How to Make Friends and Influence People

From today’s Associated Press:

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Iraqi forces, backed by U.S. soldiers, stormed one of the major Sunni Muslim mosques in Baghdad after Friday prayers, opening fire and killing at least three people, witnesses said. Another raid overnight at a hospital allegedly used by insurgents in Mosul led to three arrests, the military said.

About 40 people were arrested at the Abu Hanifa mosque in the capital’s northwestern Azamiyah neighborhood, according to the witnesses, who were members of the congregation. Another five people were wounded.

It appeared the raid at Abu Hanifa mosque, long associated with anti-American activity, was part of the crackdown on Sunni clerical militants launched in parallel with military operations against the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

On Thursday, the Iraqi government warned that Islamic clerics who incite violence will be considered as “participating in terrorism.” A number of them already have been arrested, including several members of the Sunni clerical Association of Muslim Scholars which spoke out against the U.S.-led offensive against Fallujah.

“The government is determined to pursue those who incite acts of violence. A number of mosques’ clerics who have publicly called for taking the path of violence have been arrested and will be legally tried,” said Prime Minister Ayad Allawi’s spokesman, Thair al-Naqeeb.

U.S. troops were seen securing the outer perimeter of the mosque area and sealing it off. Some American soldiers also were seen inside the compound.

Witnesses heard explosions coming from inside the mosque, apparently from stun grenades. Inside the office of the imam, books and a computer were found scattered on the floor, and the furniture was turned upside down.

Say you’re Iraqi–how can you not just love our troops and their local collaborationists?

I’d Love To Draw That “Crudely”

British national treasure, UK Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell, catches shit from American ideological turncoat and right-wing sellout David Horowitz here. (Scroll down a bit until you see the color cartoon.) Drawn “crudely”? Not only is Horowitz blind to the fact that he supports an Administration that uses “Mein Kampf” more as a self help book than a cautionary tale, he’s obviously just, plain, blind.

E&P Covers Washington Post.com Flap

It’s here.

There They (We) Go Again

If you liked the Rush to War Against Iraq, you’ll love the Rush to War Against Iran(TM)! One different letter, twice the danger, all brought to you by the same colorful cast of characters!

Iran Trying to Fit Missiles for Nuclear Weapons

Powell Says U.S. Has Intelligence on Tehran’s Plans

By ALAN CLENDENNING, AP

SANTIAGO, Chile (Nov. 18) — The United States has intelligence indicating Iran is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

Wow, Colin! Do they have lots of anthrax too? Better call Kofi Annan and book another UN speech to let everyone know what a terrible threat we face!

Mohammad Mohaddessin, of the opposition group National Council for Resistance in Iran, displays an aerial photo of Tehran during a press conference Wednesday. The group says Iran isn’t being honest with the U.N. about its nuclear activities. Powell partially confirmed claims by an Iranian opposition group that Tehran is deceiving the United Nations and is attempting to secretly continue activities meant to give it atomic arms by next year.

”I have seen intelligence which would corroborate what this dissident group is saying,” Powell told reporters Wednesday as he traveled to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago. ”And it should be of concern to all parties.”

Thank goodness for those helpful dissident groups! After all, they have no motivation for lying. It’s not like the National Council for Resistance wants to run Iran after a U.S. invasion or anything. Ahmed Chalabi, call your office.

Pressed by reporters on the intelligence reports, Powell said the intelligence indicates that Iran ”had been actively working on delivery systems” capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.

Powell said there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has developed the technology to make a nuclear weapon, but suggested that the regime is working to adapt missiles for nuclear warheads.

‘I’m talking about information that says that they not only had these missiles, but I’m aware of information that suggests they were working hard as to how to put the two together,” Powell said.

Oh. Well. That’s not exactly the same thing, is it? Yes, you can use a missile to launch a nuke. But you can also use it to carry conventional weapons. Or launch a satellite. I mean, heck, you could mail a nuke to New York. Would that make any country with a postal system a nuclear threat?

A senior official for the National Council for Resistance in Iran said Tuesday that a bomb diagram – along with an unspecified amount of weapons-grade uranium – was provided to Iran by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced former head of Pakistani’s nuclear development which was tied to both Iran and Libya.

