1

While I support Michael Peroutka for President I will admit that if Bush is re-elected it will be quite delicious to watch people such as Rall, Babs Stresiand and Michael Moore have complete meltdowns because of it. They seem to feel this is an election of good versus evil (Ghandi versus Stalin, so to speak).

2

If Bush is defeated, for many people the sense of relief will be so profound as to mimic delight. Any suggestion of violence as a means to effect that happy end, however, is reprehensible.

3

You are quite right, Joe, and Ted has said it explicitly in an article for Mother Jones, where he claims that social progress is impossible without violence.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2000/04/rall_fruits_violence.html

4

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Rall certainly appears to be advocating violence. Let's see how his liberal pals spin it. I'm sure they'll be leaping to his defense here shortly.

5

Ted Rall is either an idiot or a right winger posing as a lefty to discredit lefties.

i guess in some circles Ted Rall is well-known, but not in my world. I think I have seen his stuff in the village voice, but I don't find him funny, so I don't read his stuff like I read Tom Tommorrow's. Since I don't follow Rall's stuff, I don't know if it's just since his strip on the exfootballer who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan that he has crossed some line, but certainly the bit you quoted here is stupid and reprehensible and crosses the line from offensive to wrong.

Thinking convservatives, please remeber, not many progressive people even know who he is, so don't take the absence of a huge, loud outcry against this guy to mean that most lefties do not agree with him.

As for the part about not having social change without violence--hes' dead wrong there if he if he means that those fighting to change the power structure have to resort to violence. There was violence in the civil rights movement here, but it was committed by those in power against the people who were fighting FOR civil rights.

This guy's a stupid loser. The way to keep Bush and his cronies from hurting this country more than they already have is to educate the public and get people out to VOTE in november. THAT's the way we change power in this country-- i am proud of that and want to keep it that way.

6

CORRECTION:
"...don't take the absence of a huge, loud outcry against this guy to mean that most lefties agree with him."

7

Wow. I'm speachless. He certainly seems to be hinting at violence, and if he doesn't actually mean for it, there's enough of a chance that his followers will also mistake his intention and use violence. That is certainly a scary article.

From what I've seen of life, it seems to me that people tend to judge others through their own quirks and mistake that others are like them. I believe this is what he's done in his analysis of the right-wing Republicans. He views them as terrorists, but in that article I can only say that he's the one who sounds like a terrorist!

8

Cara,

i guess in some circles Ted Rall is well-known, but not in my world.

If Rall were just some fringe nut I wouldn't have pointed it out. There are plenty of those on both sides of the political spectrum and it serves no purpose to point out when they make a dumb remark. But Rall's cartoons run in Newsweek and Men's Health and many other magazines; ignoring him isn't an option.

What should concern leftists is that he gets a forum that could be better served by a more reasonable voice from your side of the spectrum. The fact that such a far-left loon gets such exposure almost makes me wonder if it isn't a plot by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

9

Sounds like he is calling for the taking up of arms against the American people. High Treason.

Mandela is especially known for 'necklacing' -- burning to death blacks of other tribes than his by putting a tire around their neck, filling it with gasoline, and setting it on fire. He is also known for firing on a peaceful political march by the Zulu with an AK-47 *(or maybe an AK-74).

Presumbably this is what Rall is calling for his fellow Democrats to do here.

10

Puzzeld:
Have any cites for the mandela info you mentioned?

11

>Sounds like he is calling for the taking up of
>arms against the American people. High Treason.

Which means absolutely nothing these days -- witness Hanoi Jane and Michael Moore.

Treason = C*E*L*E*B*R*I*T*Y!

Saddam knew what to do with traitors.

North Korea knows what to do with traitors.

When are we going to wise up and do what should be done?

12

"Treason = C*E*L*E*B*R*I*T*Y!

Saddam knew what to do with traitors.

North Korea knows what to do with traitors.

When are we going to wise up and do what should be done?"

This is scary; now savage dictators set the standard for dealing with dissent, Ken?

