End of the Right Wing Challenge

Well, color me unimpressed--with many of my fellow lefties.

(Although the self-categorization makes me uncomfortable. There are so many issues--balancing the budget, the right to self-defense, the Second Amendment, etc.--on which I don't hold doctrinaire left-of-center political positions. A better self-description would be left on economic issues, moderate on social issues, conservative on military matters--on the last point, my beef with recent American adventurism is that it makes us less safe and that our borders are totally unguarded. But long-time readers know all that stuff about me. And it could change, obviously.)

But back to the discussion at hand. I'll reiterate: I am surprised at the amount of vicious, specific threats of violence directed toward conservative personalities by supposed progressives. That kind of schoolyard bullying makes us no better than the Republicans we claim to despise for their "bomb first, ask questions later" approach to diplomacy. As everybody knows, I don't shy away from harsh language; I rather specialize in it. But I draw the line at threats, real or implied, against people with whom I disagree. Once you start to do that, after all, you've admitted defeat because you couldn't argue against your foe based on the merits of your point of view. And it's a gutter tactic running against the very essence of the First Amendment.

So. Does the left give back as much as the right? In my heart of hearts, I'd say the right-wing challenge didn't change my mind entirely. I think the right does it more. But, as a conservative blogger wrote elsewhere, it's much easier to notice when it's your side being attacked. I notice the attacks against progressives more, so they hurt more. Bottom line: it's impossible to quantify the hatred on both sides and determine who does it more.

Those of us who identify with the left must set an example by seizing the moral high ground on this point. While I still stand by my chapter in WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL about dirty politics, threats of violence are where we should not go. And we should call our friends on it if and when they do it.

Here are, as part of the challenge wrap up, some entries from over the weekend submitted by rigt-wingers. (No need to send more, folks, and thanks for playing! I, for one, feel enlightened if a little soiled.)

Sent in by blogger Jon Henke:

...you didn't get the email I sent yesterday--I think you've been having some server problems with the overload--here 'tis again....
http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=1235
The comments are listed below, and the links to the originals are at the post URL listed above.
1. COMMENT: "We need to execute people like Ann Coulter in order to physically intimidate conservatives, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors."
2. COMMENT: "bush Is a mouth faced little cheat. and you are all Imbeciles for supporting him. I hope you all die, die painfully." [this, by the way, was addressed to us]
3. COMMENT: "I hate that filthy cunt, Maglaganglyskank more than I can say. Goddamned racist bitch - I want her fucking head on a pike. I've had it with that sorry excuse for a human being. Fucking skanky ass Nazi whore - I'm coming for you." [written by Tena, a blogger)
4. COMMENT: "Fuck off and die in horrible pain you fascist prick."
5. COMMENT: "I'd take one for the team and volunteer to anally violate [Michelle Malkin]."
6. COMMENT: "I may watch the festivities, if only not to miss the chance to applaud the appearance of the long-awaited, desperately needed dime-sized hole..."
7. COMMENT: "will somebody PLEASE start killing these people? it's really all they understand."
8. COMMENT: "I want to beat Scarbrough's fucking face in! I want to smash him, beat him into the cement. Be covered in his blood. Leave him suffering on the ground. [...] Fuck you Scarbrough! Your Damn right! I'll show you a fucking Radical! Think I'm a bomb-thrower? I'll show you a fucking bomb! Seriously, he makes me contemplete murder!"
9. COMMENT: "We have to learn to enjoy hurting people, hurting them a lot, hurting them any way we can and every chance we get. Anybody who's not with us, we fuck him and fuck him hard."
10. COMMENT: "Does Karl Rove get Secret Service protection? If so, on what basis? If not, dime-sized hole?"

Don't doubt, my fellow progressives, that there are more--many more--where these came from. I have about 20 more acceptable entries along these lines. And I received a few that were so ugly that I won't even post them because they were so racist and bigoted that I'm afraid people might think *I'd* posted them.

P.S. Some people have asked whether I checked these links to make sure they were authentic. Answer: of course.

The challenge is met, I am depressed and disgusted, and now I'm going to grab my first cup of coffee.

Victory!

A visit to my profile at David Horowitz's smear site shows that my copyrighted photograph has vanished into the ether, presumably with his lawyer's fictional Fair Use defense (when will someone write a definitive debunking of that online canard?)--which has also disappeared from Horowitz's other right-wing project, Front Page Magazine.

It's hardly on the scale of convincing Bush to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, but it proves my point: when lefties are on the right side of the law, we should fight back because we will win. Stop being such wussies, folks!

Assuming that Horowitz refrains from violating my copyright in the future, no further legal action will be required concerning this photo.

Favorite Hate Mail of the Day

I know it's just a misspelling, but I'm still giggline at this from Rexxauthor@aol.com:

Ted Rall is an anto-american. and has no talent. regards

Is an "anto-american" like that 50's movie "Them!"?

Right-Wing Challenge Entries

Finally! We're getting some qualifying entries to the Challenge.

From Energie:

[QUOTES EDITED OUT BECAUSE THEY CAUSED FORMATTING PROBLEMS--Sorry, Ted]

Vile stuff to be sure, and should be condemned by all thinking Americans. Doesn't quite rise to the level of the stuff I've seen about me and other libs like Michael Moore, but still disgusting as hell. I can't imagine why the hosts of these blogs don't immediately delete these threats.

And there's this from Mark Coffee, who also runs a blog:

Permalink: [QUOTES EDITED OUT BECAUSE THEY CAUSED FORMATTING PROBLEMS--Sorry, Ted]
Title: Rall Changes Rules, but the Challenge is Met
Ted Rall, no doubt overwhelmed with examples of left-wing moonbat ranting, now says only a violent threat to specific political or media personalities (Rall laughingly must consider himself one of the latter) counts towards his challenge (and then tries to cover up his Little Green Football snafu with the new rule that comments count). He then says (and I don't believe it for a minute) that the challenge has yet to be met,
No matter: if he continues to say it, you know he's lying, 'cause I got your quotes, Ted, plus links.
1. Kelly Hagan, responding to a post entitled 'Bush Should Not Be Assassinated', responds that 'an event like this [the assassination of
2. Fernando88: 'I want to kill George Bush...but that's an understatement.'
3. smilingyoukia: 'OK, I believe George Bush should die...'
Oh, but that's fringe stuff, you say; you won't find anything like that on, say, the Daily Kos...oops!:
I dislike junior's stupid, arrogant, ugly chimp-like demeaner soooo much that I change the channel any time, I mean anytime, I have the misfortune on seeing him or hearing him on TV or radio. The word hate is to mild a word to define my dislike of the punk. I would gladly watch though to see him hurt and laugh as he stated crying. I'd like to see him in pain even though I'm an animal loving, non violent atheist. Junior is a bad, bad, bad man.
Okay, okay, that's one on the Daily Kos, but surely there weren't anymore...oops:
Best thing about the "personal" hate you talk about is the day one of those people dies. Leaves the living. Never again to require any of your energy. Poof! Gone. Memorable, memorable day. The relief is scary enough to make you realize how terrible hate really is. I work very hard to avoid it now. Though I'm saving the red dress I was gonna wear around town after Kerry's victory for W's funeral week.
Then there's this gem aimed at Hindrocket of Power Line:
Reading Hindrocket's slanders and looking at his f***ing spoiled, preppy face, I had fantasies of meeting him on a public street and kicking the living s**t out of him until the only thing his face resembled was a raw pulp of bloody meat.

Peaceful bunch, these lefties...and Rall, you're not kidding anyone...you know this stuff is out there already. And please, quit lying and saying the challenge has not been met. I just met it.

Believe it or not, no, I did NOT know that any of this stuff was out there. I'd read references by Republican bloggers to such things, but no one ever provided a link and I could never find it. Suffice it to say, this stuff pisses me off and should not be tolerated by anyone who purports to be a law-abiding American. And again: mainstream blogs like Kos should delete this shit as soon as it appears--as should the nasty right-wing sites like Little Green Footballs.

Has the challenge been met? Yes. The scale may not not quite be the same, but there is clearly a significant amount of leftie hate speech out there to match the crap the righties put out. I can't shame the righties into doing anything, but to readers who agree with me about anything, please consider what this does to us and how it invalidates our arguments.

More goes up as it comes in; wrap up on Monday.

The Right-Wing Challenge as of Saturday Morning

I have received more than 200 entries so far. Regretably, most right-wingers don't seem to understand the rules. Reading comprehension, folks--just because Reagan cut education spending doesn't mean you can't learn how to pay attention now!

I'm receiving tons of generic "I hate Republicans and wish they all died" remarks. Sorry. Those are vague, unformed and stupid comments, but they are not death threats against a specific media personality or politician.

I'm also getting tons of comments that are merely insults to Republicans. Sorry. An insult isn't a threat of violence. Remember: liberals who speak out (like me) routinely see threats of violence posted about them by bloggers and at blogs specifically directed towards them. What I want to see here is the same sort of thing going the other way.

So far we have exactly one contender (submitted by Papa Loves Mambo) that he found at http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/000347.php:

"I'd like to buy George Bush a Coke And poison it with glue Kill Dick Cheney And old Wolfie And shoot down Rumsfeld too"

Now that's the kind of disgusting, reprehensible shit we're looking for. Righties do it daily by the dozen--surely you guys can come with more than just one?

Oh, and: some righties have had trouble with the email address for the contest, so please use chet@rall.com instead. Thanks.

Challenge ends Monday.