He said the designs were handed to the Iranians between 1994 and 1996, while Khan delivered HEU – highly enriched uranium – in 2001.

Once again, the same old story–ancient intelligence from a dubious source already caught lying repeatedly. All Powell has is a friggin’ cartoon–and he’s sabrerattling anyway. God, Colin, do you have anything left of your once shining rep?

Banned in the United States as a terrorist organization, the group was instrumental in 2002 in revealing Iran’s enrichment program in the central city of Natanz, based on what it said was information provided by sources in Iran.

“Banned in the United States as a terrorist organization.” Wow. Nice sourcing, Colin.

The opposition group says a facility at Lavizan-Shian northeast of Tehran was part of a secret nuclear weapons program. Powell declined comment on Khan, but said ”for 20 years the Iranians have been trying to hide things from the international community.”

Well, yes. Because the international community has imposed trade sanctions on them, attempted to overthrow their government and even bankrolled Saddam Hussein’s invasion of them. If I were the Iranians, I might be trying to keep things discreet too. Hell, I might even be trying to develop nukes to save myself from what happened to Iraq next door. But who has more to hide from the international community than the U.S.? Since when do we open our doors to international arms inspectors? Yet we are by far the greatest danger facing the world today. We have more nukes, and we’re the only country to ever have used them. Twice. On civilian targets.

OK, So Not Everyone is Negative

A number of Washington Post online readers dismayed that they dropped my cartoons in the aftermath of a write-in campaign have written to express their dismay. You can pipe in by sending your two cents to washingtonpost@mailnj.custhelp.com.

Marvin writes:

I have just heard that you have dropped Ted Rall’s cartoons. I am the parent of an autistic child, and I, like others, was annoyed by Rall’s cartoon depiction of a disabled child. But Rall was trying to make a point; he just picked an unfortunate, somewhat thoughtless way to do it. But one mistake should not lead to censorship. I hope you will reconsider your action and once again run Rall’s incisive cartoons.

Joseph wrote:

I can not believe that the esteemed Washington Post, home of the famed Watergate reporting, is caving in and canceling Ted Rall’s comic. Offensive or not, one of the major reasons education is so lacking in our public schools is the policy of inclusion. Although that wasn’t the primary target of Rall’s cartoon, his point is well illustrated. My mother has FIVE mentally disabled children in her second grade class this year. Not only is it more than she can handle, it’s a distraction to the other children in class and a serious detriment to their education. Teachers are not babysitters. Parents of mentally disabled and disturbed children often have very unrealistic views of what their children can accomplish (they’re in denial) and what other people can tolerate in their children’s behavior.

Rall once again had the guts to show people the ugly truth — why do you think they’re so offended? Do you honestly believe retarded children don’t drool, shout nonsense and make a scene? Do you think the thousands of autistic, emotionally disturbed, and mentally disabled children aren’t a cause of both fear and amusement to the other young children in a second-grade classroom.

This was another cowardly act of the media bending to the will of the bully — be that politically correct bully or that of the Christian Coalition. You’re a newspaper, not a greeting card company. You’re supposed to report the harsh truth, foster debate and open minds, not shirk from things people find “in poor taste.”

I’m sure the people who were offended by the doodles of Ted Rall were not motivated by his anti-war stance.

With contempt,

Someone else wrote:

do you understand how certain groups become “untouchable”…beyond criticism, and not only that, but beyond anything that can be interpreted as criticism? Do you see how a group of obsessive do-gooders can wield power? Your profession (you know, cartooning) is economically distributed…they can knock you off the Post without killing you. But what if you were a reporter? A reporter who told certain unpleasant truths, about certain untouchable groups..?

Your career could be ruined completely, just on somebody’s dislike of facts. [And your portrayal was mild compared to certain true cases. For example, a family member of mine taught at a school in which a comatose boy was wheeled from classroom to classroom in a gurney. He had a full time nurse dedicated to him. If you said, “His parents are bilking the taxpayers in order to escape their own child during school hours”…imagine the outcry!]

Joe says:

It appears you have offended yet another cowardly newspaper afraid to publish hard line crticism of our government. Your editorial cartoons are no longer listed with the Washington Post online.

I am not affiliated wirth any political party because I consider myself an independent thinker. I try to look at all sides of an issue before I take a stand and form an opinion.

