More from the Overstuffed Mailbag

Steve writes:

With a wide grin, I read your editorial entitled “Confessions of a Cultural Elitist”. While I’m not in total agreement with all you said, it made some curious points. Unfortunately, in this society, there will always be a cultural gap between those who have and those who have no clue, those who can think and see reality and those who follow the herd. Though we shouldn’t gloat and make them feel less than they are, it’s difficult to imagine how their sub-society can exist in to the future. Sorry to see your type writhe in such obvious agony. Maybe the next 4 years will teach the “cultural elite” a few lessons.

Yes, it’s true. Those of us voted against Bush–i.e., for Kerry–are in agony. I’m curious about the gloating, though. When Bill Clinton drove the right to distraction, I didn’t reflexively laugh them off. I thought about it. What was it about Clinton, I wondered, that drove Republicans so batshit crazy pissed off? Most of it, I concluded, was style: his smug arrogance, though nothing on the order of Bush’s, must have been grating to those who voted against him. But, especially after Clinton got caught lying under oath, a long-term pattern of sleazy misconduct rose to the level, in their minds, of impeachment. Again, what he did pales in comparison with Bush’s crimes. Still, Clinton did deserve impeachment.

Back then, I broke ranks with fellow lefties by calling, repeatedly, for Clinton’s impeachment. And part of what caused me to do so was the fact that Republicans hated him so much. Nowadays, as Democrats seethe over Bush’s policies and style, it might behoove Republicans to consider why we despise him so much. You might not agree with all of our reasons. But if you really opened your minds, you might see that we have a point. After all, Democrats didn’t hate George H.W. Bush this way. Not since Richard Nixon has a Republican president been hated this much; not since FDR has a Democrat–and FDR deserved the disdain for, among other things, running for a third term and trying to stack the Supreme Court.

Sean wrote:

I’ve decided to provide you some feedback on your OP/ED (Confessions of a Cultural Elitist) since I am one of the “Spectacularly Stupid” who supported president Bush. I’m not expecting a reply from you, only to provide you with another opinion.I live and work around the very blue city of Portland Oregon, so there is no shortage of people around here who would agree with your lefter equals smarter attitude. My support of George Bush was based 75% on common values and 25% on my impression of John Kerry’s arrogance, weakness on defense, as well as his position on issues.

Come on. John Kerry MORE arrogant than Bush? Weak on defense? Surely you didn’t believe those silly “John Kerry voted against defense systems 14,510 times” ads?

In light of our invasion of Iraq, I realize the idea Saddam had stockpiles of WMD’s or an active nuclear program was a mistaken one, but you’ll have to admit that George Bush was in good company on that assumption. Regarding Al Qaeda, I don’t think I ever needed to have a case made to me for collusion on 9/11 to support Bush’s decision on Iraq. The fact that Saddam allowed notorious terrorists in his country and provided support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was enough to know where he stood on terrorism.

Actually, the CIA told Bush before the war that there was zero evidence that Saddam still had WMDs, much less nukes. And terrorism is a tactic–one commonly used by outgunned combatants against a superior force, like the American revolutionaries against Britain in 1776–not an ideology. Saddam supported the Palestinians, that’s true. But there was no evidence that he ever intended to, or could have, brought harm to the United States. And Bush knew that.

Bobby wrote:

As I read your article this morning, I was stunned by your apparent hatred of those of us that voted for President Bush. I can understand you supporting your candidate. I can understand discussion, debates, and even arguments about who is better suited to run our country. But, what I cannot understand is how you can insult, belittle, and demean such a large segment of the population for exercising their right to vote.

Let me make it simple. 59 million Americans with access to 100 channels and all of the world’s news outlets online at their local public library, voted for a neofascist over the standard-issue American politician the Democrats put up. They voted for Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, the torture and murder of children by US troops in Afghanistan and the systematic genocide of more than 100,000 Iraqis for the sole purpose of securing access to cheap Middle Eastern oil. Not since Classic vs. New Coke has there been a more obvious choice, a simpler decision, a bigger no-brainer. But they chose, with eyes open, the absolutely dead wrong choice. It only seems natural for those of us who aren’t that fucking stupid, mean and ignorant to say so.

