cartoons from the last year, provided you choose one I still have around (value $500+)



E-mail chet@rall.com if you're game.

Red State Mailbag



Ric Hawthorne writes the following:

There is an old saying or two that you might want to take to heart. The first is that when you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you. The second was imparted to me by a man far wiser than I will ever be... My Grandfather. He always said “Remember Ric, if you meet more than two a*%!$#es in one day... You may be one of them. My Cousin is Daryl Cagle, and he and his wife Peg and I have dinner occasionally when they are in wonderful Woodland Hills California. At a dinner we had a year or so ago, we were talking about political cartoonists

that I admire, and since I spilt my time between California and New Mexico, I expressed my admiration of John Trever’s work and I singled you out as someone who’s work I also admired. I take it back Mr. Rall. The past few months have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not worthy of my admiration, and much less so of my

respect. I am neither a republican, nor a democrat. I am an American. The so called “Left Elite” continually

espouse the view that those on the right think they are better than anyone else, yet what do individuals

like yourself do, but hold yourselves above the values of everyone that disagrees with you by calling them

criminals and buffoons. Ahh... The old “Pot Calling The Kettle...” trick.

Interesting. I especially like the odd personal angle, evidently designed to hurt more. The trouble is, you can't be both a Republican AND an American. Not any more. The Republican Party of 2004 is not the Republican Party of 1999. It has been hijacked by psycopathic warmongers and profiteers who relied on electoral fraud not once, but twice, to seize power. To follow such a party is patently contrary to the principles laid out by the Founders in our Constitution. Moreover: What pot? What kettle? In what respect am I a criminal? A buffoon? Maybe. That's a matter of opinion--a commodity that is becoming increasingly scarce.

You claim in your columns that the republicans do not reach across party lines... Yet you are unwilling to

practice what you preach. You accuse the Bush administration of war crimes and attempted genocide, yet you ignore the real acts of genocide Hussein practiced against his own people, the Kurds.

I reach out to Republicans in my writings all the time. I respect the proud tradition of true conservative values--those of putting America first, keeping the government out of our lives, balancing the government's budget. But the onus of reaching across party lines isn't the left's. Those in power must reach out to those who are not. That is a fundamental fact of nature. It's fascinating that Republicants have been reduced to comparing Bush's acts in Iraq to Saddam's. Pretty low bar, eh? Bush didn't kill as many as Saddam? Of course, as I've blogged below, if present rates continue, Bush's genocide against the Iraqi people will surpass Saddam's by late 2007.

I would suggest that you drop your rancor, look up terms like “Genocide” “Crime” and “Lies” to see what

those words really mean, and then begin defending the integrity of your own glass house so that your views and opinions have a bit of merit before you simply continue casting stones and dropping bombs of your own.

Done. Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." Bush bombs Muslims and Arabs in particular. And he does it in vast numbers. A crime is "an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law." Bush has violated international law by going to war against Iraq. The Secretary General of the United Nations has already declared the war in Iraq illegal. And he has held people, including US nationals, behind bars indeterminantly without filing charges against them. To lie is "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive." Weapons of mass destruction, anyone? How about the link between Saddam and 9/11?

What are you trying to accomplish by engaging in the activities that you criticize others of? Are you so

much better than them?

Fuck YES. But then, almost everybody is. This Administration is full of personalities whose acts define them as some of the most reprehensible human beings who have ever lived. What am I trying to accomplish? To get good people to notice.

Gandhi succeeded where others failed because he did not give in and adopt the tactics of his opponents. He took the high road and made it his own. You, on the other hand, have simply allowed yourself to become another voice of extremism\ and rancor, in a sea that is already full of people shouting the exact same thing.

To twist Barry Goldwater: Attacking extremism in the name of liberty is no vice. And it is not extremism itself. And yeah, I'm not Ghandi. On the other hand, it's not like I murdered 100,000 people with my cartoons, books or columns.

Try taking the high road and working for change in a positive manner, as you used to, rather than simply

jabbering about the faults of others, while you do exactly the same things you accuse others of. As it is now, you simply sound like a spoiled child, busily kicking your heels as you complain and whine about how unfair everything is because you simply did not get your way.

I haven't changed, dude. My job is to go after hypocrities and liars. Maybe you, on the other hand, have changed.

Poor you, Mr. Rall.

Poor, poor you.

Poor America.



This comes in from Paul W.:

The biggest prejudice in America today is not of any one race vs. another or even of one religion vs. another. It's the prejudice of the East Coast and West Coast populists towards the Midwest and South. Ted Rall, you are the most prejudiced writer I've ever read. Ever.

I grew up in the Midwest. As my pals can attest, in the run-up to the 2004 debacle I kept saying that we could count on Midwestern common sense to prevail in the face of Bush's obvious stupidity, warmongering and freestyle spending of the federal treasury. And generally, I was right. Pennsylvania--half in the Midwest--and Michigan and Illinois all did the right thing.



