More on Censorship

John writes:

I read your material on a semi-regular basis, but I think you’re way off the mark with your evaluation of censorship in your most recent piece “Censor this Column”. Censorship is strictly an act of control. I.e. exercising control over the content of a particular piece of media, preventing it from being shown in part or in it’s entirety. “Control” denotes superiority. In this case, I happen to agree with the NY Times.
My dictionary defines the verb censorship as “to examine and expurgate” Censorship is not withdrawing an invitation to speak. Censorship is not an editor deciding not to run an particular op/ed piece. Nether of
these two acts expurgates (from the Latin expurgo – “To cleanse”) material. The questions of “why?” “what?” and “who?” don’t really enter into it.
As far as I am aware you can still read Mr. Churchill’s comments almost anywhere, as they are now far more popular than they were prior to this event.

True. This was, in fact, my final observation in this week’s column. However, a definition of censorship worded as tightly as “your dictionary’s” renders the term meaningless. After all, the White Rose resistance movement of Nazi Germany had the ability to disseminate its anti-Hitler leaflets; all they needed was access to a mimeograph machine. But they were, nevertheless, censored by the state and its media. Neither they nor their ideological allies could see their opinions voiced in a national forum. Yes, access is determined by control–and that control, if exercised based on either taste or political reasons, becomes censorship.
Censorship, it can be argued (though not by me), isn’t always bad. But it is censorship nevertheless and the censors should be willing to admit it.

Seems to me that your argument is that private entities should be compelled to endorse ideas they may not necessarily agree with.

Certainly not. In the case of Ward Churchill, he was invited by Hamilton College to speak about Indian politics. Whatever Churchill would have said about Indian activism would not have necessarily been endorsed, even implicitly, merely by providing a forum for discussion. Given that he was disinvited because of his remarks about 9/11, an unrelated matter, no one would have believed that Hamilton was endorsing his thoughts.
When I appear on Fox News, for example, does Fox News implicitly endorse my views? Highly doubtful.

At some point you’re running afoul of their rights to freedom of speech
(by preventing someone from speaking at their facility with whom they happen to disagree with). If a right wing conservative wanted to use your website or your column space to run their ideas, would you agree to do that? If not, are you censoring them?

This raises the question of whether my blog is a “publication” or public forum. Perhaps, perhaps not, I dunno. It came up when I first started the blog when Republican readers asked why I didn’t provide a comments section. I decided not to do so after perusing other blogs that contained such comments. With few exceptions, I found the comments to be dominated by obsessive, juvenile, and utterly worthless remarks. They added nothing to the discussion except stupid insults. If, however, a productive back and forth between me and some right-wingers were possible to achieve in this forum, I would happily do so. Until then, yes, I am censoring them.

Of course you’re not. On the other hand if the government takes your column and decides to clip portions of it, now you’re talking expurgation. If someone is jailed to prevent them from speaking in public…that’s expurgation. You’re merely crying wolf over a matter of personal preference. Honestly it detracts from many of the good liberal issues you raise week in and week out.

They’re not liberal issues, they’re American issues. Speaking of which:

Ann Coulter Call Out

The rumor mill has it that that coward Ann Coulter called me and Al Franken “America haters” yesterday morning on C-SPAN. If anyone saw it or has a transcript, please write chet@rall.com. If true, this slanderous nonsense has got to stop.

Iraq

Jason spits:

So I suppose that you’ve heard about the latest act of courage and patriotism performed by your noble insurgent allies. If not, here’s a little quote from CNN – “Four explosions ripped through Baghdad on Friday, leaving at least 20 people dead and dozens wounded as Shiite Muslims observed the holy period of Ashura, authorities said. Three of the blasts — two suicide bombings and a rocket attack — targeted Shiite mosques, officials said.” What wonderful people. I can see why you respect them so much. You remain a sick and disgusting man. And your side will lose.

