I’m never quite sure what to make of political cartoonist Ted Rall. Is he being serious? Or, like some demented 2 year old who combines the grotesquely comical of Chucky with the casual malevolence of Damien, does he throw his anti-American fits just to get attention?
Certainly his artistic ability is indicative of someone who has not reached the age of reason. In some respects, his caricatures are little better than stick figures, formless blotches with no artistic depth which bear little resemblance to the targets of his satires His crude, Crumb-like pictographs add little to the thoughts expressed and ideas behind the cartoons, which sets him apart from all good cartoon satirists. Thomas Nast he isn’t.
If Mr. Rall can’t draw very well, he at least has a point of view to share with his readers. Again, it is hard for me to believe that Mr. Rall isn’t pulling our leg just a little bit when he writes things like this:
Congress never declared war against Iraq. As an unelected imposter [sic], George W. Bush did not enjoy authority under the War Powers Act to commit American forces abroad. Concentration camps at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere violate the Geneva Conventions, which as treaty obligations are binding under U.S. law. Iraq did not threaten the United States. Iraq is not the subject of a U.N.-led international police action. Thus, by several measures, the war is illegal. Every order to deploy a soldier, aviator or sailor to fight in Iraq is by definition an unlawful order, one that he or she is legally and morally bound to refuse.
How can we take someone like this seriously? Someone who can’t even spell “impostor?” And how about “unelected impostor?” Is Mr. Rall trying to tell us that the man who garnered 51% of the vote last November is not George Bush but someone else who looks like George Bush and is pretending to be the President of the United States?
Obviously, George Bush is neither unelected nor is he an impostor. This would lead one to believe that either Mr. Rall is trying to be amusing or is a blithering idiot.
As for “violating the Geneva Convention,” it is very hard to violate something when its strictures are not applicable. In the case of the terrorists being held at various locations, while they are entitled to some basic rights (that to our shame have not been defined well enough to prevent the kind of abuse we’ve seen at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and elsewhere) their captivity does not technically fall under any codices or code contained in the Conventions.
And Mr. Rall’s contention that “Iraq is not the subject of a U.N.-led international police action” is demonstrably false. On On May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council voted 14–0 to give the United States and Britain the power to govern Iraq and use its oil resources to rebuild the country. That would indicate to all but the most willfully self deluded that the UN is sanctioning the occupation. And the invasion itself was justified under 14 different UN resolutions relating to Iraq as well as the right of self-defense also guaranteed under the UN Charter.
All of this is well known to even casual observers of the war. But for Mr. Rall and the traitorous bunch of far-left galoots, these facts don’t fit the narrative and therefore, can safely be ignored. And it may be just me but the closer the Iraq War gets to success, it seems that the rhetoric of these lickspittles gets wilder and more out of control:
What are members of the military to do? They should certainly refuse to applaud when Bush uses them as backdrops to his logo-ridden pro-death pep rallies. Moreover, just as Muslim leaders were pressured to speak out against Islamist extremists after 9/11, soldiers ought to step forward to condemn the atrocities at Bagram, Fallujah and Guantánamo in letters to newspapers and other public venues.The military used to be an honorable calling. Not under Bush. Ethical Americans considering a military career should seek a civilian job until a lawful, elected government has been restored in Washington and we have withdrawn our forces from occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Those who are already enlisted should refuse to reenlist. Soldiers trapped by “stop loss” orders should apply for conscientious objector status (which is difficult to obtain) or refuse deployment based on the unlawful order principle. And if all else fails, there’s always desertion.
Mr. Rall writes as if he is under some kind of occupation himself. The fact that there is zero chance that he will be arrested and tossed in jail for advocating sedition in the armed forces should give the lie to the statement about a “lawful, elected government” being “restored. Perhaps Mr. Rall would like to speak to a few Democratic legislators who might resent the idea that they also are unelected.
The rest of Rall’s ridiculous rant raises some interesting questions about loyalty during a time of war. Obviously, Mr. Rall could care less about loyalty. And I’m not talking about loyalty to Bush, or Republicans, but to the Constitution and the law of the land which have pretty specific language about not actively engaging in treasonous activity. For that is what we are talking about here – rank treason. In another age, another time, Ted Rall would be in the dock, on trial for his life. But in 21st century America, he is lionized, invited to all the important cocktail parties, and paid vast sums of money to continue to utter his treasonous thoughts.
This brings me back to my original point. Is Ted Rall serious or is he someone exhibiting a kind of post-pubescent anti-authoritarian tantrum? Is he real or is he a caricature of himself?
Given his track record of traitorous and nauseating anti-American rants, in the end, it really doesn’t matter does it?
