Sunday, August 2, 2009
The Year of Book Touring Lugubriously
Hey book critics! If you want an advance PDF of my new graphic novel memoir, email me: chet@rall.com
Also, if you'd like me to come to your town to do a book signing or speech, let me know. Generally speaking, I prefer to do book signings in cities where my work appears in the local newspaper and/or the store does a great job promoting its signings. Otherwise, nobody shows up. Even better is events at universities and high schools with a budget to pay an honorarium, and also who are able to promote an event.
The book comes out in October, so any event should be scheduled between then and, say, February or March 2010.
Also, if you'd like me to come to your town to do a book signing or speech, let me know. Generally speaking, I prefer to do book signings in cities where my work appears in the local newspaper and/or the store does a great job promoting its signings. Otherwise, nobody shows up. Even better is events at universities and high schools with a budget to pay an honorarium, and also who are able to promote an event.
The book comes out in October, so any event should be scheduled between then and, say, February or March 2010.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Cartoon for August 1, 2009
Will we ever see a moment like this again? It's the second that changed everything.
New Graphic Novel Out in October
After a three-year hiatus, I have a new book coming out!
"The Year of Loving Dangerously" is a graphic novel memoir written by me and drawn by Pablo G. Callejo, who drew "Bluesman" for NBM. It takes us back to 1984 New York, the time and place where I lost my spot in college, my job, my girlfriend, and a place to live. What I did to survive the next year is the subject of this book.
I will soon begin offering pre-orders for this book, which will entitle you to receiving the book prior to its arrival in stores, with a personalized drawing and signature. Watch this space!
"Boiling Point" and Cartoonists with Attitude artist Mikhaela Reid is doing the oh-so-cool cover.
"The Year of Loving Dangerously" is a graphic novel memoir written by me and drawn by Pablo G. Callejo, who drew "Bluesman" for NBM. It takes us back to 1984 New York, the time and place where I lost my spot in college, my job, my girlfriend, and a place to live. What I did to survive the next year is the subject of this book.
I will soon begin offering pre-orders for this book, which will entitle you to receiving the book prior to its arrival in stores, with a personalized drawing and signature. Watch this space!
"Boiling Point" and Cartoonists with Attitude artist Mikhaela Reid is doing the oh-so-cool cover.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
SYNDICATED COLUMN: Everyone Hates the Cops
After Professor Gates, Why Pretend?
The current national conversation about race and the police reminded me about an incident that occurred when I was in Uzbekistan. As I walked into an apartment complex for an appointment I noticed the decomposing body of a man lying on the side of the road.
"How long as he been there?" I asked my host.
"Three, maybe four days," he said.
"What happened to him?"
"Shot, maybe," he shrugged. "Or maybe hit by a car. Something."
I didn't bother to ask why no one had called the police. I knew. Calling the Uzbek militsia amounts to a request to be beaten, robbed or worse. So desperate to avoid interaction with the police was another man I met that, when his mother died of old age at their home in Tashkent, he drove her body to the outskirts of town and deposited her in a field.
With the exception of New Orleans after Katrina, it's not that bad here in the United States. Consider Professor Henry Louis Gates: he shouldn't have been arrested by that Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer, but he came out of the experience physically unscathed.
Nevertheless, the Gates incident has illuminated some basic, strange assumptions about our society. Cops think they have a constitutional right to be treated deferentially. And black people think cops are nice to white people.
Yeah, well, take it from a white guy: we don't like cops either.
Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. references "the African immigrant killed while reaching for his wallet, the Maryland man beaten senseless as he lay in bed, the Miami man beaten to death for speeding, the dozens of men jailed on manufactured evidence in Los Angeles and manufactured police testimony in Tulia, Texas, the man sodomized with a broomstick in New York. Are we supposed to believe it coincidence that the men this happens to always happen to be black?"
Of course not. Blacks are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be arrested than whites for the same crime. Their prison sentences are longer. In the notorious "driving while black" New Jersey trooper case, African-Americans made up 70 percent of those randomly pulled over on the New Jersey Turnpike—but fewer than 17 percent of motorists. Blacks are more likely to be stopped, frisked, arrested, beaten and murdered by the police than members of all other ethnic groups. American racism against blacks remains systematic, pervasive, and murderous. When there's a policeman in the picture, it's best to be white.
Still, whites and blacks have more in common than they think when it comes to their feelings about the fuzz. When those flashing lights appear in the rearview mirror, even the biggest right-winger's day is ruined.
No one should be less scared of cops than me. I'm white, clean-cut, middle-aged, invariably polite: "Hello, sir. Is there a problem, officer?" Yet I can't point to a single positive experience I've ever had with a cop. Neutral ones, sure—basic, cold, bureaucratic interactions. But no great ones.
And lots and lots of negative ones.
Where to begin?
I'll never forget the New York traffic cop who stepped off the curb in front of my car on Madison Avenue and ordered me to turn right. He wrote me up for illegal right turn. "But you told me to," I protested. "Wrong place, wrong time," he smirked. $165 plus three points on my license. I appealed. The cop lied under oath. The court believed him.
Or the Nevada highway patrolman who pulled me over. I was doing 80 in a 70. He wrote me up at 100 mph. My brother-in-law, never the suck-up, confirmed I was going 80. I was so furious—the fine would have been $400—that I spent double that to fly back and challenge the ticket in court. I won.
When my 20-year-old self forgot to turn on my headlights as we pulled out of a parking lot while on a road trip with my druggie roommate, a Massachusetts cop pulled us over. I couldn't begrudge him probable cause; pot smoke billowed out the window, "Cheech and Chong"-style, when I opened it. Still, what came next was unforgivable: he handcuffed my arms so tight that the metal cut to the wrist bone. (The scar lasted ten years.) When we got out of the town lock-up the next morning, $400 was missing from my wallet. (A judge, examining my wrist a few months later, dropped the charges. My $400, of course, was gone forever.)
An LAPD cop—it bears mentioning that he was black—arrested me for jaywalking on Melrose Avenue. I wasn't. I didn't resist, but he roughed me up. Upon releasing me, he chucked my wallet into the sewer, laughed and zoomed off on his motorcycle. I filed a complaint, which the LAPD ignored.
And so on.
I admit it: I don't like cops. I like the idea of cops. The specific people who actually are cops are the problem. My theory is that cops should be drafted, not recruited. After all, the kind of person who would want to become a police officer is precisely the kind of person who should not be allowed to work as one. But I didn't start out harboring this prejudice. It resulted from dozens of unpleasant interactions with law enforcement.
Race has long been a classic predictor of attitudes toward the police. But high-profile cases of police brutality, coupled with over-the-top security measures taken since 9/11 that targeted whites as well as blacks, have helped bring the races together in their contempt for the police. In 1969, the Harris poll found that only 19 percent of whites thought cops discriminated against African-Americans. Now 54 percent of whites think so.
Don't worry, Professor Gates. We don't care what you said about the cop's mama. A lot of white guys see this thing your way.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
The current national conversation about race and the police reminded me about an incident that occurred when I was in Uzbekistan. As I walked into an apartment complex for an appointment I noticed the decomposing body of a man lying on the side of the road.
"How long as he been there?" I asked my host.
"Three, maybe four days," he said.
"What happened to him?"
"Shot, maybe," he shrugged. "Or maybe hit by a car. Something."
I didn't bother to ask why no one had called the police. I knew. Calling the Uzbek militsia amounts to a request to be beaten, robbed or worse. So desperate to avoid interaction with the police was another man I met that, when his mother died of old age at their home in Tashkent, he drove her body to the outskirts of town and deposited her in a field.
With the exception of New Orleans after Katrina, it's not that bad here in the United States. Consider Professor Henry Louis Gates: he shouldn't have been arrested by that Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer, but he came out of the experience physically unscathed.
Nevertheless, the Gates incident has illuminated some basic, strange assumptions about our society. Cops think they have a constitutional right to be treated deferentially. And black people think cops are nice to white people.
Yeah, well, take it from a white guy: we don't like cops either.
Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. references "the African immigrant killed while reaching for his wallet, the Maryland man beaten senseless as he lay in bed, the Miami man beaten to death for speeding, the dozens of men jailed on manufactured evidence in Los Angeles and manufactured police testimony in Tulia, Texas, the man sodomized with a broomstick in New York. Are we supposed to believe it coincidence that the men this happens to always happen to be black?"
Of course not. Blacks are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be arrested than whites for the same crime. Their prison sentences are longer. In the notorious "driving while black" New Jersey trooper case, African-Americans made up 70 percent of those randomly pulled over on the New Jersey Turnpike—but fewer than 17 percent of motorists. Blacks are more likely to be stopped, frisked, arrested, beaten and murdered by the police than members of all other ethnic groups. American racism against blacks remains systematic, pervasive, and murderous. When there's a policeman in the picture, it's best to be white.
Still, whites and blacks have more in common than they think when it comes to their feelings about the fuzz. When those flashing lights appear in the rearview mirror, even the biggest right-winger's day is ruined.
No one should be less scared of cops than me. I'm white, clean-cut, middle-aged, invariably polite: "Hello, sir. Is there a problem, officer?" Yet I can't point to a single positive experience I've ever had with a cop. Neutral ones, sure—basic, cold, bureaucratic interactions. But no great ones.
And lots and lots of negative ones.
Where to begin?
I'll never forget the New York traffic cop who stepped off the curb in front of my car on Madison Avenue and ordered me to turn right. He wrote me up for illegal right turn. "But you told me to," I protested. "Wrong place, wrong time," he smirked. $165 plus three points on my license. I appealed. The cop lied under oath. The court believed him.
Or the Nevada highway patrolman who pulled me over. I was doing 80 in a 70. He wrote me up at 100 mph. My brother-in-law, never the suck-up, confirmed I was going 80. I was so furious—the fine would have been $400—that I spent double that to fly back and challenge the ticket in court. I won.
When my 20-year-old self forgot to turn on my headlights as we pulled out of a parking lot while on a road trip with my druggie roommate, a Massachusetts cop pulled us over. I couldn't begrudge him probable cause; pot smoke billowed out the window, "Cheech and Chong"-style, when I opened it. Still, what came next was unforgivable: he handcuffed my arms so tight that the metal cut to the wrist bone. (The scar lasted ten years.) When we got out of the town lock-up the next morning, $400 was missing from my wallet. (A judge, examining my wrist a few months later, dropped the charges. My $400, of course, was gone forever.)
An LAPD cop—it bears mentioning that he was black—arrested me for jaywalking on Melrose Avenue. I wasn't. I didn't resist, but he roughed me up. Upon releasing me, he chucked my wallet into the sewer, laughed and zoomed off on his motorcycle. I filed a complaint, which the LAPD ignored.
And so on.
I admit it: I don't like cops. I like the idea of cops. The specific people who actually are cops are the problem. My theory is that cops should be drafted, not recruited. After all, the kind of person who would want to become a police officer is precisely the kind of person who should not be allowed to work as one. But I didn't start out harboring this prejudice. It resulted from dozens of unpleasant interactions with law enforcement.
Race has long been a classic predictor of attitudes toward the police. But high-profile cases of police brutality, coupled with over-the-top security measures taken since 9/11 that targeted whites as well as blacks, have helped bring the races together in their contempt for the police. In 1969, the Harris poll found that only 19 percent of whites thought cops discriminated against African-Americans. Now 54 percent of whites think so.
Don't worry, Professor Gates. We don't care what you said about the cop's mama. A lot of white guys see this thing your way.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
New Animated Cartoon: Googling While America Burns"
Treasury Czar Lawrence Summers told Congress he could tell America was recovering because Google searches for terms like "total economic collapse" had fallen in number. I couldn't resist doing an animated cartoon about this. So here's the latest from me and David Essman.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Cartoon for July 27, 2009
If you know about furries, you'll get this one. If not, skip to the next cartoon.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Cartoon Round-Up
I'm the editor of The Daily Beast's new weekly cartoon round-up. Each Saturday, eight editorial cartoons by the nation's graphic satirists chosen by yours truly.
Coming Soon: Bleed All You Can Bleed
A new animated editorial cartoon from David Essman and I is due out early next week. It's an army recruiting video for Obama's glorious war against Afghanistan!
Friday, July 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Cartoon for July 23, 2009
This one was inspired by a conversation with Matt Bors. We were wondering aloud why Obama was in such a rush to pass the bailout bills, only to drag his ass in actually distributing the money. It's not like they can't do things quickly.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
SYNDICATED COLUMN: Heckuva Job, Barry
Obama, Losing Jobs, Soon to Be Shovel-Ready
Pro-Obama political cartoonists have drawn variations of the same cartoon: the president, in the role of badgered parent on a family trip, is driving a car labeled "The Economy." The American public, depicted as Uncle Sam or Joe Average, whines: "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"
With official unemployment approaching 10 percent and underemployment at 16.5 percent, Americans are running out of money—and patience. Obama's approval ratings are down between 15 and 20 points, meaning that he has lost one in six Americans. His biggest weakness: the economy.
"I think the public knows three things: We inherited a total mess; we're working hard on it; and we're not going to get out of it overnight," says Chief White House propagandist Rahm Emanuel. That part is true.