Just because we do not agree with your assessment of Mr. Bush does not mean that we are uneducated. Personally, I chose who I thought to be the lesser of two evils.I believe that Mr. Bush is a detriment to our economy and to health care and the environment. But I firmly believe that he will do a better job of keeping this country safe from those that mean to do her harm. I believe that Mr. Kerry wanted to revamp health care, schools, and protect the environment. But at what costs? I firmly believe that we would have had higher taxes under Mr. Kerry. I also believe, that within the first year of his administration, we would have been targeted for another terrorist attack.

Dude: Dole vs. Clinton was a lesser of two evils choice. This was Dr. Evil vs. Wanker Man. Not the same thing.

Anyway, you obviously are ignorant–uneducated–on the issues and current political system. Faced with the certainty of a Republican Congress, Kerry would never have gotten healthcare reform or environmental protection enacted, nor increased aid to education. Taxes? Look at your tax bill now–it’s already gone up when you add up local, state, and federal. That $10 trillion projected deficit over 10 years has to get paid off somehow…plus compound interest. As for terrorism–are you saying that Bush’s close friendship with the bin Ladens would have protected us from another 9/11? Let’s wait another five years and then we’ll be able to judge whether Al Qaeda or its allies have been somewhat neutralized.

Mike writes:

I do admire your willingness to admit and defend the whole “we ARE smarter and superior and better and …….” Dem mindset. Most of the Dems I know are not willing to admit this to people outside of their inner circle. LIBERALS Smarter? NO. Perhaps better educated? Maybe, but there are many variables to the education equation since education extends well beyond the classroom instruction. Are Liberals educated beyond their intelligence? Likely.

Accept it and move on, or better yet, move out of this country. This country is and has been rejecting the Democratic “progressive” movement for a while now. Population movement and their electoral votes are “progressing” to the RED STATES. Objective WISDOM wins again. Long may it reign.

Sometimes the majority is right. Other times it is wrong. There is no relationship between winning and moral rectitude.

Jennifer writes:

I just read your article “Confessions of a Cultural Elitist” and I want to thank you for putting into words all the thoughts I’ve been having for the past several days. Why is the middle of the country supposed to be more American than those of us on the sides? Why did all the major cities, the ones that will probably be bombed first by Osama bin Laden, go for Kerry while all the flat middle of nowhere culturally bereft areas of the US–you know, the parts where no one would notice if it were annihilated–vote for Bush? And how presumptuous to think that people who use God in the name of political advancement are more morally accurate than the rest of us who choose to keep our relationships with God a private matter. Did the Puritans really leave England to escape oppression only so generations later we could live in country where we oppress ourselves? What morons we look like to the rest of the world, we fat-assed spoiled Americans shopping at Wal-Mart, drinking our 64 ounce Big Gulps, staying up all night playing Play

Station, making sure we know more about Paris Hilton than about Paris, France. It’s an embarrassment to be an American these days, no matter who you voted for. The only difference is that the blue parts of the country are embarrassed to be attached to the red bits, and the red bits are too stupid to know any different. Anyway, thanks for revealing your disgust–it’s good to not feel so alone in our loss.

Confessions of a Cultural Elitist

Unsurprisingly a lot of Bush voters from the red states wrote to take exception to this week’s column. There were also a lot of positive responses. Here’s a mix:

I must confess I check your website everyday in the hopes you’ve posted something new. You are America’s BS detector and, in that capacity, you and the cartoonists like you are becoming our only real method of protest. Like you I grew up in a backwards facing red state (Arkansas) and I know the pain of living around a dull, intellectually-stifling environment and, as soon as I could, I got the fuck out of there. Maybe, what needs to happen is, we, as the intellectuals of our nation, need to begin to seep back into the red states and seed the heartland, or as I like to call it, the don’t-have-a-heart-or-a-brain-land, with the intellectual spirit we have come to embrace. Maybe, within a few generations, we’ll have changed America for the better and expose the ignorants of our society to the idiocy and the un-American-ness of their narrow-minded ideology. Well, it probably won’t happen. Most likely, we’ll all leave America soon and leave it for the racist bastards to destroy. Anyway, great work and keep it up!