Rules of the Challenge

Garret asks about the rules:

I wish to ask a technical question to better understand your"contest", A Challenge for Right-Wing Bloggers. You ask for the worst, most vicious examples of liberal/leftie blogger vitriol, but when you were asked for examples, you cited (as best as I can tell) comments people made on the blog, not what I would call the "blogger", unless Jimmy the Clam is the owner of LittleGreenFootballs.
So my questions are:
1. Is our contest limited to the actual bloggers, or are all the comments from users fair game?

Actual bloggers as well as comments posted to those blogs--especially comments that are more than a day or two old, since their presence tacitly testifies to their acceptibility to the bloggers themselves--are both eligible. Remember, we're looking for specific threats of violence and/or murder against specific media and political personalities on the right, authored by lefties. "I hope Ann Coulter dies painfully" qualifies. Generic threats, like "I hope Republicans die," do not.

Because if the users' comments are fair game, I submit an entire URL: http://www.democraticunderground.com. If the user comments are not acceptable but the blogger's comments are, I would suggest only (some of) Auntie Pinko's postings. I hope this makes sense.

Specifics, please!

2. Also, are politicians quotations, cited in widely read blogs, acceptable entries?

A more nebulous question. I would say, generally not. We're talking blogs here. But if you've got comments from mainstream Democrats calling for the murder ot Republican media types, I'd entertain those.

3. Are MSM figures quotes, cited in widely read blogs, acceptable entries?

See (2) above.

4. Are leftie quotes in otherwise news stories in widely read blogs acceptable entries?

See (2) above.

5. Are your cartoons acceptable entries?

If my cartoons call for the murder or violence against specific personalities--well, I already said that.

Thanks for the challenge.
Sincerely,
Garrett
P.S. I have an entry, I think, the text is : "If not, let's take as a given what we already know: that Republicans' first impulse is to punch people whose arguments they can't defeat with logic and to bomb countries whose people know something we don't." From http://rall.com/rants.html.

Not even close. Not a threat of violence, much less murder, against anybody. This is an expression of disgust with violence--in fact, it's a statement of pacifism. The kind of thing we're looking for here is like these tidbits from a right-wing blog that gets many links from other bushblogs, the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller:

"if the opportunity presented itself, I'd kill Ted Rall"
"How about shooting Ted Rall THROUGH the Michael Moore Range Target?"
"Ted Rall was flayed? Why didn't anyone tell me?! Is there a video of it?! "
"Ted Rall just needs to be bitch-slapped."

Let the challenge continue!

E&P Covers My Blogger Column

Editor & Publisher magazine covers the reaction to this week's column.

Here's the money quote:

"I'm a fierce critic of the mainstream media, but the right-wing blogs are not an improvement," [Rall] added. "It's like replacing Saddam Hussein with anarchy, chaos, kidnapping, and rape. That's not an improvement, either. Right-wing bloggers are trying to destroy the mainstream media, but they don't have a plan for the occupation."

The Right-Wing Challenge

Remains totally unanswered. Come on, righties--show us these supposed death threats against conservative pundits and politicians written by leftie bloggers. Remember the standard: we're talking threats of death, dismemberment, etc.--the kind of stuff I wrote about in my column this week as well as on my blog.

Horowitz: Another Right-Wing Tax Cheat?

Chris brings up an interesting point:

If, as Horowitz' lawyer claims, "The nature and purpose of the use is news reporting and commentary in an Internet publication for nonprofit educational purposes" and http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/ is the nonprofit organization using your photo, why does their "Campus Support for Terrorism" link take you to an advertisment for one of Horowitz' books?

An excellent questlon. And if there was a left wing network of blogs to match the rightists, they'd get to the bottom of it.

And Jennifer says:

I just read the interestingly spelled, satire-proof email you received from the Horowitz drones and wanted to send a message of support. Stand up for yourself and know that you’re not alone – USA Next, which I see you mention in your blog, infringed copyright when they stole a wedding picture for their anti-AARP ad, and the gentlemen in the picture are also pursuing legal remedies (see daily kos diary http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/235632/101). I just think it’s fun that, to advertise their campaign to destroy Social Security in the name of the sanctity of private property, the first thing they did was to steal private property. Classic. Take care & nolite te bastardes carborundorum!

To right-wingers, the law is merely an inconvenience to be skirted whenever possible. Thank God we still have a court system; it's all we have left.

FOR Sean writes:

HALLELUJAH!!!! TESTIFY BROTHER!!!!

Just because I agree with my fellow progressives/liberals, it doesn't mean I like them. Most of them are such incredible pussies, so afraid of any conflict, that they won't stand up for themselves. I feel like Jack London did when he quit the socialist party. He agreed with their goals, but he thought most of them were such whiners, they couldn't get anything done.
You know, I'll bet a lot of conservatives would like you if they actually met you. They're generally not that bright, but they respect people who are willing to stand up for themselves. Partly because of my hobbies (which include martial arts and shooting) I tend to socialize a lot more with people whose views are conservative. But they respect the fact that I'm willing to fight for my beliefs while most of my fellow progressives complain I'm too aggressive or confrontational.
Thank God Martin Luther King, Abbie Hoffman or the countless men and women who fought and died in the labor movement in this country didn't listen to other progressives who complained they were too confrontational.

No shit. I admire conservatives for their relentlessness and passion. A big part of the reason liberals are getting their asses kicked in the public square is because we refuse to stand up for ourselves and, even worse, we get embarrassed by those who, like Michael Moore and Al Franken, are willing to stand up and be counted. Honestly, I would much rather be a right-winger; if it weren't for their rancid politics, I'd have a lot in common with them.

And Robert writes:

I can't wait to see you stick it to that creep in court. My only hope is that some of the other people on the list follow suit and shut this guy down. Maybe we can use this as the battle cry for our de-legitimation efforts against right wing blogs.

Only two and half hours left until my deadline. Something tells me I'm not going to get satisfaction from Horowitz, which means I'll have some extra work to take care of next week. But that's fine. And yes, let's hope that other copyright infringement victims start to fight back against the rightie blogs.

My Blogger Column: Arrogant?

Mark writes:

I read your "BUT WHO WATCHES THE WATCHDOGS?" on Yahoo and thought it was
pretty arrogant. First, the lines "And what are Morrissey's qualifications to police the media? When he's not harassing old-school journos like Dan Rather and CNN's Eason Jordan out of their jobs, Morrissey manages a call center near Minneapolis." So what does a journalism degree have to do with being able to judge if someone else is doing his job?

Nothing. I don't have one and I think journalism school is an evil influence on journalism. I was merely reminding people that this guy has no special qualifications to make his assertions; therefore his assertions must stand on their own merits. Which, like most of the stuff you read on the recently-lauded rightie blogs, they don't.

How does having his job automatically make him stupid and incapable of figuring out when a reporter
is not telling the truth? The only purpose that reasoning can have is to protect people in your profession from having to be judged on your performance. I've managed a call center here in Atlanta so I know the job can make you irritable but not stupid.

And I've worked in one. I have zero interest in protecting my peers, but as I watched war correspondents ply their trade in Afghanistan I couldn't help but admire them. Many were lazy, ill-informed and hopelessly biased, but they were there, risking their lives, trying in their sometimes hapless way to get the story. Meanwhile, a bunch of right-wing bloggers, sitting on their asses at home, were deconstructing what they were writing. The mainstream journos are an imperfect bunch at best, but the bloggers are much, much less admirable or useful. Right-wing bloggers want to tear down the old system without having anything new to replace it with; they're like Bush's neocons. They've planned for the war, but not the occupation.

Rather ignored the fact that the memos he used weren't reliable; he ran out with this story and got caught. He was wrong, he deserved to be caught and doing something on that level should cost someone his job. That's how the good get moved up over the bad and the quality of reporting improves. A lot bloggers and their readers are nuts but they can right, too, of course.

I could live with that if the bloggers were consistent. Bush, whom these people adore, was caught lying repeatedly--most notably about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Tens of thousands of people died as a result; our country is also going bankrupt as a result. If the bloggers say Rather should go--why not Bush? Anyone who only attacks one side of the ideological spectrum is instrinsically untrustworthy. (And anyone who reads my work knows that I hgit the Democrats hard whenever they deserve it, and when they're in a position to make decisions that cause harm.)

Eason Jordan said something that he, and yourself, needs to prove if he thinks it's so.

I don't think so. He made an off-the-cuff remark at a panel; he wasn't reporting anything. He didn't need to prove anything. Besides: What he said WAS true.

When David Horowitz merely used your picture on his website you threatened him with legal action. Jordan accuses Americans of murder with no proof and you don't think he should be called out for
that. At least not by some lowly call center manager.

Horowitz "merely" violated U.S. copyright law. Why can't conservatives respect the law? Jordan told the truth in a private forum. I still can't, for the life of me, see why he deserved anything but praise for what he said.

Ted Rall on BBC TV on Monday

A 30-minute documentary about me and my work will appear on the British Broadcasting Network on Monday night. Sorry, but you'll only be able to view it in the UK. Interested Brits can check out the BBC listing. To wet your appetite:

Cartoonists on the Front Line
Ted Rall:
Michael Portillo meets a cartoonist with even more guts than the savage satirists of the UK press.
Ted Rall's syndicated cartoons dare to take on the American right and its most sacred icons. To date he has received over 400 death threats. [With audio description]  
Mon 28 Feb, 20:30-21:00  30mins  Stereo  Widescreen 

Right-Wing Challenge, Redux

Allen writes:

Before you issue a challenge like that don't you think you should at least post some examples of hate speech from the blogs you cited? The only threat that you quoted didn't even have a name by it. Who made that moronic threat? I highly doubt it's a mainstream blogger. I challenge you to find an example of a WELLKNOWN, blog such as Instapundit, or Powerline, or LittleGreenFootballs, Andrew Sullivan, etc...that has an idiotic threat like you cited in your column posted on their site.