The trouble for Obama is that people don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. "The key to what this year is about is rescuing the economy from falling off the cliff and trying to put in place the building blocks of recovery"—i.e., bailing out the banks, insurers and automakers, says Emanuel. That's what 2009 has been about for Obama. But for ordinary Americans, 2009 is about keeping or finding a job.
Creating jobs, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be an Obama Administration priority.
Were the bailouts necessary? Economists won't know for years. What we do know is that the Administration's approach won't give the American people what they want and need more than anything else: jobs.
What's the point of being patient? Even Obama admits help isn't on the way.
Obama's plan is Reaganomics redux. Give trillions of dollars to big corporations, he argues, and they'll use it to capitalize new ventures, hire workers, and unclog the credit markets. Eventually. "We must let it work the way it's supposed to, with the understanding that in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity," he says.
But even Obama admits it won't unfold "the way it's supposed to."
Obama says his plan "was not designed to work in four months. It was designed to work over two years." But if current trends continue, if everything goes the way he hopes, it will never work. We will have lost 14 million jobs by 2010. That would leave us up 4 million at most—a net loss of 10 million. That's a disaster.
And that's why Joe Public is so antsy. "Are we there yet?" isn't the right question. People think: "We can see how this is going to end: we'll be upside down in a ditch, plucking safety glass from our scalps."
Obama's approach won't work economically, and it won't work politically. Setting bailouts aside, what the United States needs right now—what it needed over a year ago—was a ginormous federal jobs program.
What happened to the infrastructure construction projects, like high-speed rail, that attracted so much enthusiasm during the campaign? Right-wing economic czar Lawrence Summers and a bunch of wimpy Democrats trashed them. "Transportation spending was gutted by Republicans who insisted on more tax cuts—none of whom voted for the measure anyway—and by Obama advisers who shifted priorities to advance policy goals," reported the AP.
Earlier this year the American Society of Civil Engineers said the nation's long-neglected highways, bridges and tunnels require $2,200 billion in repairs just to get them up to basic safety code—not including high-speed rail. Obama's stimulus plan included a mere $42 billion (less than two percent). Rail got $2 billion out of a needed $25 billion. Unless Obama does something soon, nothing is going to get built and unemployment will continue to soar.
Now that Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs are reporting record profits, it's time to "claw back" the bailouts, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and direct federal dollars where we need them most: jobs. Give tax breaks to employers who add new workers, direct federal agencies to grow in size, and create zero-interest lending programs to laid-off would-be entrepreneurs. And let's build some friggin' infrastructure. Every $1 spent on infrastructure generates a $1.59 payback in the form of increased tax revenues—and creates a lasting legacy.
Speaking of cartoons, the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt recently came under fire for trying to hire a cartoonist to "discuss the power of humor in the workplace [and] the close relationship between humor and stress." A Democratic Senator nixed the idea.
Too bad: at least Obama could have taken credit for creating one job.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Pro-Obama political cartoonists have drawn variations of the same cartoon: the president, in the role of badgered parent on a family trip, is driving a car labeled "The Economy." The American public, depicted as Uncle Sam or Joe Average, whines: "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"
With official unemployment approaching 10 percent and underemployment at 16.5 percent, Americans are running out of money—and patience. Obama's approval ratings are down between 15 and 20 points, meaning that he has lost one in six Americans. His biggest weakness: the economy.
"I think the public knows three things: We inherited a total mess; we're working hard on it; and we're not going to get out of it overnight," says Chief White House propagandist Rahm Emanuel. That part is true.
The trouble for Obama is that people don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. "The key to what this year is about is rescuing the economy from falling off the cliff and trying to put in place the building blocks of recovery"—i.e., bailing out the banks, insurers and automakers, says Emanuel. That's what 2009 has been about for Obama. But for ordinary Americans, 2009 is about keeping or finding a job.
Creating jobs, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be an Obama Administration priority.
Were the bailouts necessary? Economists won't know for years. What we do know is that the Administration's approach won't give the American people what they want and need more than anything else: jobs.
What's the point of being patient? Even Obama admits help isn't on the way.
Obama's plan is Reaganomics redux. Give trillions of dollars to big corporations, he argues, and they'll use it to capitalize new ventures, hire workers, and unclog the credit markets. Eventually. "We must let it work the way it's supposed to, with the understanding that in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity," he says.
But even Obama admits it won't unfold "the way it's supposed to."
Obama says his plan "was not designed to work in four months. It was designed to work over two years." But if current trends continue, if everything goes the way he hopes, it will never work. We will have lost 14 million jobs by 2010. That would leave us up 4 million at most—a net loss of 10 million. That's a disaster.
And that's why Joe Public is so antsy. "Are we there yet?" isn't the right question. People think: "We can see how this is going to end: we'll be upside down in a ditch, plucking safety glass from our scalps."
Obama's approach won't work economically, and it won't work politically. Setting bailouts aside, what the United States needs right now—what it needed over a year ago—was a ginormous federal jobs program.
What happened to the infrastructure construction projects, like high-speed rail, that attracted so much enthusiasm during the campaign? Right-wing economic czar Lawrence Summers and a bunch of wimpy Democrats trashed them. "Transportation spending was gutted by Republicans who insisted on more tax cuts—none of whom voted for the measure anyway—and by Obama advisers who shifted priorities to advance policy goals," reported the AP.
Earlier this year the American Society of Civil Engineers said the nation's long-neglected highways, bridges and tunnels require $2,200 billion in repairs just to get them up to basic safety code—not including high-speed rail. Obama's stimulus plan included a mere $42 billion (less than two percent). Rail got $2 billion out of a needed $25 billion. Unless Obama does something soon, nothing is going to get built and unemployment will continue to soar.
Now that Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs are reporting record profits, it's time to "claw back" the bailouts, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and direct federal dollars where we need them most: jobs. Give tax breaks to employers who add new workers, direct federal agencies to grow in size, and create zero-interest lending programs to laid-off would-be entrepreneurs. And let's build some friggin' infrastructure. Every $1 spent on infrastructure generates a $1.59 payback in the form of increased tax revenues—and creates a lasting legacy.
Speaking of cartoons, the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt recently came under fire for trying to hire a cartoonist to "discuss the power of humor in the workplace [and] the close relationship between humor and stress." A Democratic Senator nixed the idea.
Too bad: at least Obama could have taken credit for creating one job.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Monday, July 20, 2009
New Animation: You Can Make a Difference
The earth is doomed, and recycling isn't going to help! Check out my new animated political cartoon with David Essman. If you like these, please tell your local newspaper and magazine editors to pick them up and put them on their websites...or we won't be able to keep doing them! Thanks!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
New Animation Coming Monday
Monday, David Essman and I will release our latest animated editorial cartoon, mocking those "lifestyle environmentalists" who think recycling and driving a hybrid car makes a difference. Stay tuned.
The Week in Political Cartoons
I'm the editor of a new feature on The Daily Beast: The Week in Political Cartoons. If it does well, it will become a regular thing, so please check it out!
Friday, July 17, 2009
Cartoon for July 18, 2009
Bank of America, which received oodles of TARP money, recently cut my credit limit. Who the fuck are these people?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
SYNDICATED COLUMN: Obama Covers Up a Dozen My Lais
Were 3,000 Afghans Murdered As U.S. Troops Stood By?
"I've asked my national security team to...collect the facts," President Obama told CNN. Then, he said, "we'll probably make a decision in terms of how to approach it once we have all the facts together."
Probably.
Such was Obama's tepid reaction to a New York Times cover story about an alleged "mass killing of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Taliban prisoners of war by the forces of an American-backed warlord during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan."
Obama sounds so reasonable. Doesn't he always? But his reaction to the massacre in the Dasht-i-Leili desert is nothing more than the latest case of his administration refusing to investigate a Bush-era war crime.
There are two things Obama doesn't want you to know about Dasht-i-Leili. First, the political class and U.S. state-controlled media have sat on this story for six to seven years. Second, U.S. troops are accused of participating in the atrocities, which involved 12 times as many murders as My Lai.
The last major battle for northern Afghanistan took place in the city of Kunduz. After a weeks-long siege marked by treachery—at one point, the Taliban pretended to surrender, then turned their weapons on advancing Northern Alliance solders—at least 8,000 Taliban POWs fell under the control of General Abdul Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek warlord with a long record of exceptional brutality.
I described what happened next in my column dated January 28, 2003:
"Five thousand of the 8,000 prisoners made the trip to Sheberghan prison in the backs of open-air Soviet-era pick-up trucks...They stopped and commandeered private container trucks to transport the other 3,000 prisoners. 'It was awful,' Irfan Azgar Ali, a survivor of the trip, told England's Guardian newspaper. 'They crammed us into sealed shipping containers. We had no water for 20 hours. We banged on the side of the container. There was no air and it was very hot. There were 300 of us in my container. By the time we arrived in Sheberghan, only ten of us were alive.'
"One Afghan trucker, forced to drive one such container, says that the prisoners began to beg for air. Northern Alliance commanders 'told us to stop the trucks, and we came down. After that, they shot into the containers [to make air holes]. Blood came pouring out. They were screaming inside.' Another driver in the convoy estimates that an average of 150 to 160 people died in each container."
According to Scottish filmmaker Jamie Doran, the butchery continued for three days.
Doran's documentary about these events, "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death," was shown in 50 countries but couldn't get a U.S. release by a media wallowing in the amped-up pseudo-patriotism that marked 2002. Doran's film broke the story. (You can watch it online at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8763367484184611493.) My column brought it to a mainstream American audience:
"When the containers were unlocked at Sheberghan," I wrote in 2003, "the bodies of the dead tumbled out. A 12-man U.S. Fifth Special Forces Group unit, Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) 595, guarded the prison's front gates...' Everything was under the control of the American commanders,' a Northern Alliance soldier tells Doran in the film. American troops searched the bodies for Al Qaeda identification cards. But, says another driver, 'Some of [the prisoners] were alive. They were shot' while 'maybe 30 or 40' American soldiers watched."
The Northern Alliance witness told Doran that American commanders advised him to "get rid of them [the bodies] before satellite pictures could be taken." Indeed, satellite photos reveal that Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government dispatched bulldozers to the mass grave site in 2006 and removed most of the bodies.
World's Most Dangerous Places writer Robert Young Pelton, a colleague who (like me) was in and around Kunduz in November 2001, denies that Dostum's men or U.S. Special Forces killed more than a few hundred Taliban prisoners. However, the U.S. government started receiving firsthand accounts of the events at Dasht-i-Leili in early 2002. According to the Times "Dell Spry, the FBI's senior representative at...Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, heard accounts of the deaths from agents he supervised there. Separately, 10 or so prisoners brought from Afghanistan reported that they had been 'stacked like cordwood' in shipping containers and had to lick the perspiration off one another to survive, Mr. Spry recalled."
"At the very least," Doran says now, "American forces and CIA personnel stood by and did nothing...But if numerous witnesses are to be believed, their involvement went much further than that." Will Obama hold them accountable? Not unless we insist.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
"I've asked my national security team to...collect the facts," President Obama told CNN. Then, he said, "we'll probably make a decision in terms of how to approach it once we have all the facts together."
Probably.
Such was Obama's tepid reaction to a New York Times cover story about an alleged "mass killing of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Taliban prisoners of war by the forces of an American-backed warlord during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan."
Obama sounds so reasonable. Doesn't he always? But his reaction to the massacre in the Dasht-i-Leili desert is nothing more than the latest case of his administration refusing to investigate a Bush-era war crime.
There are two things Obama doesn't want you to know about Dasht-i-Leili. First, the political class and U.S. state-controlled media have sat on this story for six to seven years. Second, U.S. troops are accused of participating in the atrocities, which involved 12 times as many murders as My Lai.
The last major battle for northern Afghanistan took place in the city of Kunduz. After a weeks-long siege marked by treachery—at one point, the Taliban pretended to surrender, then turned their weapons on advancing Northern Alliance solders—at least 8,000 Taliban POWs fell under the control of General Abdul Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek warlord with a long record of exceptional brutality.
I described what happened next in my column dated January 28, 2003:
"Five thousand of the 8,000 prisoners made the trip to Sheberghan prison in the backs of open-air Soviet-era pick-up trucks...They stopped and commandeered private container trucks to transport the other 3,000 prisoners. 'It was awful,' Irfan Azgar Ali, a survivor of the trip, told England's Guardian newspaper. 'They crammed us into sealed shipping containers. We had no water for 20 hours. We banged on the side of the container. There was no air and it was very hot. There were 300 of us in my container. By the time we arrived in Sheberghan, only ten of us were alive.'
"One Afghan trucker, forced to drive one such container, says that the prisoners began to beg for air. Northern Alliance commanders 'told us to stop the trucks, and we came down. After that, they shot into the containers [to make air holes]. Blood came pouring out. They were screaming inside.' Another driver in the convoy estimates that an average of 150 to 160 people died in each container."
According to Scottish filmmaker Jamie Doran, the butchery continued for three days.
