O’Reilly and Churchill

Several readers have contacted me to point out that Bill O’Reilly has not called for Ward Sutton to be fired by the University ofr Colorado. In writing this week’s column, I relied on coverage by a large daily newspaper that referenced O’Reilly’s remarks which–if these readers are to be believed–it mischaracterized. I didn’t watch the O’Reilly Factor the night he discussed the Ward Churchill controversy. If anyone has evidence, such as a show transcript, that would shed light on this matter, I would appreciate that you send it to chet@rall.com.

Disgruntled Soldiers

In response to a few of you: The reason I don’t post emails by American soldiers who disagree with Bush Administration policy is that I don’t believe they should be subjected to payback by their military paymasters. Duh.

American Plans to Occupy France After World War II

Finally! Thanks to my able webmeister, my Columbia thesis is now online. The parallels between what we did right and wrong then and now are striking.

The US War Against Iran

Samir writes:

First, thanks for all the wonderful work you put out. I think you’ve pretty perfectly explained what a nightmare and crime it would be to do what we plan to do (and apparently have DONE given the spydrones) in Iran. My question is: when this really gets serious, will the public and Congress really approve another ill-advised and insane war?

As I wrote in last week’s column, I don’t believe a ground invasion is currently in the offing. The Bushists plan “surgical airstrikes” (either directly or using Israel as our proxy) against Iranian military targets. But as I also wrote then, Iran will likely counterattack against Israel. War will begin, and both sides will be able to argue that the other started it. In my opinion, however, it’s clear that the blame for escalating tensions is 99% the White House’s. Iran, after all, has been asking for full diplomatic relations with the US for years and even provided military assistance to the US in its war against the Taliban in 2001-02.
Will the US public go along? At the beginning, yes. It’s reflexive; Americans fall into line when war begins and start expressing their doubts once it’s underway. Stupid, yes, but history shows that what we do. The drumbeat for war against Iran will be assisted by our recent history, namely the hostage crisis, which many ignorant members of the electorate view as as-yet unavenged humiliation. “Finish the job,” they’ll cry; never mind that the Ayatollah Kholmeini is dead or that the Carter Administration sparked the crisis by admitting the hated Shah to the US (in the Panama Canal Zone, I believe).

If Iran draws blood in retaliation to our current transgressions, they could make it easy. But if they don’t, does the White House cabal really have the currency to pull this off? My thinking is they have
this brief shining glow of the “wins” of the Iraqi election and they’re trying to get their work done now before we remember how miserable the Iraqi situation actually is. But in any scenario, I have to hope there’s some line the public won’t let George cross.

We all hope that. But if the Nazi experience is any guide, there probably isn’t. The American people, after all, sat on their hands while Bush bullied his way into a presidency he clearly lost. Once you lose your democracy, you’re no longer vested in what your leaders do.

Mathew writes:

Sending aircraft over a country is provocative behaviour (I seem to remember that this was actually being talked about some weeks ago), although if the aircraft are not armed this is slightly less so. The country involved would, of course, be fully entitled to defend its airspace by shooting the aircraft down. However, this is not an act of war. That, surely, would involve some damage to life or property. It seems clear that the U.S. government is planning to damage life and property in Iran, but those plans may be shelved or derailed. I hope so, anyway.

Mathew, you’ve been reading American state media for far too long. A foreign nation sends a military plane into your airspace. That’s an invasion. If Mexico or Canada did that to us, we’d probably attack them. It would certainly be a major crisis. The only reason Iran has to suck it up is because we’re a superpower and they’re not; we can hit them and they can’t hit us. But it’s still an act of war.

John writes:

1) It’s frightening that so many people think that criticizing Bush is criticizing America, and 2), That so many Americans completely discount our aggressive actions. I picture a stranger barging into my house, splattering everything with paint, then berating me for not being grateful to be liberated from my bad taste.

