iPod Fundraiser

How much did I want an iPod for Christmas? Very, very much. Santa came, but he didn’t bring my iPod. So I wrote to Santa, who since the GOP controls all three branches of government and everything else is now called Republican Santa. Here’s what Republican Santa wrote back:

Jesus H. Christ, what a friggin’ whiner. Want an iPod? Be a good capitalist and sell your labor at low discount prices. That’s how you’ll get your stupid iPod.

This response will cost you $20.

I thought about what Republican Santa said and–surprise!–he’s right. Why not just sell myself for less than I’m worth?

I have lots of CDs, which means I need the 40 meg model. That costs $399. Plus I’m going to need that extra long-life battery they sell for $60. With tax, that makes $500–the cost I usually charge for one original cartoon. But I really want that portable digitalized music box. So here’s an offer that goes to the first bonafide taker: $500 gets you not one, not two, but three originals of your choice. (The catch is that I have to still have the ones you want–but I’ve got the vast majority of them, especially recent ones.) I’ll throw in a copy of any one of my books (provided I have it on hand, but I have almost all of them). And a pen I used to draw countless Ted Rall cartoons.

Bear in mind that original artwork does not contain colors or shading that appears in print or online and that ownership of original artwork does not give you the right to reproduce said artwork–it is for display and enjoyment only.

Offer goes to the first bonafide respondent. Please email me. You can pay via PayPal. After payment is confirmed I’ll post here that the offer is finito.

Diego Garcia Update

For those who were wondering…

As it turns out, the US naval base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean came out of the tsunami virtually unscathed.

The base’s official website explains:

Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory – Navy personnel on board Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean are safe following the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that had devastating effects on Southeast Asia. Facilities and operations were not affected.

Favorable ocean topography minimized the tsunami’s impact on the atoll. Diego Garcia is part of the Chagos Archipelago, situated on the southernmost part of the Chagos-Laccadive Ridge. To the east lies the Chagos Trench, a 400 mile long, underwater canyon that ranges in depth from less than 1,00 meters below the surface to depths that plunge to over 5,000 meters. It is one of the deepest regions of the Indian Ocean.

Diego Garcia is located to the west of Chagos Trench, which runs north and south. The depth of the Chagos Trench and grade to the shores does not allow for tsunamis to build before passing the atoll. The result of the earthquake was seen as a tidal surge estimated at six feet.  

There’s also a response to Islamists claiming American failure to warn neighboring Muslim countries of the impending disaster. Basic information about the base is here. MSNBC has a story. So does CNN

So there.

Good Question

Dave writes:

I am curious, are you going to be out of business when a democrat wins a presidential election? I mean, what will you have to doodle about?

Fortunately that hasn’t happened since 1964.

Followup

Russell points out:

But Ted, you can’t fight for gay rights without demanding at least acceptance, if not approval, of the behavior. Which still isn’t going to cut it with bigots such as Mike. I read WAKE UP, but frankly, I’m pretty much in despair about improving things. I’d move to Canada, but I hate cold weather and anyway, my people have been here over three hundred years. I had forefathers who fought in the Revolution. Now I’m watching our government turn “liberty and justice for all” into “invade where we please, torture whom we please” while expletives like Mike are more concerned about making sure his gay neighbors are denied the affirmation of love he shares with his wife.

True. But I think acceptance might be a sell. Approval is too much to ask for. Hell, I don’t APPROVE of much of anything, even myself.

Mailbag

Mike writes:

I have to admit I’m somewhat pleased with your latest oped “WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH MANHATTAN?”. It’s not as blatently left as most of your articles and is even almost centrist! I have a few problems, however, I’d like to address. My main disagreement is with the first paragraph: “Frank blames the phenomenon of trailer park Republicanism–people whose votes support right-wingers who export their jobs overseas, raise their taxes and starve their kids’ schools–on the GOP’s astute use of “cultural wedge issues like guns, abortion, and the sneers of Hollywood whose hallucinatory appeal would ordinarily be far overshadowed by material concerns.” The problem that middle America has with the left and progressive left is that it’s not necessarily that they are for the right so much that they are absolutely against the left. The left has too many controversial issues that Americans WILL NOT ACCEPT. Abortion, homosexuality, higher taxes to name a few. Those are issues Americans are vehemently against. No smart American is for shipping jobs overseas and turning our back on the American worker. Those things I believe in (my father has been with the AFLCIO for over 40 years in the airline industry). The issues you cite, guns and Hollywood people, are inflammatory to middle America, but nothing sets them on fire like abortion and homosexuality. Until the Democrats grasp that idea and get rid of the gays and murderers and moves to a centrist area, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE POWER. Ted, it’s not rocket science.