The severity with which you attack Bush brings me to believe you are disgusted with the direction our government has taken toward world domination.

American businesses used to rob third world countries of their natural resources by offering trinkets and glitter. Not any more; now they fight back. The destruction and death the United State Armed Forces are doing to Iraq and it’s people is deplorable and unforgivable.

I know that Bush thinks he is on a mission from God to bring about the destruction of the Middle East in preparation for the second coming of Christ, but I don’t understand how he can justify what he is doing to his God. Being raised in the Catholic faith, I can’t make any sense of his purpose. Chritianity follows the philosophy “the end never justifies the means.”

Once Bush had been re-elected, applications for emmigration to New Zealand and Canada increased one hundred fold. If all of the people who hated Bush but didn’t want Kerry as president had voted for an independent candidate, we would have a new president!

Now they are all fleeing the country.

Your audience is shrinking as more papers drop your cartoons. Your wit is honest and hard hitting. How about offering constructive criticism? Maybe if editorial cortoons made suggestions to the readers along with the satire readers would start digesting what is printed and become more informed voters.

Constructive criticism? Pick up my book WAKE UP, YOU’RE LIBERAL. That’s all about constructive criticism of both the right and the left.

C.S. writes:

I personally found the classroom analogy in your recent cartoon quite insightful. Upon examining it a second time, I do find your depiction of the disabled child to be overdone to the point where it is arguably offensive. But the context also makes it clear to me that by making the disabled child such a goober you were commenting on how you view Bush fans, not developmentally disabled children.

Moreover, I do not think you should have to apologize for making the perfectly reasonable argument that disabled kids don’t belong in mainstream classrooms — at least not all the time. Traditional schooling is barely tolerable for regular kids. The idea that special needs children can learn anything in such a setting is questionable at best. I have a younger sister who is disabled. As a child, she was a victim of adults who tried to force her into the mold of normalcy. She was “included” to the point where she never even developed basic reading, writing, and comprehension skills. Her learning needs were different from those of most children. She therefore needed a tailored curriculum, but she didn’t get it.

In my view, you were merely saying with this cartoon that it is not conducive to learning for severely disabled children to share a classroom with non-disabled children. It’s not like you were advocating that we relegate them to leper status or anything. It was a satirical cartoon aimed at a political faction that has never met a low blow it didn’t like. Rather than fight amongst each other, I think we should turn our anger on those who truly seek to exclude our children from receiving adequate education. By that I mean Bush and his base (the “haves” and the “have mores,” as he calls them).

More on Last Week’s Toon

A write-in campaign by advocates for the disabled (they took offense at last week’s cartoon in which I compared the results of the presidential election–wherein a bunch of uninformed morons in the red states demonstrated their ability to get their way at the expense of people who actually pay attention to current events) continues

One of the hazards of this profession is that it requires fearlessness mixed with perfection. Draw 200 cartoons a year that people enjoy and you’ll get few if any thanks. Certainly no one conducts a write-in campaign of praise. Draw 1 that goes astray–intentionally or otherwise–and everybody calls for your head. No wonder so many cartoonists don’t take risks in their approach or in their politics. People are negative; they only react negatively.

When I wrote earlier that I intended to research the subject of mainstreaming in the public schools–now called “inclusion.” I will. But I’m confused. If your goal was to educate me, to convince me that I was wrong to depict disabled children the way I did with a view towards (presumably) gaining an ally in the media…why try to censor me?

If I had to draw that cartoon again, I’d take a different tack. I regret hurting people who I have nothing against. I do want to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, and I think I failed in that with this cartoon. Not to mention that the cartoon failed–too many people got bogged down in the analogy and the main point got lost.

No one bats 1.000. I sure don’t.

More from the Overstuffed Mailbag

Steve writes:

With a wide grin, I read your editorial entitled “Confessions of a Cultural Elitist”. While I’m not in total agreement with all you said, it made some curious points. Unfortunately, in this society, there will always be a cultural gap between those who have and those who have no clue, those who can think and see reality and those who follow the herd. Though we shouldn’t gloat and make them feel less than they are, it’s difficult to imagine how their sub-society can exist in to the future. Sorry to see your type writhe in such obvious agony. Maybe the next 4 years will teach the “cultural elite” a few lessons.