The United States is one of the few great (former) democracies to have liberated itself from its former colonial power without a real revolution, one that redistributed power and wealth. As such we have no national personality that causes us to rebel in any meaningful way. Italy, for instance, has seen four general strikes since 2001. We haven’t had one since 1947. And because we don’t reflexively distrist authority as do the citizens of intelligent countries, we reflexively trust it. We have a lot of German ancestry, and the Cult of the Leader is not foreign to us.

Alan Keyes, Violent Loony

Berl writes:

Regarding your entry about Alan Keyes: I looked up the original source of his comment, and it seemed clear to me that he wasn’t seriously proposing that you be shot or arrested – he was making it clear, clumsily, that he sees you as dangerously disloyal to your nation. Your paraphrasing of his remarks was technically accurate, but not truthful. It was an intellectually – and, I suspect, intentionally – dishonest attempt to make Keyes look like a rabid, violent loony. It makes me wonder about the truthfulness of your work as a whole.

I stand by my previous comments. I welcome everybody to Google the original source of his essay about me, comments that sparked condemnation from a variety of politically neutral sources and free speech advocates. Substitute the words “President Bush” for “Ted Rall” throughout the essay and I guarantee you that Keyes would have faced a very uncomfortable visit from the Secret Service. I read a lot of political invective, but I have rarely if ever seen this kind of “won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?” rhetoric. But that’s my opinion, and others can and will see things differently. And yeah, I’m extremely biased when it comes to whether or not I should be shot, jailed, or censored by the government (Keyes explicitly called for the last). Keyes is a violent loony, and as such should be jailed and/or censored by the government…oh. Never mind.

Pat Tillman Again

Mark writes:

Why do you have to be such an asshole??? Before the Muslim murderers killed almost 3000 people on September 11 you were a really funny guy. Since then you’ve become just as big an asshole as The Ditzy Chicks, Streisand, Baldwin and that dumbass Springsteen (whom I used to really respect until he showed his asshole colors),

So I was funny when I was mean to Bill Clinton. But when I’m mean to the guy Mark voted for, I’m an asshole. That’s what cuts it for me; people who relate humor to their partisan politics. Dude, I haven’t changed but the country sure has. Concentration camps are but one small clue.

You’ve insulted Pete Tillman and his family. Tillman may have done something that a materialistic little prick like you and your friends might not understand, but that’s what made him an honorable man. That’s probably something that you don’t have the testosterone to understand.

Yes, Tillman gave up a $3.6 million football contract to go kill Iraqis and Afghans. This is cited as evidence of principle and integrity, and I suppose that within a narrow band of ideological imagination it is. But he fought and died for an evil cause under a lying, thieving dictator who stole the presidency because the people refused to elect him to it. Yes, he sacrificed money for that “principle.” But the cause was wrong, which should have made his decision directly the opposite: to stay home and care for his family. Tillman is an American tragedy, at best a man who made a stupid decision that got him killed for Bush’s oil cronies, at worst a violent thug who wanted to kill Muslims after 9/11–any Muslims, anywhere–rather than go after the real criminals in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Tillman was used, and he should have known he would be used by the right-wing extremists to justify their illegal invasions. That’s the beauty of a volunteer army: it’s voluntary. And these days, NO ONE SHOULD VOLUNTEER. That’s the point of my work about Tillman.

You ran a ‘toon last summer about running dead American soldiers through garden mulchers.

Well, not quite. What I was showing was the Bushies’ attitude toward veterans. But whatever. And now on to that staple of right-wing letter writing, the violent threat (why are they all like this?):

Keep your eyes peeled out for one of those Iraq War veterans. Just in case you didn’t know, I made sure that several thousand of those guys got to see that shitty little cartoon of yours on the same day. A lot of them are going to be coming back to the states here in the next few weeks. Maybe the papers will be carrying a story about your encounter with one of those Proud, Honorable, Brave & now Battle Hardened Veterans. I surely figure the odds are that you are going to get some kind feedback from the people that you have insulted.

Either that or they’ll be writing me, as they do every day, to say that Iraq is bullshit and that the people don’t want us there and that I was absolutely right. Either way. But it’s nice of you to show a cartoon that you’re sure would offend the soldiers to “thousands” of them. Because, unlike me, Mark really cares about the troops.

