|
|
 |
|
|
Saturday, September 21, 2002
A correction Nader's people are organizing a big Wall Street rally for Friday, October 4, and asked me to speak. I tentatively agreed, emphasis on "tentatively." As it turns out, I won't be able to attend. Unfortunately there's been some miscommunication and they're still putting up fliers and sending out emails advertising my participation. So I'm posting it here. If you know anyone in New York City who was hoping to see the cartoonist rant and rave about the evil capitalists, please pass the word along--news of my attendance has been greatly exaggerated. -------------------- Friday, September 20, 2002
Two sides can play that game From reader Mark Finch: You no doubt know of Dan Burton, the perennial thorn in Bill Clinton's side who happens to be a member of the House of Representatives from Indiana (and, worse, my district). He has a poll on his web site at the moment , asking whether the reader supports or opposes attacking Iraq. A couple of days ago, those opposed led narrowly 53% to 47%. Today, all of a sudden, those in favor of war have 80% of the votes. I suspect that a concentrated effort is being made by the pro-war forces to skew the results. For what it's worth, one can apparently cast a vote as many times as one wants. (Did someone say "unscientific?") Do with that what you will. Update: Burton's poll is now running solidly against the war.
Housecleaning, part two A lot of people send me links to their blogs, and I generally don't post them until I've been able to scope them out and give them the consideration they deserve, which in real terms ends up meaning "never." I wish I had time to go through them all, but I just don't. So I've decided that I'm going to pass them along from time to time largely unfiltered--I'll glance at them to make sure they're not the work of complete lunatics, but beyond that, they're going to mostly be as new to me as they are to you. At the very least, they've all got excellent taste in cartoons. And, though it's not really a blog: Wikpedia, some sort of huge online encyclopedia project.
Maybe Ralph Nader can be a contestant Drudge is reporting that Fox's next reality game show will have the American public voting on a "people's candidate" to run for President in '04. As Dave Barry, my comrade-in-mischief at the 2000 political conventions, is often forced to emphasize, I am not making this up.
Housecleaning In last week's cartoon, there is a passing reference to Brent Scowcroft's Wall Street Journal editorial arguing against an invasion of Iraq, a sort of cartoon shorthand way of noting that a lot of people feel uneasy about this thing, not just crazy leftist radicals such as your humble correspondent. (Even in The World's Wordiest Cartoon™, you don't always have room to spell out every detail.) After I sent the cartoon out, but before it appeared in print, Scowcroft went on Meet the Press to try to do some damage control, pretty much admitting that he was only doing so after having been "taken out to the woodshed" by the President, as Tim Russert put it…an appearance the Bushies and their self-appointed lackeys are nonetheless using to argue that he didn't really mean what he said, nothing to worry about here folks, move along. So, just for the record, here's the original editorial, "Don't Attack Saddam," which contains such ambiguous, easily misinterpreted statements as: (T)here is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail--much less their actual use--would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor… And: The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive--with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy--and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses. Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. (Emphasis added to make the extent of General Scowcroft's, um, support for the war clear to anyone with half a brain, which these days seems to be setting the bar kind of high.) And here's the Meet the Press interview, in which the good General forcefully and definitively declares his support for the invasion: I haven’t changed my view. The title to that article was not my title. But, no, I think— there are three things going on in the region. There’s the war on terrorism. There’s the problem with Iraq. And there’s the Israeli-Palestinian. Those are all interconnected. And what I was saying—first of all, I was not—do not consider myself in opposition to the president. When the president talked about Iraq, I think, without exception, he would end his comments saying, "I’ve not made a decision. I’m considering all options." And, usually, "I hope for a peaceful resolution." What I saw was a series of sequencing, which was wrong. We were talking about—well, not only would going back for a new sanctions regime not work because it hasn’t worked before, it would be counterproductive... Er, um, I was not, I did not, um. Yes. And here's some more: There’s one thing, with him, sponsoring different aspects of terrorism; there is another, saying that he has some relationship to al-Qaida. Indeed, I suspect that he’s on Osama bin Laden’s execution list. He is a secular leader, not a Muslim leader. He is a socialist in terms of heading the Ba’athist Party. I—does he seek weapons of mass destruction? Absolutely, including nuclear weapons. No question about it. If he gets a nuclear weapon, it’s hard for me to see that he’s going to turn that weapon over to a group to use for their own purposes rather than to use it for his own purposes. That’s what I meant. At the end of this, Scowcroft does, admittedly, give lip service to the wisdom of the President and his policies, but it was pretty clear watching it (yes, I'm a loser geek who gets up on Sunday morning and watches Meet the Press) and it's pretty clear reading the transcript that he's just following his marching orders, and with no great enthusiasm at that. Read the MTP transcript and read the original editorial, and decide for yourself which argument he believes and which argument he's reciting because he was a bad boy and has to make amends. I don't know that my pal Ken Layne had this sort of situation in mind when he coined the phrase, but bubba, it's 2002 and we can fact check your ass.