Readers know that I predicted that a US invasion would lead to civil war in Iraq. Congrats, Mr. Bush–you got exactly what you should have expected. If nothing else, Saddam knew that Iraq could only be held together by harsh dictatorship; removing him necessarily led to the present situation. Too bad the dildos in the Administration and their allies in American state media didn’t prepare for the inevitable.
“My side”? It might take a while, Jason, but I’m an optimist. American patriots will prevail over the psychotic neofascists like you.

Ward Churchill, Free Speech, Bill O’Reilly and Large Crocodiles That Bite

OK, no crocodiles. Which is too bad, because what’s cooler than a creature that goes from 0 to 100 in 0.1 seconds, biting and thrashing? But anyway.
David writes:

Read your article and there are a couple points that are up for debate. One that is quick is that Bill O’Reilly has NEVER called for Churchill’s firing, not a single time. He has said that he believes that Churchill may get fired for what he said but he has never called for his firing, not once.

No one coughed up a show transcript but a few reliable FORs who are regular O’Reilly watchers say that David is correct. So consider this a retraction: Bill O’Reilly, as far as I know, did NOT call for Ward Churchill’s firing, though he reportedly urged viewers to contact the University of Colorado to express their opinions about Churchill’s opinions.

Number two, it would be ignorant, arrogant and hypocritic to believe that all free speech would never see a response. Churchill can say what he wants but don’t be suprise to not hear a response to his inflammatory comments. The right-wing and everyday American that feels offended has a right to excersise their free speech in response to Ward Churchill. Would you defend Ward Churchill so easily if he made comments that sounded right-wing or racist to you? Probably not. Freedom is a two way street.

David should reread my essay, which is less about “defending” Churchill than pointing out that censorship doesn’t necessarily originate only with the government, contrary to the assertions of the Ayn Rand types. In that context I absolutly would “defend” Churchill were he censored merely for the sin of being racist or otherwise offensive. What I was attempting to point out is that Hamilton College absolutely did censor Ward Churchill. Sure, they had the Constitutional right to do so. But they are censors, and should cop to being censors.
Frequent GOR (Gadly of Rall) Alan writes:

You’re right. The dictionary doesn’t relate censorship to government. It’s the Constitution that does that. Here’s what it says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Quite simply, it prevents the Government from censoring the verbalization of the thoughts of the people. College Administrative Boards are not Congress, and the Constitution does not protect against censorship by non-governmental entities.

That’s true. But I never argued that what happened to Churchill was unconstitutional, merely that it was censorship.

In instances like the Churchill situation, liberals seek to pioneer the right to speak freely into the ‘right to force an unsuspecting and/or unwilling audience to listen to what I have to say’. That is a MONUMENTAL deviation from what was intended, as Thomas Boyden readily observed.

I cannot speak for liberals as a whole nor would I want to, but I wish Republicans would read the words I write rather than project the ones they imagine I’d write. All I want is for people who blackball and censor people who express unpopular opinions to admit that that’s what they’re doing. “Because I’m too stupid to engage in debate,” they should scream at the top of their lungs, “I make those with whom I disagree shut up. I’m a censor!” Is that asking so much, for censors to admit that that’s what they are?
“High School students have no power to censor. So, if their sentiments trend towards censorship, it’s probably because many liberals refuse to exercise discretion and responsibility in what they say and because of their insistence that we have to here them out even if we don’t want to.”
Actually, the poll I cited in my column says that the students want the government to censor, not that they want to censor. And anyway, high school students can censor–if they’re, say, the editor of their high school newspaper.
“Not only is refusing to invite Churchill to speak not ‘censorship’ in the legal sense, it doesn’t prevent him from speaking his mind in the broader sense. It just prevents him from acquiring an audience with those who (for whatever legally rightfull reason) don’t want to hear him.”
This is fallacious reasoning. Economic censorship, denying someone the chance to express themselves and “acquiring an audience,” is naturally a way to prevent the dissemination of uncomfortable ideas. Moreover, these censorship decisions rarely express the desire of the majority of a community not to let someone talk. Hamilton College, for instance, did not take a survey of its students and faculty to ask them whether or not Churchill should be allowed to speak. A few administrators made the call; for all they knew 99% of the Hamilton community agreed with everything Churchill had to say or disagreed and wanted to hear him nonetheless.

