Eminent Domain

Ryan writes:

Thank you for writing about this somewhat obscure topic. As an urban planner I appreciate it when a nationally syndicated columnist writes about a topic that I would normally only discuss with my colleges.

I also like that you don’t come to a firm conclusion on this topic. The increase in revenue that the City of New London would receive from the new development would go for schools, roads, sanitation and other services. All good by most standards (unless you’re Ann Coulter or someone like that). However, Wilhelmina Dery loses her home, which is bad.

The catch 22 described above is really a symptom of a bad system. If the City of New London could rely on money from the State of Connecticut and the Federal Government to help fund its schools. roads etc. It wouldn’t have to prostitute its powers of Eminent Domain to the highest bidder.

It can’t though and the reasons are obvious, tax cuts lead to spending reductions. The Federal government has abdicated its responsibility to the states through unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind and Wellfare reform. Unfortunately, more and more municipalities will have to make the choices that New London has had to make. Unless of course the Supreme Court decides that the power of Eminent Domain is not an economic development tool and then we can expect schools, roads and services to go the way of the Dodo.

Read this carefully, people. Ryan is dead-on accurate.

Lucas, however, thought my nuanced stance sucked:

Ted, what a fantastic piece of waffling you did on this latest column. I love your work, all of it. I think you are dead on with everything you say but man, this column kinda sucked. There was nothing hard-hitting; you sat on a fence for 13 paragraphs. The t hing i find so confusing is that you clearly meant to do it. Why? Don’t you agree that your take is why people read your columns? I mean, you are an Op/Ed guy…where’s the f’n Op?
Keep up the Pat Tillman stuff: A fake hero for a fake liberation.

Maybe he’s right. Maybe not. Wait—there I go again.

More Reasons Bush Isn’t Like Hitler

From Ed:

More reasons why Bush isn’t like Hitler:
1. When Hitler serverd in his country’s military, he showed up.
2. … and actually saw combat.
3. Hitler had a moustache.

Speaking of Hitler, this came in anonymously:

Maybe this will help out the e-mailer that questioned Hitler’s legitimacy. In the presidential election of 1932, Hitler came in second to the incumbent Hindenburg, but later that year the Nazis came away with the largest number of seats, but not a majority, in parliamentary elections.

A right-wing coalition of parties in the Reichstag convinced Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor, the German equivalent of prime minister, and bring the Nazis into the government, believing that they could control them.

They were obviously wrong, and although Hitler was not a member of the Reichstag and was never elected himself to anything, he was legally appointed by the Reich President and had the support of a majority of the elected Reichstag, many of them democratically elected Nazis.

So yes, Hitler did come to power in a constitutional, democratic manner, and only afterward used his position to force through dictatorial legislation consolidating all power in the cabinet, and, ultimately, himself.

See the Wikipedia article on Hitler, or most encyclopedia articles for that matter, for support.

and Robert gets more specific:

Yet another brilliant comic that cuts so precisely to the heart of the matter. As a historian, I have pointed out the differences between Herr Bush and Herr Hitler. The main one I like to emphasize is how Corporal Hitler served with honor during World War I. As a message runner, his was a most dangerous job. He was injured in the line of duty and awarded a medal for his actions above and beyond the call of duty. As I recall, Bush went AWOL and deserted his unit when America was engaged in a war in SE Asia. While Hitler was obviously a negative historical figure, he did perform on a much more honorable level in defending his country than Bush did. But while Hitler came from a working class background, Bush never met a day of work or responsibility in his life. Needless to say, both of them heralded the end of freedom and justice in their countries after taking power. While I hope we don’t end up with millions of dead freethinkers a la the Jews, I fear that Bush and his minions will do great damage to our civil liberties. So keep up the good work and I’ll see you in the gulag.

Democracy Sweeps the Middle East, Sort of

Matthew jibes:

“On the other hand, the street demonstrations may have been organized
by CIA or other US-funded cover agencies. ” Snu? Isn’t this the same CIA that got caught flatfooted by 9/11 and thought Saddam had WMD? Either the CIA is hopelessly incompetent or secret masterminds, but it can’t be both at the same time. A little internal consistency, please.

Of course, if all those demonstrators are in the pay of the CIA it does sort of explain the deficit, seeing as the conservative estimates say there’s tens of thousands of them. (How on earth would you raise a crowd of fake protestors that big? I couldn’t begin to imagine how to do it.)

