David Horowitz’s Neo-McCarthyite Blacklist

Anyone who doubts that Bushite right-wingers are presiding over a new 1950s-style witch hunt in their constant equation of dissent to treason need only turn to ideological turncoat David Horowitz’s highly-touted right-wing online blacklist “Discover the Network”. According to Horowitz, his site “is a ‘Guide to the Political Left.’ It identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left’s (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas.”
Hm. Sounds innocuous enough.
But Horowitz makes a big leap: he mixes in Islamic terrorists with the supposed liberals. Next to the listing for Al Sharpton, then, is one for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Ayatollah Kholmeini (someone should tell Horowitz he’s dead) of Iran is next to Barack Obama, the up and coming Democratic Senator. There’s Johnny Walker Lindh, American Talib, next to Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation. It’s a reprehensible, vile smear, and it would be laughable if (a) it didn’t read like those anti-abortion hitlist websites and (b) it wasn’t so patently untrue. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda operative, hardly shares a political agenda with UN chief Kofi Annan, whose images appear side by side. In fact, radical Islamism shares a lot more in common with radical Republicanism–both hate women, believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of their respective scriptures and want to take over the world. But never let the facts get in the way of a political smear, Mr. Horowitz.
There is, in this case, a personal angle. I am, apparently, the only cartoonist on a list that includes such luminaries as John Kerry and Kewisi Mfume. I’m easy to find: I’m “right” there at #673 (the list is in alphabetical, rather than ideological, order) between Massoud Rajavi and Sheikh Alaa Ramadan, who I assume are supposed to be my new best friends.
Anyone familiar with my work has got to laugh at my second supposed sin: “Reserves condemnation only for Republicans.” I mean, what’s wrong with that? Not that it’s true: ask Bill Clinton how warm and fuzzy he feels about the way I batted his ass around for eight years. I’m an equal opportunity politician basher; it’s just that these days, there aren’t many powerful left politicians left. And the rest of the listing is full of similar garbage.
Even more interesting than the implicit linking of patriotic Americans with Islamist terrorists is the fact that no mainstream Republican can be counted upon to condemn Horowitz. Where is John McCain to repudiate this shit? One must assume, therefore, that the mainstream GOP agrees with Horowitz’s smear tactics. God knows the right-wing bloggers do.

On Genocide

Mike writes:

First of all, I love your cartoons…and agree with ALMOST everything you say about MOST subjects. But I do want to offer a minor quibble- whatever you think of the Iraq war or the Afghan war (I’m totally against the first, but felt the second was justified), you really shouldn’t use the word “genocide” to describe it. In my opinion, its not even close to genocide, and cheapens the word (sort of like when people throw around the word “rape” to describe things other than, well, rape.)
“Genocide” is more than just killing a lot of people- we usually use that word when we are talking about the attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group, and where they are singled out because of their ethnicity. “Genocide” also usually means specifically going after civilians, as opposed to killing significant numbers of them while going after soldiers. There are always civilian casualties in any war, but all wars are not genocide. Whatever you think of the Iraq war (and I’m almost as opposed to it as you are), you must realize that if we really wanted to wipe out the Iraqi people, we would have done it a bit differently, and there wouldn’t be 160,000 dead- there’d be millions.
…
So stop throwing around the word “genocide”, when “slaughter” or “humanitarian disaster” would be more accurate. Other than that, keep up the good work.

I wish more thinking folks like Mike would take another look at the invasion of Afghanistan–the war even lefties can get behind because the Taliban were such brutes. (Like Saddam wasn’t?) But hey, I’ve already written two books about that. If only I could convince more people to read them!
So. What about genocide?
Noting that it’s a new word, dating to the liberation of the first Nazi death camps in 1944, my dictionary calls it “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” The United States is presently engaged in the deliberate and systematic destruction of a political and cultural group: Iraqi civilians. Remember, even the insurgents are civilians–our own Pentagon designated them as such by virtue of denying them protection under the Geneva Conventions. So every insurgent/resistor we kill in Iraq is by definition an act of genocide against Iraqi civilians. Of course, others may take issue. And I may change my mind, since genocide is usually reserved for events like the attempted extermination of the Tutsis in Rwanda during the early ’90s. But I don’t feel prepared to back away from the term just yet.

O’Reilly on Churchill, Redux: Maybe He Should Be Fired After All

Thanks to FOR Matt for sending this along:

These quotes are about the closest O’Reilly has come to giving his opinion on firing Churchill. He seems to be moving closer to saying he should be fired, but he hasn’t come right out and said it yet.
______________________________________________________
February 9, 2005 Wednesday
SHOW: THE O’REILLY FACTOR 8:00 PM EST
…
O’REILLY: The only people, huh? So in the world, according to Churchill, if you sell bonds, insurance, or anything else that furthers capitalism, you’re a Nazi.
For this kind of reasoning, the University of Colorado is paying the guy almost $100,000. Now some say Churchill should be charged with treason or sedition. We’ll examine that in a few moments. But clearly, the man has some constitutional protections. Where he is vulnerable is in the competency area.
As we mentioned last night, he wrote a book saying that Israel is perpetuating a Holocaust against the Palestinians, and that Hitler’s government did not have an institutional plan to exterminate European Jews. Both those statements are false, provable, just like two plus two equals five is false.
If a math teacher put forth that equation, the math teacher would be fired. If an ethnic studies teacher denies the Third Reich had a policy of Jewish mass murder, that teacher has to go.
So say goodbye to Churchill. I predict he’ll be fired for incompetence by early March. Now I could be wrong. And even if I’m right, the ACLU will sue on his behalf. That’ll be a fascinating case.
But in the end, there are consequences for controversial speech. Every day of my life, someone attacks me because I’m outspoken. There’s little I can do but absorb the slander, libel and defamation that comes my way. And so it will be with Churchill. He will pay a big price for his hatred of America and his cruelty to the 9/11 families. But the price should be fair and reasonable. And that’s the Memo….
___________________________________________
Fox News Network February 7, 2005 Monday
SHOW: THE O’REILLY FACTOR 8:55 PM EST
…
Jason Bruno, Chico, California, “O’Reilly, your push for Churchill’s firing is ridiculous.”
And so is your letter, Mr. Bruno. I’ve said many times I am not for firing the guy, although I am reevaluating this based on new information….
_____________________________________________
Fox News Network February 3, 2005 Thursday
SHOW: THE O’REILLY FACTOR 8:29 PM EST
…
O’REILLY: Sure, sure. All right, Carol. Thanks very much.
And here are the results of our billoreilly.com poll question. We asked you: Should Churchill be fired from the University of Colorado? More than 25,000 of you voted. Eighty-six percent say, yes, he should be fired; 14 percent say no. I was in the no category there. We’ll leave the poll question up over the weekend in case you want to weigh in.