Very well, though it's incredible that Republicans aren't aware that so many of their comrades are violent, hyper-aggressive shitheads. Here are some sample posts to one of the "well-known" right-wing blogs, Little Green Footballs:

"I hope Rall dies now.
"I am glad that Bolshevik dog Rall is being targeted for termination."
"I found out belatedly that he made an appearence at the 2004 San Diego Comic-Con (for what reason I'm not sure) so I missed my opportunity to give him a complimentary tracheotemy or put out a cigarette in his eye or some other fair and accurate constructive criticism of his works."
"I wish somebody would drop Rall - out of a helicopter."
Some people can butt-f*ck anything, if they are desperate/ugly enough. Me, I'd butt-f*ck Rall. With a large caliber repeating weapon. Or a high-velocity flame-thrower. My choice... "

Perhaps someone else has time to check out the other aforementioned neofascist bushblogs, but I think my point has been made.

A Challenge for Right-Wing Bloggers

Several Bushist blogger types have written to assert that there are as many violent and threatening remarks and insults coming from liberals online as there are from conservatives against liberals. I've spent many sadly-lost hours online, and I say: no way.

So here's my challenge: Please email your worst, most vicious examples of liberal/leftie blogger vitriol (with links, natch), and I'll post 'em right here. If they exist, obviously.

If not, let's take as a given what we already know: that Republicans' first impulse is to punch people whose arguments they can't defeat with logic and to bomb countries whose people know something we don't.

Come on, righties: my server is standing by at: rightwingchallenge@rall.com. Challenge ends Monday.

Time for Liberals to Stand Up For Themselves

For far too long patriotic American liberals have been turning the other cheek while conservative assholes beat the crap out of them. The latest example: the same scum who brought us the Swift Boat ads about John Kerry are trying to defeat the powerful AARP by calling them proponents of gay marriage and opponents of support for our troops in combat. Now, I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with the AARP on anything. But they're right to oppose Bush's plan to dismantle Social Security; the more I hear the details, the more outrageous it sounds. Of course the AARP, being a lobbying organization for senior citizens, doesn't have any opinion about gay marriage, either pro or con. But that doesn't stop the connies, and the ads still run. Meanwhile, mainstream Democrats write polite letters to the editor.

Which brings me to David Horowitz.

Readers of the Rallblog already know that this GOP-approved loon has targeted everyone from Barbra Streisand to Dan Rather as "left" and listed alongside the 9/11 hijackers and other Islamist extremists in a sordid attempt to infer a relationship between the two groups of people. You can find this online delicacy, which obviously took some work, at Discover the Network.

The very notion of this website, which reads a lot like those anti-abortion websites that listed abortion doctors whom the groups wanted to see assassinated, ought to be illegal. But the Supreme Court ruled about those sites a few years back, and found them covered by the First Amendment. The other thing that ought to be illegal is Horowitz's stupidity. I mean, the dude lists the personalities on the first page in alphabetical order...by first name. And he lists Sean Penn, one of the world's most photographed movie stars, with a blurry photo. Surely even a neocon torture supporter like Horowitz ought to be able to find a better picture than that.

The problem is, he's unwilling to pay for his photos. So, in a patent violation of U.S. Copyright law, he swipes them from copyrighted sources...like other people's website. Like mine--the photo under my listing was paid for at significant expense, and copyrighted. Horowitz neither requested, nor would have received, permission to reproduce my photo.

It so happens that I take intellectual property rights seriously. Without them, after all, I wouldn't make a living. So I've fired off the following "cease and desist" letter to David Horowitz, owner of Discover the Network:

To: david@cspc.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:44 PM
Subject: URGENT: Cease and Desist Notice
Dear Mr. Horowitz:
 It has come to my attention that you have, without obtaining written or other permission, posted a publicity photograph of myself, apparently copied from my website, to your site Discover the Network (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org). This photograph is copyrighted material. Your act violates U.S. Copyright Law, which provides for damages up to $150,000 plus attorney's fees.
I therefore request that you take the following actions on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, February 25, 2005:
1. Remove said photograph from your website.
2. Agree to remit the sum of $5,000.00 as payment for your unauthorized use of said photograph, with such payment via money order to be received within three (3) business days at my address in New York, New York.
3. Sign a notarized stipulation agreeing not to post my copyrighted material in the future.
 Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.
 Sincerely,
Ted Rall

From Bush and Alberto Gonzeles down to the Abu Ghraib prison guards, the Republican right thumbs its collective noses at the law. Fortunately, Section 504 of U.S. Copyright Law provides for legal remedies against those who steal copyrighted material without permission. The hundreds of other liberals listed at DTN may be content to allow their copyrighted photos to appear on Horowitz's blacklist, but not me. I'm not putting up with this shit.

Horowitz's attorney replied as follows (at 2 AM West Coast/5 AM East Coast time...now that's dedication!):

From: Manuel Klausner
Date: February 24, 2005 2:06:57 AM PST
To: Tedrall@aol.com
Subject: Re: URGENT: Cease and Desist Notice
Dear Mr. Rall,
I represent David Horowitz, and am writing to respond to your email below. I am informed that the "publicity photograph" was not copied from your website, contrary to your surmise. It appears to be in the public domain. If you dispute this, please promptly furnish me with a copy of your copyright registration.
Even if the photo is copyrighted, its use in FrontPageMagazine.com appears to qualify as a fair use. The nature and purpose of the use is news reporting and commentary in an Internet publication for nonprofit educational purposes. The very nature of a "publicity photo" suggests that it is ordinarily intended to be used without obtaining permission in advance. Moreover, it does not appear that the effect of the use would be to decrease the value of the photo, which appears to have been widely circulated in many sources. Accordingly, we believe a court would find this use of the photo to be "fair" under Section 107 of the Copyright Law.
Based on the foregoing reasons, your three requests are hereby rejected. We would be willing to consider any further information you care to provide, including a copy of any copyright registration.
Manuel S. Klausner

I don't know if or where Manuel Klausner went to law school, but I like to rely on the ever-useful Glamour Models website for legal advice. And Glamour Models (well, actually, an attorney who wrote a piece they posted for fashion photographers) has some interesting advice for Horowitz and other intellectual property thieves.

My photo is certainly NOT in the public domain, and I have vigorously defended its copyright in the past. And Glamour Models has this to say about the silly "Fair Use" argument:

"Fair use" is a legal "defense" to copyright. It was created to allow use of copyright material for socially valuable purposes such as commentary, parody, news reporting, education and the like, without permission of the copyright holder. A typical instance would be a brief quotation from a book as part of a book review. Uses allowed by "Fair Use" are normally a small part of a work and include an author credit and attribution. Fair uses are generally for non-profit purposes. Fair use is rarely allowed where the use competes directly with the work or harms its commercial value. Most fair use situations involve text. It is difficult to imagine any situation involving the Internet where someone copying a photo could claim the fair use defense. In typical infringement activities, such as unauthorized posting to Usenet, stocking websites from Usenet trolling, scanning from Playboy magazine, or simply copying from other websites-the fair use doctrine does not apply.

Hmm. Doesn't look good for David. Oh, and am I going to provide a copy of my copyright registration to this jerk? Hell, no, because whether or not I have one I still own that copyright as I own the copyright to the contents of my entire website. But he's welcome to find out, in court, whether or not I have one. One thing he should know, however, is that I don't bluff.

Horowitz's Right Wingnuts

Ever since Horowitz wrote about this loverly little exchange on his anti-American hate site FrontPageMagazine.com, I've had the joy of hearing from his readers. Here's a sample of the people who voted for George W. Bush and support the war in Iraq:

From mother@telefonica.net:

So you defend terrorists but you want the protection of the law? PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGG!
FASCIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evidently this wanker equates standing against torture and preemptive wars based on lies with defending terrorists. What about Bush, who increased the terrorists' funding (foreign aid to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) after 9/11? Isn't that defending terrorists?

From p.leddy@comcast.net:

Whatsa matter , you afraid someone's gonna take a run at you, you liberal fuck? Oh and tell pseudo-indian ward to fuck HIMSELF also. This is war, asshole. If you did refer to Tillman as an idiot, I'll piss on your momma's grave if she's dead. If she ain't, I'll wait till that happens. Kiss my ass. Ain't the first amendment grand?!

From cramerb@dyc.edu:

Mr. Rall: I find it interesting that you are offended by such an innocuous photo. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you to think about the millions of people you offend with your repugnant bile. Bruce Cramer, Buffalo, NY

I am not offended by my photo, although it would be nicer if my image looked more like Keanu Reeves'. I am offended, as it were, by the flagrant violation of my copyright. My "repugnant bile", on the other hand, is protected by the First Amendment. Why is the law such a difficult concept for the right to understand?

From tonyb@hvc.rr.com:

Typical liberal response to seeing your picture posted on Discover The Network. I just loved how David’s lawyer put it to your ass. Be a man and suck it up and take some of what you dish out. Don’t be a ‘girlie man”!! If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything. Tony Bonagura

I have a rule righties might find interesting. When someone I like accidentally does something to harm me, I suck it up. When someone who hates me sets out to attack me by breaking the law, I fight back. But obviously Tony supports Bush, who decided after 9/11 that he was too much of a girlie man to go after the terrorists because he was afraid of them. So instead he attacked too uninvolved, unrelated, but defenseless countries. Typical right-wingers.

