blargblog

from a non-right wing, non-left wing perspective, the nicest thing i can say about Rall's cartoon is that it was in extremely poor taste. It doesn't take a lot of balls to slam a dead guy.

I hope no one comes after Ted when you're on stage with him at that political cartooning panel. Yikes!!!

Maybe we could start by making our political leaders account for their bullshit.

Which Rall didn't even begin to do with the strip in question. I've been holding him at arm's length, as it were, ever since I read My War With Brian; his moral compass skews in strange ways, and is far too rigid for my well-I-guess-I'm-finally-becoming-bourgeois self. There are far more deserving targets out there--for instance, holding the actual leaders in question accountable for their bullshit. Or the Limbaugh meme, that the torture in Abu Ghraib (and Guantanamo, and in those shipping containers in northern Afghanistan, and) is nothing more than some hard-workin' frat boys blowin' off some steam, deserves universal condemnation, if not tarring and feathering and riding out of town on a goddamn rail, but that means joining a chorus of voices. Kicking Tillman's corpse meant kicking up a solo and thus very noticeable ruckus. —On the whole, I think I prefer flawed, questioning, atheistic Tillman, bound by a perhaps quaint notion of duty to do a bad bad thing the best he could.

From the O'Reilly Factor interview transcript:

TED RALL, POLITICAL CARTOONIST: Well, it's not about being disrespectful to Mr. Tillman or his family. It's about making the broader point about the fact that the people who volunteered to go fight in Iraq and Afghanistan were used, were misled, and possibly even had ill intent in going over there to fight.

I can certainly agree with the broader point, but the strip in question does in fact strike me as "being disrespectful to Mr. Tillman," which makes me uncomfortable. The criticism of our 'leaders' for using and misleading volunteers actually seems to be largely missing from the cartoon, which focuses on how much of a moron Tillman was (in Rall's opinion) to volunteer.

I often enjoy Rall's cartoons, but I've noticed he occasionally hits... sour notes that don't work for me.

I think Rall is a great cartoonist, and love his stuff most of the time. This cartoon was misguided. As opposed to pril's notion, it does take a lot of guts to be the regular iconoclast, but I agree with kip too that his efforts are - shall we say "misplaced".

As for O'Reilly, I find him much much more offensive than Rall. Anyone who says that Trudeau's series where BD loses his leg is "crosses the line" should be punched in the gut. Hard.

I think Rall had it correct.

lifted from:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/04/SPG5K6FD091.DTL&type=printable

Tillman's youngest brother, Rich, wore a rumpled white T-shirt, no jacket, no tie, no collar, and immediately swore into the microphone. He hadn't written anything, he said, and with the starkest honesty, he asked mourners to hold their spiritual bromides.

"Pat isn't with God,'' he said. "He's f -- ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f -- ing dead.''

I think the strip is fine. If the political right in this country can make this guy out to be some kind of saint, I think the left can (maybe even should) point out the misguided loyalty and flaws in the concept of calling him a hero. In fact, i never read it as Rall "slamming a dead guy", but rather slamming those left behind which have used him as their patriotic martyr.

Anyhow, my 2 cents.

While Iraq and Afghanistan may have been conflated by our leaders and, as such, both have been screwed up, it was right to go into Afghanistan in the first place. That Rall conflates them and makes the interventions equal examples of Bush's evil annoys the hell out of me. Rall's cartoon was a big "fuck you" to the people of Afghanistan. Calling the Taliban the "Afghan resistance" is ignorant on a level that approaches the immoral.

Uhhh, where does Rall call the Taliban "Afghan resistance"?

And mind you, Rall knows the area of Afghanistan better than most Americans, calling him ignorant of the area is rather misinformed.

I believe Martial is referring to the last panel of the cartoon, which reads:

So when Tillman got killed by the Afghan resistance, one word naturally came to mind:
uh-idiot?
sap?
HERO!

It doesn't explicitly mention the Taliban, but it's possible Tillman was killed by fighters connected to the Taliban. I don't know whether this is actually the case.

