More Pledges, Please

I already do radio but I'm almost ready to to NPR what with all this pleading for cash.

Seriously, though, the Sue Ann Coulter Pledge Drive is kicking serious ass. We're over $21,000! In other words, we're almost there--but we need more to do this job right. If standing up against slander and libel by right-wing nutjobs doesn't make you pry open your wallet, consider the look on Coulter's face when she meets my process server!

Wednesday Night in NYC: Ted Rall & Stephanie McMillan

I'll be joining cartoonist Stephanie McMillan (her book, "Minimum Security", is part of the "Attitude" series that I edit) to sign our books at the Barnes & Noble on Sixth Avenue at West 8th Street in Manhattan tomorrow night, starting at 7. There will be a talk and Q&A beforehand, and we hope to see you there!

Directions: A B C D E F subway to West 4th Street, 1 9 to Christopher Street, PATH from NJ to 9th Street.

Geek Love

As numerous comics fans pointed out and as I should have known better, "It's Clobberin' Time!" was a trademark statement by The Thing from The Fantastic Four, not the Hulk. Doh.

Coulter!

It's the start of a brand-new week--and as the Incredible Hulk might say, it may just be NEOCON CLOBBERIN' TIME! Pledges total $19,712 and if they keep coming in, we'll be able to do this thing. I'm waiting by my in box so if you're so moved to hold her accountable and draw a line in the sand between protected free speech and slander, please pledge at chet@rall.com.

Ann Coulter Update

I'm starting to feel optimistic. As of this minute pledges for the Rall v. Coulter slander and libel lawsuit fund total $13,716.00. If pledges keep coming in, especially some big ones (though the vast majority of those so far have been modest sums, so the little ones do count for a lot), we may have enough money to move ahead with holding the right-wing attack dog to account for her lies.

Some have asked about Garry Trudeau and the New York Times, both of whom were falsely said to have entered Iran's Holocaust cartoon contest as well. As far as I know neither party intends to pursue legal action. So it's all up to me--and you.

Others have asked what I will do if I win a judgement. My conclusion: I will return any net winnings to each individual donor in direct proportion to their contribution. So if you give 5% of the up-front funds, you'll get 5% of the winnings.

Another question concerns what I will put up towards the cause. Besides my own time and effort staving off the Right-Wing Attack Machine that will no doubt go after me I will be responsible for any legal fees over and above contributions. If I were rich and could afford to do this on my own, I would. Just to be clear.

Please send pledges via email to chet@rall.com. Do NOT send money until I contact you with the news that we are moving forward with the suit as I do not want to have to issue refunds if nothing happens.

Ann Coulter Update

Pledges currently total nearly $11,000. That's seriously encouraging but we're still short of what's needed to launch a successful libel and slander lawsuit against the Queen of Mean. If you're interested in pledging a donation to help fund such a suit, send your email with pledge amount to: chet@rall.com. If enough pledges come in to make a suit viable, I'll contact you with instructions about where to send your payment. (Both PayPal and payment by check will be accepted.) Thanks to all who have already made pledges.

Ted Rall at New York Comiccon

Hours posted below still apply; I will NOT, however, be there on Sunday. Be sure to stop by the NBM table if you happen to be there. Stephanie McMillan, the brilliant cartoonist whose book "Minimum Security" was edited by yours truly, will also be on hand to sell and sign her book, so be sure to pick up a couple of those.

Who Will Let Me Draw The World's Most Offensive Cartoon?

Not most of my clients, as I've found out by asking. I want to draw a cartoon that offends everybody on every level, but I can't find a single newspaper or magazine willing to even entertain the idea, much less run the actual final art. And they call this America.

Ann Coulter Update: TIme is Running Out

My lawyers and I will determine later this week whether we have received sufficient pledges to pursue a libel and slander case against Ann Coulter for her statement, first issued verbally at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) meeting in Washington on February 10, where she falsely said that I had submitted cartoons to Iran's anti-Holocaust cartoon contest, a claim that she repeated in her nationally syndicated column on February 15.

I have not entered, nor do I intend to enter, this contest.

Coulter and her fellow conservatives frequently use this tactic. Rather than express an opinion ("The Iran cartoon contest is just the sort of thing you'd expect Ted Rall to enter!") they up the ante to actual libel and slander by saying that it's actually true. It's a vile, illegal tactic--but unless someone challenges it in court, it will continue to be deployed against patriotic liberals, Democrats and political progressives of all stripes. After all, these are the same people who smeared war hero Max Cleland as a coward. And it works--mainly because Democrats don't fight back.