This is a great point. It’s a hell of lot harder to stay around in small town America than to flee, as I did. I have great respect for the liberals who fight the good fight in the Midwest and South. Anyone can be liberal in New York City, big deal.

If they are full of soft talent lacking people like you, no wonder Kerry lost.

I have read your spew many times and ALWAYS you come across as an inferior man who hates others who think differently.

Why would anyone keep reading something they hate? Well, I watch Hannity almost every night, so never mind.

I’m writing in response to your opinion column titled “Confessions of a Cultural Elitist.” I read your opinion column regularly on Yahoo News. As an independent voter I enjoy the way that your column balances out the writings of Anne Coulter (another column I read weekly). I thoroughly enjoy both columns and would miss either if one were to suddenly disappear.

The purpose for this e-mail however, is to ask if you are taking the election results a little too personally. Your past two columns have had an almost vengeful undertone. Rather than the thought provoking writings that I

have come to look forward to, I am left with feelings of anger and remorse.

I realize that as the author of an opinion column you can clearly convey any feelings you wish. I may not represent the core group of your readers, but it sure would be nice to click on your name next week and leave with some food for thought rather than angry rants. If presented with an appropriate choice for president, regardless of party affiliation, don’t you think the “right man” would rise to the top of the field long before

election day? Close elections should unite the country in search of better candidates, not divide it in a high stakes blame game.

Some good points here. Unfortunately, this election was so crystal clear in the choice that it presented that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to consider anyone who voted for Bush a moron or racist or homophobe or worse. Hopefully I’ll calm down. Next week’s column is about something different.

Another whining rationalization from the king of pedantic polemic. Get over it you pussy, you lost because your side is wrong on the issues. Your candidate was a piece of tofu, taking any position he felt politically expedient. His supporters were mostly high-school educated entertainers who are just learning to spell their names. I voted for Bush, and I’m an Ivy league trained, well-published East coast cardiologist. Many of my friends are Ivy league blue bloods who were Bush supporters as well. Until you geniuses understand that you need to abandon your illusions of cultural and intellectual superiority, you’re going to lose many an election.

Of COURSE Kerry was a (gulp) piece of tofu. Hm. So what? He wasn’t Bush. Bush is a neofascist. Bush murdered tens of thousands of innocent people. Bush bankrupted the entire government. He opened concentration camps, for God’s sake. And still hasn’t even TRIED to go after 9/11 guys. Kerry or Bush? Gimme the tofu, man.

I appreciate your comics. Very clever, funny, poignant, even to a conservative like me. As far as your cultural elitist article, it was absolutely insulting. Perhaps your comics intend to say the same thing, but in a cartoon, there’s a hint of grace attached. You insulted my intelligence, because of the priorities that I have as an individual. I suggest that you stick to your cartoons as a more effective way to convince the masses. And on an insider’s note, my vote wasn’t a moral issues over war vote. It was a vote to keep this nation as a nation under God. My, and a majority’s priority is not to overturn Roe v. Wade or take away the rights of homosexuals, but merely to keep this nation based upon the hand of the only God who can truly make it succeed.

Come on, dude. You think Piehole Bush is a Christian? If that man truly believed that he would be judged for eternity based on his actions in this life, you can be damned sure he wouldn’t be starting wars and picking on people who didn’t chose to be gay.

