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.

The US War Against Iran

Samir writes:

First, thanks for all the wonderful work you put out. I think you’ve pretty perfectly explained what a nightmare and crime it would be to do what we plan to do (and apparently have DONE given the spydrones) in Iran. My question is: when this really gets serious, will the public and Congress really approve another ill-advised and insane war?

As I wrote in last week’s column, I don’t believe a ground invasion is currently in the offing. The Bushists plan “surgical airstrikes” (either directly or using Israel as our proxy) against Iranian military targets. But as I also wrote then, Iran will likely counterattack against Israel. War will begin, and both sides will be able to argue that the other started it. In my opinion, however, it’s clear that the blame for escalating tensions is 99% the White House’s. Iran, after all, has been asking for full diplomatic relations with the US for years and even provided military assistance to the US in its war against the Taliban in 2001-02.
Will the US public go along? At the beginning, yes. It’s reflexive; Americans fall into line when war begins and start expressing their doubts once it’s underway. Stupid, yes, but history shows that what we do. The drumbeat for war against Iran will be assisted by our recent history, namely the hostage crisis, which many ignorant members of the electorate view as as-yet unavenged humiliation. “Finish the job,” they’ll cry; never mind that the Ayatollah Kholmeini is dead or that the Carter Administration sparked the crisis by admitting the hated Shah to the US (in the Panama Canal Zone, I believe).

If Iran draws blood in retaliation to our current transgressions, they could make it easy. But if they don’t, does the White House cabal really have the currency to pull this off? My thinking is they have
this brief shining glow of the “wins” of the Iraqi election and they’re trying to get their work done now before we remember how miserable the Iraqi situation actually is. But in any scenario, I have to hope there’s some line the public won’t let George cross.

We all hope that. But if the Nazi experience is any guide, there probably isn’t. The American people, after all, sat on their hands while Bush bullied his way into a presidency he clearly lost. Once you lose your democracy, you’re no longer vested in what your leaders do.

Mathew writes:

Sending aircraft over a country is provocative behaviour (I seem to remember that this was actually being talked about some weeks ago), although if the aircraft are not armed this is slightly less so. The country involved would, of course, be fully entitled to defend its airspace by shooting the aircraft down. However, this is not an act of war. That, surely, would involve some damage to life or property. It seems clear that the U.S. government is planning to damage life and property in Iran, but those plans may be shelved or derailed. I hope so, anyway.

Mathew, you’ve been reading American state media for far too long. A foreign nation sends a military plane into your airspace. That’s an invasion. If Mexico or Canada did that to us, we’d probably attack them. It would certainly be a major crisis. The only reason Iran has to suck it up is because we’re a superpower and they’re not; we can hit them and they can’t hit us. But it’s still an act of war.

John writes:

1) It’s frightening that so many people think that criticizing Bush is criticizing America, and 2), That so many Americans completely discount our aggressive actions. I picture a stranger barging into my house, splattering everything with paint, then berating me for not being grateful to be liberated from my bad taste.

The United States is one of the few great (former) democracies to have liberated itself from its former colonial power without a real revolution, one that redistributed power and wealth. As such we have no national personality that causes us to rebel in any meaningful way. Italy, for instance, has seen four general strikes since 2001. We haven’t had one since 1947. And because we don’t reflexively distrist authority as do the citizens of intelligent countries, we reflexively trust it. We have a lot of German ancestry, and the Cult of the Leader is not foreign to us.

Alan Keyes, Violent Loony

Berl writes:

Regarding your entry about Alan Keyes: I looked up the original source of his comment, and it seemed clear to me that he wasn’t seriously proposing that you be shot or arrested – he was making it clear, clumsily, that he sees you as dangerously disloyal to your nation. Your paraphrasing of his remarks was technically accurate, but not truthful. It was an intellectually – and, I suspect, intentionally – dishonest attempt to make Keyes look like a rabid, violent loony. It makes me wonder about the truthfulness of your work as a whole.