Now you want to call President Bush a racist today. Don’t you know that the Democrats are the real racists in this country? I figured you didn’t. You and that piece of shit Howard Dean can go to hell with your liberal politics and anti-American attitudes.

Bush belongs to an all-white club in Texas. Ergo, by definition, he’s a racist. Q.E.D.

You can count on the fact that I’ll never look at you in a positive way again. No money out of me for any of your shit.

Yeah, I’m sure Mark used to buy my books and read me every day.

Amazing, Part Two

So that turd Alan Keyes, who wrote that I should be shot and/or jailed by the government for opposing Bush’s wars, has disowned his daughter because she’s gay. There’s a special place in hell for him, right next to Ronald Reagan.

Amazing, Part One

So now the United States is using unmaned aerial drone planes over Iran.

Will someone please tell me how this is not an act of war?

The Republicanization of MSNBC; Are There Good Conservative Cartoons?

Richard writes:

I enjoy reading your columns, blog, and comics — you provide a keen insight into all sorts of fascinating matters. I’ve contacted you once before (regarding your reference/citation policy), and you replied to me rather quickly. I figured I’d try again, and see what you think about the strip that replaced your’s on the MSNBC comics page. I don’t know if you visit the site (http://www.msnbc.com/comics/default.asp?nfeature=4), but in case you haven’t, the spot formerly occupied by you is now filled by “Prickly City.” Sometimes this strip is amusing and clever, but more often than not it does nothing but make a bad joke about some Democrat. For instance, in today’s edition (13 Feb 2005), the author continues his recent theme of mocking the Democratic National Committee by making Hillary Clinton out to be a an elitist, self-righteous bitch (at least, that’s what I think he’s trying to do). I do not identify myself as a Democrat — I find the current two party system fraught with errors and lacking originality and progressive thought — and I appreciate someone who can make fun of the flaws of any and all political figures. However, when “Prickly City” attempts jabs at Dems, they usually come across as childish and without concern
for the real issues. It appears that the strip attempts to present both sides, but ends up as fair and balanced as Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes. I’m just curious as to what you think about MSNBC’s attempt to make their political comics section more balanced. Are there no good conservative comics? Daryl Cagle has a few on his site, but they never seem as insightful as the more liberal artists. Am I biased because of my left-leaning political views? Are Bush and the Neocons such easy targets that liberal artists have an easier time than the conservative comic strips? Is there anything to mock the Democrats about other than their disorganization and pitiful national and regional election record?

Of course I don’t make a habit of revisiting the URLs where my cartoons used to be. That would be like stalking an old girlfriend’s house: creepy and pathetic. Not to mention a waste of bandwidth. But my readers have pointed out that both the Washington Post Online and MSNBC–which admitted that they dropped my cartoons due to pressure from right-wing extremists–have replaced my work not with something equivalent from the same side of the political spectrum, but rather from the right. This does, of course, tend to confirm the worst suspicions of media observers. Drop a liberal cartoonist due to Republican pressure; replace him with a right-winger. Hmm. What on earth COULD be going on?
As to the broader question of whether there are any good conservative cartoons, I don’t read everything out there. To the contrary, I try to avoid reading editorial cartoons as much as possible for fear that I might inadvertently internalize someone else’s idea and then regurgigate it, thinking that it’s my own. So there may be good conservative comic strips, though neither I nor anyone else I know has apparently seen any.
Back in my salad days, I was asked by the right-wing National Review to rough up some ideas for their magazine. Now I was young, stupid, and so sick and tired of my crappy day jobs (I had three at once, usually), that I was willing to entertain drawing cartoons from a conservative viewpoint just to get into print. So I spent two weeks drawing cartoon ideas that made fun of the homeless, the poor, etc. And you know what? They all sucked. Because there’s nothing funny about making fun of the powerless, and nothing interesting about agreeing with the powers that be. That experience taught me that drawing cartoons from a conservative standpoint would only become a viable proposition after a sweeping left-wing revolution the likes of which this country has never seen.
There are, of course, decent editorial cartoonists who draw from a Republican point of view. Wayne Stayskal, Scott Stantis and Chuck Asay immediately come to mind. But they’re best when they’re angry and bitter and not so hot when they try to be amusing. But of course, that’s my opinion. For whatever it’s worth.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want – Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