I am willing to wage this fight. Unfortunately, at this point I am increasingly pessimistic that I will be able to raise sufficient funds to sue Coulter. Current pledges total $7,871, which is far short of the mid-five-figures needed to pursue a libel and slander case all the way to trial. I will NOT start a fight I cannot fight to the finish.

Unless pledges pick up dramatically in the days ahead, Coulter will get off the hook--again.

Ann Coulter Fund Drive

Thanks to everyone who has pledged so far to fight the slanderous hate speech of Ann Coulter. Pledges currently total nearly $8,000! It's a lot of money but it takes a lot more than that—at least four times more—to stand a chance of giving a libel and slander lawsuit a fair chance. A few choice donations and mentions on big liberal sites would get us there, but we'll have to see what next week brings.

Ted Rall at NY Comic Con

New Yorkers attending next week's New York Comic Con should bring their Ted Rall books for me to sign. I'll be at the NBM Publishing table 6-8 pm Friday and 3-5 Saturday—Sunday TBD. I'll also bring copies of my rare and out-of-print early books and galleys, as well as original cartoons, for sale, so bring your checkbooks and credit cards if you have some loose cash. See you next weekend!

Norah Vincent on Ted Rall Show

Tomorrow's Ted Rall radio show features, at 10 am, Village Voice writer and author Norah Vincent, talking about her new book. She spent months undercover—as a man! Check out one woman's insights on the trials and tribulations of life as an American male at 1069freefm.com (if you have a PC) or live in San Francisco at 106.9FM.

I Will Sue Coulter, But I Need Your Help

Editor & Publisher has an update on right-wing author, syndicated columnist and frequent Fox News guest Ann Coulter's campaign to equate my opposition to George W. Bush with anti-Semitism:

Some highlights:

Ann Coulter, in Her New Column, Repeats Holocaust Jab At 'NYT' and Rall
By Dave Astor
Published: February 16, 2006 4:30 PM ET

NEW YORK—In her latest print column, Ann Coulter repeats the verbal statement that caused much discussion in the blogosphere during the past week and drew a threat by editorial cartoonist Ted Rall to take her to court.

Coulter, a Universal Press Syndicate columnist, had said last Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.: "Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times have made submissions."

In her latest column, posted today on AnnCoulter.com, Coulter writes that one "Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times.)"

When asked for his response, Rall told E&P today: "Now it's slander AND libel." He added that Coulter's decision to repeat her remark could make his case stronger.

As E&P reported earlier today, Rall said his attorney has told him he'd have a case if he sued Ann Coulter. But the cartoonist also said he'd need to raise more funds if he's going to take legal action.

Rall -- who, like Coulter, is syndicated by Universal -- said his supporters have pledged about $7,000 so far. Asked how much he would need to file a lawsuit and pursue it to the end, Rall said he's not sure yet. The cartoonist did emphasize that if he asks pledgers to actually send money for a lawsuit, the money would go straight into an account for his attorney. Rall said he would personally not touch that account.

If he won a lawsuit against Coulter, Rall said he would give any monetary damages to a political action committee or divide the money among those who donated to fund the legal action.

Some of the e-mails Rall received during the past week accused him of "dishing it out but not being able to take it." In response, Rall told E&P: "I'm as much a free-speech purist as it comes. But in my opinion, this is not a free-speech issue. This is about hijacking my politics and trying to equate my opposition to the Bush administration with anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism. Ann Coulter is planting the seed among millions of readers that I'm a Holocaust revisionist, which I'm not. I'm not going to tolerate that."

Many readers take the content of Coulter's column seriously, said Rall, even if she has claimed at times to be "joking."

Coulter's current column -- in addition to repeating the line about Rall, "Doonesbury" creator Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times -- also seems to stereotype all Muslims as violent.

Not only did Coulter slander me in front of a thousand conservatives at a speech attended by Dick Cheney in Washington (the night before his hunting accident in Texas), she put it into print in her syndicated column. Make no mistake, there is a case. But this is going to cost major bucks to pursue correctly.

Insults, vitriol and snotty comments are all part of free speech. Deliberately misrepresenting a person's opinions in order to shut them up is not. What we're witnessing here is no less than a return to the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy during the 1950s "Red Scare"—which shouldn't be surprising considering that Ann Coulter wrote an entire book whose thesis was that McCarthy was a great guy who ought to be loved and respected.

