Support Ted’s Work

SYNDICATED COLUMN: How To Talk to a Pro-Lifer (and you must)

•
Ted Rall

How Pro-Choicers Should Learn to Talk to Pro-Lifers

All too often in American politics opposing sides talk past one another, firing off arguments loaded with language that stands no chance of persuading those who hold other views.

The debate over what to do about 9/11 was such a moment, one that initiated the current era of polarization. When liberals recoiled at torture and GOP attacks on civil liberties, conservatives accused them of being anti-American traitors. When Republicans supported preemptive warfare against Iraq, liberals called them fascists and warmongers.

If we had the chance for a do-over, it would probably happen just the same way. The attacks in New York and Washington exposed a fault line in Americans’ views of what makes our country great: liberals treasure the U.S. for the Bill of Rights whereas conservatives value living at the center of a wealthy and powerful empire. The kill-’em-all-let-God-sort-’em-out crowd doesn’t live in the same universe as those of us who would have used diplomacy and international law to apprehend the murderers of September 2001.

The murder of doctor George Tiller at his Kansas church has again exposed the fault line over abortion. Both sides talk past one another. The pro-choice contingent snaps that pro-lifers, more often than not right of center, care only about human life between conception and birth. For their part, many pro-lifers fail to concede some obvious points, like the fact that forcing a girl to bear a child that results from rape or incest is obscene.

I am militantly pro-choice on practical grounds. You can’t tie a woman down for nine months and force her to bear a child. And also on moral ones: women must be able to control their bodies. Nevertheless, I am disgusted by much of my fellow pro-choicers’ rhetoric in the aftermath of the shooting of Dr. Tiller.

Reveling in the same kind of smug self-righteousness that characterized Bush and his supporters after 9/11 (did they really think questioning liberals’ patriotism would convince them to support invading Iraq?), my fellow pro-choicers are attempting to marginalize pro-life Americans as out of touch and possibly insane.

“It’s senseless,” said the director of an abortion clinic in Portland, Oregon. Even President Obama weighed in: “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence,” said a White House statement.

If you’re intellectually honest, however, murdering an abortionist isn’t inherently “senseless.” If you believe (as I do) that life begins at conception, then the first cellular division after a sperm fertilizes the ovum represents human life every bit as much as you and me. The standard feminist claim that a baby isn’t alive until it’ “viable” outside the womb is ridiculous. I know 25-year-olds who aren’t fully viable.

Abortion is murder. In my view women have—and ought to continue to have—the right to murder their unborn babies. Each abortion is a tragedy, some necessary and others not, and all of them are murder. It’s not a position that I’m comfortable with. But as sad and horrible as abortion is, I can’t see telling a woman who doesn’t want to carry a pregnancy to term that she has to do so.

For those who choose to prioritize the fetus over the mother, on the other hand, it is a simple straightforward leap to the next assumption. Since murder is wrong and mass murder is even worse, than it becomes morally incumbent upon people of good will to do whatever it takes to stop it. President Obama says abortion “cannot be resolved by…violence,” but he’s too cute by half. With abortion the law of the land since 1973, a Democratic-majority Congress and Obama about to see his (pro-choice) pick seated on the Supreme Court, there is nothing anyone can do within the existing legal and political system to put an end to what pro-lifers view as the annual murder of millions of Americans. What are they supposed to do? Write a blog?

“According to God’s laws,” wrote Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry after the shooting, “and the laws that govern how we protect the innocent in times of peace, George Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the ‘legal’ murder of the Jews that fell into their hands.”

Tiller wasn’t just any doctor. His practice’s focus on third-trimester abortions—60,000 in all, according to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, but exact numbers aren’t available—had already prompted an anti-abortion activist to shoot him. “Dr. Tiller was well-known for providing abortions for women who discovered late in pregnancy that their fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects,” reports The Wall Street Journal. “He also aborted healthy late-term fetuses. Some of his patients, he said, were drug addicted and some were as young as nine years old.” Complexity is so damned complicated. He aborted healthy late-term babies? Sick! But who wants a nine-year-old girl to become a mom? Not me.

For those who oppose abortion, the question is: Would you kill Adolf Hitler?

As liberal talking heads have been saying repeatedly, abortion is legal. But that’s not much of an argument. So was slavery. So was denying women the right to vote. As Randall Terry points out, so was killing Jews in Nazi Germany. If obeying the law was always the right thing to do, we would teach our kids that George Washington was a terrorist. And no one would drive faster than 55.