Yes, it’s true. Those of us voted against Bush–i.e., for Kerry–are in agony. I’m curious about the gloating, though. When Bill Clinton drove the right to distraction, I didn’t reflexively laugh them off. I thought about it. What was it about Clinton, I wondered, that drove Republicans so batshit crazy pissed off? Most of it, I concluded, was style: his smug arrogance, though nothing on the order of Bush’s, must have been grating to those who voted against him. But, especially after Clinton got caught lying under oath, a long-term pattern of sleazy misconduct rose to the level, in their minds, of impeachment. Again, what he did pales in comparison with Bush’s crimes. Still, Clinton did deserve impeachment.

Back then, I broke ranks with fellow lefties by calling, repeatedly, for Clinton’s impeachment. And part of what caused me to do so was the fact that Republicans hated him so much. Nowadays, as Democrats seethe over Bush’s policies and style, it might behoove Republicans to consider why we despise him so much. You might not agree with all of our reasons. But if you really opened your minds, you might see that we have a point. After all, Democrats didn’t hate George H.W. Bush this way. Not since Richard Nixon has a Republican president been hated this much; not since FDR has a Democrat–and FDR deserved the disdain for, among other things, running for a third term and trying to stack the Supreme Court.

Sean wrote:

I’ve decided to provide you some feedback on your OP/ED (Confessions of a Cultural Elitist) since I am one of the “Spectacularly Stupid” who supported president Bush. I’m not expecting a reply from you, only to provide you with another opinion.I live and work around the very blue city of Portland Oregon, so there is no shortage of people around here who would agree with your lefter equals smarter attitude. My support of George Bush was based 75% on common values and 25% on my impression of John Kerry’s arrogance, weakness on defense, as well as his position on issues.

Come on. John Kerry MORE arrogant than Bush? Weak on defense? Surely you didn’t believe those silly “John Kerry voted against defense systems 14,510 times” ads?

In light of our invasion of Iraq, I realize the idea Saddam had stockpiles of WMD’s or an active nuclear program was a mistaken one, but you’ll have to admit that George Bush was in good company on that assumption. Regarding Al Qaeda, I don’t think I ever needed to have a case made to me for collusion on 9/11 to support Bush’s decision on Iraq. The fact that Saddam allowed notorious terrorists in his country and provided support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was enough to know where he stood on terrorism.

Actually, the CIA told Bush before the war that there was zero evidence that Saddam still had WMDs, much less nukes. And terrorism is a tactic–one commonly used by outgunned combatants against a superior force, like the American revolutionaries against Britain in 1776–not an ideology. Saddam supported the Palestinians, that’s true. But there was no evidence that he ever intended to, or could have, brought harm to the United States. And Bush knew that.

Bobby wrote:

As I read your article this morning, I was stunned by your apparent hatred of those of us that voted for President Bush. I can understand you supporting your candidate. I can understand discussion, debates, and even arguments about who is better suited to run our country. But, what I cannot understand is how you can insult, belittle, and demean such a large segment of the population for exercising their right to vote.

Let me make it simple. 59 million Americans with access to 100 channels and all of the world’s news outlets online at their local public library, voted for a neofascist over the standard-issue American politician the Democrats put up. They voted for Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, the torture and murder of children by US troops in Afghanistan and the systematic genocide of more than 100,000 Iraqis for the sole purpose of securing access to cheap Middle Eastern oil. Not since Classic vs. New Coke has there been a more obvious choice, a simpler decision, a bigger no-brainer. But they chose, with eyes open, the absolutely dead wrong choice. It only seems natural for those of us who aren’t that fucking stupid, mean and ignorant to say so.

Just because we do not agree with your assessment of Mr. Bush does not mean that we are uneducated. Personally, I chose who I thought to be the lesser of two evils.I believe that Mr. Bush is a detriment to our economy and to health care and the environment. But I firmly believe that he will do a better job of keeping this country safe from those that mean to do her harm. I believe that Mr. Kerry wanted to revamp health care, schools, and protect the environment. But at what costs? I firmly believe that we would have had higher taxes under Mr. Kerry. I also believe, that within the first year of his administration, we would have been targeted for another terrorist attack.

Dude: Dole vs. Clinton was a lesser of two evils choice. This was Dr. Evil vs. Wanker Man. Not the same thing.