If you're as tired as I am of Republicans smearing liberals and Democrats as traitors, un-American and sympathetic to terrorism, here's an opportunity to draw a line, to say "here's where it stops." I have already raised about $7,000 through my pledge drive, but unless I receive a higher level of commitment from progressives to fight this battle I will only be able to start it. As you probably know, I'm a fighter—but I fight to win. That means all the way, no matter what it takes.

So here's the deal. I am NOT asking those who have already made pledges to promise more. What I AM asking is for those who haven't done so to step forward. Small contributions are of course welcome. What will get us there faster will be one or two people who have the financial means to do what conservatives do for their pundits all the time: commit to the long-term legal battle that will undoubtedly ensue. If rich liberals won't help those of us who are down in the ideological trenches, they have no one to blame but themselves for yet another defeat.

Coulter Ups the Ante, Repeats anti-Semitic Smear in Print

Coulter may be able to laugh away her speech to the CPAC last week as "just a joke," though I say it's slander. (And so does my lawyer!) Now she's compounded her assault on my reputation by putting into print. In this week's syndicated Ann Coulter column, she specifically smears me as some sort of neo-Nazi Holocaust revisionist type:

The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)

I have a call into my lawyer about this, but this is clearly a case of libel added to her previous slander.

As stated previously, I will sue her if I can raise sufficient funds. If some of the big liberal blogs see fit to publicize this effort, I may have a chance. If not, look for even more right-wing smears on the integrity of those of us who oppose the Bush Administration and its policies.

Rall v. Coulter? It's an Expensive, But Viable, Proposition

My very experienced attorney tells me that Coulter's vile smear about me at last week's CPAC confab amounts to a good news/bad news proposition, legally speaking.

First, the good news: He believes there is a viable cause of action against Coulter for slander. What she said fits the traditional profile for slander: She probably knew it to be untrue and that it could harm my business by injuring my reputation. In addition there is a body of case law that includes impugning a person's patriotism and loyalty to their country as slander. True, we could lose. But there's a good chance of winning.

Now, the bad news: As a best-selling author, she is richer than me. Moreover, as a conservative she can draw upon well-heeled ideological allies to finance her legal defense. (Sadly, many wealthy liberals prefer to sit on their hands than defend their own against smears.) She would undoubtedly find representation with a high-powered First Amendment firm to defend her.

I could, of course, simply use the $6,000 I've raised so far through my pledge drive (thanks, everyone—you're the best!) to pay for the initial filing of a lawsuit. The problem is what happens next. As months of depositions and discovery drag into years, even people who initially supported legal action tend to move on, to become less interested in helping to support such a case, especially as it fades from the headlines. Without continued public support I simply couldn't afford to keep making the necessary motions and filings, and would have to drop the suit.

Once I commit to a fight, I'm determined to see it through to its conclusion. So I'm not giving up my idea of pursuing legal action for the time being. What I need, quite frankly, is enough money pledged up front—and, if and when I file, paid directly to my attorneys—to ensure that this case can be brought to trial.

Some conservatives have asked why I don't use my own money to pay for this case. If I could, I would. But you'd be amazed how poorly cartooning and writing pays! I don't have that kind of cash. As you know, however, I am always willing to bear the brunt of the assault from the right-wing attack machine. I'm willing to stand up for what's right no matter what they say or do. So it's not like I won't be paying for anything. If this case moves ahead, I'll be the one sitting through court dates and being deposed and forking over my personal correspondence and being treated like dirt by right-wing commentators. Anyone who has fought a legal battle knows how ugly this can get.

So that's where things stand. Whether or not this proxy battle for the soul of America takes place depends on the generosity of the American people and the depth of their contempt for neo-McCarthyite smear tactics against progressives. Please pledge today at chet@rall.com.

Ann Coulter Lies; You Decide: Should I Sue?

Republican columnist Ann Coulter spoke earlier today to the Conservative Political Action Committee, where the audience included 1000 right-wingers including Vice President Dick Cheney. There, among other things, she is reported to have said the following:

"Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions."

She lied. I have not submitted anything to any Iranian publication. I have no intention of doing so. And I have said that in public, repeatedly.

Obviously, in making such a statement, Coulter crossed the line into outright libel--she intentionally stated a mistruth intended to harm my reputation. And obviously a libel suit is called for. Problem is, it costs many thousands of dollars to file such a case, much less pursue it through the courts. (I know this from personal experience.)

