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
Monday, June 29, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
