Publisher’s Weekly: Ted Rall’s Next Books

I’d hate to have you read it in Publisher’s Weekly first. So here it is:

Rall’s Two-fer

Merrilee Heifetz at Writers House has closed two graphic novel deals for Pulitzer finalist political cartoonist Ted Rall (who’s also president of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists). The first, for two projects, is with Terry Nantier of NBM. Nantier took world rights to Rall’s trilogy, the first of which is called The Year of Loving Dangerously, the cartoonist’s memoir about being a Columbia dropout in 1980s New York City. Nantier also nabbed world rights to Rall’s The Die is Cast, his comics adaptation of John-Paul Sartre’s existential work about two star-crossed lovers in Paris who don’t meet until the afterlife, Les Jeux Sont Faits. The second deal, with Dan Simon at Seven Stories, is for The Post-American Manifesto, Rall’s updated take on Marx’s Communist Manifesto, in which he, per Heifetz, offers a “call to action for Americans ready to move toward a new system where the average person is society’s top priority.”

Majorities: The New Minority

Yesterday’s New York Times illustrated its coverage of the Uyghur uprising in western China with a map titled “Minorities in China”. The print edition had a similar map.

Move the dial up to 50 percent and you’ll notice a funny thing: according to the Times, Uyghurs are actually a majority in Xinjiang (or, as they call it, East Turkestan). Same thing with Tibet: Tibetans are a majority in Tibet.

(Actually, neither of these statements are probably true. The Chinese government has sent so many Han Chinese colonists to the West that Uyghurs and Tibetans may have already lost their majority status. But I digress.)

The point is: Where they live, Uyghurs are a majority. Yet they’re dubbed–in the title–minorities.

Imagine a state that was 55% African-American. When discussing the regional struggle for control WITHIN that state, would it be accurate to call African-Americans a minority? A national minority, sure. But not just a plain old minority.

SYNDICATED COLUMN: The Fog of Obama

Why Can’t Obama See His Wars Are Unwinnable?

Robert McNamara, one of the “best and the brightest” technocrats behind the escalation of the Vietnam War, eventually came to regret his actions. But his public contrition, which included a book and a series of interviews for the documentary “The Fog of War,” were greeted with derision.

“Mr. McNamara must not escape the lasting moral condemnation of his countrymen,” editorialized The New York Times in 1995. “Surely he must in every quiet and prosperous moment hear the ceaseless whispers of those poor boys in the infantry, dying in the tall grass, platoon by platoon, for no purpose. What he took from them cannot be repaid by prime-time apology and stale tears, three decades late.”

McNamara’s change of heart came 58,000 American and 2,000,000 Vietnamese lives too late. If the dead could speak, surely they would ask: why couldn’t you see then what you understand so clearly now? Why didn’t you listen to the millions of experts, journalists and ordinary Americans who knew that death and defeat would be the only outcome?

Though Errol Morris’ film served as ipso facto indictment, its title was yet a kind of justification. There is no “fog of war.” There is only hubris, stubbornness, and the psychological compartmentalization that allows a man to sign papers that will lead others to die before going home to play with his children.

McNamara is dead. Barack Obama is his successor.

Some call McNamara’s life tragic. Tragedy-inducing is closer to the truth. Yes, he suffered guilt in his later years. “He wore the expression of a haunted man,” wrote the author of his Times obit. “He could be seen in the streets of Washington—stooped, his shirttail flapping in the wind—walking to and from his office a few blocks from the White House, wearing frayed running shoes and a thousand-yard stare.” But the men and women and boys and girls blown up by bombs and mines and impaled by bullets and maimed in countless ways deserve more vengeance than a pair of ratty Nikes. Neither McNamara nor LBJ nor the millions of Americans who were for the war merit understanding, much less sympathy.

Now Obama is following the same doomed journey.