I stand by my previous comments. I welcome everybody to Google the original source of his essay about me, comments that sparked condemnation from a variety of politically neutral sources and free speech advocates. Substitute the words “President Bush” for “Ted Rall” throughout the essay and I guarantee you that Keyes would have faced a very uncomfortable visit from the Secret Service. I read a lot of political invective, but I have rarely if ever seen this kind of “won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?” rhetoric. But that’s my opinion, and others can and will see things differently. And yeah, I’m extremely biased when it comes to whether or not I should be shot, jailed, or censored by the government (Keyes explicitly called for the last). Keyes is a violent loony, and as such should be jailed and/or censored by the government…oh. Never mind.

Pat Tillman Again

Mark writes:

Why do you have to be such an asshole??? Before the Muslim murderers killed almost 3000 people on September 11 you were a really funny guy. Since then you’ve become just as big an asshole as The Ditzy Chicks, Streisand, Baldwin and that dumbass Springsteen (whom I used to really respect until he showed his asshole colors),

So I was funny when I was mean to Bill Clinton. But when I’m mean to the guy Mark voted for, I’m an asshole. That’s what cuts it for me; people who relate humor to their partisan politics. Dude, I haven’t changed but the country sure has. Concentration camps are but one small clue.

You’ve insulted Pete Tillman and his family. Tillman may have done something that a materialistic little prick like you and your friends might not understand, but that’s what made him an honorable man. That’s probably something that you don’t have the testosterone to understand.

Yes, Tillman gave up a $3.6 million football contract to go kill Iraqis and Afghans. This is cited as evidence of principle and integrity, and I suppose that within a narrow band of ideological imagination it is. But he fought and died for an evil cause under a lying, thieving dictator who stole the presidency because the people refused to elect him to it. Yes, he sacrificed money for that “principle.” But the cause was wrong, which should have made his decision directly the opposite: to stay home and care for his family. Tillman is an American tragedy, at best a man who made a stupid decision that got him killed for Bush’s oil cronies, at worst a violent thug who wanted to kill Muslims after 9/11–any Muslims, anywhere–rather than go after the real criminals in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Tillman was used, and he should have known he would be used by the right-wing extremists to justify their illegal invasions. That’s the beauty of a volunteer army: it’s voluntary. And these days, NO ONE SHOULD VOLUNTEER. That’s the point of my work about Tillman.

You ran a ‘toon last summer about running dead American soldiers through garden mulchers.

Well, not quite. What I was showing was the Bushies’ attitude toward veterans. But whatever. And now on to that staple of right-wing letter writing, the violent threat (why are they all like this?):

Keep your eyes peeled out for one of those Iraq War veterans. Just in case you didn’t know, I made sure that several thousand of those guys got to see that shitty little cartoon of yours on the same day. A lot of them are going to be coming back to the states here in the next few weeks. Maybe the papers will be carrying a story about your encounter with one of those Proud, Honorable, Brave & now Battle Hardened Veterans. I surely figure the odds are that you are going to get some kind feedback from the people that you have insulted.

Either that or they’ll be writing me, as they do every day, to say that Iraq is bullshit and that the people don’t want us there and that I was absolutely right. Either way. But it’s nice of you to show a cartoon that you’re sure would offend the soldiers to “thousands” of them. Because, unlike me, Mark really cares about the troops.

Now you want to call President Bush a racist today. Don’t you know that the Democrats are the real racists in this country? I figured you didn’t. You and that piece of shit Howard Dean can go to hell with your liberal politics and anti-American attitudes.

Bush belongs to an all-white club in Texas. Ergo, by definition, he’s a racist. Q.E.D.

You can count on the fact that I’ll never look at you in a positive way again. No money out of me for any of your shit.

Yeah, I’m sure Mark used to buy my books and read me every day.

Amazing, Part Two

So that turd Alan Keyes, who wrote that I should be shot and/or jailed by the government for opposing Bush’s wars, has disowned his daughter because she’s gay. There’s a special place in hell for him, right next to Ronald Reagan.

Amazing, Part One

So now the United States is using unmaned aerial drone planes over Iran.

Will someone please tell me how this is not an act of war?