To protect and serve So my wife and I were at a friend's gallery opening in Williamsburg a week or two ago, and we stepped outside the gallery to continue a conversation in the pleasant evening air, unthinkingly carrying the beers we were drinking, and within about three minutes, were being asked for our ID's by one of New York's finest. Not to ensure that we were of drinking age--I have a few too many wrinkles and grey hairs for that to be in doubt--but to cite us for our violation of this Simon Says law--you know, "Simon Says you can hold that bottle inside the doorway." Or whatever else. I don't know the specifics, since I am not the sort of person who makes a habit of wandering around outside with open containers of alcohol--so as always, I could be wrong™--but my understanding is, if the beer had been inside a paper bag, I would not have been ticketed. Which brings to mind an old bit from the Onion, about perplexed cops trying to figure out what the disheveled man on the park bench has in that paper bag he keeps bringing to his lips--it can't be liquid, of course, because a paper bag could not possibly contain liquid! (Update: I am informed that this is an urban myth--open containers of beer are still subject to citation, even when they are cleverly concealed in paper bags.) Nor were the people around me who were drinking wine out of plastic cups ticketed. So 'splain to me the logic here, that an uncamouflaged, open bottle of Sam Adams is an affront to society , but a plastic cup of wine, with pretty much the same alcohol content, is no problem. Actually that's a hypothetical question. I'm really in no mood to listen to anyone justify this crap, having just wasted a morning dealing with the New York City court system, but I'll get to that shortly. Sure, we were guilty of the crime of standing four feet outside of a gallery's door with open bottles of beer, along with a small group of other people, none of whom were in the slightest bit loud, unruly or in any way disorderly. Not that it would have even mattered if they were--it was early evening in a warehouse district. There were no neighbors around to be disturbed. Nonetheless, these three cops evidently had nothing better to do than spend the next half hour sitting in the squad car radioing in our information and making sure we weren't dangerous criminals on the lam, writing up citations, and generally letting us cool our heels. So, fine. I broke the rules, give me the ticket and I'll pay the fine. I mean, in a city like this, it is largely impossible to exist without breaking the rules on pretty much a daily basis. You take a cup of coffee on the subway, you're subject to a fine. You double park your car or delivery truck, you're subject to a fine. There's a sort of social contract between the cops and the public, in which it is understood that certain rules are tacitly ignored. In my neighborhood, on street cleaning days, there's a game of musical chairs in which all the cars are double parked on the opposite side of the street during the designated hours and then moved back. It's understood, it's been this way for years. But apparently, when the city decides it needs some revenue, they'll come along and ticket all the double parked cars--at which point, you're simply fucked. You cannot argue, "But officer, there is a tacit understanding in this neighborhood to overlook the regulations concerning double parking during street cleaning hours," because they will simply give you a cold stare and continue to write the ticket. Unfortunately, and this is where it gets really stupid, with an open container citation you can't just pay the fine. You are required to appear in court, in person, to deal with it. "The judge usually throws it out," the cop explained as he handed us our citations. "So what's the point of going through all of this?" I asked, to my wife's consternation. "I said he usually throws it out," the cop said, somewhat more forcefully. "And if you don't show up for your hearing, they put a warrant out for your arrest." Great. So now I have to deal with the hassle of a court bureaucracy. As a revenue-enhancing device, this is incredibly stupid. When you get a speeding ticket, you have the option of going to court, or you can just pay the fine. Here, you must go to court--and then they're probably not even going to charge you the fine. In the meantime, you've used up the time of the officers who write the citation, the court clerks who have to deal with you, the judge who has to waste his time sizing you up, deciding you're no threat to society, and throwing the whole matter out--not to mention whatever it costs people who have real jobs, who have to take time off to go down and deal with all of this crap. But it gets even better. The cop gave us a court date in mid-October, which falls at a bad time for us due to some travel plans, but told us we could go down at any point to deal with it. We decided it would be smart to wait a week or so, just to make sure the paperwork had gone through, so we finally went down this morning. Took the subway in, found the right building, went through security, waited in a line of maybe 100 people, finally got up to the clerk's window…and were told that they weren't processing October citations yet. "But the officer told us…" we began. "Yeah, they always do that," the bored bureaucrat replied. "You'll have to come back." We were able to move the date of our appearance up to November, but given the idiocy of the bureaucracy, I fully expect that the paperwork will be lost, and we will be given an additional fine for showing up late, or maybe even arrested or some goddamned thing, so if I stop posting for awhile in early November, maybe somebody can come by and make bail for me. And you just have to wonder: is this really the best use of the city's resources? I have a friend who is well-placed within city government--I won't identify him any further, in case he's been talking out of school--but he assures me that the city is on the brink of a severe financial crisis, that we are looking at imminent massive cutbacks in city services within the year, that things are going to get a lot worse in this town before they get better. But at least we can all sleep soundly at night, secure in the knowledge that when middle aged cartoonists step outside of a crowded gallery for a moment with a beer in hand, New York's finest are on the case. * * * It's been like that, these past couple of weeks. The whole movie situation has been a roller coaster ride, in the sense that you go through intense peaks and valleys, and at the end of it, you're right back where you started, having made no progress whatsoever. As of this writing, it looks like the intractability of our would-be backers on certain issues threatens to derail, or at least significantly delay, the entire project. I can't really talk about it at this point, except to say that, as it turns out, people who finance movies are sometimes not entirely forthcoming during the process of negotiation. I know this will be as much of a shock to you as it has been to me. Christ, at least it's Friday again. -------------------- Thursday, September 19, 2002
Let's make it a triad We're now threatening to block weapons inspections. The American secretary of state, Colin Powell, has said the United States will find ways to stop weapons inspectors going back to Iraq unless there is a new United Nations Security Council resolution on the issue. And by the way, clips of the Daily Show's take on the "Shame on..." business are now available online--high speed here, low speed here. I love the Daily Show.