Rall may be over the top, but his speech is still protected. He alluded to violence, but he didn't directly suggest it. He reminds me of Ann Coulter, quite frankly. Both are extreme to the point of making many of their ideological allies uncomfortable.

13

Cara: Re: "Necklacing" -- A quick search on Google turns up this BBC article complete with a photo.

14

Rall may be over the top, but his speech is still protected. He alluded to violence, but he didn't directly suggest it. He reminds me of Ann Coulter, quite frankly. Both are extreme to the point of making many of their ideological allies uncomfortable.

Actually, his speech may not be entirely protected. I don't know what the status of the law is, but sedition is still a crime. Simply phrasing it as he did certainly can't be construed as such, but if he has the audacity to allude to it, then it is a hop, skip, and jump away from a blatant statement.

Agreed on Coulter and Rall. At first I found some of her statements refreshing when I first heard her speak, but she took a plunge off the deep end quite a while ago.

15

MOnkey Brad: that article refers to Winnie, not Nelson

16

"But Rall's cartoons run in Newsweek and Men's Health and many other magazines; ignoring him isn't an option. "

Um, I don't think I've touched an issue of Men's Health and Newsweek is pure trash. I believe you have to subscribe to those magazines in order to receive them.

Ignoring Ted Rall certainly is an option and guess what? He will almost certainly be ignored.

Ironically, it was discovered recently that Focus on the Family printed Moore's home address and sent it out in an email earlier this week so its "peaceful" members can "write letters" to him. Har.

Rather than worry about what a stupid "Men's Health" cartoonist "advocates," how about worrying about a White House that has on multiple occasions ominously warned Americans to "be careful what they say." I'll take a few violent leftists (or rightists) any day of the week over a government that tries to suppress criticism and reporting of the truth with threats.

17

Larry,

Um, I don't think I've touched an issue of Men's Health and Newsweek is pure trash. I believe you have to subscribe to those magazines in order to receive them.

You don’t get out much do you, Larry? On the lists of paid circulation, Newsweek is ranked 16th and Men’s Health 41st. Both magazines can be bought at any supermarket in America.

Ironically, it was discovered recently that Focus on the Family printed Moore's home address and sent it out in an email earlier this week so its "peaceful" members can "write letters" to him. Har.

Do you have proof of that? I've heard conflicting reports about whether it is true or not. If so, it would be ironic that FOTF is acting like MM.

18

is newsweek liberal? does being number 14 make it popular, too? I thought activist judges handing down liberal decisions were going against the majority of americans but if "liberal" publications are popular with huge numbers of americans, than maybe huge numbers of americans are, in fact, liberal and those judges handing down liberal decisions aren't so out of the mainstream afterall. I am confused. The majority of the progressive blogs and websites i visit link to geniuses like Tom Tomorrow, not Ted Rall.

19

Joe, re: "proof" of FOTF's disclosure of Moore's address (sans any explicit requests that recipients throw rocks etc!) here's the email:

Write Michael Moore — at Home —with Your Opinions of “Fahrenheit 9/11”
Filmmaker Michael Moore, writer/director of the new Bush-bashing documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11,” has made quite a career out of marketing himself as a man of the people, a populist everyman who fights passionately for the little guy.

That’s why we wanted to make sure “little guys” could let Moore know exactly what they think about his new movie .

So, if you have an opinion about the film — in which Moore plays fast and loose with the facts to build a case that President Bush is an idiot and the war in Iraq is all about oil profits — we suggest you send it to the following address:

Michael Moore
[ADDRESS REMOVED BY N.P.]
New York, NY 10024

That’s his home — a condominium this man of the people, so critical of capitalism, spent $4.5 million on seven years ago. And please don’t worry that it’s wrong to use this address; it’s public record, obtained through New York State mortgage records and Federal Election Commission filings.

