Even as the war in Afghanistan becomes more deadly, Obama pledges to send more troops.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: NEWS DOES NOT WANT TO BE FREE
Three Cures for Ailing Newspapers
"I feel I'm being catapulted into another world, a world I don't really understand," Denis Finley told the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. Finley, editor of the Virginian-Pilot, isn't the only newspaper executive who can't come up with a plan for the future. "Only 5 percent of [newspaper editors and publishers]," finds Pew's latest analysis of the nation's 1217 daily newspapers, "said they were very confident of their ability to predict what their newsrooms would look like five years from now."
Newspapers are in trouble. More people read them than ever, but most of them read them online, for free. Unfortunately online advertising rates are too low to make up for declining print circulation. A reader of The New York Times' print edition generates about 170 times as much revenue as someone who surfs NYTimes.com. (This is because print readers spend 47 minutes with the paper. Online browsers visit the paper's website a mere seven minutes--some of which they might not even be sitting in front of their computers.)
Newspaper executives don't know what to do. Papers are closing foreign bureaus and laying off thousands of reporters. No matter how many employees they fire, however, they can't slash or burn their way to profitability--there just isn't enough budget to cut in a future where income has dropped to 1/170th.
"Newspapers," writes San Jose State University business professor Joel West, "face two structural problems and have been unable to fix either one." One is the Web in general, which offers advertisers more, finely targeted access to readers. The other is news on the Web, which is free on sites like Google and Yahoo (which compile AP and other wire service stories), as well as the newspaper websites themselves.
"OK," argues West, "The New York Times or the big city daily has better news, but how much better? If it's $20/month (or even $10 or merely requires a login) will readers bother? Most won't. As with other commodities, better loses to 'good enough.'"
But it doesn't have to. If publishers take three audacious but absolutely essential steps, the print newspaper industry can save itself. All three of my suggestions are predicated on the simplest principle of capitalism: scarcity increases demand.
Newspapers have made news free and plentiful, which is why they're going broke.
First: newspapers should go offline. If the last decade has proven anything, it's that you can't charge for a product--in this case, news--that you give away. So stop! All the members of the Newspaper Association of America should shut down their websites. At the very least, papers ought to charge online readers twice as much as for print subscriptions--searchability must be worth something. Want news? Buy a "dead tree" newspaper.
Second, copyright every article in the newspaper.
"The majority of bloggers and Internet addicts, like the endless rows of talking heads on television, do not report," notes the invaluable Chris Hedges. "They are largely parasites who cling to traditional news outlets…They rarely pick up the phone, much less go out and find a story. Nearly all reporting--I would guess at least 80 percent--is done by newspapers and the wire services. Take that away and we have a huge black hole." And a lot of unfulfilled demand one can charge for.
Newsgathering requires extensive infrastructure. Beat reporters, freelancers, editors, stringers, fact-checkers, and travel cost a lot of money. (A week in rural Afghanistan costs at least $10,000.) Why shouldn't newspapers--the main newsgathering organizations in the United States--be compensated for those expenses?
Every newspaper article should enjoy an individual, aggressively enforced, copyright. Radio and TV outlets that currently lift their news reports out of newspapers--without forking over a cent--would have to hire reporters or pay papers a royalty. Paying newspapers for usage, even at a high rate, would probably be cheaper.
Step three on the road back to fiscal viability: cut off the wire services. Nowadays an article written for a local paper can get picked up by a wire service, which sells it for a ridiculously low reprint fee to other papers and websites like Google. At bare minimum, newspapers that originate stories ought to require wires to charge would-be reprinters the thousands of dollars each piece is worth. Better yet, don't post them in the first place.
There are a couple of problems with my prescription. First, my suggestions only work if every paper follows them. Aside from the cat-herding organizational hurdles, accusations of collusion and price-fixing might bring down the wrath of government officials assigned to enforcing anti-trust laws. Second and perhaps more daunting, the "information wants to be free" mantra, once the cry of wacko libertarians, has become state religion.
"Free" doesn't mean anything, and it obviously hasn't worked. But it's hard to purge a brain of a meme, no matter how moronic.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
Three Cures for Ailing Newspapers
"I feel I'm being catapulted into another world, a world I don't really understand," Denis Finley told the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. Finley, editor of the Virginian-Pilot, isn't the only newspaper executive who can't come up with a plan for the future. "Only 5 percent of [newspaper editors and publishers]," finds Pew's latest analysis of the nation's 1217 daily newspapers, "said they were very confident of their ability to predict what their newsrooms would look like five years from now."
Newspapers are in trouble. More people read them than ever, but most of them read them online, for free. Unfortunately online advertising rates are too low to make up for declining print circulation. A reader of The New York Times' print edition generates about 170 times as much revenue as someone who surfs NYTimes.com. (This is because print readers spend 47 minutes with the paper. Online browsers visit the paper's website a mere seven minutes--some of which they might not even be sitting in front of their computers.)
Newspaper executives don't know what to do. Papers are closing foreign bureaus and laying off thousands of reporters. No matter how many employees they fire, however, they can't slash or burn their way to profitability--there just isn't enough budget to cut in a future where income has dropped to 1/170th.