The Economics of Cartoon Spinoffs

Occasionally I receive emails such as this one from Jim:

First, I love your work. Your comics are absolute genius and your columns a refreshing, hard-hitting dose of unapologetic liberalism amid Yahoo!’s boring roster. Your most recent cartoon, about the logic of pre-emption, strikes me as something perfect for a wall poster. Have you made posters out of any of your comics? Would you? I could use something to put up in my dorm room besides football and movie posters! Thanks, and keep fighting the good fight,

Of course I’d love to do some posters. I made two available as free downloads during the 2004 presidential campaign. But the sad truth is, there’s no way to make printing posters economically feasible. Here’s why:

The minimum print run to make full-color posters viable is 1,000. That may not sound like a lot, but as fellow cartoonists have told me, you’re lucky to sell a couple of hundred. Each poster costs $1.50 to print, which makes the print bill around $1,800 when you include set-up costs, shipping and sales taxes. Let’s say I price the posters to move, at $5 plus shipping. Then I sell 200. I’ve made $1,000. Net loss: $800.

Truth is, the only way to make posters work is in conjunction with some event where the organizers sell them as a momento of the evening.

This is also why so few cartoonists do postcards.

Of course, all of this would change if fans were to buy more than one copy of these items they crave so badly if and when they came out. For instance, readers are constantly asking when I’ll publish another collection of my editorial cartoons since the last one, SEARCH AND DESTROY, came out in 2001. The answer is: sales for cartoon collections are always terrible, even for big-time Pulitzer winners. Readers claim they want them, but they don’t buy them. That would change, of course, if fans took to buying 10 copies of their favorite cartoonist collections and giving them out as presents to their friends and relatives. But it seems terribly unlikely.

Sending Up Jesus

A concerned reader asks:

I have just read your new article about “Republican Jesus.” I must say that it was quite entertaining. Any commentator could write a column that criticizes politicians, but here, you have managed to cleverly express it in the form of a parody of stories from the Bible. That is something unique that I have not seen in a while.

However, there is one question I have for you about this. If I am not mistaken, you wrote this

article as a satire on how Republicans constantly overuse Jesus and Christianity as a tool for pushing their political agendas as well as how much the real Christ differed from President Bush.

You are not mistaken.

Unfortunately, not everyone seems to have gotten the message. Talking online, I have noticed that some people who read the article have interpreted it as an outright slander and insult to Christianity. This a big argument that right-wingers use to discredit liberals: that they are cold-hearted athiests who ridicule and demean the beliefs of the devout and religious.

I know that you desire to try and convince conservatives to change and see things the liberal

way. But is this really the right way to do that? Could it cause a backlash?

Christ himself suffered from the fact that not everybody got the message, including most so-called Christians, but that doesn’t mean that the message wasn’t worth delivering. It’s true that not everybody will understand satire, especially delivered in an unorthodox format. That said, if a reasonably intelligent person does get it, the odds are that it’s sufficiently obvious for most people to get it if they make an effort. Whenever I’ve dumbed down an idea to accomodate some misguided sense that people are too stupid to understand more sophisticated approaches, I’ve found the results disastrous. Far better to lose a few people–who probably don’t want to understand anyway–than to lose everybody.

Long-time readers know that, before Generalissimo El Busho seized power, a significant portion of my work was devoted to “social commentary”–observations about relationships, the workplace, etc. Unfortunately I haven’t gotten to do much of that stuff for the last four years. When I write that I haven’t gotten to do it, I mean that it would have seemed irresponsible to draw a cartoon about the foibles of living with a pot-addled roommate while living in a nation that was dropping bombs on anything that moved. There was so much to say, and so few other cartoonists were saying it, that trying to convince people that Bush was evil became something of a chore, a duty. And the media–well, even the altie/liberal media barely scratched the surface of Bush’s evil.