I have been reading your stuff for a couple of years now. I am glad you exist, and that you publish. I find your voice refreshing in that there is at least one “liberal” out there that speaks for me, I don’t know, are you a liberal or a radical? Anyone who jets off to Afghanistan to cover the war must be fairly nuts, either that or you just have huge testicles. I just read your piece on how “liberals” think that the Bush crowd is stupid. I think I know why I like you so much. You don’t water down your Scotch, man. Just deliver that shit straight up. I’d say that most polite people would be turned off by you, but I actually agree with you most of the time. When I don’t, it is because my interpretation of facts is slightly different. For the most part however, I just want to tell you that you should just keep telling it like it is. When the tanks roll into the city and the secret police start to take down the intellectuals, I hope you have an escape plan that includes forming the resistance, lol. Perhaps one day we will meet, it is unlikely, but if I ever met you in person, I’d buy you a beer and say “Thanks.” The resultant conversation would explain why…

Thanks

Looks like I’ve nailed the Barcelona CD I was looking for. Thanks to everyone who wrote with links and suggestions and, of course, with the CD! My fans are the best.

Special Needs Cartoon

Last week I drew a cartoon about the election results. I compared the United States to a classroom in which “mainstreaming” mentally handicapped children is in force. It’s one thing, I drew, to have such children—in this case, the Bush-supporting red states—share the class (the U.S.) with the brighter kids, i.e., the Kerry-supporting blue states. Seeing the Bush supporters—who are, to a man, dumber than rocks—in charge of our country, I said in my cartoon, is something akin to putting the special needs kids in charge of the class.

Evidently some websites or newsgroups for the parents of such children are conducting a write-in campaign concerning that cartoon. I understand why they are upset. They already face a tremendous challenge raising their kids, then this asshole cartoonist comes along and insults their kids. Or so it must seem.

It is true that I oppose the whole idea of “mainstreaming,” a practice that was becoming in vogue when I was in school. I believe that “special needs” children are just that–they need the kind of special attention that “ordinary” classes can’t give them without sacrificing the interests of the other children. Because I remember sitting in classes where one slow kid would plunge the rest of us into fits of boredom, I also favor “tracking” students by ability. Kids shouldn’t have to teach other kids. I also believe that our educational system is woefully underfunded, especially in poor and urban areas, and that “special needs” kids are often neglected. That is wrong and unfair.

But that cartoon wasn’t about that. It was about Bush, and the annoyance that those of us who actually read the paper have for those who plainly don’t, yet are in the majority and have the audacity to turn up to vote–despite being totally unqualified to do so. To express that, I felt that the mainstreaming analogy worked well. I still do.

It’s hard enough to draw political cartoons without having to consider political correctness while trying to make a point. The question for me is, and was, does the cartoon work? Does it express its point? In this case, I believe that the cartoon works. Every analogy offends someone. As a French-American, I am constantly disgusted and offended by anti-French jokes (i.e., a French military strategist? what’s that? –Jay Leno, the other day). But I shake my head and move on.

Many parents wrote me to say that their kid is mildly autistic and is a great student in a regular classroom. To them I would say, my cartoon wasn’t remotely about your kid. Others resorted to blind rage:

I want you to know that I, along with many others, think you are an inconsiderate prick. I think you are scum, slime, and otherwise, a bastard. I read your lame ass cartoon about how politicians are like “special needs” children. You are a heartless bastard and nonetheless, a moron. I read your “terms of email” and I don’t want a response from you so don’t bother as I will delete it promptly.

May you burn in hell for all eternity and God forgive me for hoping you have a long life full of agony and pain.

ps: if i ever see you, i will make a point to tell you in your face you are by far one of the worst comics ever…not only for the fact that you are an inconsiderate jaggoff, but that you are not even funny, or serious, you really actually suck at your job. May i suggest home decorating or maybe gardening? From the looks of your picture, you would be a lot better at any of this than at the horrible job youre doing now.

Burn in Hell Jackass,

eat me

By the way, a cartoonist isn’t a comic. A comic does stand up.