"Newspapers," writes San Jose State University business professor Joel West, "face two structural problems and have been unable to fix either one." One is the Web in general, which offers advertisers more, finely targeted access to readers. The other is news on the Web, which is free on sites like Google and Yahoo (which compile AP and other wire service stories), as well as the newspaper websites themselves.
"OK," argues West, "The New York Times or the big city daily has better news, but how much better? If it's $20/month (or even $10 or merely requires a login) will readers bother? Most won't. As with other commodities, better loses to 'good enough.'"
But it doesn't have to. If publishers take three audacious but absolutely essential steps, the print newspaper industry can save itself. All three of my suggestions are predicated on the simplest principle of capitalism: scarcity increases demand.
Newspapers have made news free and plentiful, which is why they're going broke.
First: newspapers should go offline. If the last decade has proven anything, it's that you can't charge for a product--in this case, news--that you give away. So stop! All the members of the Newspaper Association of America should shut down their websites. At the very least, papers ought to charge online readers twice as much as for print subscriptions--searchability must be worth something. Want news? Buy a "dead tree" newspaper.
Second, copyright every article in the newspaper.
"The majority of bloggers and Internet addicts, like the endless rows of talking heads on television, do not report," notes the invaluable Chris Hedges. "They are largely parasites who cling to traditional news outlets…They rarely pick up the phone, much less go out and find a story. Nearly all reporting--I would guess at least 80 percent--is done by newspapers and the wire services. Take that away and we have a huge black hole." And a lot of unfulfilled demand one can charge for.
Newsgathering requires extensive infrastructure. Beat reporters, freelancers, editors, stringers, fact-checkers, and travel cost a lot of money. (A week in rural Afghanistan costs at least $10,000.) Why shouldn't newspapers--the main newsgathering organizations in the United States--be compensated for those expenses?
Every newspaper article should enjoy an individual, aggressively enforced, copyright. Radio and TV outlets that currently lift their news reports out of newspapers--without forking over a cent--would have to hire reporters or pay papers a royalty. Paying newspapers for usage, even at a high rate, would probably be cheaper.
Step three on the road back to fiscal viability: cut off the wire services. Nowadays an article written for a local paper can get picked up by a wire service, which sells it for a ridiculously low reprint fee to other papers and websites like Google. At bare minimum, newspapers that originate stories ought to require wires to charge would-be reprinters the thousands of dollars each piece is worth. Better yet, don't post them in the first place.
There are a couple of problems with my prescription. First, my suggestions only work if every paper follows them. Aside from the cat-herding organizational hurdles, accusations of collusion and price-fixing might bring down the wrath of government officials assigned to enforcing anti-trust laws. Second and perhaps more daunting, the "information wants to be free" mantra, once the cry of wacko libertarians, has become state religion.
"Free" doesn't mean anything, and it obviously hasn't worked. But it's hard to purge a brain of a meme, no matter how moronic.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
The Truth is Still Out There
posted by Susan Stark
It's been awhile since I've posted here as a guest blogger, but I just wanted to remind everyone to go see the new "X-Files" movie coming out.
Many of the critics are panning the movie, because what they are describing is that it's more about Mulder and Scully than any supernatural plot.
But it's a tad unfair to criticize Chris Carter, the creator of the series, for not putting enough supernatural in the movie. The Bush presidency has been nothing but one eight-year long X-File, and it's hard for Mr. Carter to top that. You have to remember that the "X-Files" was basically a 90s series.
I did not get into 90s culture very well. I didn't care for grunge rock, and I didn't have enough computer literacy to start a dot-com. But the "X-Files" is a stunning exception. Mulder and Scully were a welcome presence in my home for many years, and it would be inexcusable for me not to go and pay them a visit after six years of not seeing them.
No matter what the critics say.
posted by Susan Stark
It's been awhile since I've posted here as a guest blogger, but I just wanted to remind everyone to go see the new "X-Files" movie coming out.
Many of the critics are panning the movie, because what they are describing is that it's more about Mulder and Scully than any supernatural plot.
But it's a tad unfair to criticize Chris Carter, the creator of the series, for not putting enough supernatural in the movie. The Bush presidency has been nothing but one eight-year long X-File, and it's hard for Mr. Carter to top that. You have to remember that the "X-Files" was basically a 90s series.
I did not get into 90s culture very well. I didn't care for grunge rock, and I didn't have enough computer literacy to start a dot-com. But the "X-Files" is a stunning exception. Mulder and Scully were a welcome presence in my home for many years, and it would be inexcusable for me not to go and pay them a visit after six years of not seeing them.
No matter what the critics say.
Teevee!
I'm on CNN's "Not Just Another Cable News Show", talking about how to deal with getting caught in an adulterous relationship.
Check it out.
I'm on CNN's "Not Just Another Cable News Show", talking about how to deal with getting caught in an adulterous relationship.