True, many pro-lifers are right-wingers with their own problems with hypocrisy—I’d love to see the stats on “pro-lifers” who voted for Bush in 2004, after he’d murdered more than a hundred thousand Afghans and Iraqis. But liberals don’t do themselves or the pro-choice movement any favors by glibly dismissing every fetus as a soulless lump of protoplasm or calling those who resort to violence to try to save them psychotic terrorists.

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

As They Slept In Late

•
Ted Rall

Clever guy, Barack Obama. Launches the biggest attack against basic American jurisprudence in history the Friday before the long Memorial Day weekend, figuring that by the time Tuesday rolls around, a hung-over nation fattened on BBQ won’t have noticed.

I refuse to act like the Republicans who stuck by Bush after he crossed the line between garden-variety piggishness to authoritarian psycho. I regret not listening to my libertarian friends who warned me that Obama had dictatorial tendencies. They were right.

Bush was bad. Bush was evil.

Obama is worse than Bush.

Preventive detention marks the death knell of American democracy.

Tortured Logic, Tortured Actions

•
Ted Rall

The Book of Genesis said that god would agree not to destroy Sodom if there were at least ten good people living there. There weren’t, so Sodom was destroyed.

To put this in more modern terminology, if there aren’t enough good people left in the country, the shit goes down . . . not necessarily by god, but simply as a result of the people’s own actions.

————

Susan Stark

Obama Sells Out to Military Torturers

•
Ted Rall

Barack Obama is a liar.

Reneging on his earlier agreement to release some 2000+ photos of detainees being abused by American service personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, he releases a stream of bullshit that doesn’t stand up to the most casual contemplation:

“The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals,” Mr. Obama told reporters on the South Lawn. “In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

To the contrary, additional information always provides additional understanding. If it’s more of the same, that tells us that the incidents at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere were more widespread than was previously known. If it’s less, then it tells us that maybe it wasn’t. As for inflaming anti-Americanism, well, Obama’s decision not to release the photos tells me one thing: they must be fucking insanely disgusting.

As, indeed, they are. An ACLU rep appeared on MSNBC yesterday to say that he had it on good (military) authority that the photos are, in fact, much worse than what we’ve seen from Abu Ghraib. Seymour Hersh and other reporters with first- or secondhand knowledge of the photos say they are essentially pornography—orgies between soldiers and with detainees. Whether the detainees are being forced to participate or not is unknowable.

Obama says the photos aren’t as ugly as those from Abu Ghraib. If that’s true, why not release them? The imagination runs wild, and only imagines the worst. Reality can’t possibly be as bad.

The real reason Obama is covering up for the military is that they’re scared shitless of facing prosecution for their crimes—and responsibility for them goes way up the chain of command.

Obama ought to resign in shame for being such a pussy.

SYNDICATED COLUMN: Excuses You Might Believe In

•
Ted Rall

Democrats Are More Powerful Than Ever. How Will They Justify Doing Nothing?

The defection of Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter and the imminent certification of Al Franken as the winner of Minnesota’s election recount has handed Democrats what they always said they lacked in order to pass a progressive agenda: a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. Now they face the awful problem of coming up with new excuses for not doing anything.

How will Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other fake liberals weasel out of making good on their promises for real action on healthcare, the economy and the war? It won’t be easy. They control both houses of Congress and the White House. Obama is about to fill a new vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Times of London writes that “Mr. Obama, by some assessments, has more political leverage than any president since Franklin Roosevelt in 1937″—at the peak of the New Deal, just before he overreached by trying to pack the Supreme Court.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, is suffering a crisis of faith—too much God-cheering and not enough adherence to core values like small government, fiscal conservatism, isolationism and protectionist trade policy. A mere 21 percent of Americans still call themselves Republicans, the lowest number since 1983. Similarly, reports the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, “just 21 percent say they’re confident in the Republicans in Congress ‘to make the right decisions for the country’s future,’ compared with 60 percent who express that confidence in Obama.”

Democrats have never been as powerful. Republicans are weak. Obama won with a decisive, sweeping rejection of the Republican status quo. Harry and Louise, call your agents—socialized medicine is on the way! Not.