Now to what I agree with you about: “All Americans, not just social conservatives, are “values” voters.” The problem is that the values of the few will not trump the values of the many.

I congratulate you on less Bush bashing and focusing more on the issues.

Mike is one of my regular correspondents, and a smart cookie. I don’t agree with him about everything, but I find most of what he has to say interesting. He touches upon points I discuss in WAKE UP, YOU’RE LIBERAL!–namely, that Democrats can fight (and should fight!) for gay rights and abortion rights without demanding approval for what many Americans view as unacceptable behavior. The party should not, as Mike implies, become more centrist as much as it should ACT more centrist. There’s a difference.

Diego Garcia

Does anyone know the answer to Carl’s question?

This might be something for you to look into: the US government ‘secret’ base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is only about 12 feet above sea level. There are [were?] a couple of thousand military personnel stationed there. What was the effect of the tsunami on this island? Did anything / anyone survive? Can the government even admit what was there?

Send info to chet@rall.com.

Food for Thought

Absidec writes:

…who promised to take away their Bush tax cut?

The answer is partly seen by looking to the two strongest supporters of the Democrats: The least educated, and the most educated…in other words, those who only have a High School degrees (or less) and those who have a Masters degree or more. Ordinary holders of Bachelors degrees tend to be Republicans (the bulk of professional workers: Engineers, Accountants, Middle-Managers, etc). Subsequently, a “U shaped” economic curve is the most ideal for Democrats:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041121_ca.htm

…that is, an economic graph with a very small middle class. Why do wealthy Democrats enjoy being taxed? Is it pure, good-hearted altruism, as they say? (Put another way: Was George Soros a brutal man while gaining money, only to turn soft when endorsing tax-friendly John Kerry?) No.

The new Feudalism:

http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ms/ms-54.htm

Sorry for the radicalism.

I don’t think this distribution curve is correct, but once again I find this stuff worth mulling over.

The Militarization of Charity

Tom writes:

Even though I am miles apart from you philosophically and politically I always read your strip if for no other reason that I like your drawing style and that they make no bones about where you stand and are unapologetically liberal in your views.

However (there’s always a however isn’t there?), the latest strip about use of the military befuddles me. Have you not seen the helicopters and personnel being used to reach isolated areas to deliver aid to tsunami victims? There are times when a force that has the ability to move where it wants and at will is exactly what is needed. Scanning the Internet all the pictures that I have seen indicate that there is very little opposition by the recipients of supplies that it is being delivered by the U. S. military. That is of course if you don’t count the helicopter that was shot at by tribesmen with bows and arrows but I think that has less to do with philosophical/political issues rather than being freaked out by the choppers themselves.

I understand that to use reductio ad absurdum arguments one must go to extremes but even that approach has to have valid underpinnings to make a point valid.

Reductio ad absurdum arguments are the basis of editorial cartooning. Nonetheless, that cartoon–the “War on Tsunamism”–does ask aloud a valid point about using the military to deliver relief supplies. First and foremost, every nation affected does have helicopters and its own military. They’re mainly lacking petrol to fly them–something they could buy if they got the cash from, say, us. Moreover, it’s taking naval vessels as long as a month to arrive in the disaster zone. Could it be that there’s some motivation beyond efficiency for militarizing American charity?

Godzilla Politics

FOR Jeff writes:

War Against Abstraction. Excellent! One thing about Godzilla and other monster movies – the military was always ineffective. It took a monster to fight a monster. Maybe that was little Georgie’s real lesson.

The Alternative Universe Where No One Picks on Muslims

taberott@yahoo.com writes:

This is NOT a threat, but I sincerely hope that you die a tortured, painful and embarassing death, you shit sack!

How about some insulting cartoons aimed at Muslins this year? That should do the trick! We could raffle off the opportunity to write your obit, and raise a fortune. I will keep my fingers crossed! Fuck you!

Santa must have denied him an iPod too.

Tactics vs. Morality

Mark writes:

Ted, I just can’t buy into the arguments of your two most recent columns. First you wrote that FDR and

Resident Bush are pretty much the same, except that FDR was elected. Then you wrote that liberal Democrats who vote their values instead of their economics are the same as right-wingers who do the same.

Given that FDR was not a saint, and was not close to one, it’s clear to me that the programs FDR fought to put in place are ones that have made the United States a better place to live in. The programs that GWB fights for are almost universally at odds with basic human decency. Both presidents sought to increase executive power, it’s impossible to disagree with that. But I think it’s quite unfair to put FDR, who did some things that were wrong and left the nation a better place, in the same category with the worst executive in the history of the country.