Doran's documentary about these events, "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death," was shown in 50 countries but couldn't get a U.S. release by a media wallowing in the amped-up pseudo-patriotism that marked 2002. Doran's film broke the story. (You can watch it online at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8763367484184611493.) My column brought it to a mainstream American audience:
"When the containers were unlocked at Sheberghan," I wrote in 2003, "the bodies of the dead tumbled out. A 12-man U.S. Fifth Special Forces Group unit, Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) 595, guarded the prison's front gates...' Everything was under the control of the American commanders,' a Northern Alliance soldier tells Doran in the film. American troops searched the bodies for Al Qaeda identification cards. But, says another driver, 'Some of [the prisoners] were alive. They were shot' while 'maybe 30 or 40' American soldiers watched."
The Northern Alliance witness told Doran that American commanders advised him to "get rid of them [the bodies] before satellite pictures could be taken." Indeed, satellite photos reveal that Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government dispatched bulldozers to the mass grave site in 2006 and removed most of the bodies.
World's Most Dangerous Places writer Robert Young Pelton, a colleague who (like me) was in and around Kunduz in November 2001, denies that Dostum's men or U.S. Special Forces killed more than a few hundred Taliban prisoners. However, the U.S. government started receiving firsthand accounts of the events at Dasht-i-Leili in early 2002. According to the Times "Dell Spry, the FBI's senior representative at...Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, heard accounts of the deaths from agents he supervised there. Separately, 10 or so prisoners brought from Afghanistan reported that they had been 'stacked like cordwood' in shipping containers and had to lick the perspiration off one another to survive, Mr. Spry recalled."
"At the very least," Doran says now, "American forces and CIA personnel stood by and did nothing...But if numerous witnesses are to be believed, their involvement went much further than that." Will Obama hold them accountable? Not unless we insist.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Publisher's Weekly: Ted Rall's Next Books
I'd hate to have you read it in Publisher's Weekly first. So here it is:
Rall's Two-fer
Merrilee Heifetz at Writers House has closed two graphic novel deals for Pulitzer finalist political cartoonist Ted Rall (who's also president of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists). The first, for two projects, is with Terry Nantier of NBM. Nantier took world rights to Rall's trilogy, the first of which is called The Year of Loving Dangerously, the cartoonist's memoir about being a Columbia dropout in 1980s New York City. Nantier also nabbed world rights to Rall's The Die is Cast, his comics adaptation of John-Paul Sartre's existential work about two star-crossed lovers in Paris who don't meet until the afterlife, Les Jeux Sont Faits. The second deal, with Dan Simon at Seven Stories, is for The Post-American Manifesto, Rall's updated take on Marx's Communist Manifesto, in which he, per Heifetz, offers a “call to action for Americans ready to move toward a new system where the average person is society's top priority.”
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Cartoon for July 13, 2009
Where's the glory in fighting a war using drone planes? Wonder why Pakistanis have so much contempt for us?
Majorities: The New Minority
Yesterday's New York Times illustrated its coverage of the Uyghur uprising in western China with a map titled "Minorities in China". The print edition had a similar map.
Move the dial up to 50 percent and you'll notice a funny thing: according to the Times, Uyghurs are actually a majority in Xinjiang (or, as they call it, East Turkestan). Same thing with Tibet: Tibetans are a majority in Tibet.
(Actually, neither of these statements are probably true. The Chinese government has sent so many Han Chinese colonists to the West that Uyghurs and Tibetans may have already lost their majority status. But I digress.)
The point is: Where they live, Uyghurs are a majority. Yet they're dubbed--in the title--minorities.
Imagine a state that was 55% African-American. When discussing the regional struggle for control WITHIN that state, would it be accurate to call African-Americans a minority? A national minority, sure. But not just a plain old minority.
Move the dial up to 50 percent and you'll notice a funny thing: according to the Times, Uyghurs are actually a majority in Xinjiang (or, as they call it, East Turkestan). Same thing with Tibet: Tibetans are a majority in Tibet.
(Actually, neither of these statements are probably true. The Chinese government has sent so many Han Chinese colonists to the West that Uyghurs and Tibetans may have already lost their majority status. But I digress.)
The point is: Where they live, Uyghurs are a majority. Yet they're dubbed--in the title--minorities.
Imagine a state that was 55% African-American. When discussing the regional struggle for control WITHIN that state, would it be accurate to call African-Americans a minority? A national minority, sure. But not just a plain old minority.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Cartoon for July 9, 2009
Obama invited gays to the White House, but still treats them like second-class citizens.
SYNDICATED COLUMN: The Fog of Obama
Why Can't Obama See His Wars Are Unwinnable?
Robert McNamara, one of the "best and the brightest" technocrats behind the escalation of the Vietnam War, eventually came to regret his actions. But his public contrition, which included a book and a series of interviews for the documentary "The Fog of War," were greeted with derision.
"Mr. McNamara must not escape the lasting moral condemnation of his countrymen," editorialized The New York Times in 1995. "Surely he must in every quiet and prosperous moment hear the ceaseless whispers of those poor boys in the infantry, dying in the tall grass, platoon by platoon, for no purpose. What he took from them cannot be repaid by prime-time apology and stale tears, three decades late."
McNamara's change of heart came 58,000 American and 2,000,000 Vietnamese lives too late. If the dead could speak, surely they would ask: why couldn't you see then what you understand so clearly now? Why didn't you listen to the millions of experts, journalists and ordinary Americans who knew that death and defeat would be the only outcome?
Though Errol Morris' film served as ipso facto indictment, its title was yet a kind of justification. There is no "fog of war." There is only hubris, stubbornness, and the psychological compartmentalization that allows a man to sign papers that will lead others to die before going home to play with his children.
McNamara is dead. Barack Obama is his successor.
Some call McNamara's life tragic. Tragedy-inducing is closer to the truth. Yes, he suffered guilt in his later years. "He wore the expression of a haunted man," wrote the author of his Times obit. "He could be seen in the streets of Washington—stooped, his shirttail flapping in the wind—walking to and from his office a few blocks from the White House, wearing frayed running shoes and a thousand-yard stare." But the men and women and boys and girls blown up by bombs and mines and impaled by bullets and maimed in countless ways deserve more vengeance than a pair of ratty Nikes. Neither McNamara nor LBJ nor the millions of Americans who were for the war merit understanding, much less sympathy.
Now Obama is following the same doomed journey.
"We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes," McNamara warned long after the fact, speaking of "America's enemies" but really just about people—people who live in other countries. People whose countries possess reserves of natural gas (Vietnam) or oil (Iraq) or are situated between energy reserves and deep-sea ports where oil tankers dock (Afghanistan and Pakistan).
Why can't President Obama imagine himself living in a poor village in Pakistan? Why can't he feel the anger and contempt felt by Pakistanis who hear pilotless drone planes buzzing overhead, firing missiles willy-nilly at civilians and guerilla fighters alike, dispatched by a distant enemy too cowardly to put live soldiers and pilots in harm's way?
"We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo—men, women and children," McNamara said. "LeMay said, 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He—and I'd say I—were behaving as war criminals." 900,000 Japanese civilians died in all.
At least Japan started the war. What of Afghanistan and Iraq, where approximately 2,000,000 civilians have been killed by U.S. forces? Neither country attacked us. Shouldn't Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest be prosecuted as war criminals? Why not Obama? After all, Obama is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq after the war there is supposedly coming to an end. He's escalating the unjustifiable, unwinnable tragedy in Afghanistan—there are 68,000 U.S. troops there now, probably going up to 100,000 by next year—while spreading the conflict into Pakistan.
"Make no mistake, the international community is not winning in Afghanistan," concluded the Atlantic Council in 2008. Things have only gotten worse as U.S. troop presence has increased: more violence, more drugs, less reconstruction.
Like McNamara, Obama doesn't understand a basic truth: you can't successfully manage an inherently doomed premise. Colonialism is dead. Occupiers will never enjoy peace. Neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis nor the Pakistanis will rest until we withdraw our forces. The only success we will find is in accepting defeat sooner rather than later.
"What went wrong [in Vietnam] was a basic misunderstanding or misevaluation of the threat to our security represented by the North Vietnamese," McNamara said in his Berkeley oral history." Today's domino theory is Bush's (now Obama's) clash of civilizations, the argument that unless we fight them "there" we will have to fight them here. Afghanistan and Iraq don't present security threats to the United States. The presence of U.S. troops and drone planes, on the other hand…
In fairness to McNamara, it only took two years for him to call to an end of the bombing of North Vietnam. By 1966 he was advising LBJ to start pulling back. But, like a gambler trying to recoup and justify his losses, the president kept doubling down. "We didn't know our opposition," concluded McNamara. "So the first lesson is know your opponents. I want to suggest to you that we don't know our potential opponents today."
Actually, it's worse than that. Then, like now, we don't have opponents. We create them.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Robert McNamara, one of the "best and the brightest" technocrats behind the escalation of the Vietnam War, eventually came to regret his actions. But his public contrition, which included a book and a series of interviews for the documentary "The Fog of War," were greeted with derision.
"Mr. McNamara must not escape the lasting moral condemnation of his countrymen," editorialized The New York Times in 1995. "Surely he must in every quiet and prosperous moment hear the ceaseless whispers of those poor boys in the infantry, dying in the tall grass, platoon by platoon, for no purpose. What he took from them cannot be repaid by prime-time apology and stale tears, three decades late."
McNamara's change of heart came 58,000 American and 2,000,000 Vietnamese lives too late. If the dead could speak, surely they would ask: why couldn't you see then what you understand so clearly now? Why didn't you listen to the millions of experts, journalists and ordinary Americans who knew that death and defeat would be the only outcome?
Though Errol Morris' film served as ipso facto indictment, its title was yet a kind of justification. There is no "fog of war." There is only hubris, stubbornness, and the psychological compartmentalization that allows a man to sign papers that will lead others to die before going home to play with his children.
McNamara is dead. Barack Obama is his successor.
Some call McNamara's life tragic. Tragedy-inducing is closer to the truth. Yes, he suffered guilt in his later years. "He wore the expression of a haunted man," wrote the author of his Times obit. "He could be seen in the streets of Washington—stooped, his shirttail flapping in the wind—walking to and from his office a few blocks from the White House, wearing frayed running shoes and a thousand-yard stare." But the men and women and boys and girls blown up by bombs and mines and impaled by bullets and maimed in countless ways deserve more vengeance than a pair of ratty Nikes. Neither McNamara nor LBJ nor the millions of Americans who were for the war merit understanding, much less sympathy.
Now Obama is following the same doomed journey.
"We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes," McNamara warned long after the fact, speaking of "America's enemies" but really just about people—people who live in other countries. People whose countries possess reserves of natural gas (Vietnam) or oil (Iraq) or are situated between energy reserves and deep-sea ports where oil tankers dock (Afghanistan and Pakistan).
Why can't President Obama imagine himself living in a poor village in Pakistan? Why can't he feel the anger and contempt felt by Pakistanis who hear pilotless drone planes buzzing overhead, firing missiles willy-nilly at civilians and guerilla fighters alike, dispatched by a distant enemy too cowardly to put live soldiers and pilots in harm's way?
"We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo—men, women and children," McNamara said. "LeMay said, 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He—and I'd say I—were behaving as war criminals." 900,000 Japanese civilians died in all.
At least Japan started the war. What of Afghanistan and Iraq, where approximately 2,000,000 civilians have been killed by U.S. forces? Neither country attacked us. Shouldn't Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest be prosecuted as war criminals? Why not Obama? After all, Obama is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq after the war there is supposedly coming to an end. He's escalating the unjustifiable, unwinnable tragedy in Afghanistan—there are 68,000 U.S. troops there now, probably going up to 100,000 by next year—while spreading the conflict into Pakistan.
"Make no mistake, the international community is not winning in Afghanistan," concluded the Atlantic Council in 2008. Things have only gotten worse as U.S. troop presence has increased: more violence, more drugs, less reconstruction.
Like McNamara, Obama doesn't understand a basic truth: you can't successfully manage an inherently doomed premise. Colonialism is dead. Occupiers will never enjoy peace. Neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis nor the Pakistanis will rest until we withdraw our forces. The only success we will find is in accepting defeat sooner rather than later.
"What went wrong [in Vietnam] was a basic misunderstanding or misevaluation of the threat to our security represented by the North Vietnamese," McNamara said in his Berkeley oral history." Today's domino theory is Bush's (now Obama's) clash of civilizations, the argument that unless we fight them "there" we will have to fight them here. Afghanistan and Iraq don't present security threats to the United States. The presence of U.S. troops and drone planes, on the other hand…
In fairness to McNamara, it only took two years for him to call to an end of the bombing of North Vietnam. By 1966 he was advising LBJ to start pulling back. But, like a gambler trying to recoup and justify his losses, the president kept doubling down. "We didn't know our opposition," concluded McNamara. "So the first lesson is know your opponents. I want to suggest to you that we don't know our potential opponents today."
Actually, it's worse than that. Then, like now, we don't have opponents. We create them.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Coming Shortly: What If Americans Were Like Iranians?
What if Americans responded to election theft like the Iranians? My next animation answers that question. Comes out later today.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Cartoon for July 2, 2009
I'm starting to wonder: will Americans know how to mourn if someone worthwhile ever dies?