Anyway, you obviously are ignorant–uneducated–on the issues and current political system. Faced with the certainty of a Republican Congress, Kerry would never have gotten healthcare reform or environmental protection enacted, nor increased aid to education. Taxes? Look at your tax bill now–it’s already gone up when you add up local, state, and federal. That $10 trillion projected deficit over 10 years has to get paid off somehow…plus compound interest. As for terrorism–are you saying that Bush’s close friendship with the bin Ladens would have protected us from another 9/11? Let’s wait another five years and then we’ll be able to judge whether Al Qaeda or its allies have been somewhat neutralized.

Mike writes:

I do admire your willingness to admit and defend the whole “we ARE smarter and superior and better and …….” Dem mindset. Most of the Dems I know are not willing to admit this to people outside of their inner circle. LIBERALS Smarter? NO. Perhaps better educated? Maybe, but there are many variables to the education equation since education extends well beyond the classroom instruction. Are Liberals educated beyond their intelligence? Likely.

Accept it and move on, or better yet, move out of this country. This country is and has been rejecting the Democratic “progressive” movement for a while now. Population movement and their electoral votes are “progressing” to the RED STATES. Objective WISDOM wins again. Long may it reign.

Sometimes the majority is right. Other times it is wrong. There is no relationship between winning and moral rectitude.

Jennifer writes:

I just read your article “Confessions of a Cultural Elitist” and I want to thank you for putting into words all the thoughts I’ve been having for the past several days. Why is the middle of the country supposed to be more American than those of us on the sides? Why did all the major cities, the ones that will probably be bombed first by Osama bin Laden, go for Kerry while all the flat middle of nowhere culturally bereft areas of the US–you know, the parts where no one would notice if it were annihilated–vote for Bush? And how presumptuous to think that people who use God in the name of political advancement are more morally accurate than the rest of us who choose to keep our relationships with God a private matter. Did the Puritans really leave England to escape oppression only so generations later we could live in country where we oppress ourselves? What morons we look like to the rest of the world, we fat-assed spoiled Americans shopping at Wal-Mart, drinking our 64 ounce Big Gulps, staying up all night playing Play

Station, making sure we know more about Paris Hilton than about Paris, France. It’s an embarrassment to be an American these days, no matter who you voted for. The only difference is that the blue parts of the country are embarrassed to be attached to the red bits, and the red bits are too stupid to know any different. Anyway, thanks for revealing your disgust–it’s good to not feel so alone in our loss.

Confessions of a Cultural Elitist

Unsurprisingly a lot of Bush voters from the red states wrote to take exception to this week’s column. There were also a lot of positive responses. Here’s a mix:

I must confess I check your website everyday in the hopes you’ve posted something new. You are America’s BS detector and, in that capacity, you and the cartoonists like you are becoming our only real method of protest. Like you I grew up in a backwards facing red state (Arkansas) and I know the pain of living around a dull, intellectually-stifling environment and, as soon as I could, I got the fuck out of there. Maybe, what needs to happen is, we, as the intellectuals of our nation, need to begin to seep back into the red states and seed the heartland, or as I like to call it, the don’t-have-a-heart-or-a-brain-land, with the intellectual spirit we have come to embrace. Maybe, within a few generations, we’ll have changed America for the better and expose the ignorants of our society to the idiocy and the un-American-ness of their narrow-minded ideology. Well, it probably won’t happen. Most likely, we’ll all leave America soon and leave it for the racist bastards to destroy. Anyway, great work and keep it up!

This is a great point. It’s a hell of lot harder to stay around in small town America than to flee, as I did. I have great respect for the liberals who fight the good fight in the Midwest and South. Anyone can be liberal in New York City, big deal.

If they are full of soft talent lacking people like you, no wonder Kerry lost.

I have read your spew many times and ALWAYS you come across as an inferior man who hates others who think differently.

Why would anyone keep reading something they hate? Well, I watch Hannity almost every night, so never mind.

I’m writing in response to your opinion column titled “Confessions of a Cultural Elitist.” I read your opinion column regularly on Yahoo News. As an independent voter I enjoy the way that your column balances out the writings of Anne Coulter (another column I read weekly). I thoroughly enjoy both columns and would miss either if one were to suddenly disappear.

