The Case For McDonald’s
posted by Susan Stark

Leftists hold many differing opinions on many subjects, although they tend to hold certain things in common, such as concern for the environment and social justice.

But one attitude that I find rather irritating is the almost universal disdain among Leftists, from anarchists to Democrats, of fast-food restaurants. McDonald’s in particular.

Leftists generally don’t believe in the Devil, but if they did, it would be McDonald’s.

And there are some good reasons for hating McDonald’s.

The food served is very poor in nutrition, and very high in fat and calories. It is designed to taste good, but not nourish the body with what it needs. Furthermore, the restaurant encourages waste by supplying disposable wrappings, cups, lids, straws, paper bags, and napkins. All of which are thrown away after one use.

Another grievance against McDonald’s, as with all fast-food chains, is that there isn’t any actual cooking involved. The food is assembled, much like on a factory assembly line, with one low-paid worker after another adding one ingredient until the product is finished.

All of these are good reasons for disliking McDonald’s and other fast-food chains. But I can’t help but detect a bit of elitism, either conscious or unconscious, in criticisms of fast-food.

It doesn’t seem to occur to these shiitake-mushroom eaters that many people eat at McDonald’s and the like because they can’t afford to eat out any place else. Sure, low-income people can prepare food at home, and for the most part they do, but why should they stay at home when the middle- and upper-income folks have their pick of dining establishments?

Another convenience (besides the low prices) of fast-food joints is the availability of the bathroom. Technically, you have to be a customer to use a bathroom in any restaurant, but with fast-food, this is usually not strictly enforced. In large, compact cities like New York and San Francisco where a dearth of bathrooms is near epidemic, this can literally save someone’s life. Especially for homeless people, run-aways, indigents, and delivery people, the fast-food restaurant bathroom can provide not only a toilet, but free running water as well.

During winter time, McDonald’s and other fast-food establishments can provide a warm place to sit without buying anything. And if the management insists that you pay for something, a hot cup of coffee or tea is a lot cheaper in these places than at Starbucks or the local bohemian joints. This has saved the life of a run-away, a punk, a krusty kid, an indigent, or a homeless person many a time. Especially here in New York, where some McDonald’s places are open 24 hours a day.

Sure, vegetarian restaurants are certainly healthier and less wasteful, but where does a vegetarian restaurant exist where you can walk off the street and use the bathroom, and is open 24 hours a day, and costs less than five dollars a meal?


All we have left

posted by TheDon
Reports are swirling around that the White House is considering a plan to partition Iraq. The plan is presented in a paper from The Brookings Institution authored by Edward P. Joseph and Michael E. O’Hanlon. This frightening and desperate bit of colonialist thinking has been presented as a possiblity since before the invasion, was advocated by some as the first signs appeared that we were not being greeted as liberators, but is now being presented as the only logical option in some important quarters. It’s even the official position of Senator Joe Biden. From the intro (emphasis mine):

The time may be approaching when the only hope for a more stable Iraq is a soft partition of the country. Soft partition would involve the Iraqis, with the assistance of the international community, dividing their country into three main regions. Each would assume primary responsibility for its own security and governance, as Iraqi Kurdistan already does. Creating such a structure could prove difficult and risky. However, when measured against the alternatives—continuing to police an ethno-sectarian war, or withdrawing and allowing the conflict to escalate— the risks of soft partition appear more acceptable. Indeed, soft partition in many ways simply responds to current realities on the ground, particularly since the February 2006 bombing of the Samarra mosque, a major Shi’i shrine, dramatically escalated intersectarian violence. If the U.S. troop surge, and the related effort to broker political accommodation through the existing coalition government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki fail, soft partition may be the only means of avoiding an intensification of the civil war and growing threat of a regional conflagration. While most would regret the loss of a multi-ethnic, diverse Iraq, the country has become so violent and so divided along ethno-sectarian lines that such a goal may no longer be achievable.

Soft partition would represent a substantial departure from the current approach of the Bush Administration and that proposed by the Iraq Study Group, both of which envision a unitary Iraq ruled largely from Baghdad. It would require new negotiations, the formation of a revised legal framework for the country, the creation of new institutions at the regional level, and the organized but voluntary movement of populations.

Michael O’Hanlon is not a neo-con imperialist who was determined to invade Iraq; he advised against it under all conditions save one. In a policy brief from January 2002 he said this (emphasis mine):

Absent compelling evidence of significant Iraqi involvement with the al Qaeda network or the events of September 11, the likely costs and risks of a commitment of American military forces to a regime-change campaign in Iraq would outweigh the benefits. A U.S. overthrow campaign would entail a large-scale military operation that the United States would probably have to undertake essentially alone; the increased risk of triggering terrorist attacks against American or allied targets; significant American casualties given the potential for intense urban combat and Iraqi use of chemical and biological agents; and the likely need for a long-term American military presence in Iraq to avoid regional destabilization. While these costs and risks are not so high as to rule out a possible overthrow policy under certain circumstances, they should be sobering to any advocate of sending U.S. troops to war to change the Iraqi regime.

