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
Monday, May 11, 2009
Reader Poll: Which Book Do You Want More?
I'm thinking of publishing a high-quality (hard back, nice printing) limited-edition run of my next book. The content will be one of the following:
A Best of the Early '90s cartoon collection
-or-
A collection of my longer essays
The cartoon collection would bring together the best stuff from Waking Up in America and All The Rules Have Changed, both out of print, along with other previously unpublished (in books) stuff from before 1996. It will focus on Clinton's first term, with a view toward doing sequel books for Clinton's second term, Bush's first term, Bush's second term and, someday, Obama's first term. There would also be some background and comments throughout.
The essay collection would bring together the long essays I wrote for Link, Might, P.O.V. and other late, great magazines that are no longer with us. Topics range from Gen X to romance to Lake Sarez in Tajikistan.
The cost per copy would probably be fairly high, like $40, because of the low print run.
Do you think you would buy one or both of these books?
If so, would you be willing to commit (by paying for it via PayPal) in advance?
Which one do you prefer? Is there something you'd like to see more?
Please post your comments or email me and let me know. Thanks in advance!
A Best of the Early '90s cartoon collection
-or-
A collection of my longer essays
The cartoon collection would bring together the best stuff from Waking Up in America and All The Rules Have Changed, both out of print, along with other previously unpublished (in books) stuff from before 1996. It will focus on Clinton's first term, with a view toward doing sequel books for Clinton's second term, Bush's first term, Bush's second term and, someday, Obama's first term. There would also be some background and comments throughout.
The essay collection would bring together the long essays I wrote for Link, Might, P.O.V. and other late, great magazines that are no longer with us. Topics range from Gen X to romance to Lake Sarez in Tajikistan.
The cost per copy would probably be fairly high, like $40, because of the low print run.
Do you think you would buy one or both of these books?
If so, would you be willing to commit (by paying for it via PayPal) in advance?
Which one do you prefer? Is there something you'd like to see more?
Please post your comments or email me and let me know. Thanks in advance!
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Cartoon for May 11, 2009
It's true: U.S. puppet Afghan president Hamid Karzai has signed into law a bill that requires Afghan women to have sex with their husbands at least every four days, except when they're menstruating or sick. The Taliban were progressive by comparison--they stoned rapists to death.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Cartoon for May 9, 2009
Obama is amazing. First he gets credit for closing Gitmo—even though he leaves it open for a year and is moving the inmates to Bagram. Then he refuses to prosecute torturers. Now he's retaining Bush's kangaroo court system at Gitmo. When are "liberals" going to realize that our first black president is just another fascist?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Cartoon for May 7, 2009
Arlen Specter's defection to the Democrats has prompted Republicans to start downplaying (but not changing) their unpopular positions on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
NEW ANIMATION: Dharma Bums
Here it is—my latest animation with David Essman! This is closer to what these are going to look like from now on...around a minute in length, short and sweet. Fans of "Lost" may appreciate the Dharma Initiative-style training video technique. Fans of torture will appreciate the fact that the CIA thought it was necessary to waterboard one guy 183 times.
New Animation Coming
My newest animation is "Dharma Bums," a simultaneous hat tip to "Lost"--one of my favorite shows--and a send-up of the torture policy that led to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed getting waterboarded 183 times in one month. Because, you know, 182 times just ain't enough.
Anyway, the video goes up at 4 pm East Coast time. Hope you like it!
Anyway, the video goes up at 4 pm East Coast time. Hope you like it!
Monday, May 4, 2009
THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: Why We Fight
U.S. Troops Die For Rapists
American soldiers serving in Vietnam wondered what they were fighting for. U.S. troops in Afghanistan don't have that problem. They know exactly what they're fighting for: rapists.
After President Obama's coming "Afghan surge" there will be 72,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Their primary mission is to prevent Afghans from overthrowing the unpopular regime of Hamid Karzai, the former oil consultant installed by George W. Bush when the U.S. occupation began nearly eight years ago.