Careful, Mr. Rall. You’re on the verge of a Strange Loop here. If a Secret Conspiracy taints everything the news reports, how can the evidence that Conspiracy exists be less suspect?

I love this standard method of conservative rhetoric, which Tom Tomorrow has attacked so well in a cartoon recently. First you set up a strawman: the CIA messed up 9/11. Then you cite a supposed inconsistency: the CIA is too dumb to carry off a conspiracy.

Actually, as my readers know, the CIA was the only government agency with its eye on the ball concerning Iraq: it repeatedly told Bush that it had no proof that they had weapons of mass destruction. Incredibly, the only agency that got it right got blamed for the faulty war. Moreover, there’s little doubt that the CIA has pulled off countless coups, including in Iran in 1953. They also make absurd blunders, like poisoning Fidel Castro’s cigars during the early 1960s. One does not contradict the other.

Help Me Keep the Heat on Horowitz

What is it about Republicans? Why do they hate intellectual property rights so much that they insist on stealing the copyrights of photos? No one knows what evil dwells in the copyright-thieving hearts of men, but we do know that David Horowitz is like a burglar who, having found one house well-guarded by a dog and alarm system, moves on to his unluckier neighbor.

As readers of the know, Horowitz wisely removed my copyrighted photo from his neo-McCarthyite smear site last week. Now, however, a new photo of yours truly is back up.

Here’s where you come in. The new photo, evidently from some TV appearance I did, is not copyrighted by me. I sincerely doubt, however, that Horowitz coughed up money for reprint rights from whatever TV network aired the show on which I appeared. I’d better dollars to doughnuts (where the hell does that expression come from, anyway?) that the neocon thug swiped it from a website.

So. First Friend of Rall to successfully identify the original source and copyright holder of this new photo receives a free signed copy of GENERALISSIMO EL BUSHO: Essays and Cartoons on the Bush Years. I’ll be sure to let the copyright victim know they’re being robbed by Horowitz.

Email chet@rall.com, and thanks!

U.S. Supreme Court Bans Executions Under 18

An excellent decision and good news for our republic, this will help bring us into the 20th century. If we want to move into the 21st, we should do away with capital punishment entirely. I’d rather let a thousand guilty men go free than kill one innocent man, and we’ve killed dozens of innocents. Besides: murderers do deserve to die. The state, however, shouldn’t debase itself by getting into the business of killing them.

Book Review: “The Torture Papers”

The San Diego Book Review carries my review of the book “The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib.” Here’s an excerpt:

“The Torture Papers,” a compilation of legal opinions, memoranda and military reports concerning the treatment of prisoners detained in the global war on terror (GWT, in govspeak), is a notable exception to the Dead Kennedys rule: It sets the record straight on an ongoing scandal resulting from policies that remain in full force. Here, in mind-numbing slegalese (footnotes, depositions and appendices included), are the tortured legal contortions that led to the infamous photos of Pfc. England holding a nude Iraqi inmate by a dog leash and Cpl. Graner beating the crap out of another freshly liberated soul at Abu Ghraib. Both former soldiers are now new fish on the opposite side of the guard-prisoner dynamic, but their iconic crimes reside at a thousand Islamist recruitment sites. Meanwhile, their bosses ponder how to invest their 401(k)s.

Was Hitler Democratically Elected?

Daniel writes:

I find your stuff very funny and insightful I always make a point of reading it even though I disagree with your politics.

However, in your March 1, 2005 Cartoon I believe you made an error of fact. Hitler was not democratically elected in 1933. Chancellor Von Hindenburg had I believe two years or so left in his term. Hitler, Gobbles [sic], and his brown shirts had convinced the German people that Von Hindenburg could not solve the German Nations [sic] problems, and Von Hindenburg, who had beaten Hitler in the last free election, resigned in favor of
Hitler. An illegal and unconstitutional act, but very popular at the moment.

I know liberals hate admitting they make mistakes too, but in fairness you really should retract that part of your cartoon.

Read the . I admit my mistakes, but this ain’t one of them. As he had carefully schemed for years, Hitler rose to the chancellorship using legal means. Hindenberg, who appointed him, was president and remained so after Hitler came to power until his death. Under the Weimar Constitution in force at the time, the brokered deal (after a 1932 election that Hitler lost, but demonstrated substantial minority support) that put Hitler on the road to totalitarian rule over Germany was standard operating procedure. But don’t believe me. You can, and should, look it up. Maybe I should have said “democratically appointed.”