Financial Times Plagiarizes Ted Rall
You don't have to be a regular reader to know that I've been depicting Barack Obama in Hello Kitty regalia for about one year: flags, banners, you name it. Most recently, I did an Obamaman cartoon that depicts our lame superhero president wearing a Hello Kitty logo on his chest.
Now a sharp-eyed FOR points out that an illustrator for the Financial Times has rather brazenly ripped off my meme.
Usually, these things are less than cut and dry. But it's pretty hard to believe that any illustrator could be unaware of my use of the Hello Kitty imagery to define Obama--it ain't as branded as Generalissimo El Busho yet, but come on. This one fails the smell test.
Suffice it to say that, if this sort of thing annoys you, it is possible to email the Financial Times a letter to the editor.
Monday, June 29, 2009
SYNDICATED COLUMN: Sorry, Mr. Bush
The Poor Get Poorer, Presidents Get Worse
I miss Bush.
Stop the presses and shut off the RSS feeds: the bashiest of the Bush-bashers is starting to appreciate the Exile of Crawford.
I haven't forgiven George W. Bush for stealing two elections, starting two wars, bankrupting the treasury and doing his damnedest to turn the U.S. into a fascist state. He deserves one of hell's hottest picnic spots for refusing to lift a finger to bring the 9/11 murderers to justice. Bush was stupid. He was vicious. He should be in prison.
He was the worst president the U.S. had ever had. Until this one.
On major issues and a lot of minor ones, Obama is the same as or worse than Bush. But Bush had an opposition to contend with. Obama has a compliant Democratic Congress. Lulled to somnolent apathy by Obama's charming manners, mastery of English (and yes, the color of his skin), leftist activists and journalists have been reduced to quiet disappointment, mild grumbling and unaccountable patience.
I don't care about window dressing. Sure, it's nice that Obama is intelligent. But policies matter—not charm. And Obama's policies are at least as bad as Bush's.
Guantánamo was but the beginning of Obama's betrayals. First he ordered the camp closed—not immediately but in a year. Now he's expanding the U.S. concentration camp at Bagram—where 600 innocent men and children are being tortured—so he can send the 245 Gitmo prisoners there. In the Bush era, Gitmo POWs received legal representation. Obama has ordered that the POWs sent to Bagram not be allowed to see a lawyer.
You saw the headline: "OBAMA BANS TORTURE." But it was a lie. Obama's CIA director told Congress that there's a "review process that's built into [Obama's] executive order" that allows torture to continue. Leon Panetta said the Obama Administration will keep using at least 19 torture techniques against detainees. In addition, Team Obama will "look at those kinds of enhanced techniques to determine how effective they were or weren't and whether any appropriate revisions need to be made as a result of that."
As editorial boards of liberal newspaper tut-tut and the feds convene committees, the screams of the victims pierce the night.
Bush was the biggest spender in history, running up a $1.8 trillion deficit with wasteful wars and tax cuts. But next to Obama, Bush was a tightwad. Glamour Prez hasn't been around six months, yet the Congressional Budget Office reports that he already has quadrupled the deficit by an extra $8.1 trillion. "The total debt held by the public [will] rise from 57 percent of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent (!) of GDP in 2019," reports U.S. News & World Report.
Obama is sinking us into financial oblivion 72 times faster than Bush.
Where'd the money go? Mostly to insurance companies. Banks. Brokerage firms. Who used it to redecorate their offices and give themselves raises.
Against logic and history Obama claimed his bailout package would create jobs. Instead, unemployment has risen by 1.3 million. Has Obama's plan saved a single homeowner from foreclosure? Reporters can't any.
I liked Bush better. He wasted our money when the economy wasn't quite as sucky. And he didn't insult us by pretending to care. Come on, Barack, smirk! Truth in advertising!
I know: he's a politician. Politicians break promises. As the presidential scholar Stephen Hess says: "There are some pledges that a candidate reverses when he becomes president because things look different. He knows things that he didn't know then."
"Some"? Obama hasn't even tried to keep a single major promise. He hasn't gotten rid of "don't ask, don't tell." His ballyhooed "cap and trade" law on emissions is toothless. Remember Obama's pledge to renegotiate NAFTA to strengthen environmental regulations? Forgotten.
In Obama's case, "things look[ing] different" has meant giving in to entrenched dirtbags, like the spooks who read your emails and the entrenched Pentagon torturers who don't want us to see photos that make Abu Ghraib look like child's play.
(An official familiar with the photos in question tells me they include, among other atrocities, U.S. personnel sodomizing a child.)
Obama has done more damage than Bush. And no one's stopping him. Which makes him worse.
Sorry, Mr. Bush. If I'd known what was coming, I would've been nicer.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
I miss Bush.
Stop the presses and shut off the RSS feeds: the bashiest of the Bush-bashers is starting to appreciate the Exile of Crawford.
I haven't forgiven George W. Bush for stealing two elections, starting two wars, bankrupting the treasury and doing his damnedest to turn the U.S. into a fascist state. He deserves one of hell's hottest picnic spots for refusing to lift a finger to bring the 9/11 murderers to justice. Bush was stupid. He was vicious. He should be in prison.
He was the worst president the U.S. had ever had. Until this one.
On major issues and a lot of minor ones, Obama is the same as or worse than Bush. But Bush had an opposition to contend with. Obama has a compliant Democratic Congress. Lulled to somnolent apathy by Obama's charming manners, mastery of English (and yes, the color of his skin), leftist activists and journalists have been reduced to quiet disappointment, mild grumbling and unaccountable patience.
I don't care about window dressing. Sure, it's nice that Obama is intelligent. But policies matter—not charm. And Obama's policies are at least as bad as Bush's.
Guantánamo was but the beginning of Obama's betrayals. First he ordered the camp closed—not immediately but in a year. Now he's expanding the U.S. concentration camp at Bagram—where 600 innocent men and children are being tortured—so he can send the 245 Gitmo prisoners there. In the Bush era, Gitmo POWs received legal representation. Obama has ordered that the POWs sent to Bagram not be allowed to see a lawyer.
You saw the headline: "OBAMA BANS TORTURE." But it was a lie. Obama's CIA director told Congress that there's a "review process that's built into [Obama's] executive order" that allows torture to continue. Leon Panetta said the Obama Administration will keep using at least 19 torture techniques against detainees. In addition, Team Obama will "look at those kinds of enhanced techniques to determine how effective they were or weren't and whether any appropriate revisions need to be made as a result of that."
As editorial boards of liberal newspaper tut-tut and the feds convene committees, the screams of the victims pierce the night.
Bush was the biggest spender in history, running up a $1.8 trillion deficit with wasteful wars and tax cuts. But next to Obama, Bush was a tightwad. Glamour Prez hasn't been around six months, yet the Congressional Budget Office reports that he already has quadrupled the deficit by an extra $8.1 trillion. "The total debt held by the public [will] rise from 57 percent of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent (!) of GDP in 2019," reports U.S. News & World Report.
Obama is sinking us into financial oblivion 72 times faster than Bush.
Where'd the money go? Mostly to insurance companies. Banks. Brokerage firms. Who used it to redecorate their offices and give themselves raises.
Against logic and history Obama claimed his bailout package would create jobs. Instead, unemployment has risen by 1.3 million. Has Obama's plan saved a single homeowner from foreclosure? Reporters can't any.
I liked Bush better. He wasted our money when the economy wasn't quite as sucky. And he didn't insult us by pretending to care. Come on, Barack, smirk! Truth in advertising!
I know: he's a politician. Politicians break promises. As the presidential scholar Stephen Hess says: "There are some pledges that a candidate reverses when he becomes president because things look different. He knows things that he didn't know then."
"Some"? Obama hasn't even tried to keep a single major promise. He hasn't gotten rid of "don't ask, don't tell." His ballyhooed "cap and trade" law on emissions is toothless. Remember Obama's pledge to renegotiate NAFTA to strengthen environmental regulations? Forgotten.
In Obama's case, "things look[ing] different" has meant giving in to entrenched dirtbags, like the spooks who read your emails and the entrenched Pentagon torturers who don't want us to see photos that make Abu Ghraib look like child's play.
(An official familiar with the photos in question tells me they include, among other atrocities, U.S. personnel sodomizing a child.)
Obama has done more damage than Bush. And no one's stopping him. Which makes him worse.
Sorry, Mr. Bush. If I'd known what was coming, I would've been nicer.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
ANIMATION: The Asterisk president
I think this one is the best ever. It's a riff on the static cartoon I did recently. What do you think?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Cartoon for June 29, 2009
An all-purpose fill-in-the-blank commentary to prepare liberals for their next disappointment.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
New Animation Coming Soon
Coming soon: a new animation. This time, Obama gets headlines for doing good things. The devils, of course, are in the details.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Cartoon for June 25, 2009
The Iranian leader who claims the election was stolen from him has pronounced himself ready for martyrdom. Would only that we had such leaders!
Monday, June 22, 2009
THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: Half Healthcare, 100% Dead
Time for Obama to Get Serious
Half measures are boring.
That political reality derailed Bill Clinton's 1993 healthcare reform plan. And it will likely unravel that of Barack Obama.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office finds that Obama's plan, sponsored by Senators Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy, "would reduce the number of uninsured only by a net 16 million people. Even if the bill became law, the budget office said, 36 million people would remain uninsured in 2017," reported The New York Times. Yet it would cost at least $1 trillion over ten years.
Americans like Obama's basic idea: "Seventy-two percent of those questioned [in the latest Times/CBS News poll] supported a government-administered insurance plan--something like Medicare for those under 65--that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed." The support is broad. But it isn't deep.
"Pay higher taxes for a healthcare plan that probably won't help you personally, even if you're uninsured" isn't much of a sales pitch. No one is going to call their Congressman, much less march in the streets, to demand action for a half-measure--or, in this case, a quarter-measure. Without public pressure to push back against drug and insurance company lobbyists, nothing will change.
Like every mainstream Democrat since Jimmy Carter, Obama is a militant moderate, elevating triangulation and compromise-for-its-own-sake to the status of Holy Writ. But radical problems--and the state of healthcare in America surely qualifies--require radical solutions.
More than that, simplicity sells. French- or U.K.-style socialized medicine--everyone covered, every doctor's visit free, every pill free, every doctor a government employee--might indeed cost three times more than Obama's incomprehensibly vague, vaguely incomprehensible proposal. But it's easy to understand. Moreover, as James D. Miller notes in his book "Game Theory at Work," people crave certainty:
"What would you rather have: 1) $100,000 or 2) a 50 percent chance of getting $200,000 and a 50 percent chance of getting nothing? Both choices give you on average $100,000. The majority...would prefer the first choice: the sure thing. Most people dislike risk, which is why so many of us buy insurance."
When we can afford it.
When citizens evaluate a political proposal, the first thing they ask themselves is: what's in it for me? Thus the appeal of a gimmick like George W. Bush's $300 tax rebate checks. No one seriously believed they would stimulate the economy. But hey, three hundred bucks is three hundred bucks.
Right out of the gate, Obama's "public option" plan tells the public that there's probably only one thing in it for them: higher taxes. Most Americans do have insurance. They don't like their deny-deny-deny insurance companies, but there's nothing for them in the Obama-Dodd-Kennedy proposal. Some Democrats have even floated the idea of taxing health benefits!
At least 47 million Americans have no insurance. And that number is going up fast. But the CBO says only one of out of four of people without insurance would be helped by Obama's "public option." The rest would pay higher taxes--and still remain uninsured. Why should they get excited about The Return of Hillarycare?
As president-elect, Obama said he planned to "keep [his] finger on the pulse" of the American people. "One of the worst things I think that could happen to a president is losing touch with what people are going through day to day," he said. But it is painfully clear that "the bubble that exists around the president" has already enveloped him.
There is no true middle ground on healthcare. The most civilized and efficient approach, tried and tested by the rest of the industrialized world, is fully socialized medicine. Put the insurance vampires out of business. Cutting out the health profiteers and encouraging preventative care will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
Failing a comprehensive solution, let the free market reign. True, 20,000 Americans will continue to die each year due to lack of insurance. But private healthcare corporations will continue to invest in innovative treatments and medications. The city of Hartford will keep adding shiny new skyscrapers to its skyline--and our taxes won't go even higher over this issue.
Obamacare offers the worst of both worlds--it would be expensive and inadequate.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Half measures are boring.
That political reality derailed Bill Clinton's 1993 healthcare reform plan. And it will likely unravel that of Barack Obama.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office finds that Obama's plan, sponsored by Senators Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy, "would reduce the number of uninsured only by a net 16 million people. Even if the bill became law, the budget office said, 36 million people would remain uninsured in 2017," reported The New York Times. Yet it would cost at least $1 trillion over ten years.
Americans like Obama's basic idea: "Seventy-two percent of those questioned [in the latest Times/CBS News poll] supported a government-administered insurance plan--something like Medicare for those under 65--that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed." The support is broad. But it isn't deep.
"Pay higher taxes for a healthcare plan that probably won't help you personally, even if you're uninsured" isn't much of a sales pitch. No one is going to call their Congressman, much less march in the streets, to demand action for a half-measure--or, in this case, a quarter-measure. Without public pressure to push back against drug and insurance company lobbyists, nothing will change.