So what do you, dear readers, think I should do? Should I do what no liberal has been willing to do as of yet--hold a lying neoconservative to task for smearing them? I'll do it with your support--but I need your help to decide. Thus I hereby I announce

THE FIRST ANNUAL ANN COULTER LAWSUIT OPINION POLL

To vote NO, simply email chet@rall.com with a message telling me that you vote no. Feel free to impugn my patriotism if you feel so moved.

To vote YES, please email chet@rall.com along with a solemn pledge stating the amount of financial support you are willing to contribute to support my legal challenge to Coulter's libelous statement.

If enough YES votes come in with enough serious pledges, I'll see Ann in court. If not, well, chalk up another victory for the Right.

UPDATE (Sat. 11:45 AM EST): Votes are currently running 3-to-1 in FAVOR of suing Ann Coulter. And people are putting their money where their mouths are! Pledges already total more than $1500; since it costs about $6000 to draft and file a libel lawsuit in New York, where both she and I live, we're a quarter of the way to having enough to get the ball rolling. If that number continues to rise, I'll be in touch with the pledgers about putting their contributions into my lawyer's escrow PayPal account and start things going.

Some have asked whether she'll be able to use the "just funnin'" defense. She'll certainly try, but I doubt her claims of "humor" or sarcasm will fly with a jury since (a) she's not funny and (b) her audiences take her literally and she knows it. But this will all depend on my attorneys, a team with expertise in libel law. If the pledges keep coming, I'll know whether it's even financially feasible to proceed. Of course, I could sue and lose. But, as emailers have remarked variously: (a) it'd be amusing nevertheless and (b) would finally hold her accountable for her over-the-top libelous statements about Americans with more patriotism than they could ever dream of.

UPDATE 2 (Sun. 4:30 EST): Votes and pledges continue to come in roughly the same proportion as yesterday. So far pledges amount to about $2700 and most votes are positive. If we come close to the magic $6000 by tomorrow (Monday) I will meet with my attorney to discuss what to do. Bear in mind, of course, that it can cost more than $100,000 to actually *pursue* such a suit over the years. $6000 only gets a suit drafted and filed. And, of course, there's no guarantee of winning. Some readers have (rightly) pointed out that this will be a difficult case. I'll know more once my lawyer's offices open for business tomorrow morning. I pledge, by the way, that any net proceeds from a settlement or final judgement (minus attorney's fees, natch) will be donated to a political organization chosen by those who front my legal fees.

A lot of people want to see Coulter held to account for her disgusting statements, and that's gratifying. It may be an "honor" to be considered influential enough to be referenced at a national gathering of right-wingers but being smeared as some sort of treasonous Holocaust denier is sickening. These are the kinds of statements that prompt Republican bloggers to casually claim that I'm anti-Semitic (!) when nothing could be further from the truth. As a student of history who specialized in World War II I am not only completely aware of the monstrous scale and unique place of the Holocaust in modern history but terrified that genocide could happen again--if ideologues like Coulter manage to seize the complete power they crave. Call me straight, call me gay, call me an asshole, but if you call me a Holocaust revisionist I won't take it lying down.

UPDATE 3 (Mon., 4:30 PM EST): My lawyer is out of the office today, presumably digging out of the blizzard, but is expected in the office tomorrow morning. I'll talk to him then and post the replies there. If pledges continue to come in at the present rate, we should hit the $6000 mark sometime late tonight. Thanks to all who have written to offer support, as well as those who say "don't do it, it'll only make you look like a liberal girlie-man"—seriously, all advice is appreciated. Even the negatives. I have received so many "Sue Coulter" emails that I'm beginning to think Sue is her first name. Whether I choose to move forward will depend on the pledges as well as my lawyer's opinion. If he says there's a solid case, looks like a go. If not, nope.

UPDATE 4 (Tues., 1:20 PM EST): My lawyer is researching precedents to determine whether a case would be legally feasible. In the meantime, I'm declaring the First Ann Coulter Lawsuit Opinion Poll over. Despite votes generated yesterday by right-wing blogs (which, unlike the Florida elections officials, I counted) votes were overwhelmingly in favor of pursuing a suit. Pledges continue to be welcomed, but the vote is final. I will be in touch with pledgers to let them know whether or not we're moving forward.

UPDATE 5 (Wed., 10:00 AM EST): The law is mighty but not all that swift--because legal research is slow. I'm still awaiting word on whether the case law favors the filing of a suit because, after all, there's no point fighting a battle one is destined to lose. You'll know what I'm doing as soon as I do. Meanwhile, the predictable flow of emails from (male) right-wingers calling for me to be anally raped has commenced. Why do right-wingers want to rape Americans so much?