Now that Bush is seemingly installed for another four-plus years (hey, the Constitution is only a suggestion, as Alberto Gonzales and Antonin Scalia know), going after Bush personally won’t accomplish much. After all, he can’t run again. Politics is big picture again. If Bush starts war against Iran, as he is obviously trying to do, I’ll go after him but my focus will be rightly (no pun intended!) on the American public, legislators and journalists who let his gangsters get away with it. And I definitely intend to do more cartoons like the piece that prompted one FOR to write:

Man bites God is the greatest thing you’ve done so far. But I’ve no doubt that there is plenty more where that came from. Keep it up. We need to hear dissenting views, and when they come from deep left field, so much the better.

If you liked Man Bites God, there’s more work like that from the books that collect my 1990s work.

Another Reason I’d Love to Debate Ann Coulter

FOR Tom sends:

Normally we wouldn’t allow such a large picture of Ann Coulter to appear on this website, but we wanted to afford our readers every pixel of Coulter crow. The conservative talking head was being interviewed by Bob McKeown on Fifth Estate on Canada’s CBC in that low droaning voice we’re huge fans of when she got her facts terribly, terribly wrong about the Vietnam war.

Coulter: “Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam – was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?”

McKeown interrupts: “Canada didn’t send troops to Vietnam.”

Coulter: “I don’t think that’s right.”

McKeown: “Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.”

Coulter (looking desperate): “Indochina?”

McKeown: “Uh no. Canada …second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No.”

Coulter: “I think you’re wrong.”

McKeown: “No, took a pass on Vietnam.”

Coulter: “I think you’re wrong.”

McKeown: “No, Australia was there, not Canada.”

Coulter: “I think Canada sent troops.”

McKeown: “No.”

Coulter: “Well. I’ll get back to you on that.”

McKeown tags out in script: “Coulter never got back to us — but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam.”

The full video is available on Crooks and Liars.

Always Complaining

Jorge writes:

I will preface my comments by telling you I consider myself a moderate Republican. I am not a zealots and I do take issue with some of the stances taken by the Bush administration. I have been reading your column now for several weeks and find that you are very good at criticizing all the actions of the Bush administration. In fact I have yet to find one positive thing you have to say about Republicans. All well and good, it’s easy to criticize. What I do not see in any of your work are answers! It is easy to sit back and criticize how the U.S. interrogates terrorist suspects, it’s easy to criticize who they nominate for cabinet positions, and it’s easy to complain about the health care system or social security. Now the hard part….what is your suggestions to address these problems?

It’s my job to criticize, not to parrot the Administration line. Sometimes I agree with what a politician does. For instance, Bush announced during his State of the Union address that he intends to make it easier for death penalty defendants to get DNA testing for their defense. Great! About time, long overdue, and assuming he’s not lying again or doesn’t intend to fund it, I say, “Go, Bush!” But really, Bush doesn’t need me to say that. He’s got the entire national press, most television and of course his party machinery. The role I play is to point out the stuff that people aren’t, but ought to be, saying. And that stuff is mostly critical.

1. In Iraq they captured 3 suspected lieutenants of Al-Zarqawi, how would you get them to talk or would you? What would you allow our forces to do to get the information that may lead to the capture of the leader? What tactics would be OK in your book?

They should be afforded all of the rights and privileges as prisoners of war captured under the Geneva Conventions. That means that they can refuse to answer questions, and may not be subjected to sleep deprivation or other physical means of coercion.

2. You want a national health care system. Ok how do we get one, how much would each American pay in taxes? Like the vast majority of people in the U.S. I live pay check to pay check….I really could not afford too much more than what I already pay for health insurance. Sure you could say well you won’t pay another penny. Fine, who pays for those who do not have employer based insurance…self employed people, minimum wage people, or the unemployed?