Another Reason Bush Isn’t Like Hitler

Eric brings up an excellent point:

Reasons Bush isn’t like Hitler was darn funny. However, I think you left something out. Hitler–from what I’ve heard, anyway–was a great public speaker with fine control of his native language. I’m sure there are more differences, too, but that jumped out at me. Anyway, thanks for being our BS detector. I can’t wait to read some of the poorly thought out and even more poorly written hate mail you get from this one.

Damn, wish I’d thought of that one. It’s so obvious, too.

Broadband Alert for Diehard Fans

Apparently you can download the BBC 30-minute documentary about me that aired Monday. They ask, however, that you use this service only for non-commercial, private viewing purposes.

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Pat wants to know:

I am somewhat dismayed by your challenge. It seems that your discourse on this went the extra mile to coarsen the dialog and further separate people into two camps. Providing a place to air name calling and threats of violence may relieve some of the bile poisoning the hearts of Americans, but I can’t help but hope for a coming together rather than further imbroglio. I’d like to suggest that looking for and reporting on bipartisan respect will strengthen our country much more than looking for some silver bullet to vanquish the hated opposing policy wonks. I’d also like to mention that most Americans do not fall into either extreme camp of ideology, and I myself am willing to admit that some of the far-right activities appear to be bringing about positive changes in the Mid-East. Am I happy about fighting a war based on false data? No, but don’t forget that many in the Democratic party openly stated that they felt that Iraq had WMDs as well – and that includes Al Gore, John Kerry, and even President Clinton.

I’ll avoid Iraq here since everyone knows my feelings about that. But far from coarsening dialogue, I believe that my exercise was enlightening. At least it was to me.

Seriously, look for the good in your opposition. You’ll be better respected by everyone, although I imagine that there will always be hate mail to remind us of man’s aggression.

I do try to look for the good in my Republican compatriots. Unfortunately, this Administration is so illegitimate, so steeped in a culture of lying, so dedicated to hatred and violence, so murderous, that it’s impossible for me and many other opponents to dismiss those who support it as less than willfully supportive of their crimes.

Tens of millions of Americans believe that Bush bullied the Supreme Court into violating the Constitution, and threatened a military coup during the Florida election crisis. Even if he had turned out to be a great president after that, how could such a crime ever be forgiven?

Tens of millions of Americans believe that Bush used 9/11 to curtail civil liberties and as a lame excuse to launch a war against Iraq that had been planned since at least 1998 even though he knew it presented no threat whatsoever to us. We know that tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed as a result. How could this act, by itself, ever be forgiven?

Tens of millions of Americans believe that Bush is out to bankrupt the U.S. Treasury with his irresponsible tax cuts for the ultrawealthy and destroy Social Security with a “reform” that is designed to ruin the last middle-class government entitlement program left. How could bankrupting the world’s wealthiest nation ever be forgiven?

I can’t speak for other Democrats, but if a Democratic politician had committed any one of these crimes I would have voted for his Republican opponent. It’s a simple matter of morality. That’s why the country is so divided; I have trouble treating anyone with respect who clearly despises the basic values on which the United States, which I love, was founded.

The Lebanese Crisis

Allen asks:

A couple questions for you: What do you think about the recent developments
in Lebanon regarding the Syrian army? Do you think this has anything to do with our action in Iraq? Seeing how you admitted that you were wrong in regards to the liberal blogs is there any scenario where you could admit that you were wrong in regards to Iraq? Or was that action ill conceived no matter what the outcome?
Even though we disagree I like to hear your opinions because you’re obviously intelligent and well thought.

To echo Chou En Lai’s comment to Kissinger about the French Revolution, it’s too early to tell whether the US invasion of Iraq has had an impact on the current situation in Lebanon. I’m a big supporter of national self-determination, so I hope Syria pulls out and allows the Lebanese to run their own affairs. On the other hand, the street demonstrations may have been organized by CIA or other US-funded cover agencies. Time, and journalism, will determine whether these are authentic Lebanese patriots–remember, after all, that the “happy Iraqis” dancing around Farbus Square in Baghdad were all on the Defense Department/Ahmed Chalabi payroll.