"Transfer Tube"

That's the new Bush Administration euphemism for "body bag." Really.

(From someone who found out the hardest way possible.)

That Iranian Cartoon Contest

GOR P.J. somewhat sarcastically notes:
If the Iranians are looking for : "A Few Good Holocaust Comics", I just KNOW you'll have a sweet submission.
You're the only cartoonist I know that can pull this one off...you go boy!
I dunno about you but I'D take Iranian prize money!!!
Ps. Between the Iranian reward and the Dutch uproar...you gotta be (from a creative standpoint) LOVING it!!!!

Truthfully, I never love it when people get killed in the streets. No fun, that. It's obviously a little scary for a cartoonist to consider the potential for this sort of uproar. That said, as I've previously said in public, nothing is sacred. If I could think of a funny Holocaust comic, I'd draw one. So far, coming up blank. But hey, I'm only 42.

Ted Rall Subscription Service

Here's what TRSS subscriber Don sez:

The $25 to get on your email list is the some of the best money I ever
spent. Nothing lights up my day like a new column or a batch of toons.

Your ability to condense current issues into cartoon form with insight,
humor, outrage and solutions is unsurpassed. Add in your column writing
skills and you are required reading. Thanks for shining the light on the
cockroaches.

Why let Don have all the fun? $25/year gets you all of my cartoons (3 a week) plus my column and exclusive TRSS-exclusive material emailed directly to your in box. Send $25 to PO Box 1134 NY NY 10027 (be sure to include your email address!) or email me for PayPal info at chet@rall.com.

Hannity & Colmes Postscript

Caveat dessinator.

I've appeared on many television programs, including on Fox, and have made deals with producers prior to appearing. Before my appearance on "Hannity & Colmes" tonight, I negotiated the following terms:

1. No mention whatsoever of my cartoons, current or previous, or my work in general. I'm just there to discuss Tom Toles' cartoon and the Danish Mohammed cartoon series.

2. Mention my radio show.

3. Show images of my book.

I know they did 3. They may have done 2. Number 1, on the other hand, they lied about. Halfway through the discussion, after only having discussed Toles (no Mohammed), Hannity began his simpleminded "you have no heart, you have no soul" routine while displaying a fuzzy version of my Pat Tillman cartoon. Boy, did I ever feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football while Lucy held it.

I certainly lit into Hannity, but that's not the point. The point is, if you go onto that show, you cannot trust their producer. If they tell you you're there to discuss a cartoon, they may ambush you with anything and anyone they want. Just as a fellow cartoonist warned me about Katie Couric's ambushing tendencies--I refused her show's invitation because of this--I'm warning you now.

"Hannity & Colmes" is much worse than a right-wing shoutfest for and by idiots (yes, including me). It is run by unprofessional liars.

P.S. The producer who made these promises, perhaps because he was a college classmate of mine, apologized for ten minutes after the show, saying he was shocked when he saw the Pat Tillman cartoon queued up on the control board because he had been specifically told that it wouldn't be there. "Be prepared for a very angry guest," he told the technicians. He was partly trying to diffuse responsibility, but there was likely some truth to his story.

Anyway, consider yourself warned.

Ted Rall Show Time Adjustment

This week's show will air from 10 am to 12 noon West Coast time on 106.9 FM San Francisco, 1069free.com for livestreaming. Guests include Anya Kamewitz, who writes about the difficulties of making it as a Gen X or Y in the current American job market.

Ted Rall Returns to "Hannity & Colmes"

Last night's appearance on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC show went awry when my limo appeared late. The driver attempted valiantly to get me to the studio on time, but alas—despite setting a new land-speed record—only managed to get me there in time to watch the end of "my" segment on Tom Toles' controversial Washington Post cartoon on the monitor.

Tonight, however, I'll be at Fox with plenty of time to spare, appearing on "Hannity & Colmes" to discuss both Toles' piece and the Danish cartoons about Mohammed that sparked outrage in the Arab world. Tune in at 9 pm EST.

MSNBC, 10 pm EST

I'm booked on "Scarborough Country" to discuss the Tom Toles controversy tonight.