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

I should mention, back to Rall's knowledge of Afghanistan, if you don't think he knows what he's talking about read To Afghanistan and Back, it's well worth it. My brother told me it reminds him of Dispatches, which I still need to read.

Like most good political cartoonists, Rall's basic mission seems to be to tell people when he thinks fucked up things are going on, and this often involves him taking on people who are beloved by the majority. In doing so, however, he seems so eager to go for the jugular and take down his target that he offends many people who would otherwise potentially agree with him. Pat Tillman is the third of these that I'm aware of, the "terror widows" strip being the previous one, and before that his Village Voice article on Art Spiegelman's role as alt-comix tastemaker in New York City.

The Village Voice article on Spiegelman seemed to raise some pretty interesting points to me, but relied on too many anonymous quotes to avoid appearing like an unjustified hatchet job. If you read that article you will see comments by Bill Griffith and Robert Crumb which support Rall's criticism of Spiegelman, but I believe both of these guys were ultimately among the chorus of voices that were raised in opposition to Rall's article. Similarly, a lot of people who are otherwise against the war in Iraq can't stomach this anti-Tillman strip. My own reaction is that like the Spiegelman article, Rall's Tillman strip is again taking a look at subjects other people hadn't dared touch and that deserve attention, but Rall (perhaps inspired by his love of punk music) makes his case with such a violently unsubtle spray of caustic venom that it drives all but the hardcore free thinkers away. I can see the reasoning behind such an approach -- the uncompromising and direct nature of these attacks does create a huge stir and gets people to notice -- but my personal preference, I have to admit, is for art that attempts to seduce those who don't already agree with the artist, and the way Rall works doesn't seem to be suited for that task. He seems mainly to speak to those who are already angry and in agreement with him, and pisses everyone else off.

I was one of the few people on the comics discussion boards who defended Rall's motivation for writing his anti-Spiegelman article. Everyone was accusing him of being jealous of Spiegelman and seeking attention through a cheap stunt, just as in this case he is being accused of seeking attention and being jealous of Tillman's athletic physique and popularity. In both cases I utterly disagree. I do believe Rall's motives are pretty much pure; he sees injustice and sees it as his job as a political commentator to argue against that injustice. I just wish he would turn down the distortion on his electric guitar every now and then -- add a little modulation to his relentless hammering of minor chords, so he might stop sending potential converts running for the exits. I think he might get more of his points across to people who need to hear them with a slightly more subtle approach, wooing the readers in with some pretty chords before hammering home the points with his usual high decibel assault.

I dunno. I just reread Rall's strip, and most of it seems spot-on to me. The main thing I had a problem with was the "do I get to kill Arabs" line, but I have to admit I haven't done the research to find out if Tillman was racially prejudiced or not.

Rall only has four panels to work with. I suppose it's a valid question to ask how subtle I expect him to be when he has to make a point and tell jokes in such a small amount of space.

Finally, Tillman and his supporters do have to take a bit of responsibility for serving as propaganda tools of our government, encouraging others to enlist and kill and be killed for a morally compromised Cheney government.

I don't have much of a comment on Rall's Tillman strip (it struck me as typical Rall: caustic and unentertaining and unenlightening) but I have to say that, anonymous quotes aside, his Art Spiegelman article was fairly accurate. I don't know, maybe my view of comics is too "unenlightened" or "inexperienced," but I've not been much impressed by Spiegelman and feel that he's probably been given more attention than his talent deserves. Maus was great, but Maus II and most of his other work strikes me as pretentious navel-gazing, a sort of desperate iconoclasm that circles inevitably back to the nuances of what it means to be Art Spiegelman. Perhaps, again, I just don't get it, but aside from that Pulitzer is there any reason that Spielgelman is given as much hype as he receives?

And mind you, Rall knows the area of Afghanistan better than most Americans, calling him ignorant of the area is rather misinformed.

Oh, well then, I have to revise my statement: Calling the Taliban the "Afghan resistance" is immoral.

I'd forgotten that Rall headed up country back in '01. I'll be sure to go down to Million Year Picnic and thumb through his journal (comparable to Dispatches? very high praise). It was a pretty confused and confusing time, people were hedging their bets as they weren't sure who was going to come out on top and how committed the US might in fact be to ousting the Taliban (as opposed to merely going after al Qaeda). It took a year for men to start shaving their beards off in Jalalabad and a year for people to start playing their instruments again in Kabul.