We NEED a national healthcare system. I’ve outlined my detailed proposal for financing such a system in my book WAKE UP, YOU’RE LIBERAL. If you’re broke, get your library to obtain it for you. The basics are, however: soak the rich and corporations for the taxes they ought to be paying, and used to pay 40 years ago.

3. It may not be a crisis but it is known that at some point in time SSI will begin to pay out more than it takes in. Ok say it will be OK for another 50 years, do we then just turn our backs and let whoever is in charge then fix it. What is your idea to fix the problem we know is coming or should we just ignore it? Finally, if the privatization of SSI is done on a voluntary basis, why are you so much against it?

The problem, as I wrote in my column a few weeks ago, should not be ignored. That said, it’s not a crisis. We can take our time and carefully consider the options before rushing into or being bullid into accepting the Bush proposal.

Of course privatization would begin piecemeal, on a voluntary basis. Never doubt, however, that that would soon change. Politics is always incremental; just look at the way the elimination of the estate tax was sold as a deal that would expire in ten years, only to see Republicans turn around and call that expiration date (which was their idea!) a Democratic tax increase. Greater and greater proportions of the Social Security trust fund would be privatized on an increasingly involuntary basis. And then the stock market will crash, as it always does, and everyone will be sad and confused and surprised.

Report Alberto Gonzales

FOR Greg writes:

http://public.afosi.amc.af.mil/eagle/index.asp

Got an enemy you want to dispatch? A buddy you want to play a prank upon or just fuck with an innocent bystander? Then submit their name(s) to the US Air Force’s Operation Eagle Eyes, their version of Big

Brother in the extremis. Supposedly, when East Germany was still part of the USSR, that country’s internal spy agency, the Stasi, had over 1/3 of the people spying on the rest of the country. Where in the hell is the escape hatch?

Damn Slacker

Dierdre demands:

Ted, update the already! I look forward to reading it each week.

Sorry about that. Just got back from civilization, er, France. I was shilling books.

The Iraqi Resistance

Jason writes a letter that reveals much of the mindset of the pro-invasion set:

So, Ted, I was wondering if you were willing to acknowledge, at this point, that the despicable terrorists in Iraq aren’t quite the bold Freedom Fighters that you had painted them out to be. Not too long ago, you were

painting them out as to be noble fighters for the common Iraqi against the oh-so-sinister American regime. I’m just wondering if your opinion has changed now that they have bombed Iraqi mosques, killed Iraqi judges and done everything they can to usurp the democratic process.

First and foremost, let’s get our terms straight. There is no democratic process in Iraq. Iraq is occupied by 150,000 U.S. troops. The Baath and other parties are proscribed from participating in elections or holding public office. In a real democracy, voters are free to choose from any party. In a real democracy, a foreign occupation force does not exert any political influence whatsoever. And in a real democracy, people aren’t afraid to venture out into the streets, risking rape or kidnapping in order to vote. You can’t have democracy without basic security, period.

So this is not democracy.

Which gets us to the next term: “Iraqi judges,” etc. By definition anyone who holds public office in an occupied country is a collaborator. This would include, for example, Palestinian Authority “leaders” under the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Now a collaborator may or not be a good person, and he may or may not be laboring under a benevolent occupier, but he is certainly a collaborator and thus a fair target for nationalist/patriotic resistance forces seeking to expel the occupiers.

Collaborators are, in some ways, even more of an enemy to the Iraqi resistance than the Americans. They demoralize the resistance and set an example of subservience that other Iraqis may emulate. It’s not surprising, therefore, that Iraqi guerillas would choose to execute them.

I can understand your fear that we, the filthy Americans, seek to set up a puppet regime in Iraq. However, I can’t see how any civilized person would believe that blowing up voting stations and killing candidates is the proper

way to retaliate against such an alleged invasion.

The puppet regime is already a given. And the election is a lame attempt to legitimatize that puppet regime. Iraqis who vote in this show election are no different than Frenchmen who cheered Marshall Pétain during the Nazi occupation. Had there been an “election” under Vichy rule, it would have been the patriotic duty of every Frenchman to bvoycott it.