Check it out.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: RECESSION, YEAR 8
Bickering Over Terminology Delays Real Action
There's a debate in the media about the recession. On the right are those who say that the economy has never been better. Not so fast, says the official left: we've (just) started a recession.
Phil Gramm, McCain's former economic advisor, leads the School of Sunny Optimism. "This is a mental recession," said Gramm. "We may have a recession, we haven't had one yet. We have sort of become a nation of whiners." Given his day job, you have to admire his attitude. UBS Investment Bank, which employs Gramm as its vice chairman, was recently forced to write off $38 billion in bad debts because of its exposure to the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, wiping out all its profits since 2004.
Economists are mildly pessimistic. In April, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke conceded that a recession was possible. Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group, believes that unemployment and other data for the first quarter of 2008 marks the official start of a recession. "It is now very clear that the fat lady has sung for the economic expansion. The country has slipped into a recession," he said, articulating the mainstream view that we're about to embark on a bumpy ride.
Recession? We've been in a recession since 2000.
Forget the experts. They think telling the grisly truth about the state of the U.S. economy could make things even worse--and they're probably right. But Americans know the truth.
Every major indicator--jobs, wages and cost of living--has trended downward since the dot-com crash of 2000. Since then it has nearly impossible to sell a home, find a job, or get a raise. Rising inflation is tightening the squeeze. Whoever becomes president next year will inherit an economy beginning its ninth year in a downward spiral.
The official inflation rate of two to three percent is a lie, and it has been for years. Presidents Reagan and Clinton ordered the Bureau of Labor Standards to change the way it calculates the Consumer Price Index. Previously they compared the prices of the same items from one year to the next. Now, in order to cheat senior citizens out of cost-of-living increases on their Social Security payments, the government uses a "substitutions" analysis. "The consumer price index assumes that if prices get too high, consumers will start buying cheaper products," reports The San Diego Union-Tribune. For instance, if steak gets too expensive, they will switch to ground beef."
Steve Reed, an economist at the Bureau of Labor Standards, freely concedes that the change makes inflation looks lower than it is. He also admits its motivation: "Even if the CPI was one percentage point higher, it could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars."
John Williams, an economic consultant who publishes the monthly newsletter "Shadow Government Statistics," calculates that "inflation is actually running at an annualized rate of 9.95 percent." Inflation has been rising since 2002.
The U.S. economy must create 150,000 new jobs a month (1.8 million annually) just to keep up with population growth. Anything less represents a net jobs loss.
The Clinton years saw the creation of 236,500 new jobs per month--a net increase of more than 8 million over eight years. As of 2007, the Bush era saw just 70,000 jobs per month--a net loss of more than 7 million. Bush has brought us back to 1992, when his father lost over his own recession.
Among those who still have jobs, they're not getting raises that keep up with Williams' inflation rate. Median household income, adjusted for the government's lowball inflation rate, is down since 2001.
Even white-collar workers, traditionally insulated by advanced degrees, are getting slammed by the eight-year-long recession.
"Wage stagnation, long the bane of blue-collar workers, is now hitting people with bachelor's degrees for the first time in 30 years," reported The Los Angeles Times in 2006. "Earnings for workers with four-year degrees fell 5.2 percent from 2000 to 2004 when adjusted for inflation, according to White House economists... [people with master's and other advanced degrees] have found that their inflation-adjusted wages were essentially flat between 2000 and 2004." There's no reason to believe that this trend has reversed.
It takes two consecutive quarterly drops in the GDP, say economists, to make a recession official. But, as with porn, Americans know a recession when they see one. And this one is eight years old.
There are only two real questions. The first is whether Russian president Dmitri Medvedev is right. The U.S., he said recently, is in "essentially a depression." The second is whether John McCain, Barack Obama, or anyone else is willing to do something meaningful about it.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
Bickering Over Terminology Delays Real Action
There's a debate in the media about the recession. On the right are those who say that the economy has never been better. Not so fast, says the official left: we've (just) started a recession.
Phil Gramm, McCain's former economic advisor, leads the School of Sunny Optimism. "This is a mental recession," said Gramm. "We may have a recession, we haven't had one yet. We have sort of become a nation of whiners." Given his day job, you have to admire his attitude. UBS Investment Bank, which employs Gramm as its vice chairman, was recently forced to write off $38 billion in bad debts because of its exposure to the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, wiping out all its profits since 2004.
Economists are mildly pessimistic. In April, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke conceded that a recession was possible. Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group, believes that unemployment and other data for the first quarter of 2008 marks the official start of a recession. "It is now very clear that the fat lady has sung for the economic expansion. The country has slipped into a recession," he said, articulating the mainstream view that we're about to embark on a bumpy ride.
Recession? We've been in a recession since 2000.
Forget the experts. They think telling the grisly truth about the state of the U.S. economy could make things even worse--and they're probably right. But Americans know the truth.
Every major indicator--jobs, wages and cost of living--has trended downward since the dot-com crash of 2000. Since then it has nearly impossible to sell a home, find a job, or get a raise. Rising inflation is tightening the squeeze. Whoever becomes president next year will inherit an economy beginning its ninth year in a downward spiral.