From jrdott@pacbell.net:

I didn’t know the truth about you until I read your profile on David Horowitz’ excellent new website! I have email contacts all over California and I’ve sent Mr. Horowitz’ profile on to my address book—I believe it’s critical that people like you are exposed for who you are. I was surprised to see your email to Mr. Horowitz regarding the use of your photograph! As a cartoonist and a person with [supposedly] a sense of humor, I thought at first that your email was a spoof…..perhaps…..a cartoon in words, so to speak? I mean, were you serious??? HA! David Wilson

If and when a joke has been made, I'll let you know.

And from the next Sartre, jmarks@comcast.net:

Great pic. Always wanted to see what an asshole looks like. The idiot who studifies people with an cartoon that doesn't even makes sense. This seems to reflect on your left political leanings as well. So your the asshole that believes the Bush Adminstration is wrong for freeing people from tyranny. Tell that to the people and the victims families who have experienced death, rape and murder at the hands of Islamic jihadists and Saddam Hussein and his idiot sons. It is people like you that don't give a flying fuck about anyone else other than your selfish needs. It is people like that go around thinking that your shit doesn't stink, whereas the opposite is true. Salute to the ASSHOLE!

"Studifies"? Is that some gay sex thing?

Fortunately, there are people who "get it" out there...unfortunately, they're almost all Democrats:

From Norman:

I congratulate you on your decision to fight back against the character assination from FPM, Horowitz and his new web toy. I would also suggest that your fellow reporters figure out how Horowitz got
a dot ORG web site. They are for charitable and church organizations not for Political hacks. By the way Horowitz's lawyers answer in response to your e mail holds no water. This idea that a photo is public domain is crap. If it is am image of you you control where and when that image is used that is black letter law

That's sure the way the law reads.

Geneva Conventions Follow-Up

An excellent email from Russell:

The argument over uniforms, et al, applies only to the rights of prisoners of war under the 3rd Geneva Convention. I'd agree with Andy that the 3rd does not apply to the insurgents. However, the 4th Geneva Convention, which everyone seems to forget about, would guarantee basic human rights protections to any insurgent who was an Iraqi citizen (it would not apply to foreign fighters). Even if they commit acts against the "Occupying Power", they are entitled to the due process of law and to the protection of their basic dignity.
I quote a small part of the 4th convention below. Later sections are much more detailed.
--Russell
PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS
...
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Blogs
Richard says:

Your Luddite pal got it right.
I hope you will keep going on the topic that a preponderance of blogs "work for the bad guys." I'd put it a wee bit more bluntly - as in blogger expenses and salary are paid by the bad guys. Sure, it costs almost nothing to broadcast one, and yes they are multiplying like fungi, but it's quite a trick to get them linked to popular web sites and even more importantly into the mainstream media - unless you have money and influence. No exposure, no importance.
Dig deeply enough and I'm sure you'll find that many, perhaps most, of the politically oriented blogs function like the fictionalized movie critics created by big studios to sell rotten movies. Plant a favorable account, then get it quoted in the mainstream media you either rent, dupe or control outright. Pay the lowly blogger for their time (covertly of course), but mostly pump them up by getting him/her linked and cited. Karl Rove certainly figured this gambit out years ago.
Trust no blog unless you know who pays who pays the bills.

And he says it very, very well.

Geneva Conventions

Andy writes:

Even though I'm a softcore Libertarian who thinks Clinton is the greatest president since James K Polk, I've found myself 99% behind you the last few years. Behind enough to buy subversive cartoonists for my Dad even though I'm still debt ridden student.

I don't know if I agree with Andy about Clinton (or Polk!) but I do miss his economy. Everyone does.

A couple points of disagreement:
1) latest blog entry: The Geneva convention does not apply to the, for lack of a better word, the "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Geneva convention is VERY clear, you MUST WEAR A UNIFORM if you are a soldier. If you do otherwise you are willfully endangering civilians and surrender the rights of a soldier. The Geneva Convention doesn't say anything about terrorists but it does describe "spies" and I think the current insurgents fit the description to a T. Spies have no rights so technically the Bush admin is within the bounds of international law.

Actually, things aren't nearly as clear cut. I just finished reading "The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib," a collection of the Taguba Report and the original memoranda generated by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and other administration torture aficianados, which address Geneva and the uniform issue. What Geneva actually says is that soldiers are defined as those who wear clear insignia. That doesn't necessarily mean uniforms. In fact, Taliban militiamen in Afghanistan were distinguished by their black long-tail turbans--which were originally tribal in affiliation but were adapted by the entire Taliban while the non-Taliban tribals took on other garb. U.S. forces tacitly accepted this distinguishing feature by firing at anyone wearing one, even from aerial Predator drones and it was well known in the theater of war.
In Iraq, many of the insurgents are former Iraqi government officers and soldiers and still wear uniforms in combat. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, moreover, resistance fighters are covered under the qualification that both are indigenous resistance forces covered under Geneva, uniformed or not.
Al Qaeda militia, however, probably do not qualify under Geneva with the exception of those who also fought under the former Afghan Taliban regime.
Still, Boss Bush is still a vicious greedy bastard with no regard for human lives other than his own. Him and his ilk subverted our Democratic-Republic and deserve far worse than the terrorists.

2) Attack Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? ARE YOU CRAZY!!! We can barely
hold onto power in Iraq with its mere 30 million people and soldier friendly terrain. How the hell are we supposed to take on Pakistan with like 100 million people living in miserable mountains.

Actually, I think it's more like 140 million. But most of them live in flatlands, not mountains.

The combined
wealth and power of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with require Bush to put America on war footing and mobilize the entire country. Me, a 24 year old man, would have to go fight. I'm not dying to those ungreatful SOBs. If they draft me and my fellow upper middle class friends you
better believe the ICBM's will carpet bomb those two countries off the
face of the earth cause there's no way in hell my parents or grandparents will stand for me being in the line of fire.That's pretty much all I disagree with you about right now. okay, the Tillman comic was offensive and over the top but it was also damn funny.
R.I.P. Hunter S.

Yeah, invading Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would probably have been terrible ideas. But, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, they would have been terrible ideas that would have helped to avenge 9/11.

For the Last Time...

...I am not a Democratic Party strategist. I have no stake whatsoever in whether Hillary or whoever runs on the platform of what's left of the American left in 2008. So why do people keep writing stuff like this from RShake?:

I have seen you on various News programs. I am currently a registered Democrat. I have been a Reform Party member, Republican, & Libertarian. I am in fact one of those elusive swing voters. I am amused at how you think to persuade people to support issues that you espouse to when you villify them as stupid? Not a very effective strategy. Mostly I am disappointed in the Moonbat, Tin foil Hat mentality that permeates the Democratic Party in lieu of the last election.
I almost wonder if this email is wasting my time & energy as I am certain it will not resonate with the intended receiver. Sadly when vitriol and insults are used instead of dialogue there is little hope for any real effective communication. There was a time not too long ago that Liberals listened to Conservatives with courtesy. Even when they did agree with the content of the message. Liberals were primarily in control of the Congress at that time. Perhaps that is one reason they were in control. When I tried to listen to Air America all I hear is whining and insults. It does not win people to your way of thinking.

I remember when liberals used to listen to conservatives with courtesy. And all the while, in race after race, the hard right--which hijacked the GOP back in 1976--was running vile attack ads with little or no response from their opponents. And it worked. Republicans resorted to base tactics year after year. Then it spread to the media, and got especially nasty after 9/11. Treasonous crone Ann Coulter started smearing true patriots (i.e., progressive Americans) as anti-American. (Perhaps it was projection, since she thinks Joe McCarthy was a swell guy.)
Anyway: liberals got tired of getting beaten up and insulted, and decided (thank God!) to start giving back a little to hate-filled Republicans. Whining and insults? Better get ready for more of the same. We didn't start this fight, but by God we'll finish it.

Andrew Sullivan, Self-Hating Liar

Allen writes:

As usual I enjoyed your column even though it was a little "out there."
Andrew Sullivan is a "gay GOP blogger?" Did you read his endorsement for
John Kerry? Is it really important to point out that he is gay? Or was that
just a cheap shot?

Yes, Sullivan endorsed Kerry--because Bush came out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. (This is why he gets the big TIME magazine bucks--because he couldn't see that coming.) Which is why I pointed out that he is gay. Not only does Sullivan talk about being gay all the time, it's a core part of his political identity, so much so that after spending years sucking up to Bush while he set up concentration camps that he only turned slightly against him over gay marriage. Besides, "gay Republican" is like "Jewish Nazi"--it's a bizarre indicator that someone is off their rocker, politically and possibly otherwise.

You sound like a schoolboy whining about name calling and such on right wing blogs. Give me a break, have you ever read Democratic Underground? Does
Kos not have the same kinds of posts on his open threads? If you can dish
out columns about Reagan burning in hell and Pat Tillman being a sap before
his dead ass was even cold then why bitch about a few right wing loons
making gay ass threats? (Metaphor overload).

Perhaps DU and Kos have similarly violent comments in similar portions, but if so I've never been able to find them. There's a big difference between strident invective and threats of violence; the left specializes in the former while the right prefers its politics Gestapo style. And there's a HUGE difference between saying that Reagan is burning in hell (if there is such a place)and threatening to murder someone.
Here's an exercise: substitute "George Bush" for "Ted Rall" in those lines. Now ask yourself: would the Secret Service take an interest in those revised quotes?