Be careful what you wish for—what you say you wish for, anyway. “The left is going to push Obama—now that he’s got a veto-proof majority—to drive an agenda that a smart president would realize is a long-term political disaster,” GOP pollster Rick Wilson tells ABC. “Long-term political disaster” is mainstream media code for “stuff that corporations hate.”

Well, yes. What passes for the left in this country (center-right everywhere else, because they read) now has some not-unreasonable questions for Barack Obama. Such as:

Pretty please, can we now live in a country where people don’t have to spend $800 a month to health insurance companies that deny their customers’ claims?

Why are we still in Iraq?

How about some help for the victims of Katrina, many of whom never collected one red cent after losing everything?

Why are we paying billions to banks and still letting them gouge us with 25 interest credit card rates? Speaking of which:

How about doing something that might actually help people who live in the economy, rather than just capital markets?

These queries seem all the more relevant coming, as they do, from the liberal base of the Democratic party—the people who got Obama elected.

The trouble for our cute, charming prez is that he has no intention whatsoever of introducing a true national healthcare plan: one that covers everybody for free. He wants to expand the war in Afghanistan and drag out the one against Iraq. He will not punish Bush or his torturers, rescue homeowners in foreclosure, or nail scumbag banks to the wall. These changes would cost trillions of dollars to multinational insurance companies, defense contractors and other huge financial concerns who donate generously to candidates of both political parties and have a history of using their clout to manipulate elections in favor of their favorite candidates. A classic example is oil companies, who push down gas prices before elections in order to help Republicans.

The most that Democratic voters can expect from Democratic politicians is incremental, symbolic change that doesn’t cost their corporate sponsors any serious coin. The New York Times marked Obama’s 100th day in office with an editorial that approvingly encapsulated his accomplishments to date: “He is trying to rebuild this country’s shattered reputation with his pledge to shut down the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, his offer to talk with Iran and Syria, and, yes, that handshake with Venezuela’s blow-hard president, Hugo Chávez…The government is promoting women’s reproductive rights. It is restoring regulations to keep water clean and food safe. The White House has promised to tackle immigration reform this year.”

Trying. Promoting. Has promised.

Guantánamo isn’t being closed; it’s being moved. Gitmo’s detainees will be transferred to a new harsher gulag under construction in Afghanistan. Thawed relations with Iran and Syria would create new business opportunities for big oil. Defending the right to an abortion is popular and doesn’t cost Bank of America a dime. Immigration reform is code for legalizing illegal immigrants, not closing the border. Safety regulations reassure consumers and pump up the economy. Closing the border would raise wages. Corporations won’t allow that.

Unfortunately for Obama’s Democrats, small-bore initiatives only go so far, especially with the economy in meltdown. When people are desperate and angry they don’t care as much about flag-burning or creationism or a handshake with Hugo Chávez. They want action—real action.

How will the Democrats avoid genuine change now that they enjoy the ability to enact it? Will they blame obstructionist Republicans? Will Democrats cross the aisle to vote with the Republicans? A new war, perhaps?

If nothing else, whatever dog-ate-my-homework excuse they come up with for sitting on their butts is bound to be amusing. If nothing else.

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

Reader Poll: Which Book Do You Want More?

•
Ted Rall

I’m thinking of publishing a high-quality (hard back, nice printing) limited-edition run of my next book. The content will be one of the following:

A Best of the Early ’90s cartoon collection
-or-
A collection of my longer essays

The cartoon collection would bring together the best stuff from Waking Up in America and All The Rules Have Changed, both out of print, along with other previously unpublished (in books) stuff from before 1996. It will focus on Clinton’s first term, with a view toward doing sequel books for Clinton’s second term, Bush’s first term, Bush’s second term and, someday, Obama’s first term. There would also be some background and comments throughout.

The essay collection would bring together the long essays I wrote for Link, Might, P.O.V. and other late, great magazines that are no longer with us. Topics range from Gen X to romance to Lake Sarez in Tajikistan.

The cost per copy would probably be fairly high, like $40, because of the low print run.

Do you think you would buy one or both of these books?
If so, would you be willing to commit (by paying for it via PayPal) in advance?
Which one do you prefer? Is there something you’d like to see more?

Please post your comments or email me and let me know. Thanks in advance!