Oh. My. God. Part. Two. Fox News is reporting that an FBI informant was a roommate of two of the 9-11 hijackers. I have no further details on this, except that, according to Fox, Newsweek broke this story to little notice last month. (I sure didn't catch it.) If this is true, I don't think I need to belabor the implications... Update: here's the link.
Oh. My. God. Words of wisdom from our Commander in Chief: "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." I am not making this up. This is from the White House's own transcript (not guaranteeing how long that link will last), and while I wasn't fortunate enough to catch this particular gem myself, a number of people sent emails after seeing it broadcast. Update: Reader Bill Dollinger forwards a link to an to audiofile . The transcript is amusing; actually hearing it is almost chilling. Update two: here's the video clip, or so I'm told--haven't had a chance to watch it yet. (Looks like you need Windows Media Player.) Will also be on today's rerun of last night's Daily Show, apparently. -------------------- Wednesday, September 18, 2002
Chocolate rations are up! Donald Rumsfeld is testifying before the House Armed Services Committee as I write this. I just saw him note that, due to the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons, the US was "unable to respond " when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Well, as readers with marginally functioning memories will recall, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski acknowledged in a 1998 interview (which was widely circulated online last year) that the U.S. deliberately provoked a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, in hopes of giving them their own Vietnam. Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. Full interview (which originally ran in Le Nouvel Observateur) can be read here.
Surfin' USA --The U.S. can't take yes for an answer. --Why it was a bad idea to use weapons inspections teams for purposes of espionage. Don't miss the odd little detail concerning Unmovic's membership roster in the second-to-last paragraph. (And here's a cartoon on the topic from 1999.) --From the Department of Making Stuff Up and Reporting it as News: the Daily Howler takes a look at the Florida terror scare and how quickly cable news networks adopted a narrative for which they had no evidence whatsoever. --According to Education Week, the Department of Education is scrubbing from its website research and statistics which do not support Bush Administration policy. --On a related note, the Washington Post reports that the Bushies are having trouble with scientific advisory panels whose consclusions do not dovetail with Administration priorities. Their solution? Stack the panels, of course. --Your tax dollars at work. --The San Francisco Bay Guardian provides a handy timeline of the War at Home. --A conservative Marine defense analyst declares himself a peace movement of one. --Reflections on the new patriotism from the Cleveland Free Times. --Further proof that the "red" states are far more nuanced than Ann Coulter understands: an editorial from the Arkansas Times (only online for one more day). --And on a lighter note: the FBI vs. the insidious menace of Mad magazine. Links above were either lifted shamelessly from Cursor or Xoverboard, were supplied by readers (always encouraged), or were just things I found all by my lonesome self. -------------------- Tuesday, September 17, 2002
I must work for a living today… …but the world doesn't slow down on my account. Fortunately August is on a roll. And don't miss this essay over at Tompaine.com, about an obscure little document I like to call the Constitution of the United States of America.
Remain calm There's a story making the email rounds about how something called the Homeland Security Cultural Bureau has shut down the White Box gallery in New York City. It's a cautionary tale, which ultimately reminds us that in these difficult times, it is important to remember to keep fresh batteries in our bullshit detectors. I mean--"Homeland Security Cultural Bureau"? Don't you think you would have heard something about this before now? And: a dot-org domain? Come on-- everyone knows that jackbooted authoritarian fascist government agencies traditionally prefer dot-gov! And just to lay this silly thing to rest, reader Richard Morrison looked into the matter after forwarding the original email, and this is his report: I'm talking to a woman at the White Box gallery in New York and she is It's a hoax, kids. I'd say it's satire, but for satire to function, the audience has to be in on the joke, not the butt of it. So remember: check those batteries. I've said this before, but there's enough genuinely scary stuff going on these days. Crying "wolf" doesn't help anyone but the wolves. -------------------- Monday, September 16, 2002
This'll be stuck in your head for a couple of hours Last week's cartoon inspired reader Albion Lawrence and a couple of his friends to rewrite an old children's song: If you're happy and you know it, bomb Iraq (clap clap)
More crazy radical wacko peaceniks Actually they're grandmothers from Iowa. (Via Cursor, as is often the case.) --------------------
 |
|
|
 |