10:38 am
Ted isn’t writing for persuasional purposes, his cartoons and angry anti-American rants are for a like-minded audience that eschews reason and fact. His appeals “against war” are less legal than emotional; can anyone imagine what Ted and his ilk would be doing if they wielded power of state?
Thirty years ago, I sat in a UCLA philosophy class (survey of Western philosphy, I think). The professor, Rogers Albritton, asked the class if truth was an objective reality or was subjective,totally dependent upon the viewer. Three-quarters of the class by show of hands declared that truth is subjective. Albritton’s reply: “this is the end of Western civilization.”
It’s hard for me today not to feel that more than a few future journalists, lawyers, and academics sat in classes just like mine, drawing the same wrong-headed conclusions that have produced people like Ted Rall. History has proven the best arguments in the Left’s arsenal dead wrong- but the truth doesn’t (and hasn’t) mattered to them, ever. It’s all about them, and anything that focuses attention on themselves.
10:42 am
Trent:
Well said and buttresses my point about the pre-juvenile nature of Rall’s rants. It’s almost as if emotional immaturity has become a disease and has afflicted the left.
10:50 am
I’m with you—I don’t think he’s trying to be funny—I’ve never met him, but I have seen a bit of his work. To me, it belies a personal absolutely filled with dangerous amounts of personal hatred. I truly pity him.
11:25 am
He’s just looking for attention. I read somewhere that his dad abandoned the family, which is not Rall’s fault of course (one assumes), but it does somewhat explain his “look at me” columns and cartoons.
11:42 am
Its easy to write this type of stuff off as the ill-considered, fluffy, brainless goop that it is. The problem is that there is an apparently sizable market for Ralls. Someone’s buying this crap or it would go away.
On the other hand, I can’t begin to comprehend a half billion dollar investment in Howard Stern’s pee-pee, doo-doo, oohhh look, boobies show either. Apparently, stupid is a bull market.
11:51 am
I despise him, but let us look at his claim that Bush started an illegal war. By International standards a nation may use force against another when said nation initiates an attack against it or at allies requesting assistance, an attack was imminent and force was needed to prevent it, or the UN Security Council authorized the use of force in clear terms.
Recall that Mr. Bush did not seek a vote from the UN Security Council for the use of force and also Iraq did not directly attack the US or an ally (unless you consider 911 an action from Iraq, something Bush does not now claim). Then we are left with the imminent threat theory and hence the current split within the US over the legality of this war.
Take the side that Iraq was ready to attack and you support it. In any event, the justifications for the invasion have yet to materialize so at best the war is without merit.
11:54 am
Ed:
You wouldn’t know “brainless goop” if it came up and bit you in your ignorant ass. The more causticaly bored you try to sound, the more you reveal yourself as sanctimonious twit.
Rall does not have a “sizable” market. He has a niche market. He fulfills a need – much like blatherers like you whose exhalation of so much carbon dioxide without ever saying anything of substance contributes to global warming – something quite welcome on this cold day here in Chicago.
2:32 pm
Rick Moran:
I agree. What one choses to write, and how it is expressed, reveals a great deal about one’s character.
2:46 pm
Ted Rall: just another concrete, graffiti-laden wall bounding the lefty echo chamber. And about as perceptive.
10:43 am
Weekend Brunch 12-10-2005
Try one of these specials with your weekend brunch:
From the Best Conservative Blog category:
*Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler says it’s time to ACT.
*Right Wing Nut House says Ted Rall is a traitor
*La Shawn Barber is watching Narnia reaction
...
12:19 pm
Right Wing Nut House � TED RALL, ALL AMERICAN TRAITOR: Politics served up with a smile… And a stilletto.
As I’ve already said, I’m no fan of Ted Rall’s. I think he’s a traitorous cretin, and deserves to have his citizenship stripped from him – among other things. Fortunately, my blog-brother, Rick Moran of Right Wing Nuthouse has posted
2:14 pm
Defining Traitor
Ouch.
1:57 pm
“Iraq did not threaten the United States.”
So what do you call shooting at U.S. planes enforcing the No Fly Zone- which I have read occurred daily.
So an attack is not a threat? Right, it’s an attack.
So is there some statute of limitations on ceasefire violations?
3:07 pm
Furtive Glances
A few quick hits to conclude the weekend: Tom Maguire at Just One Minute continues his quixotic drive to know anything and everyting about the Valerie Plame ‘outing’ an Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation, discussing the information that (I guess) Karl Rove
9:51 am
The thought I had was that Ted Rall’s soul is uglier than his drawings.
And that the hysteria from the reactionary left can be summed up with a comment posted over at Lucianne.com:
“They can feel defeat slipping from their grasp.”
4:16 am
smoking free