As for the bigger question, there is absolutely no scenario under which I believe it could be proven, after the fact, that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Even if we had been greeted as liberators, even if WMDS had been found, the way the Administration rushed into it, refusing to let the UN inspectors finish their work, not giving diplomacy a chance, and more to the point–invading a country that presented no certain threat to the country (despite the Administration’s lies about WMDs) would forever taint the invasion in my eyes.

Sometimes good things result from bad intentions. But that doesn’t exonerate the evil mindset of those who made those good things come about.

Bush should be impeached and imprisoned for 100,000-plus consecutive life sentences for first-degree murder. Meanwhile, it would be nice to see Iraq become a peaceful, prosperous place. Neither is likely to happen, unfortunately.

End of the Right Wing Challenge

Well, color me unimpressed–with many of my fellow lefties.

(Although the self-categorization makes me uncomfortable. There are so many issues–balancing the budget, the right to self-defense, the Second Amendment, etc.–on which I don’t hold doctrinaire left-of-center political positions. A better self-description would be left on economic issues, moderate on social issues, conservative on military matters–on the last point, my beef with recent American adventurism is that it makes us less safe and that our borders are totally unguarded. But long-time readers know all that stuff about me. And it could change, obviously.)

But back to the discussion at hand. I’ll reiterate: I am surprised at the amount of vicious, specific threats of violence directed toward conservative personalities by supposed progressives. That kind of schoolyard bullying makes us no better than the Republicans we claim to despise for their “bomb first, ask questions later” approach to diplomacy. As everybody knows, I don’t shy away from harsh language; I rather specialize in it. But I draw the line at threats, real or implied, against people with whom I disagree. Once you start to do that, after all, you’ve admitted defeat because you couldn’t argue against your foe based on the merits of your point of view. And it’s a gutter tactic running against the very essence of the First Amendment.

So. Does the left give back as much as the right? In my heart of hearts, I’d say the right-wing challenge didn’t change my mind entirely. I think the right does it more. But, as a conservative blogger wrote elsewhere, it’s much easier to notice when it’s your side being attacked. I notice the attacks against progressives more, so they hurt more. Bottom line: it’s impossible to quantify the hatred on both sides and determine who does it more.

Those of us who identify with the left must set an example by seizing the moral high ground on this point. While I still stand by my chapter in WAKE UP, YOU’RE LIBERAL about dirty politics, threats of violence are where we should not go. And we should call our friends on it if and when they do it.

Here are, as part of the challenge wrap up, some entries from over the weekend submitted by rigt-wingers. (No need to send more, folks, and thanks for playing! I, for one, feel enlightened if a little soiled.)

Sent in by blogger Jon Henke:

…you didn’t get the email I sent yesterday–I think you’ve been having some server problems with the overload–here ’tis again….
http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=1235
The comments are listed below, and the links to the originals are at the post URL listed above.
1. COMMENT: “We need to execute people like Ann Coulter in order to physically intimidate conservatives, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors.”
2. COMMENT: “bush Is a mouth faced little cheat. and you are all Imbeciles for supporting him. I hope you all die, die painfully.” [this, by the way, was addressed to us]3. COMMENT: “I hate that filthy cunt, Maglaganglyskank more than I can say. Goddamned racist bitch – I want her fucking head on a pike. I’ve had it with that sorry excuse for a human being. Fucking skanky ass Nazi whore – I’m coming for you.” [written by Tena, a blogger)
4. COMMENT: “Fuck off and die in horrible pain you fascist prick.”
5. COMMENT: “I’d take one for the team and volunteer to anally violate [Michelle Malkin].”
6. COMMENT: “I may watch the festivities, if only not to miss the chance to applaud the appearance of the long-awaited, desperately needed dime-sized hole…”
7. COMMENT: “will somebody PLEASE start killing these people? it’s really all they understand.”
8. COMMENT: “I want to beat Scarbrough’s fucking face in! I want to smash him, beat him into the cement. Be covered in his blood. Leave him suffering on the ground. […] Fuck you Scarbrough! Your Damn right! I’ll show you a fucking Radical! Think I’m a bomb-thrower? I’ll show you a fucking bomb! Seriously, he makes me contemplete murder!”
9. COMMENT: “We have to learn to enjoy hurting people, hurting them a lot, hurting them any way we can and every chance we get. Anybody who’s not with us, we fuck him and fuck him hard.”
10. COMMENT: “Does Karl Rove get Secret Service protection? If so, on what basis? If not, dime-sized hole?”

