THIS MODERN WORLD

A president invoking national security to defend wrongdoing? I dare you to not think of George Bush while watching this video.

Interesting applause line there, Mr. President.

Distinguished members of the Board:

First off, let me take this opportunity to congratulate my friend Mike Luckovich on the occasion of his second Pulitzer. Mike is inarguably one of the most talented daily editorial cartoonists in print today, and deserves all of the accolades he could ever possibly receive, and then some. None of the following is meant to detract from his achievement, nor from that of any of the dozens of other daily editorial cartoonists who have received this profession’s highest honor over the years (including, oddly enough, my wife’s grandfather in 1933).

But here’s the thing: there are quite a few professional political cartoonists working today, obviously including myself, whose careers have been primarily shaped by the alternative press (not to mention many up-and-coming cartoonists whose work appears primarily online). And — to put this delicately — the Pulitzers don’t really seem to be keeping up with the times, at least when it comes to cartooning. The only Pulitzer ever awarded to a cartoonist from the alternative press was given to Jules Feiffer in 1986. If Jules’ Pulitzer were a person, it would be old enough to vote. It would be a year away from drinking legally in every state in the union.

The only other remotely non-traditional (i.e. non-daily-editorial-page) cartoonists to have been recognized within my lifetime are Garry Trudeau in 1975 and Berke Breathed in 1987. And the last time, to my knowledge, that an alternative editorial cartoonist of any kind was even considered was when Ted Rall made the short list a full ten years ago.

The media landscape has changed dramatically since the Pulitzers were founded, and there are a lot of cartoonists these days whose work is distributed in ways that Joseph Pulitzer could never have imagined possible — and whose styles do not conform to the traditional editorial cartoon template. And I can’t help but wonder: do any of us have the remotest chance of ever being considered for this honor, or should we just stop bothering to submit our portfolios each year? Do the judges even glance at these entries, or are they tossed straight onto the discard pile as soon as the entry fee has been retrieved? Most importantly: if the Pulitzer Prize for Cartooning is really the Pulitzer Prize for Daily Newspaper Editorial Page Preferrably Single Panel Cartooning, Others Need Not Apply, would you mind letting us know? That way we can stop wasting our time, and yours, applying for a prize for which we are not actually eligible.

With best regards,

Tom Tomorrow

P.S. To those whose immediate response is “ha! he certainly does not deserve a Pulitzer,” let me just reply in advance: you are probably correct. But I would maintain that the entire field of alternative cartoonists do not deserve to be similarly dismissed out of hand.

Glenn Greenwald once again roots through tangled rhetoric and drags the subtext out squealing into the light:

As Bush followers gear up for another election year campaign to start a war, they are using exactly the same rhetorical tactics and are revealing precisely the same mindset to which we were subjected during the 2002 campaign for the Iraq War. What is starkly apparent from this repetition is that their awareness of history and knowledge of the world is sadly confined to one singular event, which is all they know and which, rather bizarrely, they have a need to live over and over and over again.

To pro-Bush war supporters, the world is forever stuck in the 1930s. Every leader we don’t like is Adolph Hitler, a crazed and irrational lunatic who wants to dominate the world. Every country opposed to our interests is Nazi Germany.

From this it follows that every warmonger is the glorious reincarnation of the brave and resolute Winston Churchill. And one who opposes or even questions any proposed war becomes the lowly and cowardly appeaser, Neville Chamberlain. For any and every conflict that arises, the U.S. is in the identical position of France and England in 1937 – faced with an aggressive and militaristic Nazi Germany, will we shrink from our grand fighting duties in appeasement and fear, or will we stand tall and strong and wage glorious war?

With that cartoonish framework in place, war is always the best option. It is the only option for those who are noble, strong, and fearless. Conversely, the sole reason for opposing a war is that one is a weak-minded and weak-willed appeaser who harbors dangerous fantasies of negotiating with madmen. Diplomacy and containment are simply elevated, PC terms for “appeasement.” War is the only option that works.

More here.

The first time as tragedy, the second time as, well, even more tragic tragedy. With plenty of farce thrown in, at least if your sense of humor is dark enough.

Here’s a fun little tidbit from Billmon:

…from Col. Sam Gardiner, the war gaming expert at the National Defense University who’s been much quoted in the press lately talking about scenarios for a strike on Iran. This is what he told CNN Friday:

GARDINER: Actually, Jim, I would say – and this may shock some – I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way.
. . . The Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, have been saying it for almost a year. I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. And I said, “Hey, I hear you’re accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units.”

He said, quite frankly, “Yes, we know they are. We’ve captured some of the units, and they’ve confessed to working with the Americans.”

The evidence is mounting that that decision has already been made . . .

Rumsfeld to Congress: Authorize this, assholes.

What’s amazing is how the corporate media absolutely insists on sticking to the prepared script, even when their sources won’t. Having just been told the war has already begun, here’s the CNN twink’s reaction:

CLANCY: If they do decide on a military option . . .
GARDINER: Right?

CLANCY: What’s the realistic chance of success?

IF they decide on a military option. In one ear and out the other.

Earlier in the same post — discussing the op-ed by Richard Clarke and Steven Simon in today’s Times — our frighteningly astute comrade also predicts:

The problem, which I’m sure Clarke and Simon fully understand, is that there isn’t going to be a congressional resolution this time – in fact I’d be very surprised if the administration gives the leadership of either party more than 24 hours notice before the bombing begins. No marketing campaigns, no debates, no arms twisted in the Oval Office. Just a fait accompli. (That’s French for: “Choke on it, suckers.”

Is anybody else getting just a little bit tired of the constant, sick feeling in the pit of your stomach, as you wait helplessly to see what the insane people in charge of our country are going to do next?

Not soliciting them, mind you. But if you’ve purchased the book and want to add your two cents, send your thoughts and I’ll post them here.

… also — if you see a review in your local paper, please let me know about it. Contrary to what you might assume, it’s practically the only way I ever hear about these things.