Sure sounds like O’Reilly wants Churchill fired to me.

Hunter S. Thompson

We can assume what demons drove the good doctor to commit suicide, but no one knows besides those who were closest to him. What we do know is the example he set, which was to write journalism without giving a shit about causing offense to the rich and powerful scum who deserve disdain for their disolute lives. We also know his influence, which was way too small. Many read him, but too few writers ever had the guts to follow in his footsteps.
I wouldn’t be able to do what I do if it hadn’t been for Dr. Thompson. Told to pick up his books by friends in college, I was immediately taken by his take-no-prisoners writing style; while I doubt I’ll ever come close to his achievement as a writer, I’ve certainly adapted his willingness to take on anyone and anybody who deserves it, damn the torpedoes. His mainstream success proved that honesty is marketable; that has surely paid a few rent bills for me over the years. Rest well, Hunter, but you’ll be missed for you are needed now more than ever.

Ann Coulter, Know Thyself!

Thanks to an astute FOR, Ann Coulter’s remark about me on C-SPAN has finally turned up. As it turns out, the neocons’ favorite dyed blonde Skeletor namechecked me during a rant about Ward Churchill’s tenure:
“This raving lunatic at the University of Colorado, who walks around like he’s a big radical, living on the edge, when to the contrary, he can’t be fired, he knows he can’t be fired, he can say the most outrageous things imaginable, like that cartoonist Ted Rall, who just does things to upset people so his name will get in the paper.” I don’t really know what Churchill has to do with me, save that I wrote about him last week.
Responding to Ward Churchill’s assertion that Indian reservations are the equivalent of Nazi concentration camps,” Coulter writes in this week’s column: “I forgot Auschwitz had a casino.” Yeah, historical revisionism about the American Indian genocide isn’t meant to upset people so her name will get in the paper. Pot, meet kettle.

The World’s Stupidest People…

…post to the Comics Journal message board.
For no discernable reason whatsoever, the usual crew of wannabes, neverwillbes and fake names created by the cyberstalker I had to sue for libel have started up another idiotic discussion about the lawsuit. This is particularly perplexing since there have been no significant developments on the legal front. The defendant keeps filing documents to stall a trial, my lawyer keeps countering the stalling tactics, and a trial date remains to be scheduled for an incident of impersonation that dates back to 1999. Whoever said that justice delayed is justice denied must have lived in New York; while I generally agree with the legal tradition of granting the benefit of the doubt to defendants in legal matters, it ought to be possible to get one’s day in court at some point. All of these delays are almost enough to make me become a Republican. Among some of my favorite posts of moronitude:

My biggest fear is that Rall v. Hellman will end up chipping away at what’s left of the first amendment.

I’m suing a guy who took away MY free speech by sending out emails under my name. Impersonation isn’t free speech; had Hellman used his own name to ridicule me I would have been the first to defend his right to do so. And I might have even chuckled about it. It’s pretty simple stuff; even a comics nerd who lives in his parents’ basement ought to be able to get it. But such is the dismal state of the American education system that there exist people who think that impersonation is a form of, rather than an attack upon, free speech. If people like this were denied the right to vote, Ralph Nader would be president right now.
Then there’s this prize:

Ted Rall turns people off from liberalism with his shitty comics and fascist left attitude.

Do I have a “fascist left attitude”? If by fascist left this dude means that I have zero tolerance for the Rethugs and their scummy American state media lackeys, then hell, I’ll take it. When your country has been hijacked by mass murderers, looters of the treasury and subverters of democracy, polite conversation isn’t called for. Anyone who votes Republican (as of December 20, 2000) is by definition an anti-American scoundrel, a neofascist and/or a fool. Fuck them.
Oh, and: I don’t give a shit about “turning people on to liberalism.” I’m a writer and a cartoonist with opinions (some liberal, others conservative, others neither), not a propaganda mill for some poorly defined non-movement.
And this, from another genius:

It also should be noted that it went to a jury trial all you’d have to do is remind the jury that Ted did the Terror Widows and Firefighters strips, it’s game over at that point.

Uh-huh. Because that would be totally relevant to whether it’s OK to impersonate someone…years before either of those cartoons were made.
Finally, refering to a snide comment I made about those who drew cartoons for Hellman’s benefit book:

Great to completely dismiss 50 artists who haven’t had the honor of having stick figure drawings in print like Mr T Fancypants R.

Yeah, it’s really bad politics on my part to insult 50 “artists” who hate me so much that they signed their names to a book solely dedicated to the prospect that I deserve to die painfully. News flash: I wish upon these assholes exactly what they wished upon me.

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.