Don’t doubt, my fellow progressives, that there are more–many more–where these came from. I have about 20 more acceptable entries along these lines. And I received a few that were so ugly that I won’t even post them because they were so racist and bigoted that I’m afraid people might think *I’d* posted them.

P.S. Some people have asked whether I checked these links to make sure they were authentic. Answer: of course.

The challenge is met, I am depressed and disgusted, and now I’m going to grab my first cup of coffee.

Victory!

A visit to my profile at David Horowitz’s smear site shows that my copyrighted photograph has vanished into the ether, presumably with his lawyer’s fictional Fair Use defense (when will someone write a definitive debunking of that online canard?)–which has also disappeared from Horowitz’s other right-wing project, Front Page Magazine.

It’s hardly on the scale of convincing Bush to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, but it proves my point: when lefties are on the right side of the law, we should fight back because we will win. Stop being such wussies, folks!

Assuming that Horowitz refrains from violating my copyright in the future, no further legal action will be required concerning this photo.

Favorite Hate Mail of the Day

I know it’s just a misspelling, but I’m still giggline at this from Rexxauthor@aol.com:

Ted Rall is an anto-american. and has no talent. regards

Is an “anto-american” like that 50’s movie “Them!”?

Right-Wing Challenge Entries

Finally! We’re getting some qualifying entries to the Challenge.

From Energie:

[QUOTES EDITED OUT BECAUSE THEY CAUSED FORMATTING PROBLEMS–Sorry, Ted]

Vile stuff to be sure, and should be condemned by all thinking Americans. Doesn’t quite rise to the level of the stuff I’ve seen about me and other libs like Michael Moore, but still disgusting as hell. I can’t imagine why the hosts of these blogs don’t immediately delete these threats.

And there’s this from Mark Coffee, who also runs a blog:

Permalink: [QUOTES EDITED OUT BECAUSE THEY CAUSED FORMATTING PROBLEMS–Sorry, Ted]Title: Rall Changes Rules, but the Challenge is Met
Ted Rall, no doubt overwhelmed with examples of left-wing moonbat ranting, now says only a violent threat to specific political or media personalities (Rall laughingly must consider himself one of the latter) counts towards his challenge (and then tries to cover up his Little Green Football snafu with the new rule that comments count). He then says (and I don’t believe it for a minute) that the challenge has yet to be met,
No matter: if he continues to say it, you know he’s lying, ’cause I got your quotes, Ted, plus links.
1. Kelly Hagan, responding to a post entitled ‘Bush Should Not Be Assassinated’, responds that ‘an event like this [the assassination of
2. Fernando88: ‘I want to kill George Bush…but that’s an understatement.’
3. smilingyoukia: ‘OK, I believe George Bush should die…’
Oh, but that’s fringe stuff, you say; you won’t find anything like that on, say, the Daily Kos…oops!:
I dislike junior’s stupid, arrogant, ugly chimp-like demeaner soooo much that I change the channel any time, I mean anytime, I have the misfortune on seeing him or hearing him on TV or radio. The word hate is to mild a word to define my dislike of the punk. I would gladly watch though to see him hurt and laugh as he stated crying. I’d like to see him in pain even though I’m an animal loving, non violent atheist. Junior is a bad, bad, bad man.
Okay, okay, that’s one on the Daily Kos, but surely there weren’t anymore…oops:
Best thing about the “personal” hate you talk about is the day one of those people dies. Leaves the living. Never again to require any of your energy. Poof! Gone. Memorable, memorable day. The relief is scary enough to make you realize how terrible hate really is. I work very hard to avoid it now. Though I’m saving the red dress I was gonna wear around town after Kerry’s victory for W’s funeral week.
Then there’s this gem aimed at Hindrocket of Power Line:
Reading Hindrocket’s slanders and looking at his f***ing spoiled, preppy face, I had fantasies of meeting him on a public street and kicking the living s**t out of him until the only thing his face resembled was a raw pulp of bloody meat.

Peaceful bunch, these lefties…and Rall, you’re not kidding anyone…you know this stuff is out there already. And please, quit lying and saying the challenge has not been met. I just met it.