The official inflation rate of two to three percent is a lie, and it has been for years. Presidents Reagan and Clinton ordered the Bureau of Labor Standards to change the way it calculates the Consumer Price Index. Previously they compared the prices of the same items from one year to the next. Now, in order to cheat senior citizens out of cost-of-living increases on their Social Security payments, the government uses a "substitutions" analysis. "The consumer price index assumes that if prices get too high, consumers will start buying cheaper products," reports The San Diego Union-Tribune. For instance, if steak gets too expensive, they will switch to ground beef."
Steve Reed, an economist at the Bureau of Labor Standards, freely concedes that the change makes inflation looks lower than it is. He also admits its motivation: "Even if the CPI was one percentage point higher, it could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars."
John Williams, an economic consultant who publishes the monthly newsletter "Shadow Government Statistics," calculates that "inflation is actually running at an annualized rate of 9.95 percent." Inflation has been rising since 2002.
The U.S. economy must create 150,000 new jobs a month (1.8 million annually) just to keep up with population growth. Anything less represents a net jobs loss.
The Clinton years saw the creation of 236,500 new jobs per month--a net increase of more than 8 million over eight years. As of 2007, the Bush era saw just 70,000 jobs per month--a net loss of more than 7 million. Bush has brought us back to 1992, when his father lost over his own recession.
Among those who still have jobs, they're not getting raises that keep up with Williams' inflation rate. Median household income, adjusted for the government's lowball inflation rate, is down since 2001.
Even white-collar workers, traditionally insulated by advanced degrees, are getting slammed by the eight-year-long recession.
"Wage stagnation, long the bane of blue-collar workers, is now hitting people with bachelor's degrees for the first time in 30 years," reported The Los Angeles Times in 2006. "Earnings for workers with four-year degrees fell 5.2 percent from 2000 to 2004 when adjusted for inflation, according to White House economists... [people with master's and other advanced degrees] have found that their inflation-adjusted wages were essentially flat between 2000 and 2004." There's no reason to believe that this trend has reversed.
It takes two consecutive quarterly drops in the GDP, say economists, to make a recession official. But, as with porn, Americans know a recession when they see one. And this one is eight years old.
There are only two real questions. The first is whether Russian president Dmitri Medvedev is right. The U.S., he said recently, is in "essentially a depression." The second is whether John McCain, Barack Obama, or anyone else is willing to do something meaningful about it.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: WAR ZERO
Nothing Honorable About the Vietnam War
Every presidential candidacy relies on a myth. Reagan was a great communicator; Clinton felt your pain. Both storylines were ridiculous. But rarely are the constructs used to market a party nominee as transparent or as fictional as those we're being asked to swallow in 2008.
On the left--OK, not--we have Barack Obama. "The best orator of his generation!" says Ed Rendell, the Democratic power broker who has a day job as governor of Pennsylvania. "The best orator since Cicero!" Republican strategist Mary Matalin swoons. No doubt, Obama reads a mean speech. Take his Teleprompter away, though, and the dude is as lost as George Bush at a semiotics class. Forced to answer reporters' questions off the cuff, Obama is so afraid of messing up that he...carefully...spaces...each...word...apart...
so...he...can...see...them...
coming...wayyy...in...advance.
Still more laughable than the notion of Obama as the second coming of JFK is the founding myth of the McCain campaign: (a) he is a war hero, and (b) said heroism increases his credibility on national security issues. "A Vietnam hero and national security pro," The New York Times calls him in a typical media blandishment.
John McCain fought in Vietnam. There was nothing noble, much less heroic, about fighting in that war.
Some Americans may be suffering another of the periodic attacks of national amnesia that prevent us from honestly assessing our place in the world and its history, but others recall the truth about Vietnam: it was a disastrous, unjustifiable mess that anyone with an ounce of sense was against at the time.
Between one and two million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans were sent to their deaths by a succession of presidents and Congresses--fed to the flames of greed, hubris, and stupidity. The event used to justify starting the war--the Tonkin Gulf "incident"--never happened. The Vietnam War's ideological foundation, the mantra cited to keep it going, was disproved after we lost. No Southeast Asian "dominos" fell to communism. To the contrary, the effect of the U.S. withdrawal was increased stability. When genocide broke out in neighboring Cambodia in the late 1970s, it was not the U.S., but a unified Vietnamese army--the evil communists--who stopped it.
Not even General Wesley Clark, shot four times in Vietnam, is allowed to question the McCain-as-war-hero narrative. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," he argued. The Obama campaign, which sells its surrogates down the river with alarming regularity, promptly hung the former NATO commander out to dry: "Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."
Even in an article criticizing the media for repeatedly framing McCain as a war hero, the liberal website Media Matters concedes: "McCain is, after all, a war hero; everybody agrees about that."
Not everyone.
I was 12 when the last U.S. occupation troops fled Saigon. I remember how I--and most Americans--felt at the time.
We were relieved.
By the end of Nixon's first term most people had turned against the war. Gallup polls taken in 1971 found that about 70 percent of Americans thought sending troops to Vietnam had been a mistake. Some believed it was immoral; others considered it unwinnable.