Like every mainstream Democrat since Jimmy Carter, Obama is a militant moderate, elevating triangulation and compromise-for-its-own-sake to the status of Holy Writ. But radical problems--and the state of healthcare in America surely qualifies--require radical solutions.
More than that, simplicity sells. French- or U.K.-style socialized medicine--everyone covered, every doctor's visit free, every pill free, every doctor a government employee--might indeed cost three times more than Obama's incomprehensibly vague, vaguely incomprehensible proposal. But it's easy to understand. Moreover, as James D. Miller notes in his book "Game Theory at Work," people crave certainty:
"What would you rather have: 1) $100,000 or 2) a 50 percent chance of getting $200,000 and a 50 percent chance of getting nothing? Both choices give you on average $100,000. The majority...would prefer the first choice: the sure thing. Most people dislike risk, which is why so many of us buy insurance."
When we can afford it.
When citizens evaluate a political proposal, the first thing they ask themselves is: what's in it for me? Thus the appeal of a gimmick like George W. Bush's $300 tax rebate checks. No one seriously believed they would stimulate the economy. But hey, three hundred bucks is three hundred bucks.
Right out of the gate, Obama's "public option" plan tells the public that there's probably only one thing in it for them: higher taxes. Most Americans do have insurance. They don't like their deny-deny-deny insurance companies, but there's nothing for them in the Obama-Dodd-Kennedy proposal. Some Democrats have even floated the idea of taxing health benefits!
At least 47 million Americans have no insurance. And that number is going up fast. But the CBO says only one of out of four of people without insurance would be helped by Obama's "public option." The rest would pay higher taxes--and still remain uninsured. Why should they get excited about The Return of Hillarycare?
As president-elect, Obama said he planned to "keep [his] finger on the pulse" of the American people. "One of the worst things I think that could happen to a president is losing touch with what people are going through day to day," he said. But it is painfully clear that "the bubble that exists around the president" has already enveloped him.
There is no true middle ground on healthcare. The most civilized and efficient approach, tried and tested by the rest of the industrialized world, is fully socialized medicine. Put the insurance vampires out of business. Cutting out the health profiteers and encouraging preventative care will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
Failing a comprehensive solution, let the free market reign. True, 20,000 Americans will continue to die each year due to lack of insurance. But private healthcare corporations will continue to invest in innovative treatments and medications. The city of Hartford will keep adding shiny new skyscrapers to its skyline--and our taxes won't go even higher over this issue.
Obamacare offers the worst of both worlds--it would be expensive and inadequate.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
July 2 in Seattle: Cartoonapalooza!
Come and meet some of the nation's best editorial cartoonists--plus me--on Thursday, July 2 in Seattle. Tickets are $25. Show starts at 7:30 at Town Hall.
Cartoonapalooza features "Pulitzer Prize-winner Mike Peters, syndicated editorial cartoonist and creator of the popular cartoon strip, Mother Goose and Grimm; Jack Ohman, the Portland Oregonian's much-honored cartoonist; provocative cutting-edge cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall; Mark Fiore, the leading pioneer in the new field of animated editorial cartoons; Signe Wilkinson of the Philadelphia Daily News, a Pulitzer Prize-winner and one of the nation's top female cartoonists; Matt Bors, creator of Idiot Box and other alternative editorial cartoons, and me, David Horsey, two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize."
Many other top political cartoonists will be in the audience. All the cartoonists will be available for lingering and malingering after the show!
Cartoonapalooza features "Pulitzer Prize-winner Mike Peters, syndicated editorial cartoonist and creator of the popular cartoon strip, Mother Goose and Grimm; Jack Ohman, the Portland Oregonian's much-honored cartoonist; provocative cutting-edge cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall; Mark Fiore, the leading pioneer in the new field of animated editorial cartoons; Signe Wilkinson of the Philadelphia Daily News, a Pulitzer Prize-winner and one of the nation's top female cartoonists; Matt Bors, creator of Idiot Box and other alternative editorial cartoons, and me, David Horsey, two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize."
Many other top political cartoonists will be in the audience. All the cartoonists will be available for lingering and malingering after the show!
New Animation: Choking the Final Chicken
Michael Hutchence. David Carradine. When will the scourge end?
Warning: Not suitable for Americans to view with a full stomach.
Warning: Not suitable for Americans to view with a full stomach.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Cartoon for June 22, 2009
The Congressional Budget Office finds that only 16 million out of the 47 million Americans who are uninsured would be insured under Obama's overpriced healthcare plan. Typical Obama: It's expensive, complicated, and doesn't even promise to work for many people. Awe-some.
Coming Soon: New Animated Editorial Cartoon
My next animated editorial cartoon tackles the autoerotic asphyxiation crisis. Michael Hutchence. David Carradine. Who will be next?
Friday, June 19, 2009
Cartoon for June 20, 2009
News reporters are having trouble finding anyone--anyone!--who got help from the government in saving their home from foreclosure.
Tucson Book Signing
In conjunction with next week's Association of Alternative Newsweeklies' convention I'll be joining "Red Meat" cartoonist Max Cannon for a book signing in Tucson next Friday at 7 pm.
See you there, Arizonans!
See you there, Arizonans!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
My Letter to the New York Times
A few days ago, The New York Times ran a piece about how they weren't paying artists for the artwork you sometimes see replacing the Google logo on their main search page. Today they published my letter to the editor.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Cartoon for June 18, 2009
This came out of a conversation with fellow cartoonist Matt Bors about how Americans who sat on their asses when Bush stole the election(s) are applauding Iranians who take to the streets in the same situation.
Monday, June 15, 2009
THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: Resistance is Purile
The Going Gets Tough. The Tough Start Blogging.
This is the second of two parts.
NEW YORK, NORTH AMERICAN PROTECTORATE, GREATER GERMAN REICH—At first glance, everything looks fine. Sixty-five years after the Nazi victory at D-Day brought this North American city into the fold of the Greater German Reich, the security situation is calm. Families stroll the sidewalks. Stores that haven't been boarded up are filled with browsers. Travelers line up to take the express elevator to the top of Manhattan's Adolf Hitler Tower to board express zeppelin service to Germania.
But not everyone is happy. Decades after being conquered by Germany, North American subjects of the Greater Reich are growing restive. "We would greatly appreciate it if you would consider withdrawing," reads the pointed graffiti on the side of a local SS recruiting station.
Why the anger? Six months after a new chancellor came to power amid promises of dramatic change, the Reich remains at war. Between the officially unemployed and the long-term dispossessed, 20 percent of North Americans are out of work. Auschwitz is closing and torture has been banned, but dissidents say Adolf Hitler III's reforms are merely window-dressing.
"He still reserves the right to use 'enhanced interrogation techniques,'" points out Seth, a 26-year-old who says he lives in the 'still cool' section of the Williamsburg gau of Brooklyn. "OK, so maybe he needs them. But the Auschwitz detainees are being transferred to Buchenwald and Dachau. What's with that? And now this 'Soviet surge.' This isn't the change we hoped for."
Seth is the twisted face of the Resistance, an umbrella term for the motley mix of militant factions dedicated to the overthrow of the occupation regime. Some are liberals opposed to human rights abuses. Some are leftists who want economic equality. Others oppose the Reich's wars, which they consider pointless and immoral. All say they're willing to use any means necessary.
Seth is so furious that he has even started a blog, SomewhatAnnoyed.net, where he catalogues a litany of complaints against Nazism. "People are afraid to post comments but I know they're out there, lurking. And I earn serious mid two-digits from BlogAds."
Whether it's Twittering, posting to Facebook pages or creating an iPhone app like iResist, such radical action against the authorities takes many forms. After her boyfriend was deported to the east, Greta vowed to write a letter to the editor to her local newspaper. "Once you commit yourself to the path of resistance against the fascist oppressor," she said, "you must accept that you will either end up dead or in prison. I'm okay with that." Although she hasn't gotten around to writing the letter yet—"I've been super busy with my book club, not to mention transferring my files from Blogger to Wordpress"—she says nothing can stop her from "ruthlessly smashing the infrastructure of dictatorship."
Bob and Ken blame GAFTA, the Germano-Antipodes Free Trade Agreement, for the loss of their jobs when their employer moved to New Zealand. Bored and broke, they while away their afternoons plotting their revenge over chocolate-flavored caffeinated beverages at chain coffee shops with other disaffected partisans. "The German pigs have to go," says Bob. "We'll get them where it hurts." He is planning to think about organizing a poetry jam.
Terrorist sabotage was on the agenda at a recent meeting of their cell. "We should totally march around holding signs and chanting slogans," Bob suggested. "Maybe it would slow down traffic or something," he said, fantasizing that a busload of deportation victims might then go to their deaths later than scheduled. But getting a protest permit might require filling out a form, countered Ken. "Not to mention a fee," agreed Bob. "Anyway, protesting didn't work in the '60s. Did it?"
Denise, a fierce brunette in her late 30s, represents the ruling elite's worst nightmare. First, she obtained an MBA. Then she got a job on Wall Street. "I'm infiltrating the corporate capitalists' den, learning their methods from the inside," she said. "Once I've spent 30 or 40 years allaying their suspicions by doing everything they want and then some, I'll pose as a harmless retiree. They'll never see it coming!"
At this writing, the Gestapo had inexplicably disbanded the American division of its counterinsurgency operations.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Sunday, June 14, 2009
New Animation Mocks Credit Cards
This one was inspired by Obama's lame-ass credit card bill of rights, in which the credit card companies promised to sort of reduce their maximum interest rate from 41 percent (strange but true, that's how high it can go). It does require having seen those old American Express ads, though.
Cartoon for June 15, 2009
It's sick math--and it's probably even worse than how I depicted it in this cartoon. No matter how you crunch the numbers, there is no way anyone can justify the bank bailout as anything other than a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to greedy corporations.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
New Animation Coming Monday
This Monday, I go after the greedy-as-hell credit card industry in a new animated editorial cartoon done with David Essman. Stay tuned!
Friday, June 12, 2009
Cartoon for June 13, 2009
Fairly self-explanatory, but this is something I've been trying to convey about Obama for some time. He has perfect Bush's art of getting the big headline and then amending it into nothingness later when nobody is paying attention. Remember Bush's signing statements? Obama doesn't need them--he does the same thing without them.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Scott & Ted's Excellent Radio Show
Tomorrow morning!
6-9 am CENTRAL time
Livestreamed: http://www.wapi1070.com
6-9 am CENTRAL time
Livestreamed: http://www.wapi1070.com
Monday, June 8, 2009
THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: Taking Time Takes Patience
Desperate and Afraid, People Trust Leader
This is the first of two parts.
WASHINGTON, NORTH AMERICAN PROTECTORATE, GREATER GERMAN REICH--From Honolulu to Portland, Maine, North American citizens of the Greater German Reich gathered on June 6th to celebrate the 65th anniversary of the victory of Axis forces at D-Day, the battle that decided World War II. Fallen heroes of the Wehrmacht and SS were commemorated at solemn ceremonies and Party rallies throughout the Reich, but the day held special meaning in Washington, which until 1945 was the capital of the former United States.
Speaking at the Supreme Kommandatur, which was built at the site of the former American presidential palace, Chancellor Adolf Hitler III said the war against the Western Allies paved the way for the years of peace and prosperity that followed. "It was unknowable then, but so much of the progress that would define the 20th century, on both sides of the Atlantic, came down to the battle for a slice of beach only six miles long and two miles wide," he said.
Recollections of the National Socialist triumph at Normandy were clouded by several developments--a severe recession, a war with no apparent end in sight, and continuing concerns over human rights abuses.
Hitler III swept into power last November with a slogan--"change you can believe in"--that charmed members of the Reichstag across the political spectrum from far right to extreme right. Since that time, however, changes have proven either incremental or non-existent. For example, Hitler III promised during the campaign to help national comrades in danger of losing their homes--but instead spent trillions of marks to bail out feckless banks. He promised to withdraw from the Eastern Front, but has extended the pullout timeline by a year, is leaving tens of thousands of troops in place, and even plans to open a new front in South Asia.
Finally, he declared his intent to close Auschwitz ("Germany does not 'do' genocide," he said) only to move the remaining inmates to other camps, which are being expanded.
Despite the lack of action, most people continue to support the charismatic new Leader. "He has a lot on his plate," says Kristof Mathewsohn, the cable TV commentator. "Give the guy time."
Indeed, five months into his chancellorship, the Leader remains the most trusted figure in North American politics. A new poll of homeless, recently dispossessed workers found that 72 percent trust Hitler III "to do the right thing."
"In watching and listening to Hitler III's press conferences, it's easy to appreciate why people trust him," said a man who preferred to remain anonymous because, as a Jew, he could be arrested and murdered by the state. "Sure, I wish he'd shut down the gas chambers and the ovens, but he has a lot of other problems to fix first. I'm sure he'll get around to investigating the guys in the previous administration for their role in the Holocaust--nothing drastic, maybe a truth and reconciliation commission or something."
Members of the media remain in thrall to the Leader's suave persona, which is magnified by the glamour his statuesque wife and adorable daughters have brought to Germania (formerly Berlin). "Finally--parties we can believe in!" quipped a reporter as he slipped into a sold-out Wagner performance where Hitler III and his family appeared for a long-promised "date night."