The purpose for this e-mail however, is to ask if you are taking the election results a little too personally. Your past two columns have had an almost vengeful undertone. Rather than the thought provoking writings that I

have come to look forward to, I am left with feelings of anger and remorse.

I realize that as the author of an opinion column you can clearly convey any feelings you wish. I may not represent the core group of your readers, but it sure would be nice to click on your name next week and leave with some food for thought rather than angry rants. If presented with an appropriate choice for president, regardless of party affiliation, don’t you think the “right man” would rise to the top of the field long before

election day? Close elections should unite the country in search of better candidates, not divide it in a high stakes blame game.

Some good points here. Unfortunately, this election was so crystal clear in the choice that it presented that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to consider anyone who voted for Bush a moron or racist or homophobe or worse. Hopefully I’ll calm down. Next week’s column is about something different.

Another whining rationalization from the king of pedantic polemic. Get over it you pussy, you lost because your side is wrong on the issues. Your candidate was a piece of tofu, taking any position he felt politically expedient. His supporters were mostly high-school educated entertainers who are just learning to spell their names. I voted for Bush, and I’m an Ivy league trained, well-published East coast cardiologist. Many of my friends are Ivy league blue bloods who were Bush supporters as well. Until you geniuses understand that you need to abandon your illusions of cultural and intellectual superiority, you’re going to lose many an election.

Of COURSE Kerry was a (gulp) piece of tofu. Hm. So what? He wasn’t Bush. Bush is a neofascist. Bush murdered tens of thousands of innocent people. Bush bankrupted the entire government. He opened concentration camps, for God’s sake. And still hasn’t even TRIED to go after 9/11 guys. Kerry or Bush? Gimme the tofu, man.

I appreciate your comics. Very clever, funny, poignant, even to a conservative like me. As far as your cultural elitist article, it was absolutely insulting. Perhaps your comics intend to say the same thing, but in a cartoon, there’s a hint of grace attached. You insulted my intelligence, because of the priorities that I have as an individual. I suggest that you stick to your cartoons as a more effective way to convince the masses. And on an insider’s note, my vote wasn’t a moral issues over war vote. It was a vote to keep this nation as a nation under God. My, and a majority’s priority is not to overturn Roe v. Wade or take away the rights of homosexuals, but merely to keep this nation based upon the hand of the only God who can truly make it succeed.

Come on, dude. You think Piehole Bush is a Christian? If that man truly believed that he would be judged for eternity based on his actions in this life, you can be damned sure he wouldn’t be starting wars and picking on people who didn’t chose to be gay.

I have been reading your stuff for a couple of years now. I am glad you exist, and that you publish. I find your voice refreshing in that there is at least one “liberal” out there that speaks for me, I don’t know, are you a liberal or a radical? Anyone who jets off to Afghanistan to cover the war must be fairly nuts, either that or you just have huge testicles. I just read your piece on how “liberals” think that the Bush crowd is stupid. I think I know why I like you so much. You don’t water down your Scotch, man. Just deliver that shit straight up. I’d say that most polite people would be turned off by you, but I actually agree with you most of the time. When I don’t, it is because my interpretation of facts is slightly different. For the most part however, I just want to tell you that you should just keep telling it like it is. When the tanks roll into the city and the secret police start to take down the intellectuals, I hope you have an escape plan that includes forming the resistance, lol. Perhaps one day we will meet, it is unlikely, but if I ever met you in person, I’d buy you a beer and say “Thanks.” The resultant conversation would explain why…

Thanks

Looks like I’ve nailed the Barcelona CD I was looking for. Thanks to everyone who wrote with links and suggestions and, of course, with the CD! My fans are the best.

Special Needs Cartoon

Last week I drew a cartoon about the election results. I compared the United States to a classroom in which “mainstreaming” mentally handicapped children is in force. It’s one thing, I drew, to have such children—in this case, the Bush-supporting red states—share the class (the U.S.) with the brighter kids, i.e., the Kerry-supporting blue states. Seeing the Bush supporters—who are, to a man, dumber than rocks—in charge of our country, I said in my cartoon, is something akin to putting the special needs kids in charge of the class.