Believe it or not, no, I did NOT know that any of this stuff was out there. I’d read references by Republican bloggers to such things, but no one ever provided a link and I could never find it. Suffice it to say, this stuff pisses me off and should not be tolerated by anyone who purports to be a law-abiding American. And again: mainstream blogs like Kos should delete this shit as soon as it appears–as should the nasty right-wing sites like Little Green Footballs.

Has the challenge been met? Yes. The scale may not not quite be the same, but there is clearly a significant amount of leftie hate speech out there to match the crap the righties put out. I can’t shame the righties into doing anything, but to readers who agree with me about anything, please consider what this does to us and how it invalidates our arguments.

More goes up as it comes in; wrap up on Monday.

The Right-Wing Challenge as of Saturday Morning

I have received more than 200 entries so far. Regretably, most right-wingers don’t seem to understand the rules. Reading comprehension, folks–just because Reagan cut education spending doesn’t mean you can’t learn how to pay attention now!

I’m receiving tons of generic “I hate Republicans and wish they all died” remarks. Sorry. Those are vague, unformed and stupid comments, but they are not death threats against a specific media personality or politician.

I’m also getting tons of comments that are merely insults to Republicans. Sorry. An insult isn’t a threat of violence. Remember: liberals who speak out (like me) routinely see threats of violence posted about them by bloggers and at blogs specifically directed towards them. What I want to see here is the same sort of thing going the other way.

So far we have exactly one contender (submitted by Papa Loves Mambo) that he found at http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/000347.php:

“I’d like to buy George Bush a Coke And poison it with glue Kill Dick Cheney And old Wolfie And shoot down Rumsfeld too”

Now that’s the kind of disgusting, reprehensible shit we’re looking for. Righties do it daily by the dozen–surely you guys can come with more than just one?

Oh, and: some righties have had trouble with the email address for the contest, so please use chet@rall.com instead. Thanks.

Challenge ends Monday.

Rules of the Challenge

Garret asks about the rules:

I wish to ask a technical question to better understand your”contest”, A Challenge for Right-Wing Bloggers. You ask for the worst, most vicious examples of liberal/leftie blogger vitriol, but when you were asked for examples, you cited (as best as I can tell) comments people made on the blog, not what I would call the “blogger”, unless Jimmy the Clam is the owner of LittleGreenFootballs.
So my questions are:
1. Is our contest limited to the actual bloggers, or are all the comments from users fair game?

Actual bloggers as well as comments posted to those blogs–especially comments that are more than a day or two old, since their presence tacitly testifies to their acceptibility to the bloggers themselves–are both eligible. Remember, we’re looking for specific threats of violence and/or murder against specific media and political personalities on the right, authored by lefties. “I hope Ann Coulter dies painfully” qualifies. Generic threats, like “I hope Republicans die,” do not.

Because if the users’ comments are fair game, I submit an entire URL: http://www.democraticunderground.com. If the user comments are not acceptable but the blogger’s comments are, I would suggest only (some of) Auntie Pinko’s postings. I hope this makes sense.

Specifics, please!

2. Also, are politicians quotations, cited in widely read blogs, acceptable entries?

A more nebulous question. I would say, generally not. We’re talking blogs here. But if you’ve got comments from mainstream Democrats calling for the murder ot Republican media types, I’d entertain those.

3. Are MSM figures quotes, cited in widely read blogs, acceptable entries?

See (2) above.

4. Are leftie quotes in otherwise news stories in widely read blogs acceptable entries?

See (2) above.

5. Are your cartoons acceptable entries?

If my cartoons call for the murder or violence against specific personalities–well, I already said that.

Thanks for the challenge.
Sincerely,
Garrett
P.S. I have an entry, I think, the text is : “If not, let’s take as a given what we already know: that Republicans’ first impulse is to punch people whose arguments they can’t defeat with logic and to bomb countries whose people know something we don’t.” From http://rall.com/rants.html.

Not even close. Not a threat of violence, much less murder, against anybody. This is an expression of disgust with violence–in fact, it’s a statement of pacifism. The kind of thing we’re looking for here is like these tidbits from a right-wing blog that gets many links from other bushblogs, the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller:

“if the opportunity presented itself, I’d kill Ted Rall”
“How about shooting Ted Rall THROUGH the Michael Moore Range Target?”
“Ted Rall was flayed? Why didn’t anyone tell me?! Is there a video of it?! “
“Ted Rall just needs to be bitch-slapped.”