As for this thing with the values voters, I think you’re completely wrong. The liberal values voters you describe are very fortunate people who vote to make society more fair. The right-wingers you describe are poor and working-class people who vote to screw themselves in order to dehumanize others and, in the case of national security, vote for inept leadership over potentially competent leadership. Your well-off liberals sound fair-minded; your right-wingers are sado-masochists.

These two columns are challenging and interesting but they do not draw all the necessary distinctions.

Basically, I agree with Mark. Roosevelt’s programs saved capitalism from itself, as the historians say, by providing a safety net to those for whom free markets didn’t reward hard work. Social Security reduced the number of senior citizens digging through the trash for a meal, the WPA built bridges we still drive across today and the general idea of the New Deal–that government owes its citizens the basic necessities of life–is one with which I agree wholeheartedly. You only have to read my writing over the past four years to learn how I feel about the neofascistic looters illegally occupying the White House.

But my FDR-GWB column wasn’t about any of that. It was about tactics and how both men used very similar styles to achieve their ends. Obviously Democrats believe that FDR’s ends justified his means. But Democrats shouldn’t doubt that Republican partisans believe the same thing about Bush. The question I hoped to provoke in that column is: when do unfair tactics impugn desired ends? There’s a secondary one as well: why don’t Democrats use such tactics more often? Not since LBJ has a Democrat been willing to bend the rules to get what he wanted. Every Republican in memory, on the other hand, has.

I also agree with Mark’s observations about the nature of self-defeating Democratic and Republican voters. Again, however, Mark is focusing on the end results–something I’ve written about extensively–whereas I’m merely attempting to explain the mindset. Voters of all political stripes vote against their economic interests. The task of progressives is to convince the electorate not to vote selfishly for themselves and their tax bracket (because it won’t work, for one thing) but rather to support politicies and candidates because they’re just better and more just.

Gibbon Revisited

JJ writes about today’s cartoon:

Just wanted to drop you a line to say how big a kick I got out of your latest comic (Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire). I study ancient history at the University of Chicago, and I can’t tell you how often I hear right-wingers erroneously assign right-wing pet causes as the cause of the Roman Empire’s fall (such as, the Roman Empire fell because the government took away all the citizens weapons, etc). What’s particularly ironic about all this that most scholars currently believe that the (Western) Empire fell because the central executive lost too much of its governing authority to wealthy landowners, who were exempt from most taxes and treated their properties as personal fiefdoms. Consequently, the executive was unable to respond quickly and efficiently to the various crises that confronted the empire in the 4th and 5th century, while the Eastern Empire, where the wealthy were taxed and their power held in check, remained solvent for another millennium. Hmmm….the wealthy exempt from taxes and afforded too much power in the governing of the state? Why does that sound familiar? Keep fighting the good fight, Ted. Its extremely reassuring to know you’re out there.

Thanks, though I can’t honestly say whether I make much of a difference. Another salient point to JJ’s email: many scholars believe that the rise and collapse of Chinese dynasties can be traced to tax collections. At the beginning of a new dynasty, when the central imperial government was powerful, it imposed high taxes, mostly on those who had the money to pay them: the wealthy. But as each dynasty matured, local rulers and businesspeople cut deals with the emperor to exempt themselves from taxes or reduce them substantially. Since the revenues had to come from somewhere, they raised taxes on the poor, who rebelled and eventually overthrew that dynasty. The lesson is that a central government should literally have no personal relationship with local pols or business types save to cash their IRS checks if they want to remain in power.

It Ain’t Paul Wellstone…

…but Rep. Matsui’s death comes at a damned convenient time at a time when Republicans are starting down the road towards eliminating the Social Security system. Any Ukrainian waiters at the House cafeteria?

Shoutout: Did Kerry Win Ohio?

Kate Anne writes:

After hearing some twerp on PBS talking about the Dems likely to fight amongst themselves about whether to be centrist or liberal, I thought about your book and the need for Dems to wake up and NOT be “Republican lite”. Anyway, I revisited your site and started reading your cartoons.

Kerry needed to win big so they couldn’t steal the vote and even the unexpurgated exit polls showed he didn’t win big, Still he won — please see freepress.org and truthout.org for their latest election column’s SO, I question your IF 70,000 OHIOANS HAD VOTED FOR KERRY. They DID; indeed more than that number did. It should have been IF THEY HAD COUNTED ALL THE OHIO KERRY VOTES — because the exit polls clearly show that Kerry won. Thom Hartmann says exit polls are never off by .1%. Since election polls showed Kerry won, the Republicans want to ban

them, of course.