If Eason Jordon was so right about the journalists why did he not show some
examples? If you're running CNN you gotta have the facts when you run your
mouth like that.

David Horowitz's Neo-McCarthyite Blacklist

Anyone who doubts that Bushite right-wingers are presiding over a new 1950s-style witch hunt in their constant equation of dissent to treason need only turn to ideological turncoat David Horowitz's highly-touted right-wing online blacklist "Discover the Network". According to Horowitz, his site "is a 'Guide to the Political Left.' It identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left's (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas."
Hm. Sounds innocuous enough.
But Horowitz makes a big leap: he mixes in Islamic terrorists with the supposed liberals. Next to the listing for Al Sharpton, then, is one for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Ayatollah Kholmeini (someone should tell Horowitz he's dead) of Iran is next to Barack Obama, the up and coming Democratic Senator. There's Johnny Walker Lindh, American Talib, next to Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation. It's a reprehensible, vile smear, and it would be laughable if (a) it didn't read like those anti-abortion hitlist websites and (b) it wasn't so patently untrue. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda operative, hardly shares a political agenda with UN chief Kofi Annan, whose images appear side by side. In fact, radical Islamism shares a lot more in common with radical Republicanism--both hate women, believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of their respective scriptures and want to take over the world. But never let the facts get in the way of a political smear, Mr. Horowitz.
There is, in this case, a personal angle. I am, apparently, the only cartoonist on a list that includes such luminaries as John Kerry and Kewisi Mfume. I'm easy to find: I'm "right" there at #673 (the list is in alphabetical, rather than ideological, order) between Massoud Rajavi and Sheikh Alaa Ramadan, who I assume are supposed to be my new best friends.
Anyone familiar with my work has got to laugh at my second supposed sin: "Reserves condemnation only for Republicans." I mean, what's wrong with that? Not that it's true: ask Bill Clinton how warm and fuzzy he feels about the way I batted his ass around for eight years. I'm an equal opportunity politician basher; it's just that these days, there aren't many powerful left politicians left. And the rest of the listing is full of similar garbage.
Even more interesting than the implicit linking of patriotic Americans with Islamist terrorists is the fact that no mainstream Republican can be counted upon to condemn Horowitz. Where is John McCain to repudiate this shit? One must assume, therefore, that the mainstream GOP agrees with Horowitz's smear tactics. God knows the right-wing bloggers do.

On Genocide

Mike writes:

First of all, I love your cartoons...and agree with ALMOST everything you say about MOST subjects. But I do want to offer a minor quibble- whatever you think of the Iraq war or the Afghan war (I'm totally against the first, but felt the second was justified), you really shouldn't use the word "genocide" to describe it. In my opinion, its not even close to genocide, and cheapens the word (sort of like when people throw around the word "rape" to describe things other than, well, rape.)
"Genocide" is more than just killing a lot of people- we usually use that word when we are talking about the attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group, and where they are singled out because of their ethnicity. "Genocide" also usually means specifically going after civilians, as opposed to killing significant numbers of them while going after soldiers. There are always civilian casualties in any war, but all wars are not genocide. Whatever you think of the Iraq war (and I'm almost as opposed to it as you are), you must realize that if we really wanted to wipe out the Iraqi people, we would have done it a bit differently, and there wouldn't be 160,000 dead- there'd be millions.
...
So stop throwing around the word "genocide", when "slaughter" or "humanitarian disaster" would be more accurate. Other than that, keep up the good work.

I wish more thinking folks like Mike would take another look at the invasion of Afghanistan--the war even lefties can get behind because the Taliban were such brutes. (Like Saddam wasn't?) But hey, I've already written two books about that. If only I could convince more people to read them!
So. What about genocide?
Noting that it's a new word, dating to the liberation of the first Nazi death camps in 1944, my dictionary calls it "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." The United States is presently engaged in the deliberate and systematic destruction of a political and cultural group: Iraqi civilians. Remember, even the insurgents are civilians--our own Pentagon designated them as such by virtue of denying them protection under the Geneva Conventions. So every insurgent/resistor we kill in Iraq is by definition an act of genocide against Iraqi civilians. Of course, others may take issue. And I may change my mind, since genocide is usually reserved for events like the attempted extermination of the Tutsis in Rwanda during the early '90s. But I don't feel prepared to back away from the term just yet.

O'Reilly on Churchill, Redux: Maybe He Should Be Fired After All

Thanks to FOR Matt for sending this along:

These quotes are about the closest O'Reilly has come to giving his opinion on firing Churchill. He seems to be moving closer to saying he should be fired, but he hasn't come right out and said it yet.
______________________________________________________
February 9, 2005 Wednesday
SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR 8:00 PM EST
...
O'REILLY: The only people, huh? So in the world, according to Churchill, if you sell bonds, insurance, or anything else that furthers capitalism, you're a Nazi.
For this kind of reasoning, the University of Colorado is paying the guy almost $100,000. Now some say Churchill should be charged with treason or sedition. We'll examine that in a few moments. But clearly, the man has some constitutional protections. Where he is vulnerable is in the competency area.
As we mentioned last night, he wrote a book saying that Israel is perpetuating a Holocaust against the Palestinians, and that Hitler's government did not have an institutional plan to exterminate European Jews. Both those statements are false, provable, just like two plus two equals five is false.
If a math teacher put forth that equation, the math teacher would be fired. If an ethnic studies teacher denies the Third Reich had a policy of Jewish mass murder, that teacher has to go.
So say goodbye to Churchill. I predict he'll be fired for incompetence by early March. Now I could be wrong. And even if I'm right, the ACLU will sue on his behalf. That'll be a fascinating case.
But in the end, there are consequences for controversial speech. Every day of my life, someone attacks me because I'm outspoken. There's little I can do but absorb the slander, libel and defamation that comes my way. And so it will be with Churchill. He will pay a big price for his hatred of America and his cruelty to the 9/11 families. But the price should be fair and reasonable. And that's the Memo....
___________________________________________
Fox News Network February 7, 2005 Monday
SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR 8:55 PM EST
...
Jason Bruno, Chico, California, "O'Reilly, your push for Churchill's firing is ridiculous."
And so is your letter, Mr. Bruno. I've said many times I am not for firing the guy, although I am reevaluating this based on new information....
_____________________________________________
Fox News Network February 3, 2005 Thursday
SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR 8:29 PM EST
...
O'REILLY: Sure, sure. All right, Carol. Thanks very much.
And here are the results of our billoreilly.com poll question. We asked you: Should Churchill be fired from the University of Colorado? More than 25,000 of you voted. Eighty-six percent say, yes, he should be fired; 14 percent say no. I was in the no category there. We'll leave the poll question up over the weekend in case you want to weigh in.

Sure sounds like O'Reilly wants Churchill fired to me.

Hunter S. Thompson

We can assume what demons drove the good doctor to commit suicide, but no one knows besides those who were closest to him. What we do know is the example he set, which was to write journalism without giving a shit about causing offense to the rich and powerful scum who deserve disdain for their disolute lives. We also know his influence, which was way too small. Many read him, but too few writers ever had the guts to follow in his footsteps.
I wouldn't be able to do what I do if it hadn't been for Dr. Thompson. Told to pick up his books by friends in college, I was immediately taken by his take-no-prisoners writing style; while I doubt I'll ever come close to his achievement as a writer, I've certainly adapted his willingness to take on anyone and anybody who deserves it, damn the torpedoes. His mainstream success proved that honesty is marketable; that has surely paid a few rent bills for me over the years. Rest well, Hunter, but you'll be missed for you are needed now more than ever.

Ann Coulter, Know Thyself!

Thanks to an astute FOR, Ann Coulter's remark about me on C-SPAN has finally turned up. As it turns out, the neocons' favorite dyed blonde Skeletor namechecked me during a rant about Ward Churchill's tenure:
"This raving lunatic at the University of Colorado, who walks around like he's a big radical, living on the edge, when to the contrary, he can't be fired, he knows he can't be fired, he can say the most outrageous things imaginable, like that cartoonist Ted Rall, who just does things to upset people so his name will get in the paper." I don't really know what Churchill has to do with me, save that I wrote about him last week.
Responding to Ward Churchill's assertion that Indian reservations are the equivalent of Nazi concentration camps," Coulter writes in this week's column: "I forgot Auschwitz had a casino." Yeah, historical revisionism about the American Indian genocide isn't meant to upset people so her name will get in the paper. Pot, meet kettle.

The World's Stupidest People...

...post to the Comics Journal message board.
For no discernable reason whatsoever, the usual crew of wannabes, neverwillbes and fake names created by the cyberstalker I had to sue for libel have started up another idiotic discussion about the lawsuit. This is particularly perplexing since there have been no significant developments on the legal front. The defendant keeps filing documents to stall a trial, my lawyer keeps countering the stalling tactics, and a trial date remains to be scheduled for an incident of impersonation that dates back to 1999. Whoever said that justice delayed is justice denied must have lived in New York; while I generally agree with the legal tradition of granting the benefit of the doubt to defendants in legal matters, it ought to be possible to get one's day in court at some point. All of these delays are almost enough to make me become a Republican. Among some of my favorite posts of moronitude:

My biggest fear is that Rall v. Hellman will end up chipping away at what's left of the first amendment.