Besides, Moore himself endorses the publication of this kind of information: In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” in fact, he projects on screen the private office number of a congressman whose views he opposes — and urges viewers to call it.

http://www.0xdeadbeef.org/blog/non_prophet/archives/005330.html

And for what it's worth, as hard as this may be to believe, I haven't studied the newsrack at my local grocery store for about twenty years. I really have no idea what magazines are sold there except that if I close my eyes I see some celebrities, some wrestlers, and some hot rods. I admit to usually peeking at the SI Swimsuit issue when it comes out, if I happen to be shopping in the newsrack aisle that week. But "Men's Health"? Frankly, it sounds like a "gay interest" publication (not that there's anything wrong with that).

20

there is one reason we have the right to bear arms:

to overthrow a depotic government

21

Larry,

While I don’t think FoF put out MM’s address to be mean-spirited, I will say that it was an incredibly dumb move on their part. Now if any nutcase is caught vandalizing MM’s home (and I wouldn’t put it past him to stage such an event) it will be blamed on Dobson’s group. Not too smart.

But "Men's Health"? Frankly, it sounds like a "gay interest" publication (not that there's anything wrong with that).

While I’m not sure the magazine itself has a particular orientation, I would say that it is mostly a “hetero interest” publication (not that there’s anything wrong with that). ; )

I imagine, though, that gay men are interested in men’s health too, so they probably read it also.

22

Tommythecat,

there is one reason we have the right to bear arms: to overthrow a depotic government

Um, where exactly in the Constitution does it say that?

23

joe,

ok, not IN the constitution, but here are some quotes from Jefferson taken from the NRA website :http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=135 and http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0350.htm

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

-- Letter to John Cartwright, 1824. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

-- Letter to

24

but,

don't think i'm advocating violence, just pointing out that the guns are there to keep a powerful government in check. if the iraqis were armed, they could have taken care of saddam themselves. either that, or you need a situation like brition where the police are purposely under-armed, so they can enforce a no-gun ban on everyone. (their street gang members know a lot more about how to use their fists than how to load a clip. :))

25

Which means absolutely nothing these days -- witness Hanoi Jane and Michael Moore.

"Treason = C*E*L*E*B*R*I*T*Y!

Saddam knew what to do with traitors.

North Korea knows what to do with traitors.

When are we going to wise up and do what should be done?"

ken,

you call people who question the government dissenters? micheal moore has an opinion, he is free to express it.

if you want to make yourself the conservative militia, bring it! i've got an AR-15 and two pit bulls waiting for ya!

26

http://www.menshealth.com/cda/channel/0,2822,s1-2-0-0-0,00.html

Looks pretty straight to me...

27

To respond on the gun issue, I think the largely inetnion of the founders was general self-defense. I am too lazy to look for the quote (if their is one), but I remember Jefferson saying that tyrrany doesn't come from tyrants alone. Fully in line will a generally accepted among the Founders, their generation, and most Christians is that every person has a right to defend themselves. To strip a man of arms is to strip him of an important tool of self-defense. So, whether opposing a mugger or a tyranical despot, we have a right to fight back.

28

Joe, try the Federalist Papers, which were written to promote the Constitution to the citizens of the several States.

That is -exactly- why we have the 2nd Amendment - quis custodies ipsos custodiet. Who will watch the watchment? -- the armed citizenry.

I am stunned that this close to Independence Day, you would be ignorant of that.

29

I should also add that the duty of the Englishry-in-arms to deter assumption of despotic power by civil servants, or in the worse case, overthrow an unlawful government was understood by the Founders and the citizens of the time to be very carefully bounded about with specific steps and restrictions. See Samuel Rutherford's _Lex, Rex_. Or even Francis Schaeffer's _A Christian Manifesto_.

30

Puzzled,

Joe, try the Federalist Papers, which were written to promote the Constitution to the citizens of the several States.

I'm not disputing that the protection against tyrany is a reason but Tommythecat said:

there is one reason we have the right to bear arms:[emphasis added]

While I might have misunderstood, I took it to mean that he meant that was the only reason for the Second Amendment.

31

Here's some questionable tactics for you:

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/02/bush.churches.reut/index.html[/url]

32

If Ted Rall believes that Bush is an enemy of what he believes in, then let him do what he may.

I feel the same about Kerry and Company.

Let the games begin!!