“We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes,” McNamara warned long after the fact, speaking of “America’s enemies” but really just about people—people who live in other countries. People whose countries possess reserves of natural gas (Vietnam) or oil (Iraq) or are situated between energy reserves and deep-sea ports where oil tankers dock (Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Why can’t President Obama imagine himself living in a poor village in Pakistan? Why can’t he feel the anger and contempt felt by Pakistanis who hear pilotless drone planes buzzing overhead, firing missiles willy-nilly at civilians and guerilla fighters alike, dispatched by a distant enemy too cowardly to put live soldiers and pilots in harm’s way?

“We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo—men, women and children,” McNamara said. “LeMay said, ‘If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He—and I’d say I—were behaving as war criminals.” 900,000 Japanese civilians died in all.

At least Japan started the war. What of Afghanistan and Iraq, where approximately 2,000,000 civilians have been killed by U.S. forces? Neither country attacked us. Shouldn’t Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest be prosecuted as war criminals? Why not Obama? After all, Obama is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq after the war there is supposedly coming to an end. He’s escalating the unjustifiable, unwinnable tragedy in Afghanistan—there are 68,000 U.S. troops there now, probably going up to 100,000 by next year—while spreading the conflict into Pakistan.

“Make no mistake, the international community is not winning in Afghanistan,” concluded the Atlantic Council in 2008. Things have only gotten worse as U.S. troop presence has increased: more violence, more drugs, less reconstruction.

Like McNamara, Obama doesn’t understand a basic truth: you can’t successfully manage an inherently doomed premise. Colonialism is dead. Occupiers will never enjoy peace. Neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis nor the Pakistanis will rest until we withdraw our forces. The only success we will find is in accepting defeat sooner rather than later.

“What went wrong [in Vietnam] was a basic misunderstanding or misevaluation of the threat to our security represented by the North Vietnamese,” McNamara said in his Berkeley oral history.” Today’s domino theory is Bush’s (now Obama’s) clash of civilizations, the argument that unless we fight them “there” we will have to fight them here. Afghanistan and Iraq don’t present security threats to the United States. The presence of U.S. troops and drone planes, on the other hand…

In fairness to McNamara, it only took two years for him to call to an end of the bombing of North Vietnam. By 1966 he was advising LBJ to start pulling back. But, like a gambler trying to recoup and justify his losses, the president kept doubling down. “We didn’t know our opposition,” concluded McNamara. “So the first lesson is know your opponents. I want to suggest to you that we don’t know our potential opponents today.”

Actually, it’s worse than that. Then, like now, we don’t have opponents. We create them.

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

Financial Times Plagiarizes Ted Rall

You don’t have to be a regular reader to know that I’ve been depicting Barack Obama in Hello Kitty regalia for about one year: flags, banners, you name it. Most recently, I did an Obamaman cartoon that depicts our lame superhero president wearing a Hello Kitty logo on his chest.

Now a sharp-eyed FOR points out that an illustrator for the Financial Times has rather brazenly ripped off my meme.

Usually, these things are less than cut and dry. But it’s pretty hard to believe that any illustrator could be unaware of my use of the Hello Kitty imagery to define Obama–it ain’t as branded as Generalissimo El Busho yet, but come on. This one fails the smell test.

Suffice it to say that, if this sort of thing annoys you, it is possible to email the Financial Times a letter to the editor.

New Animation Coming Soon

Coming soon: a new animation. This time, Obama gets headlines for doing good things. The devils, of course, are in the details.

SYNDICATED COLUMN: Half Healthcare, 100% Dead

Time for Obama to Get Serious

Half measures are boring.

That political reality derailed Bill Clinton’s 1993 healthcare reform plan. And it will likely unravel that of Barack Obama.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office finds that Obama’s plan, sponsored by Senators Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy, “would reduce the number of uninsured only by a net 16 million people. Even if the bill became law, the budget office said, 36 million people would remain uninsured in 2017,” reported The New York Times. Yet it would cost at least $1 trillion over ten years.