I don’t praise Brookings papers easily or often, but this pre-war position was as sound and reasoned as any policy papers of the time. It earns the author a hearing on his current position, even one which sounds so uncompelling at first glance, especially since it is (reportedly) being considered by the brain trust in the White House. Are we really at the point where partition is the best option for Iraq? Is partition even possible? What is O’Hanlon’s vision of partition?

The Iraqi government has been unable to meet any benchmarks, or compromise on any legislation. No oil revenue sharing, no ammendments to the constitution, no changes to the de-Baathification laws, no provincial elections law, no disbanding of militias – all this according to the Pentagon report which is about to come out. There can be no national reconciliation (or nation) until all or most of these issues are dealt with in a universally satisfactory way. O’Hanlon acknowledges this, but claims that partitioning would spur these compromises because:

Indeed, Kurds and Shi’i Arabs would have far more incentive to cede on the fundamental issue of oil production and revenue sharing if they knew that their core strategic objectives would be realized through secure, empowered regions.

As opposed to now, when the incentive is to stop a civil war which is driving the upper and middle classes from the country, destroying infrastructure, keeping the nation impoverished, and killing dozens of citizens every day.

O’Hanlon insists throughout that the relocations are voluntary, despite all evidence that they would be coerced. The immorality of forced relocations is obvious to him. He briefly mentions that the people who decide to stay in the minority will find themselves in an increasingly smaller minority, probably causing them to leave their chosen home. Some might not consider that “voluntary”. The morality of “voluntary” relocation is debatable as well, but forget all the morality – shoot, forget if it’s even smart strategically! The important question is if can we really do it.

Those means include creating processes to help people voluntarily relocate to parts of Iraq where they would no longer be in the minority, and hence where they should be safer. This is not an appealing prospect to put it mildly. However, if the choice becomes sustaining a failing U.S. troop surge or abandoning Iraq altogether, with all the risks that entails in terms of intensified violence and regional turmoil, then soft partition might soon become the least bad option. The question will then be less whether it is morally and strategically acceptable, and more whether it is achievable.

Of course, this would be a logistical nightmare, involving lots of armor, weapons and logistical support. It would also require the blessing of leaders who could keep the columns of “relocated” Iraqis from being attacked. I am unaware that such leaders exist, but I’d like to be pleasantly surprised.

Among other things, it would involve the organized movement of two million to five million Iraqis, which could only happen safely if influential leaders encouraged their supporters to cooperate, and if there were a modicum of agreement on where to draw borders and how to share oil revenue.

Oh thank god! All they have to do is agree on where to draw borders and how to share oil revenue. How hard could that be? Oh wait… It’s been four years? Dammit! So what other obstacles could there be? (as always, emphasis mine)

As for the wider ramifications, a carelessly conceived and implemented partition could potentially cause regional destabilization and conflict. Indeed, this is a crucial difference between Iraq and Bosnia. In the latter’s case, its neighbors, Serbia and Croatia, were unified in their ambition to divide Bosnia and achieved a common approach. By contrast in Iraq it is precisely the ongoing civil war that presents the worst risk for regional stability.

Well, at least we wouldn’t have to worry about anything being carelessly conceived or implemented! We have a crew of strategic and tactical geniuses in charge of our military policy, not to mention the State Department. I’m starting to feel optimistic now.

“But Don”, you ask, “What about the Sunnis?” Good question. O’Hanlon acknowledges that Sunnis won’t be on board for the plan, but seems to argue they won’t have any better options.

So while it is hard to argue that enhanced regionalism would find any initial Sunni Arab support, there is no viable alternative for this large group of embittered Iraqis.

No viable alternative? Keep in mind that the Sunni were the masters of the Shia in Iraq for several decades, and consider themselves superior. They also wouldn’t control any significant oil fields, and would have to trust that the oil revenues would flow in from their friends the Kurds, and their friends the Shia. Viable is in the eye of the beholder. You never know, but they might consider a civil war to be viable, or attacking the occupying army. I know it sounds like a long shot, but it could happen.

There are several problems which occur after the “voluntary” relocations. Home swaps, job creation programs, national IDs to name a few, each a problem of monumental porportions. O’Hanlon proposes solutions to all the problems, but to an engineer it sounds waaaaaay too complicated to have even a small chance of working.

One other glaring problem is that this paper looks to the recent experience in Bosnia for encouragement, techniques and results. I think this is much more like Partition in India and Pakistan, where the result has been 60 years of conflict (so far), both sides developing nuclear weapons, and still unresolved borders. But if I were writing the Brookings paper, I’d stick with Bosnia too.