I'm suing a guy who took away MY free speech by sending out emails under my name. Impersonation isn't free speech; had Hellman used his own name to ridicule me I would have been the first to defend his right to do so. And I might have even chuckled about it. It's pretty simple stuff; even a comics nerd who lives in his parents' basement ought to be able to get it. But such is the dismal state of the American education system that there exist people who think that impersonation is a form of, rather than an attack upon, free speech. If people like this were denied the right to vote, Ralph Nader would be president right now.
Then there's this prize:

Ted Rall turns people off from liberalism with his shitty comics and fascist left attitude.

Do I have a "fascist left attitude"? If by fascist left this dude means that I have zero tolerance for the Rethugs and their scummy American state media lackeys, then hell, I'll take it. When your country has been hijacked by mass murderers, looters of the treasury and subverters of democracy, polite conversation isn't called for. Anyone who votes Republican (as of December 20, 2000) is by definition an anti-American scoundrel, a neofascist and/or a fool. Fuck them.
Oh, and: I don't give a shit about "turning people on to liberalism." I'm a writer and a cartoonist with opinions (some liberal, others conservative, others neither), not a propaganda mill for some poorly defined non-movement.
And this, from another genius:

It also should be noted that it went to a jury trial all you'd have to do is remind the jury that Ted did the Terror Widows and Firefighters strips, it's game over at that point.

Uh-huh. Because that would be totally relevant to whether it's OK to impersonate someone...years before either of those cartoons were made.
Finally, refering to a snide comment I made about those who drew cartoons for Hellman's benefit book:

Great to completely dismiss 50 artists who haven't had the honor of having stick figure drawings in print like Mr T Fancypants R.

Yeah, it's really bad politics on my part to insult 50 "artists" who hate me so much that they signed their names to a book solely dedicated to the prospect that I deserve to die painfully. News flash: I wish upon these assholes exactly what they wished upon me.

More on Censorship

John writes:

I read your material on a semi-regular basis, but I think you're way off the mark with your evaluation of censorship in your most recent piece "Censor this Column". Censorship is strictly an act of control. I.e. exercising control over the content of a particular piece of media, preventing it from being shown in part or in it's entirety. "Control" denotes superiority. In this case, I happen to agree with the NY Times.
My dictionary defines the verb censorship as "to examine and expurgate" Censorship is not withdrawing an invitation to speak. Censorship is not an editor deciding not to run an particular op/ed piece. Nether of
these two acts expurgates (from the Latin expurgo - "To cleanse") material. The questions of "why?" "what?" and "who?" don't really enter into it.
As far as I am aware you can still read Mr. Churchill's comments almost anywhere, as they are now far more popular than they were prior to this event.

True. This was, in fact, my final observation in this week's column. However, a definition of censorship worded as tightly as "your dictionary's" renders the term meaningless. After all, the White Rose resistance movement of Nazi Germany had the ability to disseminate its anti-Hitler leaflets; all they needed was access to a mimeograph machine. But they were, nevertheless, censored by the state and its media. Neither they nor their ideological allies could see their opinions voiced in a national forum. Yes, access is determined by control--and that control, if exercised based on either taste or political reasons, becomes censorship.
Censorship, it can be argued (though not by me), isn't always bad. But it is censorship nevertheless and the censors should be willing to admit it.

Seems to me that your argument is that private entities should be compelled to endorse ideas they may not necessarily agree with.

Certainly not. In the case of Ward Churchill, he was invited by Hamilton College to speak about Indian politics. Whatever Churchill would have said about Indian activism would not have necessarily been endorsed, even implicitly, merely by providing a forum for discussion. Given that he was disinvited because of his remarks about 9/11, an unrelated matter, no one would have believed that Hamilton was endorsing his thoughts.
When I appear on Fox News, for example, does Fox News implicitly endorse my views? Highly doubtful.

At some point you're running afoul of their rights to freedom of speech
(by preventing someone from speaking at their facility with whom they happen to disagree with). If a right wing conservative wanted to use your website or your column space to run their ideas, would you agree to do that? If not, are you censoring them?

This raises the question of whether my blog is a "publication" or public forum. Perhaps, perhaps not, I dunno. It came up when I first started the blog when Republican readers asked why I didn't provide a comments section. I decided not to do so after perusing other blogs that contained such comments. With few exceptions, I found the comments to be dominated by obsessive, juvenile, and utterly worthless remarks. They added nothing to the discussion except stupid insults. If, however, a productive back and forth between me and some right-wingers were possible to achieve in this forum, I would happily do so. Until then, yes, I am censoring them.

Of course you're not. On the other hand if the government takes your column and decides to clip portions of it, now you're talking expurgation. If someone is jailed to prevent them from speaking in public...that's expurgation. You're merely crying wolf over a matter of personal preference. Honestly it detracts from many of the good liberal issues you raise week in and week out.

They're not liberal issues, they're American issues. Speaking of which:

Ann Coulter Call Out

The rumor mill has it that that coward Ann Coulter called me and Al Franken "America haters" yesterday morning on C-SPAN. If anyone saw it or has a transcript, please write chet@rall.com. If true, this slanderous nonsense has got to stop.

Iraq

Jason spits:

So I suppose that you've heard about the latest act of courage and patriotism performed by your noble insurgent allies. If not, here's a little quote from CNN - "Four explosions ripped through Baghdad on Friday, leaving at least 20 people dead and dozens wounded as Shiite Muslims observed the holy period of Ashura, authorities said. Three of the blasts -- two suicide bombings and a rocket attack -- targeted Shiite mosques, officials said." What wonderful people. I can see why you respect them so much. You remain a sick and disgusting man. And your side will lose.

Readers know that I predicted that a US invasion would lead to civil war in Iraq. Congrats, Mr. Bush--you got exactly what you should have expected. If nothing else, Saddam knew that Iraq could only be held together by harsh dictatorship; removing him necessarily led to the present situation. Too bad the dildos in the Administration and their allies in American state media didn't prepare for the inevitable.
"My side"? It might take a while, Jason, but I'm an optimist. American patriots will prevail over the psychotic neofascists like you.

Ward Churchill, Free Speech, Bill O'Reilly and Large Crocodiles That Bite

OK, no crocodiles. Which is too bad, because what's cooler than a creature that goes from 0 to 100 in 0.1 seconds, biting and thrashing? But anyway.
David writes:

Read your article and there are a couple points that are up for debate. One that is quick is that Bill O'Reilly has NEVER called for Churchill's firing, not a single time. He has said that he believes that Churchill may get fired for what he said but he has never called for his firing, not once.

No one coughed up a show transcript but a few reliable FORs who are regular O'Reilly watchers say that David is correct. So consider this a retraction: Bill O'Reilly, as far as I know, did NOT call for Ward Churchill's firing, though he reportedly urged viewers to contact the University of Colorado to express their opinions about Churchill's opinions.

Number two, it would be ignorant, arrogant and hypocritic to believe that all free speech would never see a response. Churchill can say what he wants but don't be suprise to not hear a response to his inflammatory comments. The right-wing and everyday American that feels offended has a right to excersise their free speech in response to Ward Churchill. Would you defend Ward Churchill so easily if he made comments that sounded right-wing or racist to you? Probably not. Freedom is a two way street.

David should reread my essay, which is less about "defending" Churchill than pointing out that censorship doesn't necessarily originate only with the government, contrary to the assertions of the Ayn Rand types. In that context I absolutly would "defend" Churchill were he censored merely for the sin of being racist or otherwise offensive. What I was attempting to point out is that Hamilton College absolutely did censor Ward Churchill. Sure, they had the Constitutional right to do so. But they are censors, and should cop to being censors.
Frequent GOR (Gadly of Rall) Alan writes:

You're right. The dictionary doesn't relate censorship to government. It's the Constitution that does that. Here's what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Quite simply, it prevents the Government from censoring the verbalization of the thoughts of the people. College Administrative Boards are not Congress, and the Constitution does not protect against censorship by non-governmental entities.

That's true. But I never argued that what happened to Churchill was unconstitutional, merely that it was censorship.

In instances like the Churchill situation, liberals seek to pioneer the right to speak freely into the 'right to force an unsuspecting and/or unwilling audience to listen to what I have to say'. That is a MONUMENTAL deviation from what was intended, as Thomas Boyden readily observed.

I cannot speak for liberals as a whole nor would I want to, but I wish Republicans would read the words I write rather than project the ones they imagine I'd write. All I want is for people who blackball and censor people who express unpopular opinions to admit that that's what they're doing. "Because I'm too stupid to engage in debate," they should scream at the top of their lungs, "I make those with whom I disagree shut up. I'm a censor!" Is that asking so much, for censors to admit that that's what they are?
"High School students have no power to censor. So, if their sentiments trend towards censorship, it's probably because many liberals refuse to exercise discretion and responsibility in what they say and because of their insistence that we have to here them out even if we don't want to."
Actually, the poll I cited in my column says that the students want the government to censor, not that they want to censor. And anyway, high school students can censor--if they're, say, the editor of their high school newspaper.
"Not only is refusing to invite Churchill to speak not 'censorship' in the legal sense, it doesn't prevent him from speaking his mind in the broader sense. It just prevents him from acquiring an audience with those who (for whatever legally rightfull reason) don't want to hear him."
This is fallacious reasoning. Economic censorship, denying someone the chance to express themselves and "acquiring an audience," is naturally a way to prevent the dissemination of uncomfortable ideas. Moreover, these censorship decisions rarely express the desire of the majority of a community not to let someone talk. Hamilton College, for instance, did not take a survey of its students and faculty to ask them whether or not Churchill should be allowed to speak. A few administrators made the call; for all they knew 99% of the Hamilton community agreed with everything Churchill had to say or disagreed and wanted to hear him nonetheless.