Evidently some websites or newsgroups for the parents of such children are conducting a write-in campaign concerning that cartoon. I understand why they are upset. They already face a tremendous challenge raising their kids, then this asshole cartoonist comes along and insults their kids. Or so it must seem.

It is true that I oppose the whole idea of “mainstreaming,” a practice that was becoming in vogue when I was in school. I believe that “special needs” children are just that–they need the kind of special attention that “ordinary” classes can’t give them without sacrificing the interests of the other children. Because I remember sitting in classes where one slow kid would plunge the rest of us into fits of boredom, I also favor “tracking” students by ability. Kids shouldn’t have to teach other kids. I also believe that our educational system is woefully underfunded, especially in poor and urban areas, and that “special needs” kids are often neglected. That is wrong and unfair.

But that cartoon wasn’t about that. It was about Bush, and the annoyance that those of us who actually read the paper have for those who plainly don’t, yet are in the majority and have the audacity to turn up to vote–despite being totally unqualified to do so. To express that, I felt that the mainstreaming analogy worked well. I still do.

It’s hard enough to draw political cartoons without having to consider political correctness while trying to make a point. The question for me is, and was, does the cartoon work? Does it express its point? In this case, I believe that the cartoon works. Every analogy offends someone. As a French-American, I am constantly disgusted and offended by anti-French jokes (i.e., a French military strategist? what’s that? –Jay Leno, the other day). But I shake my head and move on.

Many parents wrote me to say that their kid is mildly autistic and is a great student in a regular classroom. To them I would say, my cartoon wasn’t remotely about your kid. Others resorted to blind rage:

I want you to know that I, along with many others, think you are an inconsiderate prick. I think you are scum, slime, and otherwise, a bastard. I read your lame ass cartoon about how politicians are like “special needs” children. You are a heartless bastard and nonetheless, a moron. I read your “terms of email” and I don’t want a response from you so don’t bother as I will delete it promptly.

May you burn in hell for all eternity and God forgive me for hoping you have a long life full of agony and pain.

ps: if i ever see you, i will make a point to tell you in your face you are by far one of the worst comics ever…not only for the fact that you are an inconsiderate jaggoff, but that you are not even funny, or serious, you really actually suck at your job. May i suggest home decorating or maybe gardening? From the looks of your picture, you would be a lot better at any of this than at the horrible job youre doing now.

Burn in Hell Jackass,

eat me

By the way, a cartoonist isn’t a comic. A comic does stand up.

Then there are the more thoughtful responses, such as this one:

I’m sure you have received numerous e-mails about your “mentally handicapped” cartoon that appeared in the November 8 edition of the The Washington Post. I must admit I was taken aback by the cartoon and the offensive portrayal of a special needs student in an inclusive classroom.

I looked at some of your other work and found I was generally in agreement with your philosophy so, rather than express outrage at this cartoon, I wanted to understand the message which, I admit, missed its mark with me.

Perhaps you could explain the cartoon to me. While I may still not agree the depiction of the student was appropriate, I would like to understand the motivation.

Individuals with special needs have such a difficult time fitting into the general population; I hope you understand why this particular cartoon would raise the hackles of those who work so hard to accomplish

inclusion and acceptance for their students and family members.

I’ve tried to explain the cartoon above. But parents of special needs children also need to consider that many, many Americans oppose “mainstreaming” because it can come at the detriment of gifted and other children. And a recent survey of special needs parents found that 24 percent believe mainstreaming is detrimental to their own children’s education. So, while mainstreaming is currently in vogue, there is no broad consensus in our society.

Then there is this mystifying offering:

I am applauded by your comic 11/08/04.

Does she mean “appalled”? Or “I applaud”?

Anyway, I am sorry that I don’t have the time, staff or energy to respond personally to all of the people who wrote to me. Unlike Republicans, the vast majority of angry parents wrote polite, questioning and/or disagreeing letters that deserve an answer. At last count I received about 400 such emails, and there’s no way I can answer all of them and get anything else done. Moreover, my spam filter seems to be intercepting and deleting them, possibly because the subjects are similar.

I must say that my eyes have been opened about a struggle that thousands of Americans are fighting every day, to raise their kids as best as they can while faced with unusual challenges. I plan to research this issue in depth with a view, if not towards commenting further, at least towards becoming more aware of their concerns. The last thing I want to do is make life more difficult for them.