Since then, the political center has shifted right. We've seen the Reagan Revolution, Clinton's Democratic centrism, and Bush's post-9/11 flirtation with neo-McCarthyite fascism. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Americans--including Republicans--still think we should never have fought the Vietnam War.
"After the war's 1975 conclusion," Michael Tomasky wrote in The American Prospect in 2004, "Gallup has asked the question ("Did the U.S. make a mistake in sending troops to fight in Vietnam?") five times, in 1985, 1990, 1993, 1995, and 2000. All five times...respondents were consistent in calling the war a mistake by a margin of more than 2 to 1: by 74 percent to 22 percent in 1990, for example, and by 69 percent to 24 percent in 2000."
Moreover, Tomasky continued, "vast majorities continue to call the war 'unjust.'" Even in 2004, after 9/11, 62 percent considered the war unjust. Only 33 percent still thought it was morally justified.
Vietnam was an illegal, undeclared war of aggression. Can those who fought in that immoral war really be heroes? This question appeared settled after Reagan visited a cemetery for Nazi soldiers, including members of the SS, at Bitburg, West Germany in 1985. "Those young men," claimed Reagan, "are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."
Americans didn't buy it. Reagan's poll numbers, typically between 60 and 65 percent at the time, plunged to 41 percent after the visit. Those who fight for an evil cause receive no praise.
So why is the McCain-as-war-hero myth so hard to unravel? By most accounts, John McCain demonstrated courage as a P.O.W., most notably by refusing his captors' offer of early release. But that doesn't make him a hero.
Hell, McCain isn't even a victim.
At a time when more than a fourth of all combat troops in Vietnam were forcibly drafted (the actual victims), McCain volunteered to drop napalm on "gooks" (his term, not mine). He could have waited to see if his number came up in the draft lottery. Like Bush, he could have used family connections to weasel out of it. Finally, he could have joined the 100,000 draft-eligible males--true heroes, to a man--who went to Canada rather than kill people in a war that was plainly wrong.
When McCain was shot down during his 23rd bombing sortie, he was happily shooting up a civilian neighborhood in the middle of a major city. Vietnamese locals beat him when they pulled him out of a local lake; yeah, that must have sucked. But I can't help think of what would have happened to Mohammed Atta had he somehow wound up alive on a lower Manhattan street on 9/11. How long would he have lasted?
Maybe he would have made it. I don't know. But I do know this: no one would ever have considered him a war hero.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
Nothing Honorable About the Vietnam War
Every presidential candidacy relies on a myth. Reagan was a great communicator; Clinton felt your pain. Both storylines were ridiculous. But rarely are the constructs used to market a party nominee as transparent or as fictional as those we're being asked to swallow in 2008.
On the left--OK, not--we have Barack Obama. "The best orator of his generation!" says Ed Rendell, the Democratic power broker who has a day job as governor of Pennsylvania. "The best orator since Cicero!" Republican strategist Mary Matalin swoons. No doubt, Obama reads a mean speech. Take his Teleprompter away, though, and the dude is as lost as George Bush at a semiotics class. Forced to answer reporters' questions off the cuff, Obama is so afraid of messing up that he...carefully...spaces...each...word...apart...
so...he...can...see...them...
coming...wayyy...in...advance.
Still more laughable than the notion of Obama as the second coming of JFK is the founding myth of the McCain campaign: (a) he is a war hero, and (b) said heroism increases his credibility on national security issues. "A Vietnam hero and national security pro," The New York Times calls him in a typical media blandishment.
John McCain fought in Vietnam. There was nothing noble, much less heroic, about fighting in that war.
Some Americans may be suffering another of the periodic attacks of national amnesia that prevent us from honestly assessing our place in the world and its history, but others recall the truth about Vietnam: it was a disastrous, unjustifiable mess that anyone with an ounce of sense was against at the time.
Between one and two million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans were sent to their deaths by a succession of presidents and Congresses--fed to the flames of greed, hubris, and stupidity. The event used to justify starting the war--the Tonkin Gulf "incident"--never happened. The Vietnam War's ideological foundation, the mantra cited to keep it going, was disproved after we lost. No Southeast Asian "dominos" fell to communism. To the contrary, the effect of the U.S. withdrawal was increased stability. When genocide broke out in neighboring Cambodia in the late 1970s, it was not the U.S., but a unified Vietnamese army--the evil communists--who stopped it.
Not even General Wesley Clark, shot four times in Vietnam, is allowed to question the McCain-as-war-hero narrative. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," he argued. The Obama campaign, which sells its surrogates down the river with alarming regularity, promptly hung the former NATO commander out to dry: "Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."
Even in an article criticizing the media for repeatedly framing McCain as a war hero, the liberal website Media Matters concedes: "McCain is, after all, a war hero; everybody agrees about that."
Not everyone.
I was 12 when the last U.S. occupation troops fled Saigon. I remember how I--and most Americans--felt at the time.
We were relieved.