Let the challenge continue!

E&P Covers My Blogger Column

Editor & Publisher magazine covers the reaction to this week’s column.

Here’s the money quote:

“I’m a fierce critic of the mainstream media, but the right-wing blogs are not an improvement,” [Rall] added. “It’s like replacing Saddam Hussein with anarchy, chaos, kidnapping, and rape. That’s not an improvement, either. Right-wing bloggers are trying to destroy the mainstream media, but they don’t have a plan for the occupation.”

The Right-Wing Challenge

Remains totally unanswered. Come on, righties–show us these supposed death threats against conservative pundits and politicians written by leftie bloggers. Remember the standard: we’re talking threats of death, dismemberment, etc.–the kind of stuff I wrote about in my column this week as well as on my blog.

Chris brings up an interesting point:

If, as Horowitz’ lawyer claims, “The nature and purpose of the use is news reporting and commentary in an Internet publication for nonprofit educational purposes” and http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/ is the nonprofit organization using your photo, why does their “Campus Support for Terrorism” link take you to an advertisment for one of Horowitz’ books?

An excellent questlon. And if there was a left wing network of blogs to match the rightists, they’d get to the bottom of it.

And Jennifer says:

I just read the interestingly spelled, satire-proof email you received from the Horowitz drones and wanted to send a message of support. Stand up for yourself and know that you’re not alone – USA Next, which I see you mention in your blog, infringed copyright when they stole a wedding picture for their anti-AARP ad, and the gentlemen in the picture are also pursuing legal remedies (see daily kos diary http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/235632/101). I just think it’s fun that, to advertise their campaign to destroy Social Security in the name of the sanctity of private property, the first thing they did was to steal private property. Classic. Take care & nolite te bastardes carborundorum!

To right-wingers, the law is merely an inconvenience to be skirted whenever possible. Thank God we still have a court system; it’s all we have left.

FOR Sean writes:

HALLELUJAH!!!! TESTIFY BROTHER!!!!

Just because I agree with my fellow progressives/liberals, it doesn’t mean I like them. Most of them are such incredible pussies, so afraid of any conflict, that they won’t stand up for themselves. I feel like Jack London did when he quit the socialist party. He agreed with their goals, but he thought most of them were such whiners, they couldn’t get anything done.
You know, I’ll bet a lot of conservatives would like you if they actually met you. They’re generally not that bright, but they respect people who are willing to stand up for themselves. Partly because of my hobbies (which include martial arts and shooting) I tend to socialize a lot more with people whose views are conservative. But they respect the fact that I’m willing to fight for my beliefs while most of my fellow progressives complain I’m too aggressive or confrontational.
Thank God Martin Luther King, Abbie Hoffman or the countless men and women who fought and died in the labor movement in this country didn’t listen to other progressives who complained they were too confrontational.

No shit. I admire conservatives for their relentlessness and passion. A big part of the reason liberals are getting their asses kicked in the public square is because we refuse to stand up for ourselves and, even worse, we get embarrassed by those who, like Michael Moore and Al Franken, are willing to stand up and be counted. Honestly, I would much rather be a right-winger; if it weren’t for their rancid politics, I’d have a lot in common with them.

And Robert writes:

I can’t wait to see you stick it to that creep in court. My only hope is that some of the other people on the list follow suit and shut this guy down. Maybe we can use this as the battle cry for our de-legitimation efforts against right wing blogs.

Only two and half hours left until my deadline. Something tells me I’m not going to get satisfaction from Horowitz, which means I’ll have some extra work to take care of next week. But that’s fine. And yes, let’s hope that other copyright infringement victims start to fight back against the rightie blogs.

My Blogger Column: Arrogant?

Mark writes:

I read your “BUT WHO WATCHES THE WATCHDOGS?” on Yahoo and thought it was
pretty arrogant. First, the lines “And what are Morrissey’s qualifications to police the media? When he’s not harassing old-school journos like Dan Rather and CNN’s Eason Jordan out of their jobs, Morrissey manages a call center near Minneapolis.” So what does a journalism degree have to do with being able to judge if someone else is doing his job?

Nothing. I don’t have one and I think journalism school is an evil influence on journalism. I was merely reminding people that this guy has no special qualifications to make his assertions; therefore his assertions must stand on their own merits. Which, like most of the stuff you read on the recently-lauded rightie blogs, they don’t.