Few have forgotten that Hitler III offered the best alternative. "We live in a one-party system," pointed out Rachel Maddoff, host of "The Rachel Maddoff Show." "Can you imagine how much worse it would have been had Hitler III lost?"
NEXT WEEK: Resistance!
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
This is the first of two parts.
WASHINGTON, NORTH AMERICAN PROTECTORATE, GREATER GERMAN REICH--From Honolulu to Portland, Maine, North American citizens of the Greater German Reich gathered on June 6th to celebrate the 65th anniversary of the victory of Axis forces at D-Day, the battle that decided World War II. Fallen heroes of the Wehrmacht and SS were commemorated at solemn ceremonies and Party rallies throughout the Reich, but the day held special meaning in Washington, which until 1945 was the capital of the former United States.
Speaking at the Supreme Kommandatur, which was built at the site of the former American presidential palace, Chancellor Adolf Hitler III said the war against the Western Allies paved the way for the years of peace and prosperity that followed. "It was unknowable then, but so much of the progress that would define the 20th century, on both sides of the Atlantic, came down to the battle for a slice of beach only six miles long and two miles wide," he said.
Recollections of the National Socialist triumph at Normandy were clouded by several developments--a severe recession, a war with no apparent end in sight, and continuing concerns over human rights abuses.
Hitler III swept into power last November with a slogan--"change you can believe in"--that charmed members of the Reichstag across the political spectrum from far right to extreme right. Since that time, however, changes have proven either incremental or non-existent. For example, Hitler III promised during the campaign to help national comrades in danger of losing their homes--but instead spent trillions of marks to bail out feckless banks. He promised to withdraw from the Eastern Front, but has extended the pullout timeline by a year, is leaving tens of thousands of troops in place, and even plans to open a new front in South Asia.
Finally, he declared his intent to close Auschwitz ("Germany does not 'do' genocide," he said) only to move the remaining inmates to other camps, which are being expanded.
Despite the lack of action, most people continue to support the charismatic new Leader. "He has a lot on his plate," says Kristof Mathewsohn, the cable TV commentator. "Give the guy time."
Indeed, five months into his chancellorship, the Leader remains the most trusted figure in North American politics. A new poll of homeless, recently dispossessed workers found that 72 percent trust Hitler III "to do the right thing."
"In watching and listening to Hitler III's press conferences, it's easy to appreciate why people trust him," said a man who preferred to remain anonymous because, as a Jew, he could be arrested and murdered by the state. "Sure, I wish he'd shut down the gas chambers and the ovens, but he has a lot of other problems to fix first. I'm sure he'll get around to investigating the guys in the previous administration for their role in the Holocaust--nothing drastic, maybe a truth and reconciliation commission or something."
Members of the media remain in thrall to the Leader's suave persona, which is magnified by the glamour his statuesque wife and adorable daughters have brought to Germania (formerly Berlin). "Finally--parties we can believe in!" quipped a reporter as he slipped into a sold-out Wagner performance where Hitler III and his family appeared for a long-promised "date night."
Few have forgotten that Hitler III offered the best alternative. "We live in a one-party system," pointed out Rachel Maddoff, host of "The Rachel Maddoff Show." "Can you imagine how much worse it would have been had Hitler III lost?"
NEXT WEEK: Resistance!
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Later This Week: Scott and Ted's Excellent Radio Show
Conservative editorial cartoonist Scott Stantis and I are teaming up this coming Thursday and Friday morning for three hours of morning drive talk radio each morning--in Birmingham, Alabama. This is a one-time thing, not the beginning of a regular show.
Topics will include national and international news, local stuff, and social/pop culture.
When: 6-9 am East Coast time
Thursday, June 11 and Friday, June 12
If you're in Birmingham, Alabama, check out the show at 1070 AM WAPI. There's also a link (on the upper righthand corner) to LISTEN LIVE online.
Topics will include national and international news, local stuff, and social/pop culture.
When: 6-9 am East Coast time
Thursday, June 11 and Friday, June 12
If you're in Birmingham, Alabama, check out the show at 1070 AM WAPI. There's also a link (on the upper righthand corner) to LISTEN LIVE online.
Wanna Become the Ted Rall House Band?
I need a band to create short (10-15 seconds) bits, often covers of rock songs, for the beginning and end of my animated political cartoons. If you're in such a confab, please get in touch: chet@rall.com.
Remuneration: Glory and a share of the profits if and when any materialize. And as many originals as you can stand.
Remuneration: Glory and a share of the profits if and when any materialize. And as many originals as you can stand.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Cartoon for June 8, 2009
Republicans argue that the Gitmo detainees cannot be safely transferred to the U.S. Why not?
Friday, June 5, 2009
Ted Rall: John Avlon's "Wingnut of the Week"
Check out militant moderate CNN talking head John Avlon's pick for (left) Wingnut of the Week: me.
He's entitled to his opinion. Obviously. What is amazingly disingenuous is Avlon's approach: he never explains why I asked Obama to resign. Even when he's asked "where is that coming from?" he doesn't answer. That's right--he doesn't mention the topic of my column, which is Obama's plan to radically change American law to permit the government to hold people in preventative detention (Obama calls it "prolonged detention") in case they might commit a crime in the future.
It's an amazingly dishonest smear--one that glosses over the possibility that anyone would have a legitimate reason to oppose Obama.
Could it be that, if they heard about Obama's plan--one that the New York Times called one of the biggest changes in our legal system ever--most Americans would agree with me?
He's entitled to his opinion. Obviously. What is amazingly disingenuous is Avlon's approach: he never explains why I asked Obama to resign. Even when he's asked "where is that coming from?" he doesn't answer. That's right--he doesn't mention the topic of my column, which is Obama's plan to radically change American law to permit the government to hold people in preventative detention (Obama calls it "prolonged detention") in case they might commit a crime in the future.
It's an amazingly dishonest smear--one that glosses over the possibility that anyone would have a legitimate reason to oppose Obama.
Could it be that, if they heard about Obama's plan--one that the New York Times called one of the biggest changes in our legal system ever--most Americans would agree with me?
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: How To Talk to a Pro-Lifer (and you must)
How Pro-Choicers Should Learn to Talk to Pro-Lifers
All too often in American politics opposing sides talk past one another, firing off arguments loaded with language that stands no chance of persuading those who hold other views.
The debate over what to do about 9/11 was such a moment, one that initiated the current era of polarization. When liberals recoiled at torture and GOP attacks on civil liberties, conservatives accused them of being anti-American traitors. When Republicans supported preemptive warfare against Iraq, liberals called them fascists and warmongers.
If we had the chance for a do-over, it would probably happen just the same way. The attacks in New York and Washington exposed a fault line in Americans' views of what makes our country great: liberals treasure the U.S. for the Bill of Rights whereas conservatives value living at the center of a wealthy and powerful empire. The kill-'em-all-let-God-sort-'em-out crowd doesn't live in the same universe as those of us who would have used diplomacy and international law to apprehend the murderers of September 2001.
The murder of doctor George Tiller at his Kansas church has again exposed the fault line over abortion. Both sides talk past one another. The pro-choice contingent snaps that pro-lifers, more often than not right of center, care only about human life between conception and birth. For their part, many pro-lifers fail to concede some obvious points, like the fact that forcing a girl to bear a child that results from rape or incest is obscene.
I am militantly pro-choice on practical grounds. You can't tie a woman down for nine months and force her to bear a child. And also on moral ones: women must be able to control their bodies. Nevertheless, I am disgusted by much of my fellow pro-choicers' rhetoric in the aftermath of the shooting of Dr. Tiller.
Reveling in the same kind of smug self-righteousness that characterized Bush and his supporters after 9/11 (did they really think questioning liberals' patriotism would convince them to support invading Iraq?), my fellow pro-choicers are attempting to marginalize pro-life Americans as out of touch and possibly insane.
"It's senseless," said the director of an abortion clinic in Portland, Oregon. Even President Obama weighed in: "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence," said a White House statement.
If you're intellectually honest, however, murdering an abortionist isn't inherently "senseless." If you believe (as I do) that life begins at conception, then the first cellular division after a sperm fertilizes the ovum represents human life every bit as much as you and me. The standard feminist claim that a baby isn't alive until it' "viable" outside the womb is ridiculous. I know 25-year-olds who aren't fully viable.
Abortion is murder. In my view women have—and ought to continue to have—the right to murder their unborn babies. Each abortion is a tragedy, some necessary and others not, and all of them are murder. It's not a position that I'm comfortable with. But as sad and horrible as abortion is, I can't see telling a woman who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term that she has to do so.
For those who choose to prioritize the fetus over the mother, on the other hand, it is a simple straightforward leap to the next assumption. Since murder is wrong and mass murder is even worse, than it becomes morally incumbent upon people of good will to do whatever it takes to stop it. President Obama says abortion "cannot be resolved by…violence," but he's too cute by half. With abortion the law of the land since 1973, a Democratic-majority Congress and Obama about to see his (pro-choice) pick seated on the Supreme Court, there is nothing anyone can do within the existing legal and political system to put an end to what pro-lifers view as the annual murder of millions of Americans. What are they supposed to do? Write a blog?
"According to God’s laws," wrote Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry after the shooting, "and the laws that govern how we protect the innocent in times of peace, George Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the 'legal' murder of the Jews that fell into their hands."
Tiller wasn't just any doctor. His practice's focus on third-trimester abortions—60,000 in all, according to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, but exact numbers aren't available—had already prompted an anti-abortion activist to shoot him. "Dr. Tiller was well-known for providing abortions for women who discovered late in pregnancy that their fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects," reports The Wall Street Journal. "He also aborted healthy late-term fetuses. Some of his patients, he said, were drug addicted and some were as young as nine years old." Complexity is so damned complicated. He aborted healthy late-term babies? Sick! But who wants a nine-year-old girl to become a mom? Not me.
For those who oppose abortion, the question is: Would you kill Adolf Hitler?
As liberal talking heads have been saying repeatedly, abortion is legal. But that's not much of an argument. So was slavery. So was denying women the right to vote. As Randall Terry points out, so was killing Jews in Nazi Germany. If obeying the law was always the right thing to do, we would teach our kids that George Washington was a terrorist. And no one would drive faster than 55.
True, many pro-lifers are right-wingers with their own problems with hypocrisy—I'd love to see the stats on "pro-lifers" who voted for Bush in 2004, after he'd murdered more than a hundred thousand Afghans and Iraqis. But liberals don't do themselves or the pro-choice movement any favors by glibly dismissing every fetus as a soulless lump of protoplasm or calling those who resort to violence to try to save them psychotic terrorists.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
All too often in American politics opposing sides talk past one another, firing off arguments loaded with language that stands no chance of persuading those who hold other views.
The debate over what to do about 9/11 was such a moment, one that initiated the current era of polarization. When liberals recoiled at torture and GOP attacks on civil liberties, conservatives accused them of being anti-American traitors. When Republicans supported preemptive warfare against Iraq, liberals called them fascists and warmongers.
If we had the chance for a do-over, it would probably happen just the same way. The attacks in New York and Washington exposed a fault line in Americans' views of what makes our country great: liberals treasure the U.S. for the Bill of Rights whereas conservatives value living at the center of a wealthy and powerful empire. The kill-'em-all-let-God-sort-'em-out crowd doesn't live in the same universe as those of us who would have used diplomacy and international law to apprehend the murderers of September 2001.
The murder of doctor George Tiller at his Kansas church has again exposed the fault line over abortion. Both sides talk past one another. The pro-choice contingent snaps that pro-lifers, more often than not right of center, care only about human life between conception and birth. For their part, many pro-lifers fail to concede some obvious points, like the fact that forcing a girl to bear a child that results from rape or incest is obscene.
I am militantly pro-choice on practical grounds. You can't tie a woman down for nine months and force her to bear a child. And also on moral ones: women must be able to control their bodies. Nevertheless, I am disgusted by much of my fellow pro-choicers' rhetoric in the aftermath of the shooting of Dr. Tiller.
Reveling in the same kind of smug self-righteousness that characterized Bush and his supporters after 9/11 (did they really think questioning liberals' patriotism would convince them to support invading Iraq?), my fellow pro-choicers are attempting to marginalize pro-life Americans as out of touch and possibly insane.
"It's senseless," said the director of an abortion clinic in Portland, Oregon. Even President Obama weighed in: "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence," said a White House statement.
If you're intellectually honest, however, murdering an abortionist isn't inherently "senseless." If you believe (as I do) that life begins at conception, then the first cellular division after a sperm fertilizes the ovum represents human life every bit as much as you and me. The standard feminist claim that a baby isn't alive until it' "viable" outside the womb is ridiculous. I know 25-year-olds who aren't fully viable.
Abortion is murder. In my view women have—and ought to continue to have—the right to murder their unborn babies. Each abortion is a tragedy, some necessary and others not, and all of them are murder. It's not a position that I'm comfortable with. But as sad and horrible as abortion is, I can't see telling a woman who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term that she has to do so.