By the end of Nixon's first term most people had turned against the war. Gallup polls taken in 1971 found that about 70 percent of Americans thought sending troops to Vietnam had been a mistake. Some believed it was immoral; others considered it unwinnable.
Since then, the political center has shifted right. We've seen the Reagan Revolution, Clinton's Democratic centrism, and Bush's post-9/11 flirtation with neo-McCarthyite fascism. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Americans--including Republicans--still think we should never have fought the Vietnam War.
"After the war's 1975 conclusion," Michael Tomasky wrote in The American Prospect in 2004, "Gallup has asked the question ("Did the U.S. make a mistake in sending troops to fight in Vietnam?") five times, in 1985, 1990, 1993, 1995, and 2000. All five times...respondents were consistent in calling the war a mistake by a margin of more than 2 to 1: by 74 percent to 22 percent in 1990, for example, and by 69 percent to 24 percent in 2000."
Moreover, Tomasky continued, "vast majorities continue to call the war 'unjust.'" Even in 2004, after 9/11, 62 percent considered the war unjust. Only 33 percent still thought it was morally justified.
Vietnam was an illegal, undeclared war of aggression. Can those who fought in that immoral war really be heroes? This question appeared settled after Reagan visited a cemetery for Nazi soldiers, including members of the SS, at Bitburg, West Germany in 1985. "Those young men," claimed Reagan, "are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."
Americans didn't buy it. Reagan's poll numbers, typically between 60 and 65 percent at the time, plunged to 41 percent after the visit. Those who fight for an evil cause receive no praise.
So why is the McCain-as-war-hero myth so hard to unravel? By most accounts, John McCain demonstrated courage as a P.O.W., most notably by refusing his captors' offer of early release. But that doesn't make him a hero.
Hell, McCain isn't even a victim.
At a time when more than a fourth of all combat troops in Vietnam were forcibly drafted (the actual victims), McCain volunteered to drop napalm on "gooks" (his term, not mine). He could have waited to see if his number came up in the draft lottery. Like Bush, he could have used family connections to weasel out of it. Finally, he could have joined the 100,000 draft-eligible males--true heroes, to a man--who went to Canada rather than kill people in a war that was plainly wrong.
When McCain was shot down during his 23rd bombing sortie, he was happily shooting up a civilian neighborhood in the middle of a major city. Vietnamese locals beat him when they pulled him out of a local lake; yeah, that must have sucked. But I can't help think of what would have happened to Mohammed Atta had he somehow wound up alive on a lower Manhattan street on 9/11. How long would he have lasted?
Maybe he would have made it. I don't know. But I do know this: no one would ever have considered him a war hero.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Another Mention, Re: New Yorker Obama Cover
There's another quote from Yours Truly in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
There's another quote from Yours Truly in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Monday, July 14, 2008
My Comments on the New Yorker Obama Cover
I've said my piece about the Barry Blitt cover for this week's New Yorker magazine in this article by Editor & Publisher magazine.
I've said my piece about the Barry Blitt cover for this week's New Yorker magazine in this article by Editor & Publisher magazine.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: BELIEF YOU CAN CHANGE
The Triumph of Faith-Based Politics
I believe in John McCain. Which is why I don't believe him.
When John McCain said he wanted to stay in Iraq 100 years, he didn't mean it. He just said it to get elected.
His claims that the war is going great? Voting time after time to send hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the war without asking for a timetable for withdrawal? All part of his masterful plan to fool right-wing hicks into voting for him.
Once he gets the keys to 1600 Penn, the real, antiwar McCain will reveal his true plan: Evacuation from Iraq within 24 hours. An apology to the United Nations. Bush put on trial for war crimes. Mandatory gay marriage.
He's got a similar plan for FISA. True, he voted to allow the president to eavesdrop on Americans' phone calls and e-mails. He gave the phone companies immunity for the years that they spied on us illegally. As soon as he becomes president, however, McCain will line up all those lying, spying phone company CEOs against the White House wall and personally shoot them with his trusty sidearm, the Beretta PX4.
And he will laugh.
John McCain cares deeply about the same exact things I do. When he takes the Oath of Office on January 20, for example, a certain political cartoonist--not Chief Justice Roberts--will administer it. Government subsidies will allow Americans to travel to Tashkent and other capitals in Central Asia for just $50. And the electronica band Ladytron will play the Inaugural Ball!
Wait a minute, I can hear you saying. John McCain hasn't said any of this stuff. Know what? You're right! In fact, he's mostly said the exact opposite. Which is exactly why I know he'll do it.
Politicians, you see, are liars. Except when they mostly do, they never follow through on their campaign promises. The more they say they're for using federal tax dollars to fund faith-based church groups, for example, the more you know they're actually dogmatic, God-hating secular atheists. Which is, by the way, another reason I believe in John McCain. Because John McCain promises a new kind of politics, one where Americans aren't separated red state from blue state, cat owner from dog walker. One where soaring rhetoric isn't just something we read about in books, but watch on TV from time to time.