America's media repeatedly claimed that Afghan women would be better off under the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance puppet government headed by Karzai than under the Taliban. But when I went to Afghanistan and asked women what they thought, they had a different story. The defeat of the Taliban brought about the collapse of law and order, making life even more dangerous, especially for women. "Under the Taliban," a woman told me, "I watched rapists being executed. Now I see them in the government."
The Afghan women's rights group RAWA has repeatedly told anyone willing to listen that there hasn't been much improvement for women and girls since the U.S. occupation began in 2001. But no one--least of all left-of-center Americans eager to embrace the Afghan war--has wanted to hear what they had to say. "Most women still wear the all-encompassing burqa through fear of attack and social pressure, a third of women in Kabul do not leave the house, forbidden from doing so by the male members of the family, and it is still almost impossible for women to get a divorce," reported The Sunday Herald in 2005.
Liberal Democrats who cling to Afghanistan as "the good war" the U.S. should be fighting are being forced to confront the ugly truth about their ally. Karzai has signed a law that states that "women cannot leave the house without their husbands' permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands' permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex," reported the British newspaper The Guardian on March 31st.
The Shiite Personal Status act applies only to devotees of the Shia branch of Islam, which account for between 10 and 20 percent of the population. How can a secular democratic state have different laws depending on a citizen's faith? The answer is: It can't. Afghanistan isn't secular or democratic. The "new" Afghanistan's constitution is based on Sharia law--exactly as it was under the Taliban. But the U.S. media has purposefully failed to report the icky truth about our ally.
The new law requires women to have sex with their husbands at least once every four days unless they are sick or menstruating. "Obedience, readiness for intercourse and not leaving the house without the permission of the husband are the duties of the wife," reads the law of a nation ostensibly invaded by U.S. troops in part to liberate Afghan women. "As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," it says.
Afghan Senator Humaira Namati calls the rape bill "worse than during the Taliban" and said it was rammed through parliament without debate. "Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam," she said. Several hundred women protesting the law on the streets of Kabul were viciously assaulted by men as police stood back and watched.
In fairness to the responsible male legislators, they did add a provision to protect Shiite women from "dead bed": Afghan men have to put out "at least once every four months."
Karzai signed legalized rape into law in order to appease right-wing legislators in an election year. After international criticism, however, he began backpedaling with the lamest of all possible reasons: he didn't read the bill before he was for it.
"I was not aware of what I had signed," Afghan parliamentarian Sabrina Saqib said Karzai told her. The legislation "has so many articles," Karzai told CNN. "Now I have instructed, in consultation with clergy of the country, that the law be revised and any article that is not in keeping with the Afghan constitution and Islamic Sharia must be removed from this law."
As Karzai BSes for the cameras, hundreds of Afghan women languish in prisons around the country. Their crime? They're teen brides, some as young as 10, who ran away from much older husbands who purchased them. "In President Hamid Karzai's Afghanistan, women are still imprisoned for running away from home," reports The Sunday Herald.
Nice theocracy you got there, Mullah Karzai.
Remember this column the next time you watch a flag-draped coffin returning from Afghanistan. The young man inside that box didn't die for nothing. He died to protect rapists.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
American soldiers serving in Vietnam wondered what they were fighting for. U.S. troops in Afghanistan don't have that problem. They know exactly what they're fighting for: rapists.
After President Obama's coming "Afghan surge" there will be 72,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Their primary mission is to prevent Afghans from overthrowing the unpopular regime of Hamid Karzai, the former oil consultant installed by George W. Bush when the U.S. occupation began nearly eight years ago.
America's media repeatedly claimed that Afghan women would be better off under the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance puppet government headed by Karzai than under the Taliban. But when I went to Afghanistan and asked women what they thought, they had a different story. The defeat of the Taliban brought about the collapse of law and order, making life even more dangerous, especially for women. "Under the Taliban," a woman told me, "I watched rapists being executed. Now I see them in the government."