How does having his job automatically make him stupid and incapable of figuring out when a reporter
is not telling the truth? The only purpose that reasoning can have is to protect people in your profession from having to be judged on your performance. I’ve managed a call center here in Atlanta so I know the job can make you irritable but not stupid.

And I’ve worked in one. I have zero interest in protecting my peers, but as I watched war correspondents ply their trade in Afghanistan I couldn’t help but admire them. Many were lazy, ill-informed and hopelessly biased, but they were there, risking their lives, trying in their sometimes hapless way to get the story. Meanwhile, a bunch of right-wing bloggers, sitting on their asses at home, were deconstructing what they were writing. The mainstream journos are an imperfect bunch at best, but the bloggers are much, much less admirable or useful. Right-wing bloggers want to tear down the old system without having anything new to replace it with; they’re like Bush’s neocons. They’ve planned for the war, but not the occupation.

Rather ignored the fact that the memos he used weren’t reliable; he ran out with this story and got caught. He was wrong, he deserved to be caught and doing something on that level should cost someone his job. That’s how the good get moved up over the bad and the quality of reporting improves. A lot bloggers and their readers are nuts but they can right, too, of course.

I could live with that if the bloggers were consistent. Bush, whom these people adore, was caught lying repeatedly–most notably about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Tens of thousands of people died as a result; our country is also going bankrupt as a result. If the bloggers say Rather should go–why not Bush? Anyone who only attacks one side of the ideological spectrum is instrinsically untrustworthy. (And anyone who reads my work knows that I hgit the Democrats hard whenever they deserve it, and when they’re in a position to make decisions that cause harm.)

Eason Jordan said something that he, and yourself, needs to prove if he thinks it’s so.

I don’t think so. He made an off-the-cuff remark at a panel; he wasn’t reporting anything. He didn’t need to prove anything. Besides: What he said WAS true.

When David Horowitz merely used your picture on his website you threatened him with legal action. Jordan accuses Americans of murder with no proof and you don’t think he should be called out for
that. At least not by some lowly call center manager.

Horowitz “merely” violated U.S. copyright law. Why can’t conservatives respect the law? Jordan told the truth in a private forum. I still can’t, for the life of me, see why he deserved anything but praise for what he said.

Ted Rall on BBC TV on Monday

A 30-minute documentary about me and my work will appear on the British Broadcasting Network on Monday night. Sorry, but you’ll only be able to view it in the UK. Interested Brits can check out the BBC listing. To wet your appetite:

Cartoonists on the Front Line
Ted Rall:
Michael Portillo meets a cartoonist with even more guts than the savage satirists of the UK press.
Ted Rall’s syndicated cartoons dare to take on the American right and its most sacred icons. To date he has received over 400 death threats. [With audio description]  
Mon 28 Feb, 20:30-21:00  30mins  Stereo  Widescreen 

Right-Wing Challenge, Redux

Allen writes:

Before you issue a challenge like that don’t you think you should at least post some examples of hate speech from the blogs you cited? The only threat that you quoted didn’t even have a name by it. Who made that moronic threat? I highly doubt it’s a mainstream blogger. I challenge you to find an example of a WELLKNOWN, blog such as Instapundit, or Powerline, or LittleGreenFootballs, Andrew Sullivan, etc…that has an idiotic threat like you cited in your column posted on their site.

Very well, though it’s incredible that Republicans aren’t aware that so many of their comrades are violent, hyper-aggressive shitheads. Here are some sample posts to one of the “well-known” right-wing blogs, Little Green Footballs:

“I hope Rall dies now.
“I am glad that Bolshevik dog Rall is being targeted for termination.”
“I found out belatedly that he made an appearence at the 2004 San Diego Comic-Con (for what reason I’m not sure) so I missed my opportunity to give him a complimentary tracheotemy or put out a cigarette in his eye or some other fair and accurate constructive criticism of his works.”
“I wish somebody would drop Rall – out of a helicopter.”
Some people can butt-f*ck anything, if they are desperate/ugly enough. Me, I’d butt-f*ck Rall. With a large caliber repeating weapon. Or a high-velocity flame-thrower. My choice… “

Perhaps someone else has time to check out the other aforementioned neofascist bushblogs, but I think my point has been made.