For those who choose to prioritize the fetus over the mother, on the other hand, it is a simple straightforward leap to the next assumption. Since murder is wrong and mass murder is even worse, than it becomes morally incumbent upon people of good will to do whatever it takes to stop it. President Obama says abortion "cannot be resolved by…violence," but he's too cute by half. With abortion the law of the land since 1973, a Democratic-majority Congress and Obama about to see his (pro-choice) pick seated on the Supreme Court, there is nothing anyone can do within the existing legal and political system to put an end to what pro-lifers view as the annual murder of millions of Americans. What are they supposed to do? Write a blog?
"According to God’s laws," wrote Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry after the shooting, "and the laws that govern how we protect the innocent in times of peace, George Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the 'legal' murder of the Jews that fell into their hands."
Tiller wasn't just any doctor. His practice's focus on third-trimester abortions—60,000 in all, according to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, but exact numbers aren't available—had already prompted an anti-abortion activist to shoot him. "Dr. Tiller was well-known for providing abortions for women who discovered late in pregnancy that their fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects," reports The Wall Street Journal. "He also aborted healthy late-term fetuses. Some of his patients, he said, were drug addicted and some were as young as nine years old." Complexity is so damned complicated. He aborted healthy late-term babies? Sick! But who wants a nine-year-old girl to become a mom? Not me.
For those who oppose abortion, the question is: Would you kill Adolf Hitler?
As liberal talking heads have been saying repeatedly, abortion is legal. But that's not much of an argument. So was slavery. So was denying women the right to vote. As Randall Terry points out, so was killing Jews in Nazi Germany. If obeying the law was always the right thing to do, we would teach our kids that George Washington was a terrorist. And no one would drive faster than 55.
True, many pro-lifers are right-wingers with their own problems with hypocrisy—I'd love to see the stats on "pro-lifers" who voted for Bush in 2004, after he'd murdered more than a hundred thousand Afghans and Iraqis. But liberals don't do themselves or the pro-choice movement any favors by glibly dismissing every fetus as a soulless lump of protoplasm or calling those who resort to violence to try to save them psychotic terrorists.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Cartoon for June 2, 2009
When I was growing up, a "layoff" was something that happened while a factory closed temporarily in order to allow surplus inventory to be sold. Then workers came back to work. Why can't corporations just admit it--they're firing people?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Cartoon for May 28, 2009
I owe this one to one of the commenters here at the Rallblog. He pointed out that Obama prefers to punish people who haven't committed crimes over those who already have. Such a hilarious observation! I hope my cartoon is worthy of it.
SYNDICATED COLUMN: Mr. Obama: Resign Now
With Democrats Like Him, Who Needs Dictators?
We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama's inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.
From healthcare to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn't have the 'nads to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?
Obama is useless. Worse than that, he's dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now—before he drags us further into the abyss.
I refer here to Obama's plan for "preventive detentions." If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in "prolonged detention." Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama's shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.
In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.
Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people's lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can't control, what Orwell called "thoughtcrime"—contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.
Locking up people who haven't done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to "preventive detention" is an outrage. That the President of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.
Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed Bush, I won't follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.
"Prolonged detention," reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon "terrorism suspects who cannot be tried."
"Cannot be tried." Interesting choice of words.
Any "terrorism suspect" (can you be a suspect if you haven't been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried.
What they mean, of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys languishing at Guantánamo and the thousands of "detainees" the Obama Administration anticipates kidnapping in the future cannot be convicted. As in the old Soviet Union, putting enemies of the state on trial isn't enough. The game has to be fixed. Conviction has to be a foregone conclusion.
Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners "cannot be tried"?
The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this "entirely new chapter in American law" in a boring little sentence buried a couple past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: "Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted."
In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a "lack of evidence" are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, "tainted evidence" is no evidence at all. If you can't prove that a defendant committed a crime—an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime—in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time.
It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush's lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama's inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.
From healthcare to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn't have the 'nads to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?
Obama is useless. Worse than that, he's dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now—before he drags us further into the abyss.
I refer here to Obama's plan for "preventive detentions." If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in "prolonged detention." Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama's shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.
In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.
Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people's lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can't control, what Orwell called "thoughtcrime"—contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.
Locking up people who haven't done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to "preventive detention" is an outrage. That the President of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.
Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed Bush, I won't follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.
"Prolonged detention," reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon "terrorism suspects who cannot be tried."
"Cannot be tried." Interesting choice of words.
Any "terrorism suspect" (can you be a suspect if you haven't been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried.
What they mean, of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys languishing at Guantánamo and the thousands of "detainees" the Obama Administration anticipates kidnapping in the future cannot be convicted. As in the old Soviet Union, putting enemies of the state on trial isn't enough. The game has to be fixed. Conviction has to be a foregone conclusion.
Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners "cannot be tried"?
The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this "entirely new chapter in American law" in a boring little sentence buried a couple past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: "Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted."
In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a "lack of evidence" are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, "tainted evidence" is no evidence at all. If you can't prove that a defendant committed a crime—an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime—in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time.
It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush's lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Monday, May 25, 2009
NEW ANIMATION: "Recession Survival Hints"
Here's my latest animated editorial cartoon with David Essman! Hope you like it. I do!
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Cartoon for May 25, 2009
Barack Obama reneged on his promise to release 2000+ photos of prisoner abuse by US troops. Because, you know, the Afghans and Iraqis aren't already pissed.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
As They Slept In Late
Clever guy, Barack Obama. Launches the biggest attack against basic American jurisprudence in history the Friday before the long Memorial Day weekend, figuring that by the time Tuesday rolls around, a hung-over nation fattened on BBQ won't have noticed.
I refuse to act like the Republicans who stuck by Bush after he crossed the line between garden-variety piggishness to authoritarian psycho. I regret not listening to my libertarian friends who warned me that Obama had dictatorial tendencies. They were right.
Bush was bad. Bush was evil.
Obama is worse than Bush.
Preventive detention marks the death knell of American democracy.
I refuse to act like the Republicans who stuck by Bush after he crossed the line between garden-variety piggishness to authoritarian psycho. I regret not listening to my libertarian friends who warned me that Obama had dictatorial tendencies. They were right.
Bush was bad. Bush was evil.
Obama is worse than Bush.
Preventive detention marks the death knell of American democracy.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Cartoon for May 23, 2009
Barack Obama's speech at Notre Dame about abortion continues his ongoing quest for oppressed people to make nice with their oppressors.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Cartoon for May 21, 2009
In all the ways that matter to liberals, Barack Obama is the second coming of George W. Bush. But in the same way that Republicans project their values of small government and low taxes on a party that doesn't adhere to them, liberal Democrats project values of being antiwar and pro-civil liberties that they don't make the slightest pretense of following.
THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: Bail Out Your Own Damn Self
Time for a Tax and Mortgage Strike
The calamari salad was world-class. Still, my friend the CPA's face screwed up. "You know what still has me pissed off? The bailouts. All wasted on CEO bonuses. But nobody cares!"
I told him I thought people cared, but they didn't know what they could do about it.
"I'll tell you what we should do," he fumed. "Stop paying our taxes. And our mortgages. They can't throw us all in jail! They can't evict us all!"
What should we demand?
"The bailout money. Make 'em give back every cent to us, the people who need it."
How would the money from The Mother of All Clawbacks be distributed? Equally? Should people in foreclosure get more? Or those who pay higher taxes? He didn't know.
So some details need to be worked out. But the point remains: it's time for a revolt.
The economic collapse began eight months ago, in September 2008. The Bush and Obama Administrations have since racked up $12.2 trillion in commitments and spent $2.5 trillion on bailouts: AIG, Bank of America, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, TARP, purchases of debt and derivatives issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, discounted overnight lending to banks, purchases of toxic commercial paper, and all manner of other high-flying fiscal shenanigans that you paid for when you could least afford it.
Why didn't they bail out the homeowners whose mortgages backed the troubled securities that sparked the crisis? Helping them would have been a three-fer: the banks would gotten paid, consumer spending wouldn't have fallen off a cliff, and government would have restored some of the faith lost after Katrina.
Sadly, the trickle-down approach is easier than a good plan. Issuing checks to a dozen big financial institutions doesn't require the creation of a new federal agency to analyze requests from millions of distressed homeowners. It's the same reason lazy presidents support dictatorships abroad instead of democracies: all you need to strike a deal is one handshake. Besides, presidents and cabinet officers spend more time hanging out with bankers and dictators than they do with average citizens.
Trickle-down never works. Consider what happens when parents die. Their will may instruct their children to divvy up the estate equally. In practice, however, the son or daughter assigned as trustee somehow ends up with more than his or her fair share. That happened on a massive scale with the bailouts. Congress wanted banks to loosen credit but didn't put it in writing. Banks instead used the cash for new mergers and acquisitions, executive bonuses and remodeling their offices.
Well, what would you do if someone gave you $98 billion (Bank of America), no strings attached? You'd keep it for yourself--and maybe a couple of your bestest friends.
Anyway, here we are $12-plus trillion in the hole--$40,000, plus compound interest paid to Chinese and other foreign investors, for every man, woman and child in the United States. That's more than the national debt was at the beginning of the current mess. What have we got to show for it? Zip.
Unemployment is still soaring. There is no real estate market. The stock market is puttering along at 50 percent of last year's value. Two million Americans faced foreclosure last year. Eight million more are on the chopping block. The bailouts haven't done anything to help Americans who have been laid off, subjected to furloughs and pay freezes, seen their retirement benefits fall along with the stock market and been gouged by voracious health insurance costs.
Check out this statistic: according to the Fed, the total net worth of American households fell by $11 trillion last year. That's almost exactly the amount--$12 trillion--that Bush and Obama spent on bailouts. Think about what that money--$160,000--would have done for the average family of four.
Well, it's not too late to get back our money. We need it a hell of lot more than AIG.
We should withhold our taxes, mortgage checks and credit card payments until the banks, insurance companies and other assorted Wall Street dirtbags who stole it give it back.
Unrealistic? That's what my girlfriend thought when I led a rent strike. The landlord hadn't provided heat, so I organized the tenants in my building to pay their rent into an escrow account until things improved. My girlfriend doubted that everyone would participate. "That's OK," I said, "we don't need everyone." We didn't. A 60 percent income drop was enough to get the landlord's attention. The heat came back on and a judge awarded us several months free rent.
We don't need everyone either. If millions of Americans were to pay their taxes, mortgages and debt payments into escrow (to show that we're not deadbeats), it wouldn't take long before we got some action from Obama and his gang of bank-loving technocrats.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
The calamari salad was world-class. Still, my friend the CPA's face screwed up. "You know what still has me pissed off? The bailouts. All wasted on CEO bonuses. But nobody cares!"
I told him I thought people cared, but they didn't know what they could do about it.
"I'll tell you what we should do," he fumed. "Stop paying our taxes. And our mortgages. They can't throw us all in jail! They can't evict us all!"
What should we demand?
"The bailout money. Make 'em give back every cent to us, the people who need it."
How would the money from The Mother of All Clawbacks be distributed? Equally? Should people in foreclosure get more? Or those who pay higher taxes? He didn't know.
So some details need to be worked out. But the point remains: it's time for a revolt.
The economic collapse began eight months ago, in September 2008. The Bush and Obama Administrations have since racked up $12.2 trillion in commitments and spent $2.5 trillion on bailouts: AIG, Bank of America, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, TARP, purchases of debt and derivatives issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, discounted overnight lending to banks, purchases of toxic commercial paper, and all manner of other high-flying fiscal shenanigans that you paid for when you could least afford it.
Why didn't they bail out the homeowners whose mortgages backed the troubled securities that sparked the crisis? Helping them would have been a three-fer: the banks would gotten paid, consumer spending wouldn't have fallen off a cliff, and government would have restored some of the faith lost after Katrina.
Sadly, the trickle-down approach is easier than a good plan. Issuing checks to a dozen big financial institutions doesn't require the creation of a new federal agency to analyze requests from millions of distressed homeowners. It's the same reason lazy presidents support dictatorships abroad instead of democracies: all you need to strike a deal is one handshake. Besides, presidents and cabinet officers spend more time hanging out with bankers and dictators than they do with average citizens.
Trickle-down never works. Consider what happens when parents die. Their will may instruct their children to divvy up the estate equally. In practice, however, the son or daughter assigned as trustee somehow ends up with more than his or her fair share. That happened on a massive scale with the bailouts. Congress wanted banks to loosen credit but didn't put it in writing. Banks instead used the cash for new mergers and acquisitions, executive bonuses and remodeling their offices.
Well, what would you do if someone gave you $98 billion (Bank of America), no strings attached? You'd keep it for yourself--and maybe a couple of your bestest friends.
Anyway, here we are $12-plus trillion in the hole--$40,000, plus compound interest paid to Chinese and other foreign investors, for every man, woman and child in the United States. That's more than the national debt was at the beginning of the current mess. What have we got to show for it? Zip.
Unemployment is still soaring. There is no real estate market. The stock market is puttering along at 50 percent of last year's value. Two million Americans faced foreclosure last year. Eight million more are on the chopping block. The bailouts haven't done anything to help Americans who have been laid off, subjected to furloughs and pay freezes, seen their retirement benefits fall along with the stock market and been gouged by voracious health insurance costs.