That Danish Cartoon Controversy

John is one of many readers who somehow felt I might have something to say about this:

I’m a weekly reader of your column and cartoon and I’m a fan of most of your writing. I just wanted to see what your opinion is of the recent blurbs about the Danish newspaper apologizing and the near unanimous backpedaling by EU members regarding backlash to the 12 editorial cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. I tred several cursory internet searches and couldn’t find heads or tails of the cartoons and was actually both surprised and impressed with the immediate and violent protest to this seemingly innocuous set of drawings. I think the difficulty to my internalization of this is the relative lack of sensitivity that I have as an American or westerner for outrage over symbols. Especially this level of outrage. Where does the difference in culture come from and if I can’t grasp that, how does an occupying army of 19 year olds grasp that? It seems that a set of 12 images on paper sparked a more violent protest than US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and in a much shorter time frame. The US government doesn’t even understand the culture of predominantly Islamic nations, let alone a reason for their own military actions.

I’m willing to bet that not a single major news outlet and possibly not even any blogs will dare to reprint those 12 cartoons today. That is fascinating and I can not grasp a single parallel in the US.

My first reaction is disgust. Why did the Danes apologize? They ought to have stood behind their cartoonist. And even if the cartoons were offensive to the point that they crossed the line (an impossibility as far as I'm concerned, but then I make my living because of freedom of the press), the editors who published them is wholly to blame. Artists create; editors censor. Once an editor signs off on a cartoon, it becomes his or her responsibility.

Sadly too few American editors seem to grasp that. They fire the cartoonist when it's the editor who should step down.

I'm also disgusted at American newspapers who did not reprint the cartoons, if only to show their readers what the big fuss was about. How can readers judge a graphic without seeing it? I too have been victimized by this practice. My "cartoon FDNY 2011, about the firefighters after 9/11, was not nearly as offensive to actually see than it was to read about in brief excerpts.

More disgust: Why don't press accounts reference the cartoonist's name? They're not "Danish magazine cartoons," they're cartoons by a Danish cartoonist that ran in a magazine. You see the same forced anonymity here, e.g., "a New Yorker cartoon shows a man..." There ARE no New Yorker cartoons. There are cartoons that appear in the New Yorker. It's gross that word guys are so determined to turn cartoonists into non-persons. At least this guy might get a little PR out of this mess.

Even more disgust: Why are so many right-wing newspapers like France Soir and right-wing blogs up in arms over this act of censorship? Because it's a chance to attack Muslims! Where were these advocates for free speech when I was dropped by newspapers like the New York Times because of my anti-Bush politics? Screaming for my head. Bunch of fucking hypocrites; they only favor free speech when they agree with it.

Which is why I refuse to join the media pile-on against the would-be anti-Danish censors: I don't do media pile-ons, thank you. I don't think those cartoons were particularly useful or even accurate depictions of Islam, yet I do think there's nothing wrong with publishing them. But I'm not going to join the hounds posting them on my blog in order to seem all pseudo-brave and shit.

Ayman al-Zawahiri Sums Up Bush

Al Qaeda's newest number two said this aboutthe Generalissimo:

"Butcher of Washington, you are not only defeated and a liar, but also a failure," he said, speaking of Mr. Bush. "You are a curse on your own nation and you have brought and will bring them only catastrophes and tragedies."

You know things are fucked up when the terrorists make more sense and tell the truth more often than our supposedly elected officials.

Pashtunwali

Chris notes:

Good points in your column on embedded journos who want to "play soldier." When Woodruff and Vogt were wounded, I saw a piece on ABC's World News Tonight with a nifty little computer graphic of the convoy and the attack. Did you know the reporters were in the point vehicle, standing up in the open hatches? That seems downright foolhardy, since point is commonly regarded as a more dangerous place to be. I wonder if this is SOP? Also, your mention of peshtunwali reminded me of a Northwest Frontier anecdote. The future Lord Roberts and a single companion were on a mission near the Khyber Pass, surrounded by people who were ostensibly their enemies. Yet they were completely safe, for they had extracted a promise from a local mullah to provide protection. Some tense moments occurred, but their personal bodyguards, who would kill them at any other time without a second thought, were prepared to give their lives in their defense since they had given their word. Not surprising the British were highly impressed by Pathans, Afridis, etc, and recruited from such "warrior races" as often as they fought them.
One last thing: if they're gonna push it so much, couldn't they have found a more attractive word than "embedded?" It always sounds to me like a bad case of chiggers or toe fungus. Perhaps it's a not so subtle joke by the boys in the Pentagon, letting their true feelings for reporters show.

I just like the anecdote. It's supported by personal experience as well as testimony of countless Afghan travelers.