If a speaker from a white supremacy group insisted on an opportunity to speak about his ideology at a predominately black college, would you rise to support him?

Sure, the same way I invited David Duke onto my former KFI radio show to expound his racist thoughts to my progressive audience. A more accurate analogy would be whether a predominantly black college should disinvite a chemist from talking about chemistry after finding out that he was a bigot. Churchill, remember, was supposed to talk about American Indian activism, not 9/11.

If Churchill wanted to speak (to college students) about the positive benefits female college students can derive from having sex with college professors, would you support him?

See above.

So, what’s the difference, other than the subject matter?

I’m your worst nightmare, Alan–a leftie who strives to be consistent.

Iran
Rick writes:

Ted, what do you think about letting Iran develop nuclear weapons? Do you not think they would eventually use them against Israel? I agree, spy drones are an invasion of sovereign territory, but how else would we know where they are? Do you really think the EU or UN can negotiate with religious leaders in Iran? In short, what would you have done different? Also, what would you suggest is the best course of action regarding North Korea? Is war never an option?

and Allen asks:

Off the subject…Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? If not, what should be done to stop them? Have you heard of the new alliance between Syria and Iran? It’s getting ugly.

First: The United States, the only nation to have used nukes (twice), is by definition the least trustworthy country on earth when it comes to the judicious application of a nuclear arsenal.
Second: The United States does not enjoy the legal or moral prerogative to determine which nations may or may not possess nuclear weapons.
Third: The Bush Administration’s sabre-rattling is doing more to encourage nuclear proliferation than any other force in politics today. Who doubts that North Korea is safe from U.S. attack precisely because it managed to go nuclear before Bush had the chance to attack them? Or that Iraq would have been safe had it managed to do the same?
Answer: If the U.S. doesn’t want Iran to acquire nukes, it will get further with honey than vinegar. Opening diplomatic relations, getting Israel to promise not to attack Iran, asking Israel to get rid of its own nuclear arsenal (why doesn’t anyone ever talk about that threat in the Middle East?), guaranteeing not to attack Iran–all of these would be far likelier to convince the Iranian government that it no longer needs to spend millions on a nuclear program.
The alliance between Syria and Iran, believe it or not, is good news for global stability. I hope to see more nations form strategic alliances to counterbalance the United States, which is using its post-Cold War power to wreak havoc throughout the world.
Is war ever an option? Yes: when you are attacked, when your allies are attacked, and when you are about to be attacked. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq nor Iran qualify, of course. After 9/11, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan did–but Bush raised their allowance instead.

The Haters
Fred marvels:

So, as a lark (and to keep from having to do any actual work for a few moments) I goggled your name. Good God man! There a lot of people who really hate you! Which I take as a sign that you’re doing your job (I’d say the same thing to Rush Limbaugh if I could stomach his website and he were to deign respond). Most of them seem like raving lunatics, but there are a few who refute many of your positions in an intelligent manner. Still, I’m sure you’ve got a pretty thick skin about this kinda stuff, but do the death threats and insults ever bother you? I don’t know how you deal with that kind of vitriol. I know I sure as hell couldn’t. Again, though we disagree on much, this just adds to the respect I have for you and work.

Of course the threats bother me, so much so that I report the most extreme ones to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. The United States is an extraordinarily violent country awash in weaponry, its Wild West culture encourages the use of force as a means of resolving disputes, and many Americans are threatened by opinions that counter their own. So it’s important to take these things seriously. That said, I can’t help how other people react to what I say or do. All things considered, I’m a relatively moderate voice doing little more than expressing my take on the issues of the day. Were I to softpedal my opinions, I’d be little better than the squishy mainstream media cartoonists and columnists whose work I deplore. I’m lucky to live in a country which has enshrined the freedom of expression in its Bill of Rights and to have the opportunity to use that freedom to earn a living, and I intend to use it as fully as I know how. I refuse to live in fear because some violent jackasses have access to computers.

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.