Some of John's fans (he feels so near and dear to me, I'm entitled to first-name familiarity) wonder if the old maverick they fell in love with is losing his moral center by lurching to the right. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Straight talk? Not until he wins! After that, look out. We'll be out of NAFTA faster than you can say maquiladora. Socialized healthcare? You bet. Tax hikes for the rich, free Netflix for the poor, billions to rebuild New Orleans, free kitten and puppy neutering too!
Do I know this stuff? Or am I just making it up--indulging in a sort of faith-based politics?
Yes, and yes. I know what I make up in my own mind, and what I know is that John McCain is a patriot, a man whose unshakeable iron will remained unbroken even after his North Vietnamese captors tortured him into signing a confession for war crimes. I know that John McCain loves America, and that therefore anything he says or does that indicates otherwise--including, say, signing off on Bush's continued use of torture at Guantánamo--can be nothing more than a necessary attempt to appease the right long enough for him to win the presidency, after which he will no doubt reveal himself to be the liberal, idealistic demigod he has to be because I and others like me have willed him to be so. Regardless of what he says.
Some poutymouths say I'm deluded. That I've once again fooled myself into believing a politician was something other than what he appeared to be, or indeed said he was, all along.
A little while ago, Barack Obama campaigned as a moderate and a moderate and a moderate. Then he came out as a centrist. Such betrayal!
In 2000, there was George W. Bush. People said he was stubborn and merciless, that he made fun of condemned prisoners as he signed their death warrants as governor of Texas. But I thought he did that just to win the votes of the Republican base. Deep down beneath that mean, dumb exterior, I just knew there had to be the soul of a scholar and the wisdom of a sage. Oh, well.
And in 1980, when Reagan ran as a militaristic, scary old coot, I thought it was just a put-on he was using to get elected so he could make college tuition free for me and my friends.
But that's all in the past.
Forty years it has taken me to learn what kind of smile is hidden beneath the Senator's snowy comb-over. It is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I have won the victory over myself.
I love John McCain.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
The Triumph of Faith-Based Politics
I believe in John McCain. Which is why I don't believe him.
When John McCain said he wanted to stay in Iraq 100 years, he didn't mean it. He just said it to get elected.
His claims that the war is going great? Voting time after time to send hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the war without asking for a timetable for withdrawal? All part of his masterful plan to fool right-wing hicks into voting for him.
Once he gets the keys to 1600 Penn, the real, antiwar McCain will reveal his true plan: Evacuation from Iraq within 24 hours. An apology to the United Nations. Bush put on trial for war crimes. Mandatory gay marriage.
He's got a similar plan for FISA. True, he voted to allow the president to eavesdrop on Americans' phone calls and e-mails. He gave the phone companies immunity for the years that they spied on us illegally. As soon as he becomes president, however, McCain will line up all those lying, spying phone company CEOs against the White House wall and personally shoot them with his trusty sidearm, the Beretta PX4.
And he will laugh.
John McCain cares deeply about the same exact things I do. When he takes the Oath of Office on January 20, for example, a certain political cartoonist--not Chief Justice Roberts--will administer it. Government subsidies will allow Americans to travel to Tashkent and other capitals in Central Asia for just $50. And the electronica band Ladytron will play the Inaugural Ball!
Wait a minute, I can hear you saying. John McCain hasn't said any of this stuff. Know what? You're right! In fact, he's mostly said the exact opposite. Which is exactly why I know he'll do it.
Politicians, you see, are liars. Except when they mostly do, they never follow through on their campaign promises. The more they say they're for using federal tax dollars to fund faith-based church groups, for example, the more you know they're actually dogmatic, God-hating secular atheists. Which is, by the way, another reason I believe in John McCain. Because John McCain promises a new kind of politics, one where Americans aren't separated red state from blue state, cat owner from dog walker. One where soaring rhetoric isn't just something we read about in books, but watch on TV from time to time.
Some of John's fans (he feels so near and dear to me, I'm entitled to first-name familiarity) wonder if the old maverick they fell in love with is losing his moral center by lurching to the right. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Straight talk? Not until he wins! After that, look out. We'll be out of NAFTA faster than you can say maquiladora. Socialized healthcare? You bet. Tax hikes for the rich, free Netflix for the poor, billions to rebuild New Orleans, free kitten and puppy neutering too!
Do I know this stuff? Or am I just making it up--indulging in a sort of faith-based politics?
Yes, and yes. I know what I make up in my own mind, and what I know is that John McCain is a patriot, a man whose unshakeable iron will remained unbroken even after his North Vietnamese captors tortured him into signing a confession for war crimes. I know that John McCain loves America, and that therefore anything he says or does that indicates otherwise--including, say, signing off on Bush's continued use of torture at Guantánamo--can be nothing more than a necessary attempt to appease the right long enough for him to win the presidency, after which he will no doubt reveal himself to be the liberal, idealistic demigod he has to be because I and others like me have willed him to be so. Regardless of what he says.
Some poutymouths say I'm deluded. That I've once again fooled myself into believing a politician was something other than what he appeared to be, or indeed said he was, all along.
A little while ago, Barack Obama campaigned as a moderate and a moderate and a moderate. Then he came out as a centrist. Such betrayal!