Then there are the more thoughtful responses, such as this one:

I’m sure you have received numerous e-mails about your “mentally handicapped” cartoon that appeared in the November 8 edition of the The Washington Post. I must admit I was taken aback by the cartoon and the offensive portrayal of a special needs student in an inclusive classroom.

I looked at some of your other work and found I was generally in agreement with your philosophy so, rather than express outrage at this cartoon, I wanted to understand the message which, I admit, missed its mark with me.

Perhaps you could explain the cartoon to me. While I may still not agree the depiction of the student was appropriate, I would like to understand the motivation.

Individuals with special needs have such a difficult time fitting into the general population; I hope you understand why this particular cartoon would raise the hackles of those who work so hard to accomplish

inclusion and acceptance for their students and family members.

I’ve tried to explain the cartoon above. But parents of special needs children also need to consider that many, many Americans oppose “mainstreaming” because it can come at the detriment of gifted and other children. And a recent survey of special needs parents found that 24 percent believe mainstreaming is detrimental to their own children’s education. So, while mainstreaming is currently in vogue, there is no broad consensus in our society.

Then there is this mystifying offering:

I am applauded by your comic 11/08/04.

Does she mean “appalled”? Or “I applaud”?

Anyway, I am sorry that I don’t have the time, staff or energy to respond personally to all of the people who wrote to me. Unlike Republicans, the vast majority of angry parents wrote polite, questioning and/or disagreeing letters that deserve an answer. At last count I received about 400 such emails, and there’s no way I can answer all of them and get anything else done. Moreover, my spam filter seems to be intercepting and deleting them, possibly because the subjects are similar.

I must say that my eyes have been opened about a struggle that thousands of Americans are fighting every day, to raise their kids as best as they can while faced with unusual challenges. I plan to research this issue in depth with a view, if not towards commenting further, at least towards becoming more aware of their concerns. The last thing I want to do is make life more difficult for them.

Shout Out from a Desperate Music Fan

I desperately crave a copy of a CD by the band Barcelona called “Zero One Infinity,” from March Records. If you’re willing to part with this CD, you will get:

-my undying loyalty (value priceless, or zero, which are the same)

-original artwork to any one of my syndicated cartoons from the last year, provided you choose one I still have around (value $500+)

E-mail chet@rall.com if you’re game.

Red State Mailbag

Ric Hawthorne writes the following:

There is an old saying or two that you might want to take to heart. The first is that when you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you. The second was imparted to me by a man far wiser than I will ever be… My Grandfather. He always said “Remember Ric, if you meet more than two a*%!$#es in one day… You may be one of them. My Cousin is Daryl Cagle, and he and his wife Peg and I have dinner occasionally when they are in wonderful Woodland Hills California. At a dinner we had a year or so ago, we were talking about political cartoonists

that I admire, and since I spilt my time between California and New Mexico, I expressed my admiration of John Trever’s work and I singled you out as someone who’s work I also admired. I take it back Mr. Rall. The past few months have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not worthy of my admiration, and much less so of my

respect. I am neither a republican, nor a democrat. I am an American. The so called “Left Elite” continually

espouse the view that those on the right think they are better than anyone else, yet what do individuals

like yourself do, but hold yourselves above the values of everyone that disagrees with you by calling them

criminals and buffoons. Ahh… The old “Pot Calling The Kettle…” trick.

Interesting. I especially like the odd personal angle, evidently designed to hurt more. The trouble is, you can’t be both a Republican AND an American. Not any more. The Republican Party of 2004 is not the Republican Party of 1999. It has been hijacked by psycopathic warmongers and profiteers who relied on electoral fraud not once, but twice, to seize power. To follow such a party is patently contrary to the principles laid out by the Founders in our Constitution. Moreover: What pot? What kettle? In what respect am I a criminal? A buffoon? Maybe. That’s a matter of opinion–a commodity that is becoming increasingly scarce.

You claim in your columns that the republicans do not reach across party lines… Yet you are unwilling to

practice what you preach. You accuse the Bush administration of war crimes and attempted genocide, yet you ignore the real acts of genocide Hussein practiced against his own people, the Kurds.