I’ve known many of your type and I know that you never, ever are willing to admit to a wrong. You were unwilling to admit that you had severely overstated your case against the Nazi werewolves, and I’m sure you’d be unwilling to admit that you were incorrect in your support of these vile murderers.

I can and do admit when I’m wrong, as readers of the well know. And, by the way, I checked into the comparisons with the Nazi “werewolves” resistance after the fall of Germany at the end of World War II. As I wrote originally, there are no documented cases of casualties inflicted by them. None. They may have cut a few power lines, but they had nothing like the effectiveness of the current Iraqi resistance fighters–to which the Hard Right tried to compare them.

So go ahead and put my e-mail address up on your blog if you wish. All of your fanatical fans are just as blinded with anti-American hatred as you are, and I always love to hear from such idiots. And, please, Ted, drop the

pretense about you being a great patriot. You’re not. You’re a fucking socialist piece of shit who abhors everthing about our nation – other than the wealth and the freedom of speech that it bestows upon you.

I only run your email address if you cross the rhetorical line outlined in my email rules. (Which Jason didn’t.) Whether or not I am a patriot is for others to judge. I do love this country, however, and I’m fighting my damnedest to remind my fellow Americans of our core values, those we all learned as children, and to stop the Hard Right from revolutionizing us into a neofascist nightmare. (By the way, I don’t recall labeling myself. And another by the way: since when are socialists anti-patriotic?)

If you would in some way condemn the Iraqi terrorists, then perhaps I’d think a little bit better of you, but – until then – you are disgusting.

And I might think better of you when you stopped using loaded rhetoric like refering to resistance fighters (a clearer and more neutral term) as “terrorists.” Unless, of course, you also consider George Washington to have been a terrorist, in which case we’ll let it go.

For the record: I don’t share the vision of radical Islamism that some of the anti-US resistance in Iraq apparently wants to impose on Iraq and the Middle East. I wish nothing more than to see the people of the world rise up, overthrow their dictators and autocrats, and create just, peaceful, representative political and economic systems that reward people for their hard work and provide security in their everyday lives. Taliban-like theocracies are obviously antiethical to that goal.

But ultimately it’s up to the citizens of each nation to decide for themselves, sometimes via civil war and acts of violence, to determine how they want to live. Who is to say that my vision, that our vision of democracy, is best for every country? Besides, we still have too much work to do here in the United States of America before we can hold ourselves up as a shining beacon of hope to the rest of the world. We have an unelected dictator for a a”president,” a nation that denies tens of millions of people access to basic healthcare, kids throwing their unwanted babies into Dumpsters, young adults plunged into student loan poverty, systemic racism that divides our cities and suburbs into haves and have-nots, a wildly inadequate retirement system that the ruling party is trying to get rid of–like I said, we have a lot of work to do.

The choice between radical Islam and American-style pseudodemocracy is a false one presented by the Hard Right. There is 0.0% danger that Islamists will take over the United States. And it is 0.0% our business whether it takes over other countries.

Plagiarism?

FOR Jarrett writes:

Robert Higgs has decided to copy your December opinion without referencing you. See http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1452. Does it annoy you when others copy your material?

There’s nothing more annoying than being plagiarized. A few weeks after I sent Michael Kinsley a bunch of cartoons in his capacity as a magazine editor, he wrote a column that appeared to lift the rather esoteric concept of my cartoon hook, line and sinker. Of course, I’m not 100% certain. It may have just been a coincidence, though I still doubt it.

There are some remarkable similarities between my column comparing Bush to FDR and the above-referenced piece by Robert Higgs. But is it plagiarism?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Some ideas occur to different people simply because they’re true or make sense at the time. This could be one of those times. Or Higgs thought that no one in the UK reads my Yankee Dog writing.

Seriously: I don’t know. And when I don’t know something, I assume the best. Unlike, say, the Bush Administration.