In 2000, there was George W. Bush. People said he was stubborn and merciless, that he made fun of condemned prisoners as he signed their death warrants as governor of Texas. But I thought he did that just to win the votes of the Republican base. Deep down beneath that mean, dumb exterior, I just knew there had to be the soul of a scholar and the wisdom of a sage. Oh, well.
And in 1980, when Reagan ran as a militaristic, scary old coot, I thought it was just a put-on he was using to get elected so he could make college tuition free for me and my friends.
But that's all in the past.
Forty years it has taken me to learn what kind of smile is hidden beneath the Senator's snowy comb-over. It is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I have won the victory over myself.
I love John McCain.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Coupla Things, Plus a Question
I've been feeling like crap since Tuesday. It started after I finished my usual run. Because I started out later than usual, it was blazing hot. I felt pretty dehydrated afterward, so I later attributed what ensured to heat exhaustion: fever, chills, aches, pains, restlessness. Only later did I realize the roadside enchilada I ate after my run might have prompted actual food poisoning. I've gotten deadly diarrhea in the past, especially in Asia, but never actual food poisoning as far as I know. In any event, the last five days have unfolded like the greatest hits of Things That Often Make Ted Feel Sick: fever, more fever, cold sweats, sore throat, ear aches, congestion, small cough.
I still have the sore throat and the fever, though the fever isn't as bad and I'm drinking ginger tea to soothe my throat. That got me through a weekend during which I had to draw the fifth installment of my Vote Theft cartoon series (written by Greg Palast, drawn and composed by yours truly). Oh, and it hurts to hold my pen now. That's always good when you're a cartoonist.
Forget the suggestion to learn how to draw with my left hand! Some people might think I use my ass to draw my cartoons, but really, this is as good as I get. With my right hand.
Anyway, first thing: Comics critic Alan David Doane named me no. 2 in his answers to the Comics Reporter's request that its readers "name five cool, patriotic things about comics". (You have to scroll down a bit).
It's a nice mention, and a rare one at CR, a site that largely ignores political cartooning. Thanks, Alan (and Tom).
Then there's this suggestion for economic stimulus. If asked, I will serve. But I want 15% of the gross. This could be the biggest Pay Per View spectacular ever!
Finally, my question (sorry for being so longwinded; I'm enjoying my newfound relative sentience): many readers receive my print syndicated cartoons via the Ted Rall Subscription Service by email. The current rate is a mere $25/year. Would you pay for a weekly animated cartoon by me? How much?
I've been feeling like crap since Tuesday. It started after I finished my usual run. Because I started out later than usual, it was blazing hot. I felt pretty dehydrated afterward, so I later attributed what ensured to heat exhaustion: fever, chills, aches, pains, restlessness. Only later did I realize the roadside enchilada I ate after my run might have prompted actual food poisoning. I've gotten deadly diarrhea in the past, especially in Asia, but never actual food poisoning as far as I know. In any event, the last five days have unfolded like the greatest hits of Things That Often Make Ted Feel Sick: fever, more fever, cold sweats, sore throat, ear aches, congestion, small cough.
I still have the sore throat and the fever, though the fever isn't as bad and I'm drinking ginger tea to soothe my throat. That got me through a weekend during which I had to draw the fifth installment of my Vote Theft cartoon series (written by Greg Palast, drawn and composed by yours truly). Oh, and it hurts to hold my pen now. That's always good when you're a cartoonist.
Forget the suggestion to learn how to draw with my left hand! Some people might think I use my ass to draw my cartoons, but really, this is as good as I get. With my right hand.
Anyway, first thing: Comics critic Alan David Doane named me no. 2 in his answers to the Comics Reporter's request that its readers "name five cool, patriotic things about comics". (You have to scroll down a bit).
It's a nice mention, and a rare one at CR, a site that largely ignores political cartooning. Thanks, Alan (and Tom).
Then there's this suggestion for economic stimulus. If asked, I will serve. But I want 15% of the gross. This could be the biggest Pay Per View spectacular ever!
Finally, my question (sorry for being so longwinded; I'm enjoying my newfound relative sentience): many readers receive my print syndicated cartoons via the Ted Rall Subscription Service by email. The current rate is a mere $25/year. Would you pay for a weekly animated cartoon by me? How much?
Friday, July 4, 2008
Jesse Helms, Rest in Pieces
Wow, an entire AP obituary and not one word about his racist or gay-bashing legacy. The human turd's sycophants even went as far as to compare him to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom also died on the Fourth of July. They even called him a patriot!
Helms was no patriot. He hated everyone who wasn't like him--white, male, straight, privileged. Since that only includes a tiny percent of the American population--he hated most Americans. Therefore, he hated America.
Wow, an entire AP obituary and not one word about his racist or gay-bashing legacy. The human turd's sycophants even went as far as to compare him to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom also died on the Fourth of July. They even called him a patriot!
Helms was no patriot. He hated everyone who wasn't like him--white, male, straight, privileged. Since that only includes a tiny percent of the American population--he hated most Americans. Therefore, he hated America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