I reach out to Republicans in my writings all the time. I respect the proud tradition of true conservative values–those of putting America first, keeping the government out of our lives, balancing the government’s budget. But the onus of reaching across party lines isn’t the left’s. Those in power must reach out to those who are not. That is a fundamental fact of nature. It’s fascinating that Republicants have been reduced to comparing Bush’s acts in Iraq to Saddam’s. Pretty low bar, eh? Bush didn’t kill as many as Saddam? Of course, as I’ve blogged below, if present rates continue, Bush’s genocide against the Iraqi people will surpass Saddam’s by late 2007.

I would suggest that you drop your rancor, look up terms like “Genocide” “Crime” and “Lies” to see what

those words really mean, and then begin defending the integrity of your own glass house so that your views and opinions have a bit of merit before you simply continue casting stones and dropping bombs of your own.

Done. Genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” Bush bombs Muslims and Arabs in particular. And he does it in vast numbers. A crime is “an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” Bush has violated international law by going to war against Iraq. The Secretary General of the United Nations has already declared the war in Iraq illegal. And he has held people, including US nationals, behind bars indeterminantly without filing charges against them. To lie is “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.” Weapons of mass destruction, anyone? How about the link between Saddam and 9/11?

What are you trying to accomplish by engaging in the activities that you criticize others of? Are you so

much better than them?

Fuck YES. But then, almost everybody is. This Administration is full of personalities whose acts define them as some of the most reprehensible human beings who have ever lived. What am I trying to accomplish? To get good people to notice.

Gandhi succeeded where others failed because he did not give in and adopt the tactics of his opponents. He took the high road and made it his own. You, on the other hand, have simply allowed yourself to become another voice of extremism\ and rancor, in a sea that is already full of people shouting the exact same thing.

To twist Barry Goldwater: Attacking extremism in the name of liberty is no vice. And it is not extremism itself. And yeah, I’m not Ghandi. On the other hand, it’s not like I murdered 100,000 people with my cartoons, books or columns.

Try taking the high road and working for change in a positive manner, as you used to, rather than simply

jabbering about the faults of others, while you do exactly the same things you accuse others of. As it is now, you simply sound like a spoiled child, busily kicking your heels as you complain and whine about how unfair everything is because you simply did not get your way.

I haven’t changed, dude. My job is to go after hypocrities and liars. Maybe you, on the other hand, have changed.

Poor you, Mr. Rall.

Poor, poor you.

Poor America.

This comes in from Paul W.:

The biggest prejudice in America today is not of any one race vs. another or even of one religion vs. another. It’s the prejudice of the East Coast and West Coast populists towards the Midwest and South. Ted Rall, you are the most prejudiced writer I’ve ever read. Ever.

I grew up in the Midwest. As my pals can attest, in the run-up to the 2004 debacle I kept saying that we could count on Midwestern common sense to prevail in the face of Bush’s obvious stupidity, warmongering and freestyle spending of the federal treasury. And generally, I was right. Pennsylvania–half in the Midwest–and Michigan and Illinois all did the right thing.

Unfortunately, a majority of the voters in the South deserve the contempt they’re receiving from the coasts. (Pity the suffering minority of intelligent southerners who voted for Kerry and have to live alongside morons.)

Prejudiced? No. Judgemental? Yes. If you voted for Bush, God damn you. You have condemned countless thousands of innocent people to death with the punch of a chad or the touch of a screen. If you voted for Bush, you endorsed the torturers in Bush’s gulags at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. You deserve to feel every volt of electronic current, hear every scream, sink into the despair that comes with knowing that you have done nothing yet you will die in an anonymous prison. If you voted for Bush, you are to blame for the coming fiscal crisis, when there will be even less money for schools and roads and, yes, armies. If you voted for Bush, you will never be forgiven. You will never deserve respect, for the decision was a simple yet you deliberately chose not to do what was right.