Talk to Afghans now and the sheer hate they express for the Taliban is palpable. The gratitude they feel for the US intervention is also real, if tempered by a growing concern that our November elections and the apparent US desire to do anything to placate the former commanders of the Northern Alliance are having a negative impact on the reconstruction.

The people shooting at Americans in the borderlands (and killing NGO workers in Kandahar and Zabul) are the irreconcilables, the fanatics, the Taliban bitter enders who hope to maintain their capacity for violence so they can actually control bits and pieces of Afghanistan after the US leaves. Suggesting that these people somehow represent Afghanistan's legitimate resistance to foreign domination is offensive. These guys are thugs, pure and simple, and if Afghanistan had an army, they'd be hunting them down like the dogs they are. Make no mistake about this: the Taliban were nasty and the world is a much better place with them on the run.

Afghanistan is not in good shape. The US is not following a consistent set of policies there and that isn't helping. The US military has a real problem with community relations - and that isn't helping. I also happen to think that when good old Americans can't keep the situation there straight in their heads and misrepresent what is a complex situation through all too easy formulas which emphasize and coincide with their political prejudices that is either inexcusable ignorance or actively pernicious. It is our government's policies and our military: if we citizens don't get it right, they can't be expected to.

So, in summary, Ted Rall should know better. And knowing better, he shouldn't be facile. He was though. Fuck him.

I am definitely on a short fuse these days. Everywhere I go I see how shortsighted and ignorant policy by the US is making the world more dangerous. I, personally, do not have the luxury of believing any old thing because it makes me feel righteous. I have come to resent it in others, as well - of all political persuasions. It is true that the costs for me if I do happen to make such mistakes are generally higher than those for most other people (someone will get hurt - possibly me, but more likely and inexcusably, someone local with whom I'm working), but a general and public misunderstanding of complex situations contributes to the increase of danger.

I have very little tolerance these days of Americans demonstrating a knee-jerk, reactive ignorance. "If Bush believes this, then I'll believe that." Or "If the media reports this, I'll believe that." That is a substitute for analysis, not analysis itself. It is lazy and thoughtless and the better world we hope to leave behind demands that we actually work and think.

Stupid cartoon by stupid cartoonist. Whatever. Stupid framing of the issues by smart people. Very, very bad.

Well, for what it's worth, Martial, I didn't need for Bush or his cheerleaders to idolize Tillman to know that idolization of a dead fighter for no other reason than that he could've been a rich football player if he'd wanted to is bullshit. Frankly, what I find most offensive in the equation is the perpetual confusion of war and sporting events in the mind of the U.S. media, and that so many people gratefully, unquestioningly lap it up. Why the loss of Tillman's fabulous multi-million $$$ throwing arm (or whatever) to humanity is supposed to be more valuable to me and my fellow citizenry than, say, the loss of Pvt. Smith and her way with a gospel tune at her Methodist church, Sgt. McKabe and the way he could coax any crop to grow back on the farm, Lt. Chan and her skills at engineering, etc etc... that's the big mystery to me. It's a reminder that no matter how hard one wishes to get away from the odious jock-worship that made High School such a living purgatory for the average geek, one never does.

Unlike, Rall, however, I don't think this phenomenon really has anything to do with Tillman as an individual. The media sure as hell doesn't care that he's an individual.

I pretty much agree with Pinkham in that regard.

I have the S. Factor on my side!

However, Aaron the Recovering Xtian reminds me that Methodists don't sing gospel. I shoulda' written "hymns" in my little excursion into the hypothetical skills of the hypothetical dead. Sorry. I guess Mel Gibson and Adbusters were right. I'm eeeeeeeeeevil !!