Americans like Obama’s basic idea: “Seventy-two percent of those questioned [in the latest Times/CBS News poll] supported a government-administered insurance plan–something like Medicare for those under 65–that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.” The support is broad. But it isn’t deep.

“Pay higher taxes for a healthcare plan that probably won’t help you personally, even if you’re uninsured” isn’t much of a sales pitch. No one is going to call their Congressman, much less march in the streets, to demand action for a half-measure–or, in this case, a quarter-measure. Without public pressure to push back against drug and insurance company lobbyists, nothing will change.

Like every mainstream Democrat since Jimmy Carter, Obama is a militant moderate, elevating triangulation and compromise-for-its-own-sake to the status of Holy Writ. But radical problems–and the state of healthcare in America surely qualifies–require radical solutions.

More than that, simplicity sells. French- or U.K.-style socialized medicine–everyone covered, every doctor’s visit free, every pill free, every doctor a government employee–might indeed cost three times more than Obama’s incomprehensibly vague, vaguely incomprehensible proposal. But it’s easy to understand. Moreover, as James D. Miller notes in his book “Game Theory at Work,” people crave certainty:

“What would you rather have: 1) $100,000 or 2) a 50 percent chance of getting $200,000 and a 50 percent chance of getting nothing? Both choices give you on average $100,000. The majority…would prefer the first choice: the sure thing. Most people dislike risk, which is why so many of us buy insurance.”

When we can afford it.

When citizens evaluate a political proposal, the first thing they ask themselves is: what’s in it for me? Thus the appeal of a gimmick like George W. Bush’s $300 tax rebate checks. No one seriously believed they would stimulate the economy. But hey, three hundred bucks is three hundred bucks.

Right out of the gate, Obama’s “public option” plan tells the public that there’s probably only one thing in it for them: higher taxes. Most Americans do have insurance. They don’t like their deny-deny-deny insurance companies, but there’s nothing for them in the Obama-Dodd-Kennedy proposal. Some Democrats have even floated the idea of taxing health benefits!

At least 47 million Americans have no insurance. And that number is going up fast. But the CBO says only one of out of four of people without insurance would be helped by Obama’s “public option.” The rest would pay higher taxes–and still remain uninsured. Why should they get excited about The Return of Hillarycare?

As president-elect, Obama said he planned to “keep [his] finger on the pulse” of the American people. “One of the worst things I think that could happen to a president is losing touch with what people are going through day to day,” he said. But it is painfully clear that “the bubble that exists around the president” has already enveloped him.

There is no true middle ground on healthcare. The most civilized and efficient approach, tried and tested by the rest of the industrialized world, is fully socialized medicine. Put the insurance vampires out of business. Cutting out the health profiteers and encouraging preventative care will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Failing a comprehensive solution, let the free market reign. True, 20,000 Americans will continue to die each year due to lack of insurance. But private healthcare corporations will continue to invest in innovative treatments and medications. The city of Hartford will keep adding shiny new skyscrapers to its skyline–and our taxes won’t go even higher over this issue.

Obamacare offers the worst of both worlds–it would be expensive and inadequate.

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

July 2 in Seattle: Cartoonapalooza!

Come and meet some of the nation’s best editorial cartoonists–plus me–on Thursday, July 2 in Seattle. Tickets are $25. Show starts at 7:30 at Town Hall.

Cartoonapalooza features “Pulitzer Prize-winner Mike Peters, syndicated editorial cartoonist and creator of the popular cartoon strip, Mother Goose and Grimm; Jack Ohman, the Portland Oregonian’s much-honored cartoonist; provocative cutting-edge cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall; Mark Fiore, the leading pioneer in the new field of animated editorial cartoons; Signe Wilkinson of the Philadelphia Daily News, a Pulitzer Prize-winner and one of the nation’s top female cartoonists; Matt Bors, creator of Idiot Box and other alternative editorial cartoons, and me, David Horsey, two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize.”

Many other top political cartoonists will be in the audience. All the cartoonists will be available for lingering and malingering after the show!

css.php