The Blue State Mailbag

I’ve received some remarkably interesing correspondence since a slim majority of American voters endorsed Bush’s Fascism Lite on Tuesday.

From Ted W.:

As a New Yorker I feel compelled to thank you for your recent piece “Guilty, Disgusted, American.” It captures the strong emotional and indignant response of so many of us. On the ferry, subway, busses — much commiserating is going on — with strangers mutually expressing disappointment, rolling their eyes at newspaper headlines, shaking their heads in disgust. I just read last night that “gay marriage” passed in Saskatchewan. An issue that made masses of Americans cuckoo gets passed without much ado — in Saskatchewan! I guess Saskatchewan — and much of Canada for that matter — is the Devil’s Land. Anyway, thanks. When I read your piece I felt I was reading my own thoughts. This administration can rant and rhapsodize about mandates all it wants: they’re going to have an increasingly angry and confrontational number of Americans to contend with.

I suspect that the Bushies don’t much care about the vast majority of Americans who oppose their policies. (Even many Republicans say this marginal election victory doesn’t constitute a mandate.) All we do, after all, is march around in the streets, waving signs and chanting slogans. That stopped scaring presidents around 1974.

From Colleen:

I read your column today and all I have to say is that I feel your pain and disgust. I live in Indiana so I’m smack in the middle of Fundagelical Stupidity. I’ve rarely left the house in the past couple of days. I have a 9 yr. old son and I’m more afraid of 4 more years of the Bushiban than I am of “Islamic Terrorists”. What’s the matter with these people. If we didn’t have such a suck-ass foreign policy, we wouldn’t need to worry about terrorists in the first place. I’m more angry at the majority of the public than I am at Dubya being in the WH. And “moral values”? What the hell is that about. They line up blindly and stupidly behind a man that shares their hatred of gays as well as his obsession with a fetus. Do they realize that all the bodies that have piled up in a war they pop popcorn to watch with their feet propped up and big smiles on their faces were once a fetus? Guess that doesn’t matter to them since the majority of the bodies are Arab or Muslim. I think they’re all brain damaged. Take care Ted. And thank you so much for your writing. I love your columns and books. It’s writers such as yourself that keep me hanging on because at least I know there are sane people still out there.

I do find the “moral” issue fascinating. People who voted for Bush endorsed the torture of thousands of innocent people at Abu Ghraib. Was that moral? Bush and his cronies gave the orders for that torture to occur. It came from the top. People who voted for Bush endorsed the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians. And for what? Not liberation. To line Dick Cheney’s pockets with $1 million a year he would never have received had Iraq not been invaded and Halliburton–on the verge of bankruptcy in 2001–not received no-bid contracts. Was the murder of 100,000 people moral?

Good people can disagree about abortion. I consider it murder of an unborn fetus, yet I believe women must possess the right to carry out such murders. But only three kinds of people can endorse the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq: the ignorant, the stupid and the evil.

From Jeff:

Ted, I wanted to say thanks for you latest column. Being a Canadian these days is a lot like living next door to a well-armed religious maniac given to fits of unprovoked violence, who thinks what I have is his. It’s work such as yours which keeps me from lapsing into an intellectually lazy, though perhaps emotionally satisfying, anti-Americanism.

And they say I hate my county! I’m a pro-US propagandist!

From Keith:

Having been a devoted fan of your work for some time, I felt that this week above all was the right time to send this note of profound thanks. Your work has been a source of amusement, information and inspiration to me, and I consider you a hero. This statement has been far too long in coming, but especially now that our worst fears seem to have been confirmed, I felt you might welcome this. Your commitment is so clear that some might assume you do not require positive feedback, but nevertheless I felt you might like to hear that you are certainly not laboring in futility. I appreciate your efforts and your passion, more than I can communicate in just a short note of gratitude, but this will have to suffice. I can always count on you to articulate what I sometimes cannot quite express, and though I read and rely on a great many sources, I always return to your column and cartoons for the most lucid and passionate views online. I can’t count the times I’ve thrown up my hands when trying to make some point to like-minded (or not-so-like-minded) friends, and simply sent them the link to your latest column. I wish I had your skill and I greatly admire your courage in spreading it. As you’re probably bombarded with email (both supportive and critical), I expect no reply. Your efforts are more than enough thanks.