Did you know that all of the precincts voting on optical scan machines in New Mexico went for Bush? This is a statistical impossibility. And Ohio wasn’t recounted, only 3% of the vote in each precinct was AND most of that wasn’t done randomly as election law said it was supposed to have been. (The one precinct where the 3% didn’t match, Blackman suspended the recount — no wonder he’s refusing to testify in court.) And they never counted all those uncounted votes the machines missed…..

It is so dirty. Why aren’t people in the street like they were in the Ukraine? We believe it couldn’t happen here, but it did — AGAIN. And it will AGAIN AND AGAIN, if we don’t put a stop to it. Please read Thom Hartmann’s January 2003 (yes, 2 years old now) article on Commondreams.org — or you can link to it from off ThomHartmann.com — entitled “If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines”

I wish more folks would push the fact that electronic voting is scary indeed. I’m ready to volunteer to handcount elections. Indeed, if they revote Ohio it should be on paper and carefully observed.

I met you at the Porter Restaurant after you spoke on Unfiltered during the Republican convention. I continue to be impressed with your work and would truly appreciate your checking into all of the above.

Like many other Americans, I strongly suspect that the Bushites pulled ballotbox shenanigans in Ohio and elsewhere. The big question is: was the miscounting and electronic voting BS sufficient to tilt the presidency? I’ve read a lot about this, including the articles referenced in Kate Anne’s email, and haven’t yet found the evidence sufficiently compelling to put forward in my columns and/or cartoons that Bush stole 2004 beyond the fact that he ran on an unearned incumbency (which still makes him illegitimate). Still, this is important. So I have a request. If you have information or can point me to watertight proof of malfeasance in Ohio and/or other battleground states–especially information containing exact figures–please email it to me at chet@rall.com.

Also please send information relevant to Inauguration Day protests in Washington so I can promote it here. Patriotic Americans should surround the White House by the millions on January 20 to demand that Bush get the fuck out of Al Gore’s house, but they won’t. Until we grow a spine, at least we can whine.

Happy New Year

As we nurse our national hangover, let’s put the tsunami into proper perspective. Current estimates have 150,000 dead, but God is a piker compared to America’s own personal savior George W. Bush, who has killed the following people for no good reason:

20,000 Afghan civilians as per CNN

20,000 Taliban government troops as per numerous European sources

30,000 Iraqi civilians (invasion phase, as per Tommy Franks)

30,000 Iraqi government troops (invasion phase, as per Tommy Franks)

100,000 Iraqi civilians as per Lancet medical journal

200,000 total murdered by George W. Bush

These are conservative figures, and they grow by the day. But who knows? Maybe the tsunami will catch up!

Allied Military Government of Occupied Territories

AMGOT was what they called it during World War II–harsh military occupation as it was applied to Germany, Italy and Japan and, for a few months after D-Day 1944, liberated France. One of the great untold stories of World War II was the attempt by the US Army’s Civil Affairs division to deny self-rule to France, setting the stage for postwar anti-Americanism. I wrote my college honors thesis on plans to occupy France after World War II and, every now and then, people email me to request a copy. Until now I was unable to rescue the 1991 Word file it was created in. But that’s changed, and I will soon be posting information here so that you can read the story of AMGOT for yourself.

The story is particularly relevant today, since Civil Affairs personnel are enacting most of the same exact policies and tactics in occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s a messy tale of what happens when relatively well-meaning Americans intersect with societies with different ways of doing things and of looking at the world. Many of the mistakes we made while liberating France and other nations after World War II are being made today: cultural insensitivity, backing unpopular local politicians while snubbing those with widespread backing, dunning occupied countries for the cost of their own liberation, even denying them the trappings of true sovereignty.

Watch this space for my AMGOT thesis from 1991, and please be kind–I’ve had 14 years to learn to write better.

Calling All Coulters

America has considered my call-out of my fellow columnist and the results are in: it’s nearly unanimous!

Brad writes:

Rall v. Coulter. Preferably on the internet as I don’t have cable. Someone (or thing…) needs to put her in her place, especially with her “Christmas Message” on her homepage. “To The People Of Islam: Just think: If we’d invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU’D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW! Merry Christmas” http://anncoulter.com/ Have a good new year Ted and I hope sometime in your life, you get to kick her ass (intellectually and publicly).

But Ann, we DID invade two Muslim countries and kill their leaders. We even sent missionaries to try to convert them to Christianity but alas, they keep getting killed. Yet: no Xmas presents! What’s up with that? Besides, Muslims get Ramadan presents–assuming the U.S. hasn’t reduced their countries to rubble in the name of liberating their oil–er, them.