So to summarize: relocation is probably immoral, could attract violence from all sides, requires careful planning, requires buy-in by all sides in Iraq, requires agreement on revenue sharing, borders and reconciliation laws, and probably won’t work. Yet here is a top intellectual from the right pushing “soft partition” as policy. Why? (emphasis mine)

Soft partition could fail. It could fail because Iraqis simply refuse to consider it or change their minds after they have initially decided to adopt it. It could fail through poor implementation, with violence accelerating as populations start to relocate. It could come too late to save many lives, and it would require the creation of major Iraqi institutions largely from scratch. Leaving aside the unsavory aspects of having the international community help relocate people based on their ethnicity or confession, soft partition is not an option to turn to lightly or happily. But it may soon be all we have left.

Just. Fucking. Lovely.

TGIF! Drinks are on me!
posted by TheDon

It’s a big birthday week – USA and W back-to-back, and on Sunday it’s TBogg – three things I think about most days. So hoist a drink to a great country, founded on great principles, currently under heavy assault. Hoist one to the assaulter. And hoist one to one of my favorite writers on the internets. I would suggest drinking these:
Georgia Bulldog
Pour gin and pomegranate juice over ice in a double old-fashioned glass. Stir and enjoy. It’s really authentic if you use Bulldog Gin, but any good gin will do. It’s called a Georgia Bulldog because it’s red. As usual, stay out of the Prius afterwards.

A Day In The Life
posted by TheDon

So I was driving my Prius 100 mph down the highway, smoking some weed and I thought to myself, “godDAMN it! How am I going to get that dog poop off my back window?”. My dog doesn’t have the bodily-function control he used to, and gas stations no longer have hoses for customers like they did 20 years ago. But wait! They do have drive-thru car washes! So I pulled the straps on the dog carrier really tight and went for it. I remembered not to get the hot wax, but I paid for the extra drying time. It must really mess with Seamus’ head to have the wind whipping by, but the scenery is creeping by.
Anyhoo, I was in the car wash, and Seamus finally stopped panicking so I could hear the radio. Tony Snow was giving another Master’s Class on dissembling, and excused W’s disregard for regulations requiring that the DOJ and USA be consulted on pardons with this gem – “It’s not like people’s memories are fuzzy about the details or the circumstances.” I know my hearing has been sacrificed to the Oxycontin isn’t what it used to be, but I was sure I had mis-heard him. Not fuzzy? On details or circumstances? EXECUTIVE branch employees? In THIS administration?
I hit speed-dial #3 and alerted Markos that he should order Nancy Pelosi to start some hearings, and start them fast. If there is actually someone in the executive branch with a working memory, get them up the hill NOW, before they catch whatever memory-eating virus is infecting those poor bastards. This is big. Then I popped another Xanax put it in gear and got back on the highway, content that our takeover of the legislative process is almost complete.


Scooter Libby

Because this may not go online until tomorrow (due to the July 4th holiday).

Wanted: Flash Animator/Business Partner

I’m looking for a talented, ambitious and imaginative person with experience animating cartoons in Flash to develop and produce a once-per-week animated political cartoon. I provide scripts and artwork; you make them move and talk. Income split is 50-50; details will be discussed if a qualified individual steps forward. You must be patient since it will take some time to market and place animations, but I have a vision for the medium that differs significantly from other editorial cartoons doing animated work that I believe will sell.

Please send your resume, qualifications and any questions to: chet@rall.com. I will respond only to those who I believe may fit the bill; my apologies in advance to the rest.

All The President’s Mendacity
posted by TheDon
Dear Carl Bernstein,

I saw you on MSNBC this morning, talking about the Cheney administration in general, and the latest obstruction of justice in particular – the pardon of his former aide, Lewis Libby. You were angry, with good reason, at what you repeatedly called the mendacity of the current administration. You reminded me that you used to be a very good reporter, with the courage to take on a sitting administration, risking your life and liberty.
I can only assume that years of watching your former partner become a wealthy superstar socialite tempted you into cashing in on the right-wing screed industry. Being on the NYT Bestsellers List is heady stuff, and I’m sure it makes up for the years of being out of the spotlight. It probably doesn’t even matter to you that you just added one more volume to the library of hit-jobs on Hillary Clinton, but you must have some memory of being an honorable journalist, doing important work.
I’ve already come up with the title of your new book (hint: it’s the title of this post), and the contents should be self-explanatory. I suggest breaking W’s life into segments and focusing on the major lies, otherwise the book could get longer than The Decider’s face when the White House kitchen runs out of peanut butter. You might have one section for birth until the presidential campaign, you’ll need at least one chapter (maybe two) for the campaign itself, another one for the presidency before 9/11, etc. You’ll probably have to break up the war lies into several chapters. I would suggest one on the lies during the buildup, one for the lies about “progress” and “strategy”, and a separate chapter for the lies about the original lies, and the coverups.
The lies are well documented, and all you have to do is organize them (which I’ve started for you), and write interestingly about them – which is your profession, after all. This should be a big seller, and it could have almost endless chapters added in subsequent releases. You could even turn it into a PBS series, with each of the administration officials getting their own night. Call Ken Burns and see what his schedule is like.
No need to thank me, just get moving on this. You have a reputation to recapture.