I’m blushing.

I frequently receive emails from right-winger supporters of the Bushiban (thanks, Indiana FOR!) asking why I decry the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis at the hands of US forces while ignoring the mass murders allegedly committed by Saddam Hussein during his tenure as dictator of that beleagured country.

First the Lancet study about the 100,000 deaths, from the International Herald Tribune on Oct. 16:

More than 100,000 civilians have probably died as direct or indirect consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. The report was published on the Internet by The Lancet, the British medical journal. The figure is far higher than previous mortality estimates. Editors of the journal decided not to wait for The Lancet’s normal publication date next week, but instead to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the U.S. presidential election.

The finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since the Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.

In the study, teams of researchers fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 previously selected locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion. Although the paper’s authors acknowledge that thorough data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect are extensive: Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it. Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes. “We were shocked at the magnitude but we’re quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate,” said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins study team. He said the team had excluded deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, since that city was the site of unusually intense violence.

In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in the family since the conflict started in March 2003. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by coalition forces – mostly airstrikes – and most of the reported deaths were of women and children.

The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers found.

“The fact that more than half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces were women and children is a cause for concern,” the authors wrote.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam murdered 290,000 Iraqis, plus 100,000 Kurds during the 1988 war with Iran. That makes a total of roughly 400,000 dead. As far as I know, no conservative supporter of the war has accused Saddam of higher numbers than that.

Now the comparison.

For the sake of kindness to Bush, we’ll leave out the Iraqi soldiers we killed during the invasion, as well as members of the Iraqi resistance. We’ll even leave out those who died in US custody. We’ll just count the Lancet’s 100,000 civilians.

Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq for 35 years. He killed 400,000 people during that time. That equals a little over 10,000 Iraqis per year. George W. Bush, in just a year, killed 100,000 people.

George W. Bush kills Iraqis at ten times the rate of Saddam Hussein.

Only an idiot would call this liberation.

Why Did Ohio Fall?

There were widespread irregularities in Ohio. A corrupt Secretary of State who rejected voter registration cards because they weren’t printed on the correct cardstock, GOP goons posing as “challengers” in African-American-dominated cities, and of course–those Diebold machines. It is entirely likely that Ohio was stolen every bit as much as Florida was in 2000. We’ll have to wait and see as history makes its judgement.

In the meantime, there remains the question of why the margin in Ohio was so tight. Why did a state in which more than 60% of those polls said the economy was lousy turn out half, or nearly half, its voters for Bush?

This is NAFTA coming home to roost. When Kerry campaigned with a promise to bring good jobs back to the US, he had no credibility, running as a member of Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party. Ohioans know that the big drain of manufacturing jobs really took off after Clinton signed NAFTA and GATT.

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cost Democrats the South, it was worth it. But addiction to unfair “free trade” treaties may have cost Democrats the industrial Midwest. If so, it wasn’t worth it. And it might be fatal to the party.

It’s time for the DNC to agitate for an end to NAFTA and other failed free trade agreements.

A FOR email from this morning says it well. When are Democrats going to wake up and stop running away from the “L” word? You can’t outRepublican Republicans–especially not this merry crew

There’s no one left. Watch any news channel, read any interview every single Democrat is saying the same thing. “I go to Church,” “I’m a Christian,” “next time we need a canidate who can speak to the christian conservative.” If the new Democratic plan is to replace the conservative Republicans as the Republicans begin to dabble with dictatorship, then who represents me…shouldn’t everyone feel represented in a democracy? Shouldn’t everyone have a voice? Isn’t that the idea? I like to think that when a majority of the people make a decision it’s usually a good one, but is this the worst fuck up by a majority of Catholics since Galileo?