:o :o :o

I appreciate Martial's reservations, although I don't share his disgust with Rall's characterization. Having not been to Afghanistan, I have had no way of ascertaining the popular mood there. Yet from what I've read, it seems that Afghanistan is a polyglot place, so that to term those fighting against US troops as either "Taliban" or as "resistance fighters" risks oversimplifying the opposition. The Taliban have indeed regained control over much of the outlying country, but there are other factions, particularly disgruntled warlords jealous of their fiefdoms. Yet might there not also be genuine resistance among them? These were the same folks who made up resistance to the Soviet Occupation in the 80s: future Taliban, recruited Saudis and Egyptians, future Northern Alliance, but also warlords, farmers, dislodged middle class, etc—basically, a diverse range of Afghani, some whose motives were purer than others, mixed in with foreign opportunists.

Amy, that may have been the best comment I've read about Tillman anywhere. I'm in awe, really; it's something of a masterpiece of astute observation.

Rall made a similar point to Amy's in his blog. Where, beyond the jock-worship, this is also indicative of the rather frightening level of militarism in contemporary American society. By emphasizing that he gave up the big bucks to fight and die sends the message that we should give up what we have to fight Bush's wars or what not - that being in the military is too high a calling to worry about money or personal comfort. That's just frightening - and the fact that people are so dedicated to that myth that suddenly Pat Tillman becomes an untouchable icon is more frightening still.

I had not seen a picture of Tillman until recently and was struck by how much he looked like the archetype of strapping blond soldiers on Nazi propaganda posters and the mock ideal of Verhoven's "Starship Troopers." Which I don't mean as a slam on Tillman personally, only to indicate my belief that he was a perfect propaganda martyr for the US war machine.

Raznor - it's funny how many well-off conservatives preach that, but don't practice that - there's plenty of room in the military for jingoistic country singers, young investment bankers, and the offspring of Republican Congresscritters, but few of these people enlist.

Pat Tillman was a curiosity of war in that he was one of the very few people who chucked everything for a miliary career, and as an enlisted man!

Nevertheless, I thought the cartoon sucked - he puts words into a dead man's mouth, claiming he joined because he wanted to "kill Arabs", then says that everyone who joins the military is an idiot. Nice going, Rall.

You could have done a cartoon emphasizing that Tillman was one of hundreds of people dead because Bush is a lying sack of shit and his cronies make Machiavelli blush, and that only the fact that Tillman was a well-known football player prevents his death from going down the Bush Memory Hole like the deaths of the other soliders in the Middle East...

I'm a first time post-er to this site. I am also an officer cadet in the Army (I'm a junior at West Point). First, I am pretty left leaning in my political views. In my own defense, I am certainly not some jingo-istic Arab-bashing loser with a gun and a 10-year old mentality. Mr. Rall's cartoon, I think, was in very poor taste. I do not think, however, it was his intention to personally bash SGT Tillman. I have exchanged emails with Mr. Rall before (on a topic similar to this one, his cartoon where he depicts American soldiers as assasins). He explained to me that he did indeed respect soldiers and he did not intend disrespect to the individual soldier, rather to express his distrust of politicians holding the reins. That's what it comes down to I'm afraid. Until we hold our civilian leaders accountable for their appaling behavior, we will bury more good men like SGT Tillman and the hundreds of others who have given their lives. I've been to too many of these funerals already, and the thought of having to write my soldier's parents on why their son or daughter perished in some strange land for some politician to grease his pockets haunts me daily.
Mr. Moore, come back soon!

Hi Matt! Welcome to the blargblog and thanks for chiming in. And fear not: I think I can speak for Mr. Pink Ham and myself in saying that we don't look upon our soldiers as "jingo-istic Arab-bashing loser[s] with a gun and a 10-year old mentality"—no, that would better describe the commentators over at FOXNews. Granted, I have been known to criticize certain behaviors of our military and our soldiers when I feel it's warranted: I take the lives of innocent civilians seriously, because more often than not, they didn't ask for the wars that are brought to them. But then again, neither did most soldiers. Fact is, we're all caught in the middle of a giant chess game played by ruling elites who use highminded rhetoric to justify cynically motivated conquests. So I agree with you that we have to hold these bastards accountable.

And, thanks for the encouragement: I'm coming back as soon as I can. :)

[blushes in the general direction of Mr. Pink Dream.]

Awwwww...