If a speaker from a white supremacy group insisted on an opportunity to speak about his ideology at a predominately black college, would you rise to support him?

Sure, the same way I invited David Duke onto my former KFI radio show to expound his racist thoughts to my progressive audience. A more accurate analogy would be whether a predominantly black college should disinvite a chemist from talking about chemistry after finding out that he was a bigot. Churchill, remember, was supposed to talk about American Indian activism, not 9/11.

If Churchill wanted to speak (to college students) about the positive benefits female college students can derive from having sex with college professors, would you support him?

See above.

So, what's the difference, other than the subject matter?

I'm your worst nightmare, Alan--a leftie who strives to be consistent.

Iran
Rick writes:

Ted, what do you think about letting Iran develop nuclear weapons? Do you not think they would eventually use them against Israel? I agree, spy drones are an invasion of sovereign territory, but how else would we know where they are? Do you really think the EU or UN can negotiate with religious leaders in Iran? In short, what would you have done different? Also, what would you suggest is the best course of action regarding North Korea? Is war never an option?

and Allen asks:

Off the subject...Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? If not, what should be done to stop them? Have you heard of the new alliance between Syria and Iran? It's getting ugly.

First: The United States, the only nation to have used nukes (twice), is by definition the least trustworthy country on earth when it comes to the judicious application of a nuclear arsenal.
Second: The United States does not enjoy the legal or moral prerogative to determine which nations may or may not possess nuclear weapons.
Third: The Bush Administration's sabre-rattling is doing more to encourage nuclear proliferation than any other force in politics today. Who doubts that North Korea is safe from U.S. attack precisely because it managed to go nuclear before Bush had the chance to attack them? Or that Iraq would have been safe had it managed to do the same?
Answer: If the U.S. doesn't want Iran to acquire nukes, it will get further with honey than vinegar. Opening diplomatic relations, getting Israel to promise not to attack Iran, asking Israel to get rid of its own nuclear arsenal (why doesn't anyone ever talk about that threat in the Middle East?), guaranteeing not to attack Iran--all of these would be far likelier to convince the Iranian government that it no longer needs to spend millions on a nuclear program.
The alliance between Syria and Iran, believe it or not, is good news for global stability. I hope to see more nations form strategic alliances to counterbalance the United States, which is using its post-Cold War power to wreak havoc throughout the world.
Is war ever an option? Yes: when you are attacked, when your allies are attacked, and when you are about to be attacked. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq nor Iran qualify, of course. After 9/11, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan did--but Bush raised their allowance instead.

The Haters
Fred marvels:

So, as a lark (and to keep from having to do any actual work for a few moments) I goggled your name. Good God man! There a lot of people who really hate you! Which I take as a sign that you're doing your job (I'd say the same thing to Rush Limbaugh if I could stomach his website and he were to deign respond). Most of them seem like raving lunatics, but there are a few who refute many of your positions in an intelligent manner. Still, I'm sure you've got a pretty thick skin about this kinda stuff, but do the death threats and insults ever bother you? I don't know how you deal with that kind of vitriol. I know I sure as hell couldn't. Again, though we disagree on much, this just adds to the respect I have for you and work.

Of course the threats bother me, so much so that I report the most extreme ones to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. The United States is an extraordinarily violent country awash in weaponry, its Wild West culture encourages the use of force as a means of resolving disputes, and many Americans are threatened by opinions that counter their own. So it's important to take these things seriously. That said, I can't help how other people react to what I say or do. All things considered, I'm a relatively moderate voice doing little more than expressing my take on the issues of the day. Were I to softpedal my opinions, I'd be little better than the squishy mainstream media cartoonists and columnists whose work I deplore. I'm lucky to live in a country which has enshrined the freedom of expression in its Bill of Rights and to have the opportunity to use that freedom to earn a living, and I intend to use it as fully as I know how. I refuse to live in fear because some violent jackasses have access to computers.

O'Reilly and Churchill

Several readers have contacted me to point out that Bill O'Reilly has not called for Ward Sutton to be fired by the University ofr Colorado. In writing this week's column, I relied on coverage by a large daily newspaper that referenced O'Reilly's remarks which--if these readers are to be believed--it mischaracterized. I didn't watch the O'Reilly Factor the night he discussed the Ward Churchill controversy. If anyone has evidence, such as a show transcript, that would shed light on this matter, I would appreciate that you send it to chet@rall.com.

Disgruntled Soldiers

In response to a few of you: The reason I don't post emails by American soldiers who disagree with Bush Administration policy is that I don't believe they should be subjected to payback by their military paymasters. Duh.

American Plans to Occupy France After World War II

Finally! Thanks to my able webmeister, my Columbia thesis is now online. The parallels between what we did right and wrong then and now are striking.

The US War Against Iran

Samir writes:

First, thanks for all the wonderful work you put out. I think you've pretty perfectly explained what a nightmare and crime it would be to do what we plan to do (and apparently have DONE given the spydrones) in Iran. My question is: when this really gets serious, will the public and Congress really approve another ill-advised and insane war?

As I wrote in last week's column, I don't believe a ground invasion is currently in the offing. The Bushists plan "surgical airstrikes" (either directly or using Israel as our proxy) against Iranian military targets. But as I also wrote then, Iran will likely counterattack against Israel. War will begin, and both sides will be able to argue that the other started it. In my opinion, however, it's clear that the blame for escalating tensions is 99% the White House's. Iran, after all, has been asking for full diplomatic relations with the US for years and even provided military assistance to the US in its war against the Taliban in 2001-02.
Will the US public go along? At the beginning, yes. It's reflexive; Americans fall into line when war begins and start expressing their doubts once it's underway. Stupid, yes, but history shows that what we do. The drumbeat for war against Iran will be assisted by our recent history, namely the hostage crisis, which many ignorant members of the electorate view as as-yet unavenged humiliation. "Finish the job," they'll cry; never mind that the Ayatollah Kholmeini is dead or that the Carter Administration sparked the crisis by admitting the hated Shah to the US (in the Panama Canal Zone, I believe).

If Iran draws blood in retaliation to our current transgressions, they could make it easy. But if they don't, does the White House cabal really have the currency to pull this off? My thinking is they have
this brief shining glow of the "wins" of the Iraqi election and they're trying to get their work done now before we remember how miserable the Iraqi situation actually is. But in any scenario, I have to hope there's some line the public won't let George cross.

We all hope that. But if the Nazi experience is any guide, there probably isn't. The American people, after all, sat on their hands while Bush bullied his way into a presidency he clearly lost. Once you lose your democracy, you're no longer vested in what your leaders do.

Mathew writes:

Sending aircraft over a country is provocative behaviour (I seem to remember that this was actually being talked about some weeks ago), although if the aircraft are not armed this is slightly less so. The country involved would, of course, be fully entitled to defend its airspace by shooting the aircraft down. However, this is not an act of war. That, surely, would involve some damage to life or property. It seems clear that the U.S. government is planning to damage life and property in Iran, but those plans may be shelved or derailed. I hope so, anyway.

Mathew, you've been reading American state media for far too long. A foreign nation sends a military plane into your airspace. That's an invasion. If Mexico or Canada did that to us, we'd probably attack them. It would certainly be a major crisis. The only reason Iran has to suck it up is because we're a superpower and they're not; we can hit them and they can't hit us. But it's still an act of war.

John writes:

1) It's frightening that so many people think that criticizing Bush is criticizing America, and 2), That so many Americans completely discount our aggressive actions. I picture a stranger barging into my house, splattering everything with paint, then berating me for not being grateful to be liberated from my bad taste.

The United States is one of the few great (former) democracies to have liberated itself from its former colonial power without a real revolution, one that redistributed power and wealth. As such we have no national personality that causes us to rebel in any meaningful way. Italy, for instance, has seen four general strikes since 2001. We haven't had one since 1947. And because we don't reflexively distrist authority as do the citizens of intelligent countries, we reflexively trust it. We have a lot of German ancestry, and the Cult of the Leader is not foreign to us.

Alan Keyes, Violent Loony

Berl writes:

Regarding your entry about Alan Keyes: I looked up the original source of his comment, and it seemed clear to me that he wasn't seriously proposing that you be shot or arrested - he was making it clear, clumsily, that he sees you as dangerously disloyal to your nation. Your paraphrasing of his remarks was technically accurate, but not truthful. It was an intellectually - and, I suspect, intentionally - dishonest attempt to make Keyes look like a rabid, violent loony. It makes me wonder about the truthfulness of your work as a whole.

I stand by my previous comments. I welcome everybody to Google the original source of his essay about me, comments that sparked condemnation from a variety of politically neutral sources and free speech advocates. Substitute the words "President Bush" for "Ted Rall" throughout the essay and I guarantee you that Keyes would have faced a very uncomfortable visit from the Secret Service. I read a lot of political invective, but I have rarely if ever seen this kind of "won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?" rhetoric. But that's my opinion, and others can and will see things differently. And yeah, I'm extremely biased when it comes to whether or not I should be shot, jailed, or censored by the government (Keyes explicitly called for the last). Keyes is a violent loony, and as such should be jailed and/or censored by the government...oh. Never mind.

Pat Tillman Again

Mark writes:

Why do you have to be such an asshole??? Before the Muslim murderers killed almost 3000 people on September 11 you were a really funny guy. Since then you've become just as big an asshole as The Ditzy Chicks, Streisand, Baldwin and that dumbass Springsteen (whom I used to really respect until he showed his asshole colors),

So I was funny when I was mean to Bill Clinton. But when I'm mean to the guy Mark voted for, I'm an asshole. That's what cuts it for me; people who relate humor to their partisan politics. Dude, I haven't changed but the country sure has. Concentration camps are but one small clue.