The Afghan women's rights group RAWA has repeatedly told anyone willing to listen that there hasn't been much improvement for women and girls since the U.S. occupation began in 2001. But no one--least of all left-of-center Americans eager to embrace the Afghan war--has wanted to hear what they had to say. "Most women still wear the all-encompassing burqa through fear of attack and social pressure, a third of women in Kabul do not leave the house, forbidden from doing so by the male members of the family, and it is still almost impossible for women to get a divorce," reported The Sunday Herald in 2005.
Liberal Democrats who cling to Afghanistan as "the good war" the U.S. should be fighting are being forced to confront the ugly truth about their ally. Karzai has signed a law that states that "women cannot leave the house without their husbands' permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands' permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex," reported the British newspaper The Guardian on March 31st.
The Shiite Personal Status act applies only to devotees of the Shia branch of Islam, which account for between 10 and 20 percent of the population. How can a secular democratic state have different laws depending on a citizen's faith? The answer is: It can't. Afghanistan isn't secular or democratic. The "new" Afghanistan's constitution is based on Sharia law--exactly as it was under the Taliban. But the U.S. media has purposefully failed to report the icky truth about our ally.
The new law requires women to have sex with their husbands at least once every four days unless they are sick or menstruating. "Obedience, readiness for intercourse and not leaving the house without the permission of the husband are the duties of the wife," reads the law of a nation ostensibly invaded by U.S. troops in part to liberate Afghan women. "As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," it says.
Afghan Senator Humaira Namati calls the rape bill "worse than during the Taliban" and said it was rammed through parliament without debate. "Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam," she said. Several hundred women protesting the law on the streets of Kabul were viciously assaulted by men as police stood back and watched.
In fairness to the responsible male legislators, they did add a provision to protect Shiite women from "dead bed": Afghan men have to put out "at least once every four months."
Karzai signed legalized rape into law in order to appease right-wing legislators in an election year. After international criticism, however, he began backpedaling with the lamest of all possible reasons: he didn't read the bill before he was for it.
"I was not aware of what I had signed," Afghan parliamentarian Sabrina Saqib said Karzai told her. The legislation "has so many articles," Karzai told CNN. "Now I have instructed, in consultation with clergy of the country, that the law be revised and any article that is not in keeping with the Afghan constitution and Islamic Sharia must be removed from this law."
As Karzai BSes for the cameras, hundreds of Afghan women languish in prisons around the country. Their crime? They're teen brides, some as young as 10, who ran away from much older husbands who purchased them. "In President Hamid Karzai's Afghanistan, women are still imprisoned for running away from home," reports The Sunday Herald.
Nice theocracy you got there, Mullah Karzai.
Remember this column the next time you watch a flag-draped coffin returning from Afghanistan. The young man inside that box didn't die for nothing. He died to protect rapists.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Blogger Problems with Image Posting
Any computer experts who use Blogger would be most useful right now.
I can't post images to the Rallblog. Here's the situation:
When I click the Load Image icon in the Create New Post screen, it cycles through and then says "done". But there's no code, and no image. Usually there's a string of code.
I've tried clearing my cache in Firefox. Nothing.
The workaround I've discovered is to create an entirely new blog, load the image up there, then cut and paste the code for the image from there into the Rallblog.
I am trying to move to WordPress--which is itself a nightmare--but in the meantime, I'd like to have this basic functionality at Blogger. Anyone got a clue what's going on?
I can't post images to the Rallblog. Here's the situation:
When I click the Load Image icon in the Create New Post screen, it cycles through and then says "done". But there's no code, and no image. Usually there's a string of code.
I've tried clearing my cache in Firefox. Nothing.
The workaround I've discovered is to create an entirely new blog, load the image up there, then cut and paste the code for the image from there into the Rallblog.
I am trying to move to WordPress--which is itself a nightmare--but in the meantime, I'd like to have this basic functionality at Blogger. Anyone got a clue what's going on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