DC Rall-tastic Event Tonight: 7/3 Cartoonapalooza Cocktails w/ Rall, Toles, Knight, Bolling, Fiore and more!
Posted by Mikhaela Reid


Cartoons & Cocktails and the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists Present:

Cartoonapalooza: Fireworks in Pen and Ink!

Meet prize-winning political cartoonists from across the country as they discuss their most controversial cartoons.

Why did Tom Toles of The Washington Post get dressed down by the Joint Chief of Staff? How did Ted Rall invoke the wrath of a legion of 9/11 widows? Why did a Mercedes-Benz dealership in Atlanta take out a half-page ad to apologize for a Mike Luckovich cartoon? Meet ten of the nation’s best political cartoonists as they discuss their most controversial cartoons. Cartoonapalooza, the kick-off event for the 50th anniversary convention of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC), is a rare opportunity for the public to meet prize-winning political cartoonists from across the country as they discuss their most controversial cartoons. Join Tom Toles, Ted Rall, Mike Peters, Mike Luckovich, Rob Rogers and five other brilliant, ground-breaking editorial artists as they talk politics, the election, Bush and beyond. The public is invited to a cocktail reception before the panel discussion to meet the artists.

The proceeds from this event will go to support Newspapers In Education’s “Cartoons for the Classroom” program, a non-profit program that provides editorial cartoon-related lesson plans for teachers. Cartoonapalooza is the must-attend event of the year for all political buffs and cartoon afficionados!

Door prizes at the reception will include signed original cartoons and books.

Featured Cartoonists:

  • Ted Rall, Universal Press Syndicate
  • Tom Toles, Washington Post
  • Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal Constitution
  • Mike Peters, Dayton Daily News
  • Rob Rogers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
  • Jack Ohman, The Oregonian
  • Ruben Bolling, Tom the Dancing Bug
  • Ann Telnaes, Cartoonists and Writers Syndicate
  • Keith Knight, The K-Chronicles
  • Mark Fiore, Animated Political Cartoonist

DC Rall-tastic event #2 is, of course, the free Cartoonists With Attitude Slideshow at Borders at 2 p.m. on 7/7/2007. More on that in another post.

Newly rescued orange Manx kitty Octavia
Posted by Mikhaela Reid


Rescued Orange Manx Kitty: Octavia
Originally uploaded by M1khaela.


I figured since TheDon has rescued dogs covered in this blog, I’d throw a rescued cat into the mix.

My cartoonist fiancé Masheka and I are off to Washington, DC for the 50th Anniversary Convention of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists. We’ll be hanging out with the Cartoonists With Attitude crew (AAEC Vice President Ted Rall, plus Keith Knight, Jen Sorensen, Matt Bors, Brian McFadden, Stephanie McMillan, Ruben Bolling, August Pollak, Ben Smith) and a huge convention of famous-type editorial cartoonists (Tom Toles, Joel Pett, Clay Bennett, Signe Wilkinson, Rob Rogers and many many more!) plus special guests like Tom Tomorrow, Duncan Black and the Comics Curmudgeon. I may even bring a laptop and blog about some of the panels.

In our absence, I leave you with this photo of our newly rescued cat, Octavia, kneading me with her claws as I try to finish up the Cartoonists With Attitude Slideshow for our event this Saturday.

We’ve felt for a while that our other cat Riley was lonely and just too friendly and social and playful to stay home by himself while we’re at work. A rescue group in our neighborhood saved this little orange fuzzball from the euthanasia queue at Animal Care and Control. We barely had her home for a few hours before she decided she had to sit in one of our laps 24/7.

We named her Octavia to (a) pay tribute to the late great science fiction writer Octavia Butler and because (b) she seems like one of the weird alien creatures from Ms. Butler’s books, with her giant orange eyes, her taillessness (she’s a Manx cat, and apparently this is how many of them are born) and her weird bunny-style gait.

Her political affiliations are yet to become clear, but hopefully she’ll be more progressive than our other cat.

I must add that lazy and unapologetic as other other cat is, he’d never have pardoned Scooter Libby.

Mo’ Dogs
posted by TheDon
This week, nine more of our little friends found their forever homes, including this little girl. This is the kind of thing that helps keep me sane and gives me hope. A nice impeachment would help. Two would cure me for life.

keyboard_arrow_up
css.php