America has spoken. How about it, Ann? We could make some cash and have fun at the same time! Have your people call my people. It should be easy, seeing as they’re the same people. Unless you’re afraid, of course.

Wendy’s

Russ writes:

“my desire to see Wendy’s become the nation’s predominant fast food chain (the fact that McDonald’s kicks Wendy’s ass proves the intrinsic injustice of capitalism)” Bah, McDonald’s and Wendy’s both deserve scorn. Perhaps Wendy’s more so. 91% of their political contributions go to the Republican party.

http://www.choosetheblue.com/mainFrame.php?backlevel=002..001Choose%20The%20

Blue.002Restaurants%20and%20Bars&prodcat=Fast+Food

I’m actually surprised to see you (apparently) advocating for any multinational corporate fast food chain. What is your take on patronizing big corporations that drive out local businesses? (Wal-Mart being an obvious prime “bad guy” example.) A couple years ago I decided I was sick of the homogenization of Anytown, USA spreading everywhere and I totally quit eating at big national chains and only patronize local restaurants. I thought it would be inconvenient or difficult to convince friends who were dining out with me, but it turned out to be quite easy.

See what happens when you toss off some flippant remark? Russ is right, of course. Hell, I read “Fast Food Nation” too. Obviously all multinational corporations are evil, and fast food joints especially so. They contribute to environmental degradation, cultural homogenization and they underpay their employees. But the point I was trying to make is this: when you’re driving on the highways of this great land where there are only burger joints to provide sustinence, you’ll find that Wendy’s makes better burgers than any of the other major national chains. Far better. And yet they’re ranked third or fourth in sales. It’s like VHS’s victory over Betamax–capitalism does not always choose the superior product, is not efficient, and is not the natural state of human affairs. (What is? Still working on that one.)

2005 Editor & Publisher Predictions Column

Prediction number eight in Joe Strupp’s column reads:

8. Ann Coulter will drop her column after her syndicate, Universal Press, refuses to dump Ted Rall, “Doonesbury,” and “Boondocks.”

Hey, you never know. What I do know is that, along with my desire to see Wendy’s become the nation’s predominant fast food chain (the fact that McDonald’s kicks Wendy’s ass proves the intrinsic injustice of capitalism), one of my fondest wishes is to mix it up with Ms. Coulter on the political front. She bullies most of her wimpy liberal counterparts on TV by resorting to insults they’re unwilling to return. God knows that that wouldn’t be the case with me. Could that be why we’ve never crossed paths on the airwaves?

Which would you rather watch, HANNITY and colmes or RALL v. COULTER?

The Le Point magazine, another in a publication called Benzine.

, first cartoonist featured in the new “Attitude” series, is interviewed in this week’s Newsarama. Scroll down to find ordering information on Amazon for the new book, and please buy it–sales of this volume will help determine whether we’ll be able to publish full-length compilations of cartoons by other cartoonists from the two-volume set.

Aircraft Carrier to Fight Tsunami

An anonymous FOR writes:

Kind of like the 1950’s horror movies, where a man made monster of environmental symbolism is solved by greater military spending. But it isn’t strange at all for Bush. Indonesia is a muslim country rich in oil. It’s reflex by now. Maybe it is part of the larger oil seizure plan we’re paying for?

Mark Fiore, do you read this blog?

“Liberal Racism”

One Republican talking point–the idea that liberals, rather than the conservatives who fought tooth and nail against desegregation and affirmative action, are the real racists–seems to have longer legs than usual. Even though it hasn’t picked up any traction in the black community, the rightists equate criticizing self-hating Uncle Tom types like Condi Rice to racism. The latest entry in this genre appears in a column by one Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe. [NOTE: CORRECT LINK IS HERE NOW.]

Is it gauche to point out that blacks who provide cover for and work against the interests of other blacks are despicable? Perhaps. But it’s true.

Read the column. My favorite assertion, besides the race stuff, is that liberals have a monopoly on “poisonous” dialogue. What about the Republicans who called Tom Daschle a traitor for opposing Bush’s permawar policy? What about Ronald Reagan, who accepted the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan when he accepted his party’s nomination in 1980–in the same town where the four freedom riders were infamously murdered in 1964? What about the hordes of Republican pundits like Alan Keyes, who suggested that I should be shot and/or jailed for opposing Bush’s ersatz war on terror? When it comes to hate speech, I–like all Dems–are mere pikers. Our problem isn’t that we’re too mean. Our problem is that we’re not mean enough to people who have it coming.