NEW ANIMATION: Dharma Bums

•
Ted Rall

Here it is—my latest animation with David Essman! This is closer to what these are going to look like from now on…around a minute in length, short and sweet. Fans of “Lost” may appreciate the Dharma Initiative-style training video technique. Fans of torture will appreciate the fact that the CIA thought it was necessary to waterboard one guy 183 times.

New Animation Coming

•
Ted Rall

My newest animation is “Dharma Bums,” a simultaneous hat tip to “Lost”–one of my favorite shows–and a send-up of the torture policy that led to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed getting waterboarded 183 times in one month. Because, you know, 182 times just ain’t enough.

Anyway, the video goes up at 4 pm East Coast time. Hope you like it!

SYNDICATED COLUMN: Why We Fight

•
Ted Rall

U.S. Troops Die For Rapists

American soldiers serving in Vietnam wondered what they were fighting for. U.S. troops in Afghanistan don’t have that problem. They know exactly what they’re fighting for: rapists.

After President Obama’s coming “Afghan surge” there will be 72,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Their primary mission is to prevent Afghans from overthrowing the unpopular regime of Hamid Karzai, the former oil consultant installed by George W. Bush when the U.S. occupation began nearly eight years ago.

America’s media repeatedly claimed that Afghan women would be better off under the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance puppet government headed by Karzai than under the Taliban. But when I went to Afghanistan and asked women what they thought, they had a different story. The defeat of the Taliban brought about the collapse of law and order, making life even more dangerous, especially for women. “Under the Taliban,” a woman told me, “I watched rapists being executed. Now I see them in the government.”

The Afghan women’s rights group RAWA has repeatedly told anyone willing to listen that there hasn’t been much improvement for women and girls since the U.S. occupation began in 2001. But no one–least of all left-of-center Americans eager to embrace the Afghan war–has wanted to hear what they had to say. “Most women still wear the all-encompassing burqa through fear of attack and social pressure, a third of women in Kabul do not leave the house, forbidden from doing so by the male members of the family, and it is still almost impossible for women to get a divorce,” reported The Sunday Herald in 2005.

Liberal Democrats who cling to Afghanistan as “the good war” the U.S. should be fighting are being forced to confront the ugly truth about their ally. Karzai has signed a law that states that “women cannot leave the house without their husbands’ permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands’ permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex,” reported the British newspaper The Guardian on March 31st.

The Shiite Personal Status act applies only to devotees of the Shia branch of Islam, which account for between 10 and 20 percent of the population. How can a secular democratic state have different laws depending on a citizen’s faith? The answer is: It can’t. Afghanistan isn’t secular or democratic. The “new” Afghanistan’s constitution is based on Sharia law–exactly as it was under the Taliban. But the U.S. media has purposefully failed to report the icky truth about our ally.

The new law requires women to have sex with their husbands at least once every four days unless they are sick or menstruating. “Obedience, readiness for intercourse and not leaving the house without the permission of the husband are the duties of the wife,” reads the law of a nation ostensibly invaded by U.S. troops in part to liberate Afghan women. “As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night,” it says.

Afghan Senator Humaira Namati calls the rape bill “worse than during the Taliban” and said it was rammed through parliament without debate. “Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam,” she said. Several hundred women protesting the law on the streets of Kabul were viciously assaulted by men as police stood back and watched.

In fairness to the responsible male legislators, they did add a provision to protect Shiite women from “dead bed”: Afghan men have to put out “at least once every four months.”

Karzai signed legalized rape into law in order to appease right-wing legislators in an election year. After international criticism, however, he began backpedaling with the lamest of all possible reasons: he didn’t read the bill before he was for it.

“I was not aware of what I had signed,” Afghan parliamentarian Sabrina Saqib said Karzai told her. The legislation “has so many articles,” Karzai told CNN. “Now I have instructed, in consultation with clergy of the country, that the law be revised and any article that is not in keeping with the Afghan constitution and Islamic Sharia must be removed from this law.”

As Karzai BSes for the cameras, hundreds of Afghan women languish in prisons around the country. Their crime? They’re teen brides, some as young as 10, who ran away from much older husbands who purchased them. “In President Hamid Karzai’s Afghanistan, women are still imprisoned for running away from home,” reports The Sunday Herald.

Nice theocracy you got there, Mullah Karzai.

Remember this column the next time you watch a flag-draped coffin returning from Afghanistan. The young man inside that box didn’t die for nothing. He died to protect rapists.

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

keyboard_arrow_up
css.php