You've insulted Pete Tillman and his family. Tillman may have done something that a materialistic little prick like you and your friends might not understand, but that's what made him an honorable man. That's probably something that you don't have the testosterone to understand.

Yes, Tillman gave up a $3.6 million football contract to go kill Iraqis and Afghans. This is cited as evidence of principle and integrity, and I suppose that within a narrow band of ideological imagination it is. But he fought and died for an evil cause under a lying, thieving dictator who stole the presidency because the people refused to elect him to it. Yes, he sacrificed money for that "principle." But the cause was wrong, which should have made his decision directly the opposite: to stay home and care for his family. Tillman is an American tragedy, at best a man who made a stupid decision that got him killed for Bush's oil cronies, at worst a violent thug who wanted to kill Muslims after 9/11--any Muslims, anywhere--rather than go after the real criminals in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Tillman was used, and he should have known he would be used by the right-wing extremists to justify their illegal invasions. That's the beauty of a volunteer army: it's voluntary. And these days, NO ONE SHOULD VOLUNTEER. That's the point of my work about Tillman.

You ran a 'toon last summer about running dead American soldiers through garden mulchers.

Well, not quite. What I was showing was the Bushies' attitude toward veterans. But whatever. And now on to that staple of right-wing letter writing, the violent threat (why are they all like this?):

Keep your eyes peeled out for one of those Iraq War veterans. Just in case you didn't know, I made sure that several thousand of those guys got to see that shitty little cartoon of yours on the same day. A lot of them are going to be coming back to the states here in the next few weeks. Maybe the papers will be carrying a story about your encounter with one of those Proud, Honorable, Brave & now Battle Hardened Veterans. I surely figure the odds are that you are going to get some kind feedback from the people that you have insulted.

Either that or they'll be writing me, as they do every day, to say that Iraq is bullshit and that the people don't want us there and that I was absolutely right. Either way. But it's nice of you to show a cartoon that you're sure would offend the soldiers to "thousands" of them. Because, unlike me, Mark really cares about the troops.

Now you want to call President Bush a racist today. Don't you know that the Democrats are the real racists in this country? I figured you didn't. You and that piece of shit Howard Dean can go to hell with your liberal politics and anti-American attitudes.

Bush belongs to an all-white club in Texas. Ergo, by definition, he's a racist. Q.E.D.

You can count on the fact that I'll never look at you in a positive way again. No money out of me for any of your shit.

Yeah, I'm sure Mark used to buy my books and read me every day.

Amazing, Part Two

So that turd Alan Keyes, who wrote that I should be shot and/or jailed by the government for opposing Bush's wars, has disowned his daughter because she's gay. There's a special place in hell for him, right next to Ronald Reagan.

Amazing, Part One

So now the United States is using unmaned aerial drone planes over Iran.

Will someone please tell me how this is not an act of war?

The Republicanization of MSNBC; Are There Good Conservative Cartoons?

Richard writes:

I enjoy reading your columns, blog, and comics -- you provide a keen insight into all sorts of fascinating matters. I've contacted you once before (regarding your reference/citation policy), and you replied to me rather quickly. I figured I'd try again, and see what you think about the strip that replaced your's on the MSNBC comics page. I don't know if you visit the site (http://www.msnbc.com/comics/default.asp?nfeature=4), but in case you haven't, the spot formerly occupied by you is now filled by "Prickly City." Sometimes this strip is amusing and clever, but more often than not it does nothing but make a bad joke about some Democrat. For instance, in today's edition (13 Feb 2005), the author continues his recent theme of mocking the Democratic National Committee by making Hillary Clinton out to be a an elitist, self-righteous bitch (at least, that's what I think he's trying to do). I do not identify myself as a Democrat -- I find the current two party system fraught with errors and lacking originality and progressive thought -- and I appreciate someone who can make fun of the flaws of any and all political figures. However, when "Prickly City" attempts jabs at Dems, they usually come across as childish and without concern
for the real issues. It appears that the strip attempts to present both sides, but ends up as fair and balanced as Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. I'm just curious as to what you think about MSNBC's attempt to make their political comics section more balanced. Are there no good conservative comics? Daryl Cagle has a few on his site, but they never seem as insightful as the more liberal artists. Am I biased because of my left-leaning political views? Are Bush and the Neocons such easy targets that liberal artists have an easier time than the conservative comic strips? Is there anything to mock the Democrats about other than their disorganization and pitiful national and regional election record?

Of course I don't make a habit of revisiting the URLs where my cartoons used to be. That would be like stalking an old girlfriend's house: creepy and pathetic. Not to mention a waste of bandwidth. But my readers have pointed out that both the Washington Post Online and MSNBC--which admitted that they dropped my cartoons due to pressure from right-wing extremists--have replaced my work not with something equivalent from the same side of the political spectrum, but rather from the right. This does, of course, tend to confirm the worst suspicions of media observers. Drop a liberal cartoonist due to Republican pressure; replace him with a right-winger. Hmm. What on earth COULD be going on?
As to the broader question of whether there are any good conservative cartoons, I don't read everything out there. To the contrary, I try to avoid reading editorial cartoons as much as possible for fear that I might inadvertently internalize someone else's idea and then regurgigate it, thinking that it's my own. So there may be good conservative comic strips, though neither I nor anyone else I know has apparently seen any.
Back in my salad days, I was asked by the right-wing National Review to rough up some ideas for their magazine. Now I was young, stupid, and so sick and tired of my crappy day jobs (I had three at once, usually), that I was willing to entertain drawing cartoons from a conservative viewpoint just to get into print. So I spent two weeks drawing cartoon ideas that made fun of the homeless, the poor, etc. And you know what? They all sucked. Because there's nothing funny about making fun of the powerless, and nothing interesting about agreeing with the powers that be. That experience taught me that drawing cartoons from a conservative standpoint would only become a viable proposition after a sweeping left-wing revolution the likes of which this country has never seen.
There are, of course, decent editorial cartoonists who draw from a Republican point of view. Wayne Stayskal, Scott Stantis and Chuck Asay immediately come to mind. But they're best when they're angry and bitter and not so hot when they try to be amusing. But of course, that's my opinion. For whatever it's worth.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

The Economics of Cartoon Spinoffs



Occasionally I receive emails such as this one from Jim:

First, I love your work. Your comics are absolute genius and your columns a refreshing, hard-hitting dose of unapologetic liberalism amid Yahoo!'s boring roster. Your most recent cartoon, about the logic of pre-emption, strikes me as something perfect for a wall poster. Have you made posters out of any of your comics? Would you? I could use something to put up in my dorm room besides football and movie posters! Thanks, and keep fighting the good fight,

Of course I'd love to do some posters. I made two available as free downloads during the 2004 presidential campaign. But the sad truth is, there's no way to make printing posters economically feasible. Here's why:

The minimum print run to make full-color posters viable is 1,000. That may not sound like a lot, but as fellow cartoonists have told me, you're lucky to sell a couple of hundred. Each poster costs $1.50 to print, which makes the print bill around $1,800 when you include set-up costs, shipping and sales taxes. Let's say I price the posters to move, at $5 plus shipping. Then I sell 200. I've made $1,000. Net loss: $800.

Truth is, the only way to make posters work is in conjunction with some event where the organizers sell them as a momento of the evening.

This is also why so few cartoonists do postcards.

Of course, all of this would change if fans were to buy more than one copy of these items they crave so badly if and when they came out. For instance, readers are constantly asking when I'll publish another collection of my editorial cartoons since the last one, SEARCH AND DESTROY, came out in 2001. The answer is: sales for cartoon collections are always terrible, even for big-time Pulitzer winners. Readers claim they want them, but they don't buy them. That would change, of course, if fans took to buying 10 copies of their favorite cartoonist collections and giving them out as presents to their friends and relatives. But it seems terribly unlikely.



Sending Up Jesus



A concerned reader asks:

I have just read your new article about "Republican Jesus." I must say that it was quite entertaining. Any commentator could write a column that criticizes politicians, but here, you have managed to cleverly express it in the form of a parody of stories from the Bible. That is something unique that I have not seen in a while.

However, there is one question I have for you about this. If I am not mistaken, you wrote this

article as a satire on how Republicans constantly overuse Jesus and Christianity as a tool for pushing their political agendas as well as how much the real Christ differed from President Bush.

You are not mistaken.

Unfortunately, not everyone seems to have gotten the message. Talking online, I have noticed that some people who read the article have interpreted it as an outright slander and insult to Christianity. This a big argument that right-wingers use to discredit liberals: that they are cold-hearted athiests who ridicule and demean the beliefs of the devout and religious.

I know that you desire to try and convince conservatives to change and see things the liberal

way. But is this really the right way to do that? Could it cause a backlash?

Christ himself suffered from the fact that not everybody got the message, including most so-called Christians, but that doesn't mean that the message wasn't worth delivering. It's true that not everybody will understand satire, especially delivered in an unorthodox format. That said, if a reasonably intelligent person does get it, the odds are that it's sufficiently obvious for most people to get it if they make an effort. Whenever I've dumbed down an idea to accomodate some misguided sense that people are too stupid to understand more sophisticated approaches, I've found the results disastrous. Far better to lose a few people--who probably don't want to understand anyway--than to lose everybody.