Check out this statistic: according to the Fed, the total net worth of American households fell by $11 trillion last year. That's almost exactly the amount--$12 trillion--that Bush and Obama spent on bailouts. Think about what that money--$160,000--would have done for the average family of four.
Well, it's not too late to get back our money. We need it a hell of lot more than AIG.
We should withhold our taxes, mortgage checks and credit card payments until the banks, insurance companies and other assorted Wall Street dirtbags who stole it give it back.
Unrealistic? That's what my girlfriend thought when I led a rent strike. The landlord hadn't provided heat, so I organized the tenants in my building to pay their rent into an escrow account until things improved. My girlfriend doubted that everyone would participate. "That's OK," I said, "we don't need everyone." We didn't. A 60 percent income drop was enough to get the landlord's attention. The heat came back on and a judge awarded us several months free rent.
We don't need everyone either. If millions of Americans were to pay their taxes, mortgages and debt payments into escrow (to show that we're not deadbeats), it wouldn't take long before we got some action from Obama and his gang of bank-loving technocrats.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Cartoon for May 18, 2009
I got this idea after a few people tried to reach me by email. People think it's 100% reliable, but nothing could be further from the truth. This got me thinking of the old trope of the prisoner about to be executed awaiting clemency from the governor.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Cartoon for May 16, 2009
This was inspired by a New York Times article about how atheism is catching on. Funny, for me it's not like that. I'm not against religion (although, objectively, it is a terrible distraction from efforts needed to solve real problems and often becomes a conduit for hatred)...I just don't think about it. The idea of getting together with other people who don't believe in God makes me laugh.
Tortured Logic, Tortured Actions
The Book of Genesis said that god would agree not to destroy Sodom if there were at least ten good people living there. There weren't, so Sodom was destroyed.
To put this in more modern terminology, if there aren't enough good people left in the country, the shit goes down . . . not necessarily by god, but simply as a result of the people's own actions.
------------
Susan Stark
To put this in more modern terminology, if there aren't enough good people left in the country, the shit goes down . . . not necessarily by god, but simply as a result of the people's own actions.
------------
Susan Stark
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Obama Sells Out to Military Torturers
Barack Obama is a liar.
Reneging on his earlier agreement to release some 2000+ photos of detainees being abused by American service personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, he releases a stream of bullshit that doesn't stand up to the most casual contemplation:
As, indeed, they are. An ACLU rep appeared on MSNBC yesterday to say that he had it on good (military) authority that the photos are, in fact, much worse than what we've seen from Abu Ghraib. Seymour Hersh and other reporters with first- or secondhand knowledge of the photos say they are essentially pornography—orgies between soldiers and with detainees. Whether the detainees are being forced to participate or not is unknowable.
Obama says the photos aren't as ugly as those from Abu Ghraib. If that's true, why not release them? The imagination runs wild, and only imagines the worst. Reality can't possibly be as bad.
The real reason Obama is covering up for the military is that they're scared shitless of facing prosecution for their crimes—and responsibility for them goes way up the chain of command.
Obama ought to resign in shame for being such a pussy.
Reneging on his earlier agreement to release some 2000+ photos of detainees being abused by American service personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, he releases a stream of bullshit that doesn't stand up to the most casual contemplation:
"The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals,” Mr. Obama told reporters on the South Lawn. “In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."To the contrary, additional information always provides additional understanding. If it's more of the same, that tells us that the incidents at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere were more widespread than was previously known. If it's less, then it tells us that maybe it wasn't. As for inflaming anti-Americanism, well, Obama's decision not to release the photos tells me one thing: they must be fucking insanely disgusting.
As, indeed, they are. An ACLU rep appeared on MSNBC yesterday to say that he had it on good (military) authority that the photos are, in fact, much worse than what we've seen from Abu Ghraib. Seymour Hersh and other reporters with first- or secondhand knowledge of the photos say they are essentially pornography—orgies between soldiers and with detainees. Whether the detainees are being forced to participate or not is unknowable.
Obama says the photos aren't as ugly as those from Abu Ghraib. If that's true, why not release them? The imagination runs wild, and only imagines the worst. Reality can't possibly be as bad.
The real reason Obama is covering up for the military is that they're scared shitless of facing prosecution for their crimes—and responsibility for them goes way up the chain of command.
Obama ought to resign in shame for being such a pussy.
Cartoon for May 14, 2009
The torture debate has come down to whether or not it's effective. Why are opponents of torture playing this game? Whether or not torture works is irrelevant. Even if it would save millions of lives--and that's a stretch, to say the least--it's wrong. What happened to Americans? Why are we so morally bankrupt? Wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter whether or not it pays.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: Excuses You Might Believe In
Democrats Are More Powerful Than Ever. How Will They Justify Doing Nothing?
The defection of Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter and the imminent certification of Al Franken as the winner of Minnesota's election recount has handed Democrats what they always said they lacked in order to pass a progressive agenda: a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. Now they face the awful problem of coming up with new excuses for not doing anything.
How will Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other fake liberals weasel out of making good on their promises for real action on healthcare, the economy and the war? It won't be easy. They control both houses of Congress and the White House. Obama is about to fill a new vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Times of London writes that "Mr. Obama, by some assessments, has more political leverage than any president since Franklin Roosevelt in 1937"—at the peak of the New Deal, just before he overreached by trying to pack the Supreme Court.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, is suffering a crisis of faith—too much God-cheering and not enough adherence to core values like small government, fiscal conservatism, isolationism and protectionist trade policy. A mere 21 percent of Americans still call themselves Republicans, the lowest number since 1983. Similarly, reports the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, "just 21 percent say they're confident in the Republicans in Congress 'to make the right decisions for the country's future,' compared with 60 percent who express that confidence in Obama."
Democrats have never been as powerful. Republicans are weak. Obama won with a decisive, sweeping rejection of the Republican status quo. Harry and Louise, call your agents—socialized medicine is on the way! Not.
Be careful what you wish for—what you say you wish for, anyway. "The left is going to push Obama—now that he's got a veto-proof majority—to drive an agenda that a smart president would realize is a long-term political disaster," GOP pollster Rick Wilson tells ABC. "Long-term political disaster" is mainstream media code for "stuff that corporations hate."
Well, yes. What passes for the left in this country (center-right everywhere else, because they read) now has some not-unreasonable questions for Barack Obama. Such as:
Pretty please, can we now live in a country where people don't have to spend $800 a month to health insurance companies that deny their customers' claims?
Why are we still in Iraq?
How about some help for the victims of Katrina, many of whom never collected one red cent after losing everything?
Why are we paying billions to banks and still letting them gouge us with 25 interest credit card rates? Speaking of which:
How about doing something that might actually help people who live in the economy, rather than just capital markets?
These queries seem all the more relevant coming, as they do, from the liberal base of the Democratic party—the people who got Obama elected.
The trouble for our cute, charming prez is that he has no intention whatsoever of introducing a true national healthcare plan: one that covers everybody for free. He wants to expand the war in Afghanistan and drag out the one against Iraq. He will not punish Bush or his torturers, rescue homeowners in foreclosure, or nail scumbag banks to the wall. These changes would cost trillions of dollars to multinational insurance companies, defense contractors and other huge financial concerns who donate generously to candidates of both political parties and have a history of using their clout to manipulate elections in favor of their favorite candidates. A classic example is oil companies, who push down gas prices before elections in order to help Republicans.
The most that Democratic voters can expect from Democratic politicians is incremental, symbolic change that doesn't cost their corporate sponsors any serious coin. The New York Times marked Obama's 100th day in office with an editorial that approvingly encapsulated his accomplishments to date: "He is trying to rebuild this country's shattered reputation with his pledge to shut down the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, his offer to talk with Iran and Syria, and, yes, that handshake with Venezuela's blow-hard president, Hugo Chávez…The government is promoting women's reproductive rights. It is restoring regulations to keep water clean and food safe. The White House has promised to tackle immigration reform this year."
Trying. Promoting. Has promised.
Guantánamo isn't being closed; it's being moved. Gitmo's detainees will be transferred to a new harsher gulag under construction in Afghanistan. Thawed relations with Iran and Syria would create new business opportunities for big oil. Defending the right to an abortion is popular and doesn't cost Bank of America a dime. Immigration reform is code for legalizing illegal immigrants, not closing the border. Safety regulations reassure consumers and pump up the economy. Closing the border would raise wages. Corporations won't allow that.
Unfortunately for Obama's Democrats, small-bore initiatives only go so far, especially with the economy in meltdown. When people are desperate and angry they don't care as much about flag-burning or creationism or a handshake with Hugo Chávez. They want action—real action.
How will the Democrats avoid genuine change now that they enjoy the ability to enact it? Will they blame obstructionist Republicans? Will Democrats cross the aisle to vote with the Republicans? A new war, perhaps?
If nothing else, whatever dog-ate-my-homework excuse they come up with for sitting on their butts is bound to be amusing. If nothing else.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
The defection of Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter and the imminent certification of Al Franken as the winner of Minnesota's election recount has handed Democrats what they always said they lacked in order to pass a progressive agenda: a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. Now they face the awful problem of coming up with new excuses for not doing anything.
How will Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other fake liberals weasel out of making good on their promises for real action on healthcare, the economy and the war? It won't be easy. They control both houses of Congress and the White House. Obama is about to fill a new vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Times of London writes that "Mr. Obama, by some assessments, has more political leverage than any president since Franklin Roosevelt in 1937"—at the peak of the New Deal, just before he overreached by trying to pack the Supreme Court.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, is suffering a crisis of faith—too much God-cheering and not enough adherence to core values like small government, fiscal conservatism, isolationism and protectionist trade policy. A mere 21 percent of Americans still call themselves Republicans, the lowest number since 1983. Similarly, reports the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, "just 21 percent say they're confident in the Republicans in Congress 'to make the right decisions for the country's future,' compared with 60 percent who express that confidence in Obama."
Democrats have never been as powerful. Republicans are weak. Obama won with a decisive, sweeping rejection of the Republican status quo. Harry and Louise, call your agents—socialized medicine is on the way! Not.
Be careful what you wish for—what you say you wish for, anyway. "The left is going to push Obama—now that he's got a veto-proof majority—to drive an agenda that a smart president would realize is a long-term political disaster," GOP pollster Rick Wilson tells ABC. "Long-term political disaster" is mainstream media code for "stuff that corporations hate."
Well, yes. What passes for the left in this country (center-right everywhere else, because they read) now has some not-unreasonable questions for Barack Obama. Such as:
Pretty please, can we now live in a country where people don't have to spend $800 a month to health insurance companies that deny their customers' claims?
Why are we still in Iraq?
How about some help for the victims of Katrina, many of whom never collected one red cent after losing everything?
Why are we paying billions to banks and still letting them gouge us with 25 interest credit card rates? Speaking of which:
How about doing something that might actually help people who live in the economy, rather than just capital markets?
These queries seem all the more relevant coming, as they do, from the liberal base of the Democratic party—the people who got Obama elected.
The trouble for our cute, charming prez is that he has no intention whatsoever of introducing a true national healthcare plan: one that covers everybody for free. He wants to expand the war in Afghanistan and drag out the one against Iraq. He will not punish Bush or his torturers, rescue homeowners in foreclosure, or nail scumbag banks to the wall. These changes would cost trillions of dollars to multinational insurance companies, defense contractors and other huge financial concerns who donate generously to candidates of both political parties and have a history of using their clout to manipulate elections in favor of their favorite candidates. A classic example is oil companies, who push down gas prices before elections in order to help Republicans.
The most that Democratic voters can expect from Democratic politicians is incremental, symbolic change that doesn't cost their corporate sponsors any serious coin. The New York Times marked Obama's 100th day in office with an editorial that approvingly encapsulated his accomplishments to date: "He is trying to rebuild this country's shattered reputation with his pledge to shut down the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, his offer to talk with Iran and Syria, and, yes, that handshake with Venezuela's blow-hard president, Hugo Chávez…The government is promoting women's reproductive rights. It is restoring regulations to keep water clean and food safe. The White House has promised to tackle immigration reform this year."
Trying. Promoting. Has promised.
Guantánamo isn't being closed; it's being moved. Gitmo's detainees will be transferred to a new harsher gulag under construction in Afghanistan. Thawed relations with Iran and Syria would create new business opportunities for big oil. Defending the right to an abortion is popular and doesn't cost Bank of America a dime. Immigration reform is code for legalizing illegal immigrants, not closing the border. Safety regulations reassure consumers and pump up the economy. Closing the border would raise wages. Corporations won't allow that.
Unfortunately for Obama's Democrats, small-bore initiatives only go so far, especially with the economy in meltdown. When people are desperate and angry they don't care as much about flag-burning or creationism or a handshake with Hugo Chávez. They want action—real action.
How will the Democrats avoid genuine change now that they enjoy the ability to enact it? Will they blame obstructionist Republicans? Will Democrats cross the aisle to vote with the Republicans? A new war, perhaps?
If nothing else, whatever dog-ate-my-homework excuse they come up with for sitting on their butts is bound to be amusing. If nothing else.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