Unfortunately, a majority of the voters in the South deserve the contempt they're receiving from the coasts. (Pity the suffering minority of intelligent southerners who voted for Kerry and have to live alongside morons.)



Prejudiced? No. Judgemental? Yes. If you voted for Bush, God damn you. You have condemned countless thousands of innocent people to death with the punch of a chad or the touch of a screen. If you voted for Bush, you endorsed the torturers in Bush's gulags at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. You deserve to feel every volt of electronic current, hear every scream, sink into the despair that comes with knowing that you have done nothing yet you will die in an anonymous prison. If you voted for Bush, you are to blame for the coming fiscal crisis, when there will be even less money for schools and roads and, yes, armies. If you voted for Bush, you will never be forgiven. You will never deserve respect, for the decision was a simple yet you deliberately chose not to do what was right.

The Blue State Mailbag



I've received some remarkably interesing correspondence since a slim majority of American voters endorsed Bush's Fascism Lite on Tuesday.



From Ted W.:

As a New Yorker I feel compelled to thank you for your recent piece "Guilty, Disgusted, American." It captures the strong emotional and indignant response of so many of us. On the ferry, subway, busses -- much commiserating is going on -- with strangers mutually expressing disappointment, rolling their eyes at newspaper headlines, shaking their heads in disgust. I just read last night that "gay marriage" passed in Saskatchewan. An issue that made masses of Americans cuckoo gets passed without much ado -- in Saskatchewan! I guess Saskatchewan -- and much of Canada for that matter -- is the Devil's Land. Anyway, thanks. When I read your piece I felt I was reading my own thoughts. This administration can rant and rhapsodize about mandates all it wants: they're going to have an increasingly angry and confrontational number of Americans to contend with.

I suspect that the Bushies don't much care about the vast majority of Americans who oppose their policies. (Even many Republicans say this marginal election victory doesn't constitute a mandate.) All we do, after all, is march around in the streets, waving signs and chanting slogans. That stopped scaring presidents around 1974.



From Colleen:

I read your column today and all I have to say is that I feel your pain and disgust. I live in Indiana so I'm smack in the middle of Fundagelical Stupidity. I've rarely left the house in the past couple of days. I have a 9 yr. old son and I'm more afraid of 4 more years of the Bushiban than I am of "Islamic Terrorists". What's the matter with these people. If we didn't have such a suck-ass foreign policy, we wouldn't need to worry about terrorists in the first place. I'm more angry at the majority of the public than I am at Dubya being in the WH. And "moral values"? What the hell is that about. They line up blindly and stupidly behind a man that shares their hatred of gays as well as his obsession with a fetus. Do they realize that all the bodies that have piled up in a war they pop popcorn to watch with their feet propped up and big smiles on their faces were once a fetus? Guess that doesn't matter to them since the majority of the bodies are Arab or Muslim. I think they're all brain damaged. Take care Ted. And thank you so much for your writing. I love your columns and books. It's writers such as yourself that keep me hanging on because at least I know there are sane people still out there.

I do find the "moral" issue fascinating. People who voted for Bush endorsed the torture of thousands of innocent people at Abu Ghraib. Was that moral? Bush and his cronies gave the orders for that torture to occur. It came from the top. People who voted for Bush endorsed the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians. And for what? Not liberation. To line Dick Cheney's pockets with $1 million a year he would never have received had Iraq not been invaded and Halliburton--on the verge of bankruptcy in 2001--not received no-bid contracts. Was the murder of 100,000 people moral?



Good people can disagree about abortion. I consider it murder of an unborn fetus, yet I believe women must possess the right to carry out such murders. But only three kinds of people can endorse the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq: the ignorant, the stupid and the evil.



From Jeff:

Ted, I wanted to say thanks for you latest column. Being a Canadian these days is a lot like living next door to a well-armed religious maniac given to fits of unprovoked violence, who thinks what I have is his. It's work such as yours which keeps me from lapsing into an intellectually lazy, though perhaps emotionally satisfying, anti-Americanism.

And they say I hate my county! I'm a pro-US propagandist!



From Keith:

Having been a devoted fan of your work for some time, I felt that this week above all was the right time to send this note of profound thanks. Your work has been a source of amusement, information and inspiration to me, and I consider you a hero. This statement has been far too long in coming, but especially now that our worst fears seem to have been confirmed, I felt you might welcome this. Your commitment is so clear that some might assume you do not require positive feedback, but nevertheless I felt you might like to hear that you are certainly not laboring in futility. I appreciate your efforts and your passion, more than I can communicate in just a short note of gratitude, but this will have to suffice. I can always count on you to articulate what I sometimes cannot quite express, and though I read and rely on a great many sources, I always return to your column and cartoons for the most lucid and passionate views online. I can't count the times I've thrown up my hands when trying to make some point to like-minded (or not-so-like-minded) friends, and simply sent them the link to your latest column. I wish I had your skill and I greatly admire your courage in spreading it. As you're probably bombarded with email (both supportive and critical), I expect no reply. Your efforts are more than enough thanks.

I'm blushing.